Ask Dr. Drew - The Original COVID-19 Whistleblower: Jamie Metzl Drops Pandemic Origins Bombshell & Demands Bipartisan EcoHealth Alliance Investigation w/ Tom Renz – Ask Dr Drew – Ep 372

Episode Date: June 23, 2024

“I am a Democrat who believes that carrying out a bipartisan (and nonpartisan) investigation into pandemic origins is essential,” writes Jamie Metzl, who has been called the “Original COVID-19 Whistleblower” and was referenced multiple times in newly-revealed emails between Dr. Morens, Dr. Anthony Fauci, EcoHealth Alliance head Peter Daszak, and the NIH. • SPONSORED BY TAX NETWORK USA – Owe back taxes? Tax Network USA has saved over $1 billion for their clients and can help you secure the best deal possible. Call 1-800-245-6000 for a private, free consultation, or visit https://drdrew.com/tnusa “Others may feel differently,” Jamie writes, “but it’s my view that this close-nit community of natural origin advocates were so wedded to their priors they could not imagine even the possibility that the work they had carried out for decades to prevent pandemics — with the best of intentions — might possibly have contributed to the worst pandemic in a century.” Jamie Metzl is a technology futurist, geopolitics expert, and author of Superconvergence as well as the international bestseller Hacking Darwin: Genetic Engineering and the Future of Humanity available at https://amzn.to/3RwkeC2. Jamie has served in the U.S. National Security Council, State Department, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and as a Human Rights Officer for the United Nations in Cambodia. Jamie was the lead witness in the March 2023 US congressional hearings on COVID-19 origins and has been called the “original COVID-19 whistleblower” for his efforts calling for a full investigation of the pandemic’s origins. Find more at https://jamiemetzl.com/ and follow him at https://x.com/JamieMetzl Tom Renz is an attorney from Ohio conducting ‘Lawfare for Freedom’ by fighting corruption surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic at state and federal levels. Find out more at https://renz-law.com and follow him at https://x.com/RenzTom 「 SUPPORT OUR SPONSORS 」 Find out more about the brands that make this show possible and get special discounts on Dr. Drew's favorite products at https://drdrew.com/sponsors  • CAPSADYN - Get pain relief with the power of capsaicin from chili peppers – without the burning! Capsadyn's proprietary formulation for joint & muscle pain contains no NSAIDs, opioids, anesthetics, or steroids. Try it for 15% off at https://capsadyn.com/drew • 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 • TRU NIAGEN - For almost a decade, Dr. Drew has been taking a healthy-aging supplement called Tru Niagen, which uses a patented form of Nicotinamide Riboside to boost NAD levels. Use code DREW for 20% off at https://drdrew.com/truniagen • GENUCEL - Using a proprietary base formulated by a pharmacist, Genucel has created skincare that can dramatically improve the appearance of facial redness and under-eye puffiness. Get an extra discount with promo code DREW at https://genucel.com/drew • COZY EARTH - Susan and Drew love Cozy Earth's sheets & clothing made with super-soft viscose from bamboo! Use code DREW to save up to 30% at https://drdrew.com/cozy • THE WELLNESS COMPANY - Counteract harmful spike proteins with TWC's Signature Series Spike Support Formula containing nattokinase and selenium. Learn more about TWC's supplements at https://twc.health/drew 「 MEDICAL NOTE 」 Portions of this program may examine countervailing views on important medical issues. Always consult your physician before making any decisions about your health. 「 ABOUT THE SHOW 」 Ask Dr. Drew is produced by Kaleb Nation (https://kalebnation.com) and Susan Pinsky (https://twitter.com/firstladyoflove). This show is for entertainment and/or informational purposes only, and is not a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

We have two excellent guests for you today. First, we're going to have Jamie Metzlin here. He has been coined the original COVID-19 whistleblower. He has been dropping some controversial opinions about pandemic origins issues and the biases of those people that have been looking at the so-called zoonotic origin of this virus. He's written a book. I've got it right here, Super Convergence. Excellent and sort of sweeping in its scope.

We will get to him in just a second. And later on, we're going to bring our friend Tom Renz back in here. Of course, he is an attorney, and he has been very concerned about excess deaths and the possible association between vaccines and the uptick in cancers we've been seeing of late. You can follow Jamie on X at Jamie Metzl, M-E-T-Z-L, and you can follow Tom at Renz Tom, R-E-N-Z Tom. Back in a second with Jamie. Our laws as it pertained to substances are draconian and bizarre the psychopath started this right he was an alcoholic because of social media and pornography ptsd love addiction fentanyl and heroin ridiculous i'm a doctor for say where the hell you think i learned that i'm just saying

you go to treatment before you kill people i am a clinician i observe things about these chemicals let's just deal with what's real and we used to get these calls on Loveline all the time. Educate adolescents and to prevent and to treat. If you have trouble, you can't stop and you want to help stop it, I can help. I got a lot to say. I got a lot more to say. Summer is right around the corner and unfortunately so are those visible dark spots sunspots other blemishes that the sun leaves behind until now the deep correcting serum from our friends at genu cell visibly fades away dark marks sunspots scars and other signs of discoloration all over your skin you'd be amazed at how quickly you'll see results.

Now you can enjoy your summer sun, beach, barbecues without the annoying spots. And as always, GenuCell guarantees you'll see the results or your money back, no questions asked. Right now you can save over 50% off Susan's Skincare Essentials at GenuCell.com slash Drew, plus save an extra 25% automatically apply to checkout for world-class skincare that works i know i'm a snob about the products i use on my face everybody knows it every time i go to the dermatologist's office they're just rows and rows of different creams and then when i get to the counter they're overpriced all kinds of products that you can all find at genusel.com order right now and you get the genucel Ultra Retinol for a

hydrating moisturizing effect on the delicate skin during the harsh summer months. Visit Genucel.com slash Drew now and get free shipping. That is Genucel.com slash Drew, G-E-N-U-C-E-L.com slash D-R-E-W. As I said, Tom Renz will be in here in a few moments, but first we're going to bring our friend Jamie Metzlin here. Again, Tom, can we follow that up? Renz, Tom,enz will be in here in a few moments, but first we're going to bring our friend Jamie Metzlin here. Again, Tom, can we follow that at Renz? Tom, he's got some new data he wants to review. Jamie is a technology futurist, geopolitical expert. When you read his Wikipedia, he's been on a variety of advisory panels in a variety of settings.

Sort of extraordinary, really, when you really think about the amount of advisory positions Jamie has had, including U.S. National Security Council, State Department, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Office of the United Nations in Cambodia. And he was a leading witness in March 2023 in the congressional hearings on COVID-19. Please welcome Jamie Metzl. There you go, Jamie. Thanks for joining us. My pleasure. I want to give you a chance to talk about the book first.

This is the new book. It's Superconvergence. And then we'll sort of back off the book to the relevance of understanding the superconvergence for helping us understand what happened during COVID, perhaps. Perfect. All right. And they're very much connected. I mean, the essential story of superconvergence is that our one species, after 3.8 billion years of evolution, suddenly has these new and increasing superpowers. We have the ability to create novel intelligence and

the increasing ability to re-engineer life. And the sole question that's going to determine whether we have a great future or a terrible future is whether we can use these powers wisely. And so I've written the book to help readers understand what's happening, what are the drivers of this change, where are these changes going to show up in people's real lives, whether it's in their health care, in the foods that they eat, and just how we operate our modern economies, the energy, data storage, all of these areas. And then a very logical question people can ask is, what can go wrong? And actually, there's a whole lot that could go wrong. And so I'm not some kind of blind utopian, even though I'm optimistic that we can use these technologies wisely

if we set our minds to doing that. But some really bad stuff could go wrong. And certainly the COVID-19 pandemic, I think, is an example of that. And then I talk about what are the things that we need to do now to try to build the best possible future. And this isn't something that we can just leave to our governments. Everybody has a role in building the kind of future that we'd like to inhabit. And so I've written a book. It's certainly about a big, challenging subject, but I've written it to read like a beach novel. I'm actually,

I also write science fiction novels and I wanted people just to read a book and feel like, wow, that was really enjoyable. There were a lot of really interesting stories. But I learned something not because it was a chore, but because when I was reading the book, I felt this is really relevant to me in my life. Yeah. I appreciate the sweep of this. it's interesting to me that you're really a historian and lawyer by training, right? That's really kind of your training. And yet you seem to have a pretty damn good grasp of sort of scientific thought. And in fact, one of the things that jumped out of me in your book, for me in the book, is I started thinking about the work in biotechnology and on genetics. And you do a good job of laying that out. one of the chapters in your book, which is, you know, we used to have to do very careful thought in our application of biological experimentation. In other words, all we had was like restriction enzymes and biological gels and migratory where we'd have the proteins once

they were cut up, we'd try to figure out what was going on. It was all about developing our brains to try to penetrate and inference what we were seeing from these rather primitive instruments that we had to penetrate the biological world. Now, I feel like there's just a lot of plug and chug. They're just inputting things and seeing what comes out without the depth of thought. Am I right about this? I mean, obviously, various people are working on these things. I don't want to get too glib about it. But there's something about the way you wrote one of the chapters. I started thinking, are people thinking this through properly?

Well, those are two different questions. So I come from a family of physicians. My father is now retired, a pediatrician. I have three brothers who are MDs. My mom was a psychoanalyst, actually still practicing at 86 from their assisted living facility in Denver, seeing patients virtually. So I definitely agree that there is that old school thing of being a doctor with intuitions, with a relationship with a patient, and that is now more important than ever. But with the tools that we now have, we're able to understand complex systems, complex human biology in ways that are really remarkable

relative to people just even one or two decades ago. And so in the book, I give some really specific examples, and I'll give you two now of people. So a woman named Victoria Gray in Mississippi suffering from sickle cell disease, and lots of people who have sickle cell disease, primarily people of more recent African and South Asian descent, it's absolutely terrible, excruciating pain. Most people die young. It's a genetic disorder from basically the malfunctioning gene that produces hemoglobin. And now using a new tool of gene therapy, you essentially take people's cells out and you manipulate the genes in their cells to turn on their fetal hemoglobin. So you have one system creating hemoglobin when you're

a fetus, and then that turns off and you have your adult hemoglobin. The people with sickle cell, the adult hemoglobin doesn't work. And so by returning on using the tools that I write about in the book, the fetal hemoglobin, this woman has gone from living a life of excruciating pain and wondering whether she wanted to live anymore to just living a normal life with her children. My own father, when I was writing the book a little less than two years ago, was diagnosed with stage four metastatic neuroendocrine cancer. And you know this, Drew, but your listeners may not. That'sendocrine cancer. And you know this, Drew, but your listeners may not. That's Steve Jobs' cancer. And so Steve Jobs,

when he got it, said, well, I'm going to treat this with fruit juice. And my feeling was, we are going to fight this with every tool that we've got, which means the tools of the genetics, AI, and biotech revolution. So I insisted that we sequence the tumor from day one, which wasn't the standard for his type of cancer. And we did it. And we found a targetable mutation in his cancer, the BRAF gene. And after his initial chemo, which he tolerated, didn't really help. And the scans were showing that the cancers were growing. We tried this and it turned out the oncologist who had recommended a different approach, wonderful oncologist, I'd really pushed for this, had said the best we can do is slow the spread of the cancer. But my dad is in such remission and he's an N of one,

that the oncologist just published a case study in the Journal of GI Cancers that's saying, here's a new way of treating this cancer. And since the time, since he started this treatment, we're originally from Kansas City, two Kansas City Chiefs, Super Bowl wins, his granddaughter's bat mitzvah, eighth grade graduation. And then he was in New York last week with my mother to come to the launch party for my new book. And so, yes, these technologies can be scary, but really what we're talking about is how do we fight for time? How do we fight for the things that we value in our human interactions? And how do we fight for more life? And that's true in healthcare, but it's also true in agriculture. How do we grow the kinds of foods that we need to feed everybody, but do it without having to destroy the environment?

Well, I'm very involved in prostate cancer research. And really the big challenge, of course, is we can find these, we can sequence these things, and we can direct a lot of different ideas towards the specific genetic errors. The problem is the mother nature is smarter than us. And so the tumors very quickly adapt and figure out what to do to continue to thrive and as a cancer, so to speak. And, and that's where the current challenges are. It's like what to do when the cancer outsmarts us. And, and I, I'm going to bet that it's going to be hitting it two or three places at once, much the way we do bacteria with antibiotics and things. I bet that's going to end up being the solution. But I want to back up to, go ahead, finish. It's a really important point because we live in a world, we ourselves are the result of 3.8

billion years of evolution. And we live in a world where if you're around now and you are, you have a 3.8 billion year history. That means your, your ancestors have really figured out how to survive. And so the, the base, you know, this better than anybody, but the basic story with cancer is normally when you're a healthy person, it's like you're a symphony and all the players are playing the song that you want. And with cancer, you know, the, the, the bassoonist says, screw you, I'm just doing my own thing. If it was so easy to knock out the bassoonist, our biology would have done it anyway. And so I think you're absolutely right.

Everybody is evolving. We are evolving and our technological innovations are part of our evolutionary journey. But the systems that we're looking to manipulate, they're also evolving. And so that's why this is a constant process, which requires learning, observing, growing, and all those important things. And it's sort of infinitely complex. And it's like trying to predict the behavior of clouds. It's very probabilistic. And now I'm going to be talking to an attorney after you in a few minutes who's very concerned that the vaccines are somehow, or maybe it's COVID itself, or maybe it's the spike protein.

We don't even know the mechanism yet. Maybe it's the liquid nanoparticles are having an impact on carcinogenesis. I wonder if you have an opinion about that. I don't really have an opinion, but what I will say in general terms is that the COVID-19 vaccines have been phenomenally successful. They've helped tens of millions of people save maybe tens of millions of lives. But that doesn't mean they're perfect. That doesn't mean that any vaccine is perfect. It's the same point that I just made, that what we're talking about is intervening with

very complex biological systems, humans, and we don't know everything. And I think the challenge with the COVID-19 vaccines is that we had two different competing pressures. On one hand, the entire world was shut down and vaccines were part of our pathway toward reopening the world. So we had to move quickly. On the other hand, if we had a vaccine at scale, there were always going to be some unintended consequences that if we had waited 10 years and done 10 years of clinical trials, maybe we would have picked

them up. And whether that's the myocarditis, I have seen these reports of new types of cancers that are emerging. And so I think that's, it's something that we need to look at and all of life is trade-offs. And so while definitely, I believe we saved many, many millions of lives through the vaccines, it is entirely plausible and maybe even likely

that some number, probably a smaller number, but meaningful number of people could have been harmed. And that's why we have to continually try to understand what's happening. We need to be doing these studies. And nobody should be saying, you know, I'm 100% certain that there can be no harms caused by really any intervention. And so I think we need to keep looking at it. Yeah, I completely agree.

I mean, the unfortunate reality is because there were no risk ward considerations taken with these mandates, that the reality is even if it's a modest number of people that are harmed by the vaccines, the years of life lost compared to the absolute number of life saves of people with five to 10 years of life left could end up being a very significant number of years of life lost. And of course, this now backs us into the question of the virus itself. You were concerned that there'd been a cognitive bias in place in terms of looking at a zoonotic origin. Tell me about that and tell me what your thinking is today on the source. Yeah, so it's funny. I was actually sitting in this exact seat at this exact table.

I'm in my dining room in New York City, and it was late January of 2020. And I was telling my partner, my girlfriend, I said, you know, I'm seeing these reports in the news saying that the spillover happened in the Wuhan market. And I'm looking at the available evidence and I'm just seeing a different story. I had recently, a year before, I'd been in Wuhan. So I knew most people were saying, oh, there's this outbreak in Wuhan and it comes from a market. And people had in their mind a place like Cambodia, where I used to live, where there are these crazy wild animal markets and people are eating all kinds of crazy stuff. Wuhan is a very sophisticated, wealthy, highly educated city.

It's China's Chicago. And the people in Wuhan looked down at the dietary habits of people in Southern China who actually do eat a lot more of those wild animals. And I knew from a Lancet study in late January, 2020, that over a third of the earliest cases of infection were people who had no exposure to the Huanan seafood market. And so I just started diving in and I had already known that Wuhan was a center of biotechnology in China. It took about two seconds to learn

that it had the largest collection of captive coronaviruses in the world. They were doing very aggressive research, essentially trying to make these coronaviruses better able to infect human cells in the exact same way that the SARS-CoV-2 virus was able to infect human cells in the exact same way that the SARS-CoV-2 virus was able to infect human cells. And so it just kept growing, growing. In February, I was a member of the World Health Organization Expert Advisory Committee on Human Genome Editing. So we had our

meetings in Cape Town in South Africa in February, and I brought these concerns to that meeting privately because I thought, you know, how could it be that I, you talked about my background, how could it be that I'm seeing this story? I didn't know anybody else who was seeing this. And I laid it out privately for my colleagues. And they were actually very encouraging. And I came back and I started writing. I started speaking. In April of 2020, I launched my website, which kind of went viral very quickly. I was writing and speaking a

lot. And I literally, I didn't get it, but I thought I was the only person I knew who thought this. And then little by little through social media, I started meeting, there were me equivalents in different parts of the world. And then we came together and we created almost like a quasi academic group, which has been called the Paris Group. And we would have monthly academic gatherings. People would present hypotheses, present papers, challenge each other. And anyway, so then I just, over the course of time, got much more involved, ended up playing a much more central role in this process than I could have ever anticipated. And I'm a liberal Democrat. And people were saying, oh, in the beginning, Donald Trump was supporting President Xi. And then when things started getting bad here, President Trump shifted

and started blaming China. And I'm a liberal Democrat. And my friends were saying, oh, you're just supporting President Trump. And what I said is, look, I'm not supporting anybody. What I'm trying to do is follow the evidence wherever it leads. And if President Trump says something that is even accidentally right, I'm not going to say it's wrong just because President Trump said it. And so, yeah, so it's been a crazy four and a half years and the mountain of circumstantial evidence weighs heavily in the favor of a research-related origin in Wuhan. And the only reason why we haven't conclusively proved that is that China has destroyed samples, hidden their records. They've imprisoned Chinese journalists. They have a gag order on

Chinese scientists. They've blocked any meaningful international investigations. So if we were having a trial of a mafia don and the witnesses kept getting knocked off, we wouldn't say, oh, this guy must be innocent. So the evidence tells a tough story, but China's behavior is really damning in my view. Yeah, I completely agree with you. And thank you for keeping cognitive bias out of your thinking. You didn't develop the hysterias that people were so prone to during this whole episode. I have a couple of questions. One was you said that they're, and again, they were doing aggressive research that we know of.

Let's at least assume a factor of two above and beyond that. Maybe a factor of 10, who knows. But, but, but I think you're referring to the furin cleavage site and people will go, Oh my God, coronavirus is half furin cleavage site. They have them. They have them not in you. I want you to correct me if I'm wrong. My understanding is not the specific subtype that is represented by SARS-CoV-2. Please explain that. Yeah. So there's coronaviruses and there's this category of coronaviruses, Sarbico viruses. And of all of the Sarbico viruses ever known to humanity,

there has only been one Sarbico site, Sarbico virus with a furin cleavage site. And you can guess which one that is. And it emerged in the exact same town where a laboratory was collecting sarbico viruses and doing experiments trying to engineer or pass serial passage furin cleavage sites to make these exact type of cells, coronaviruses, better able to infect human cells. As a matter of fact, I was quoted in Vanity Fair saying something which I actually repeat in the book. And because in 2018, it turned out that the Wuhan Institute of Virology, along with EcoHealth Alliance and University of North Carolina, had applied for funding to the U.S. Department of Defense to specifically engineer furin cleavage sites into SARS coronaviruses to do it in Wuhan,

and they would connect at the human ACE2 receptor. And so that's exactly what showed up with COVID. And as I told Vanity Fair, if I applied for funding to paint Central Park purple and was denied funding as DARPA denied that proposal, but the next morning we woke up and Central Park had been painted purple, I would at least be a prime suspect. And that's the case here. And so let's sort of continue down that way of reasoning and help me understand, because

you've been inside a lot of this stuff and you've been worried about EcoHealth Alliance and their funding of various things. I don't know how to ask this without putting you in a bad position, but I'm going to ask you to speculate. And I have this distinct feeling like information is missing. For instance, there's continued funding of gain of function. Our defense department is continuing to fund exactly the thing that caught. And now they're worried about the avian flu out of Madison, where they have been funding the exact damn same thing. What am I missing?

Why are they doing this? There has to be something that they're not tearing the public about what's going on behind the scenes in terms of biological warfare or the ability to defend ourselves or the ability to attack somebody else. I feel like there is a secret arms race for mutually assured destruction with biological agents, and no one is telling us about it. That's what it feels like to me. You tell me if I'm wrong. I'm not going to say that you're wrong, but let me just tell you my thoughts about gain of function and my thoughts about the kind of big picture story of what happened with COVID. So with gain of function, it's such a big, broad term.

So gain-of-function includes people who are being treated with gene therapies where the therapies are being delivered through a viral vector. And so the virus is a vector that has been manipulated. Instead of rather than carrying its own payload, it carries our payload. So there are lots of things that we do that are gain of function with viruses. And so because that term has been used as like a dirty word, so we need to be more

specific. And so the thing that we should be worried about is gain of function on viruses, on pathogens of pandemic potential. Because that is, if you have a virus, it's already a really scary virus. And you say, how can we make it scarier? That's the thing that we need to be really worried about. But because there's so much imprecision about this term gain of function, and then on top of that, there's this technical thing where Dr. Fauci is right that by the letter of the grants that were approved by the National Institutes of Health, of the money that went to EcoHealth Alliance, if all the work had been done exactly to the letter of those grants, None of it could have led to COVID-19. But essentially, we were funding relatively small amounts, but we were giving money to

the Wuhan Institute of Virology. We had no idea what viruses in totality they were holding there, what work they were doing, or who was doing that work. And so the money is fungible. So that's gain of function. And the kind of my meta story of what happened, and again, I write about this in the book, is 20 years ago, we had the first SARS crisis. And it turned out it was really scary.

And it turned out that we didn't have appropriate eyes and ears around the world in the places where these viral outbreaks tend to happen, which is mostly Asia and Africa and to a certain extent, South Asia. And so there was a decision, well, we're going to invest in training scientists, in building laboratory capacity and having these kinds of exchanges. And a whole generation of people who believe that that was their theory of the case, that the possibility and the probability of pandemics is increasing, and we need to have a global trained workforce in order to respond. And then when SARS-2 began to emerge in late 2019 or early 20, there was almost like, you used the word,

like a cognitive blinder. The people said they couldn't get their mind around the possibility that the thing they had invested their careers in for very good and I think idealistic reasons could have actually accidentally sparked the very crisis that they were most worried about. And I think that is what happened here. And that's why it was so unfortunate in 2020 that there was this horrible letter in The Lancet and a paper in Nature Medicine saying, essentially, we know it comes from nature. Anyone raising the possibility of a lab origin is a conspiracy theorist. And Dr. Fauci, who I respect in many ways, he put his finger on the scale of the public dialogue in favor of natural origins. And I don't think that was appropriate. I think what he should have said in 2020 is, we don't know where this thing comes from. It could come from a lab. It could come from nature. We need to examine all possibilities, all hypotheses,

and we call on China to facilitate that kind of unfettered investigation that's required. Yes, I completely agree. I read the Nature article pretty carefully, and it was a good argument. It was very compelling. It doesn't mean it's correct or right in terms of describing reality. This is the part that people cannot get through their head. The other thing you mentioned, pandemic preparedness people, the whole pandemic ink that developed. I was talking to somebody who was on one of the committees for the federal government, and they threw it all out the window when this thing came around, and they came to a bunch of editors from the New York Times. The CDC and Fauci was supposed to take an advisory role.

The idea of mandates and declarations from on high never entered into pandemic preparedness. This was one of the bizarre elements of the chapter that needs to, the tragedy of COVID-19 that needs to be examined and make sure it doesn't happen that way again. And then finally, I want to make sure I'm hearing you. So if I heard your last sort of description

of how things evolved, no arms race from your point of view, no biological arms race. No, so the United States and China are entering a new Cold War. And this Cold War is not just China, China, Russia, Iran, North Korea. This Cold War is being waged

on every level. And we want our government to be protecting us. And it's really tragic that we're in this kind of situation. I have no doubt that China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea all have secret biological weapons programs. I certainly hope that we have very senior people in our government who are planning for what could happen should we be attacked. And because it's in this field, it's not like, oh, this is the defensive stuff and it's over there there in that room, and here's the offensive stuff, and it's over there in that room. We have to maintain and develop a level of capability. So do I think that the United States has an advanced offensive biological weapons program? I do not. And frankly, I think that our government no longer, I mean, you see Oppenheimer,

you realize how in those days we were able to keep something a secret. We can't keep anything a secret. So I don't think that we're doing that. And I think that we need to have those capabilities here. But our world is really- Defensively, defensively, defensively, yeah. But that requires gain of function.

That requires various sorts of gain offunction research to develop those defensive strategies. Again, it depends on what kind of gain-of-function. Because right now, that's become a term like gain-of-function equals bad. But gain-of-function doesn't always equal. But there's some gain-of-function like gene therapies that we really want. Yeah. No, I get it. And even CRISPR stuff, but I want to sort of emphasize that there is

rational reason for us to have a variety of gain of function research underway. And I would like our government to be a little more transparent about that, but there may be some defense reason that they cannot. Right? But again, we want our scientific researchers to be doing gain of function, generic work. Again, gene therapies and for Tamiflu and all these other things which come from that. There is this specific area of gain of function on pathogens of pandemic potential. And I think there's a real question about whether we should be doing it at all. And probably we shouldn't be doing that. And so if it turns out that we are doing that, I and you and Tom and everybody else, we should bang pots and pans and say, hey, what's going on?

Or at least explain why we would be doing such a thing. And you can't handle the truth is not a satisfactory answer. Now, what is a satisfactory answer, however, is these are state secrets. And if we divulge them, we're going to be divulging them to our enemies. And so I'm sorry, we can't tell you right now. That's okay with me, but you can't handle the truth. No, not okay with that. And I don't think that's what's happening. But what I will say is I think over the course of this pandemic, for a hundred years, we've asked our public health experts to just don't worry about the asterisk. And so in the 1950s- You mean the swan, the black swan, you mean?

No, in the 1950s, everybody, every kid get the polio vaccine. We shouldn't say asterisk. Some of you will get polio from the vaccine, which we know happened. And what the mission of public health has been, everybody wash your hands and you're supposed to say, oh, asterisk, some people have a soap allergy. And I think that they had this habit of public health is we're going to have general rules that are easy for people to follow because that is the history of a hundred years of public health, which is frankly has saved hundreds of millions of lives. And I think our information environment has changed where individual people, myself included, we can gather information, we can do our analysis.

And so it requires a level of humility by our public officials that they're not used to. Especially like somebody like Fauci, we are big beneficiaries of all of his wisdom, but he has grown up in one model of information. And now we're in a new model of information. I completely agree. I completely agree. And, and this, uh, you know, Francis Collins said it himself, they had one priority and they didn't consider the, the, the collateral damage.

Well, listen, uh, Jamie, thank you for this. People should follow Jamie on Jamie, J-A-M-I-E, Metzl, M-E-T-Z-L, and the book is Convergence. I suggest you go check it out. It reads, I think you said you write fiction as well, and the sweeping review of anthropology and history and all these interesting topics that I love in nonfiction sort of histories is all in here, and then you get deep into the science. And I appreciate that very much. So, Jamie, good luck. And thank you for being here.

And hopefully we'll talk to you again soon. Awesome. Thanks so much. Really enjoyed it. You bet. Before we got a break. Yes. Something's happening at Rumble.

Yeah. Rumble was going in and out, in and out. I got locked out of it. Okay. And on my phone and my computer and my other computer i was able to get on the feed when i just signed in on my browser just but people are coming back in and i told everybody you know if you if we ever have this problem just head over to x you know dr drew on twitter or you can go to youtube but nobody on Rumble wants to go to you. They call it YouPoo.

I'm up again now. I'm up on Rumble. We're back in. Well, it's back, but I'm signed out. I can't sign in. It's so funny. I mean, it was in and out. You said, uh-oh, about a half an hour ago.

I thought, oh, I know what that is. So here we are. Shout out to the podcast listeners who get to enjoy this. Sorry. No, but you know what? It's really frustrating because we're always telling people on YouTube if we get censored, head over

to Rumble or X. It rumbles under attack. That's usually what this is. They're doing denial of service attacks. I think we should have the link to the other, or just a little notification on the top of our page that says if there's ever a problem. You know what I'd like people to do?

I'd like people to subscribe to Ask Dr. Drew on Rumble, as many of you as possible, because we are going to have a show of force over there. I think as many of us that can migrate to Rumble, the more power that service will have. It'll come under more attacks and we will not allow it. But a lot of people love YouTube because they know how to use it and stuff.

And honestly, I like having all these platforms in case of emergency. It makes me very happy. YouTube is a good backup, but YouTube, they can just change their rules tomorrow and kick us off like what they've done many, many times in the past. Rumble is still the most reliable one.

I think it's just these are growing pains because there has not been a solid competitor to YouTube in the history of YouTube. And I've been on YouTube for 20, you know, since the start almost. That's my point. Yeah, I know. That's my point. But they don't love us. Come on over to Rumble. Subscribe.

But you know what? If it worked today, if people on YouTube got to see that, God bless them. You guys need to listen to me. Your daddy tells us that on X, there's no link. So let's set that up too. Let's make sure. I made a link. Apparently not.

I put the link on. I sent him the link. They want to check that out. So I want to get Tom in here. There's a link. Let's hear from the people that make this all possible for us. We thank, again, we support them thoroughly and we appreciate them. There they are on the scroll beneath my face here. It's playing on X. I'll send the link over to Rumble.

I know. I'm going to send it over to you. Yo, daddy. Yo, daddy. I will be back with Tom Renz. We love yo, daddy. Joint and muscle pains are exhausting and frustrating, but I've got a over-the-counter medication i'll introduce you to that provides great relief using the power of check it out chili peppers capsidin is made with a proprietary formula that contains no non-steroidal anti-inflammatory agents no opioids no anesthetic or steroid nothing no chance for addiction no side effects no chance it's going to interact with other medication you might be taking. Capsodin contains capsaicin, which is the substance in chili peppers that burns your tongue.

It gives you that burny feeling. And of course, I've recommended capsaicin creams to patients over the years, but other capsaicin creams burn your skin. That's what makes capsaicin so unique. In clinical trials, Capsodent has actually been demonstrated not to burn. I've been using Capsodent to relieve my pain in my hands and my wrist from carpal tunnel syndrome and arthritis. The results have been amazing. I use it every day during my show and I highly recommend it. Get the pain relief you need from various sources, even backaches, sprains, bruises, even. Order now at capsidin.com slash drew to get a 15% discount plus free shipping. That is C-A-P-S-A-D-Y-N

capsidin.com slash D-R-E-W. Of course, I'm a fan of the healthy aging supplement, TruNiagen. I've been taking it almost for a decade myself. This supplement boosts NAD, which your cells need to survive properly metabolically, and it goes down as we age. It does so with a nutrient called nicotinamide riboside, or NR, specifically patented form of NR called Niagen. It's the most efficient and trusted NAD booster. NAD can also play a role in reproductive health. Boosting NAD is recommended with prenatal vitamins for women over 30 looking to start a family. Here's Dr. Amy, also known as the egg whisperer, a highly influential specialist in this area.

As NAD levels go down and it starts going down in our 30s, that's the same age that our egg supply also dwindles. So I'm fighting for every single woman's chance to have a baby. And, you know, repleting NAD is one of the greatest tools in my tool chest that I've been using now for almost six years. True Niagen is an amazing NAD booster. You're going to want to add it to your reproductive health arsenal. And of course, it's in our family of Dr. Drew sponsors. Go to drdrew.com slash truniogen for 20% off your order. That is drdrew.com slash truniogen.

Enter Dr. Drew at checkout for 20% off. There are four distinct and outstanding medical kits from the wellness company. A first aid kit, a travel emergency kit. I was very instrumental in developing that one. I love it. A COVID emergency kit. But let's unpack their medical emergency kit the one that

gives you immediate access to treatment for a varieties of medical conditions here's the kit pneumonia upper respiratory infections skin infections gastrointestinal infections you'll have on-hand medication that will even serve as immediate prophylaxis against a sexually transmitted infection rapid intervention for lyme and other tick-borne illnesses. Of course, we've added Tamiflu to our kits in case the avian flu should become human-to-human transmissible. Then we know something is up and we want to be ready. And look, we want to be covered for bioterrorism even. And of course, the Nobel Prize-winning antiparasitic ivermectin and a how-to guide and a virtual consultant. Get access to these prescription meds by going to drdrew.com slash TWC to save 15% off. That is $30 off the medical emergency kit. drdrew.com slash TWC for

15% off the kit and any of their kits or their supplements. Do it now. drdrew.com slash TWC. Dr. Drew said the best way to quit drinking is by going cold turkey. And he's a doctor. So why would you question doctors? Dr. Drew called me unfixable. And yes, I was on a radio program yesterday. I coined the term rational readiness. That is what TWC is all about, about being rational in your preparedness or rational preparedness as well. Speaking of preparedness, perhaps you owe some back taxes.

Pandemic relief is over. Along with hiring thousands of new agents and field officers, the IRS has kicked off 2024 by sending over 5 million payout letters to those who have unfiled tax returns or balances owed. Don't waive your rights. Speak with them on your own. They are not your friends. Do not speak to them. Use Tax Network USA. It's a trusted tax relief firm.

They've saved over $1 billion in back taxes for their clients, and they can help you secure the best deal possible. Whether you owe $10,000 or $10 million, they can help you. Whether it's business or personal taxes, even if you have the means to pay or you're on a fixed income they can help you finally resolve the tax burdens once and for all call 1-800-245-6000 for a private free consultation. All right. It is time that we bring our friend Tom Renz in.

Tom is an attorney. I can't even with a straight face any longer talk about him as this bumpkin attorney from Ohio who doesn't know anything. He is deep in the fight on some of the perhaps adverse effects of the COVID vaccine. You can follow Tom at RenzTom, also TomRenz.com,

and Renz-Law.com. Tom, welcome back to the program. How are you doing, Drew? Drew, I got to tell you, I watched the first part. i'm hoping you're gonna let me call an audible i i will let you go because i knew this would upset you all right listen i one of my goals is to bring in all points of view and stuff and uh and let me let me just tell you i don't know if you heard my response to him but what i said was and it upset everyone on the rants

and the restreams they were all bent out of shape. Look, we're still figuring this stuff out. Tom Renz is part of it. What? What did I say? Tom Renz is part of it. Tom Renz is part of figuring this out. And my elderly patients were vaccinated and boosted.

They did not. Nobody, only one died of COVID in the entire pandemic, and that was someone who did not get the vaccine. I've had now one severe vaccine reaction for which in a 99-year-old, I filled out a VAERS report and, of course, received no feedback and no follow-up from the government on that, even though a 99-year-old almost died because of it. So again, I have mixed feelings about the whole endeavor, and I certainly have grave concerns about college-age males in particular getting this vaccine for a virus for which there's zero risk for them. So that's the frame. Now you call your audible. Go at it, Tom. Okay, so let me go back to origins. Now, you've got to understand something. Brad Winstrup, when he headed up the COVID committee,

Brad Winstrup took $168,000 from Big Pharma in 2022. I have a couple of questions that I would like to ask anybody who was willing to ask. And with respect to Jamie, because I don't know Jamie, and he seems like a really nice guy. But in 2021, prior to the 2022 election, I sent, and I just sent you a copy of what I sent, a very well-cited, very in-depth discussion of the origins of COVID. And there's a couple of things that were said in there that I think are critical. Now, I think we can all agree that it looks like it was made in a lab, but there are a couple of questions and things that I think you need a lawyer's eye to see. First thing is when we talked about the funding, one of the things that nobody's bringing up is the funding that came from the Department of Defense and also from USAID. Now, USAID, it goes to the State Department, is generally an arm of the CIA.

Why is that important? Well, let's look at this a little bit further, right? So, Ralph Baric, working with the EcoHealth Alliance and the rest of the crew, this project was funded, and by the way, the Wellcome Trust, Rockefeller Fund, a whole bunch of huge, huge names were involved in this, including a company called Metabiota, who at the time Hunter Biden was invested in through Rosemont Seneca. You would think that the Republicans would be interested in this. They're not. That said, at the time that this funding was going on, you've got to understand Barrick and Crew are sending this advanced technology to perform this gain-of-function work. There's documents demonstrating that they were partnering and working with the Wuhan

Institute. Now, Drew, I don't need to be a scientist to be smart enough to ask some basic questions, and one of them is this. The law requires that if you're going to transfer advanced technology to a foreign country, especially an enemy, China's not exactly our friend, right? We're going to transfer gain-of-function technology that could be used to create bioweapons in a lab to a lab in China that was well known to be tied in with the CCP bioweapons development. Now, you're going to tell me that we didn't have CIA awareness or involvement? That can't happen under the law without sign-off from the right people in DOD, CIA, state, all these different groups, right? It's the law requires this.

So the idea that Fauci just funded this little grant to EcoHealth Alliance, and they just accidentally went a little bit off a skit, and that was that. That's cover. And I'm going to call it what it is. It's cover. The reality is our Department of Defense and intelligence agencies were damn well aware of this. And in fact, I actually testified in front of Marjorie Taylor Greene down in Congress and put my name on a declaration under penalty of perjury. Now, you find me another lawyer that will put their own name on a declaration. Under a declaration under penalty of perjury that I had medical records from a soldier. Those medical records, which I shared, showed that in the year 2015, during five different

encounters, he received an intervention. And that intervention was titled on the encounters, Moderna COVID-19 vaccine. Now, why or how could that happen in the year 2015? And I personally put my name on a declaration under penalty of perjury, stating that I had verified these records. So the idea that this is just, you know, oh, we funded this little thing and oops, it went a little off script on the grant, that's a load of crap. That's what Brad Winstrip's COVID Committee was there to do, was to create plausible deniability to cover up the fact that our department of defense who is by the way continually continuing to to fund gain a function on our soil and in fact right um did you know right now did you know right now drew down in georgia you've got lan yang du who was tied in with w, right? You've got Ralph Baric working,

who was in that. By the way, you know what? I'm going to drop a bomb right now. You want to know something that nobody else knows? I've got whistleblower data on. Ralph Baric, you know what else Ralph Baric did? He was one of the inventors of remdesivir. I bet you haven't heard that one. I've got the documents. And I think I just broke that to the world. There are so many things about this that don't add up. And that official narrative of, oops, we just went off. Fauci is not a good guy. Fauci lied.

He covered this up. And Fauci, frankly, ought to be being tried criminally for about 50 different things right now. And there is no excuse for this. So, Tom, this is the same question I asked Jamie, which is, so you just said it's like something's up, something's not right. We're missing information. Do you have a way of taking the information you have and developing a theory as to why we continue to pursue these things? I mean, what is it they're not telling us that would create a reasonable frame for the behavior of our Department of Defense? Well, I can create a theory, but I'm going to make this disclaimer, Drew. When I talk to you, you really are a

disciplined scientist. So you call me to task. So this is a theory. I can't prove this. Okay. But let's look at the flow of money. Let's look at the military-industrial complex. Let's look at how this all works, right? Military-industrial complex, it's well known that you've got kind of a push for some conflict here and there. I mean, we've been talking about it since the 60s in the Vietnam War era, right? You push for conflict. Conflict sells weapons. Weapons make people money, so they push for more conflict, right?

Now, what if that same thing applied, but that same business model shifted and started to work with the big pharma, big government, right? Yeah, so it's a biological arms race, right, of defense and offense. But I think that driving this with the defense, the traditional war model, I think what you're seeing is a model that was based on competing countries. This is more about corporate interests that are driving it. I think we've shifted to a corporate democracy a bit more. Well, is it because – but hold on now. Wow, that's fascinating. So is that then just mean it is so because the corporations handle so much money,

they can influence all of this? They can drive it? Is it just follow the money? Is that the whole story? As a lawyer, that's all I do. When we talk about cancer and the COVID vaccines, when we talk about all these things, one of the things that I said to you in the past, and I'll say it again, I don't have to be a scientist to read science. And all I need to do as a lawyer is look at the evidence and ask myself, and this is really something that's important. You look at it as a scientist, right? So you have your hypothesis, your test, and do you get the proof or not, right? As a lawyer, I got to get to a preponderance of the evidence or beyond a reasonable doubt or something along those lines.

So what we do is we look at motives, we look at evidence, we look at that, and then we add it up and we say, okay, do you have feathers like a duck? Do you have a bill like a duck? Do you have web feet like a duck? I still can't see if you're a duck, but you know what? We're going to go with duck. In this case, what it looks like to me is, yeah, this is evolution of snake oil sales, right? We'll give you something that'll make you healthy, but it makes you sick. And then we'll give you something that cures the thing that makes you sick. I mean, listen, yeah, we talked in one of the topics we were going to hit is cancer

and COVID vaccines, right? There's more and more evidence coming out. I want to get there. Right. So we've got more and more evidence coming out. We have the 06 document. We have the pseudo-uridine stuff that we're finding now. And I'm going to go into that a little bit more. But before I do, let me make this point. all of these issues point to the possibility, not proof, but the possibility that these COVID

vaccines are behind the cancer explosion that we're seeing, right? Even the World Health Foundation is expecting an explosion of cancer. So they're pointing in that direction. Well, if you were able to influence the FDA, and by the way, I don't think I need to tell you or anybody else how much influence Big Pharma has over the FDA. I mean, that's pretty well established. But that was new information. COVID showed that to me. I didn't know that. That's new information, but it showed us a lot of stuff. It woke me up for sure. Hey, listen, before COVID, I was pro-vax. I was, I believe, I was probably very similar to you.

But so you've got all these things. If you were going to create an mRNA cure for cancer or a new whatever for cancer, I mean, look, it's a circular money flow. Now, we can't prove this yet. But here's the problem. The problem isn't that we can't prove it. The problem is, is that we can't even get our elected officials to ask the real questions. Do you know that when Marjorie Taylor Greene held her hearing that I spoke at, the reason she did that was because Brad Winstrup, the head of the COVID committee, forbade her from asking questions about the vaccines or a number of other pertinent issues. That was a joke. It was a whitewash because the amount And what we need to be doing at minimum, at minimum, is asking tough questions and then asking tough questions, especially tough questions of people who are dodging the tough questions, which is all I completely agree with you. This you can't handle the truth attitude is disgusting to me. Now, maybe you didn't listen to all of what I said to Jamie.

I said, listen, an acceptable sort of position would be, hey, these are state secrets. Us sharing it with you could really expose us to harm. And so we're for the time being going to keep this all secret. I think, okay, that'd be fine. But you can't handle the truth. Screw that. That is not okay with me. So one of my favorite interviews, because you hold my feet to the higher one fire when I jumped conclusions.

Okay. So I like that. And I appreciate that. You've been very fair. You've been very reasonable. You come from the mainstream. You've, you've had an open mind on this stuff, right? Which is more than I can say of 99% of the people I talked to. But the reality is, is, you know, I think you were fair in it,

and it was an interview, and you want to let Jamie speak his mind. And Jamie may be a great guy. I have no idea. I've never met him before today. But I really, you know, I like his approach. I think he's just missing an immense amount of information that we've been putting out for years. I mean, we know this isn't a question of did Fauci, you know, accidentally, have you looked at Fauci's emails? There was no accidents. This guy did this intentionally. He knew that he, listen, he's openly admitted that masks were never based on science, that six foot social distancing he pulled out of his rear end. I mean, the guy is a crook. He did more damage to the mental health of children. You know how many kids' pictures I've got with sores on their face from these masks? The babies that were in, you know, this guy did this. Why would he do this? Why would, in September of 2020, I put forth a case, I had dozens of citations, dozens, showing that masks don't work to prevent viral spread, right? Dozens. I put this in court. Everybody knew it doesn't work. Why would you do this? Well, because you needed to gin up beer to scare people into taking these shots. Now we know, and this I can show you because you can run

a Google scholar search, run a Google scholar search on the use of fear in public health. You'll see endless studies. It was a tactic. It was structured. So what, what if, what if my suspicious sneaky little evil lawyer mind is correct? What if Big Pharma looked around and said, you know what? Why don't we scare the hell out of everybody into taking our product? And by the way, when we do that, we're going to set the stage to kind of launch this new platform. Now, we know also, going back well before COVID, Big Pharma has been talking about an mRNA gene therapy platform for years. But there's actually a video, I think it was the CEO of Bayer that did the video, and he was lamenting the fact that they couldn't get

anywhere with the gene therapy products because nobody wanted to participate in experiments. So what if they wanted to push this platform? What if they use their influence to push it? And by the way, do you know what they've done since then? Do you know now that this bird flu stuff, do you know that with the RSV, they were fast tracking mRNA into the RSV, even though there's no basis for it. What if this whole thing really was a plot to try and push this mRNA platform forward and just kind of have this endless money pool going? I can't prove this, but why can't we ask the question? And why is it that you're going to get censored if you

play that on YouTube for me asking that question? Why is it that I couldn't get anyone in Brad Wenscript's COVID committee to ask that question? Why was no one, these are basic questions that with a little bit of exploratory questioning under oath, we could get somewhere with, but no one wants to ask it. Guess what the good news is. If I'm wrong, if we can show that I'm wrong, then that's a win for the world because it turns out the world's not quite as evil as I think it is. So why the hell wouldn't you ask it? No, I don't. I don't.

Wouldn't take that away from you. I agree with that. So talk to us about the concerns you've raised recently about the vaccine and the increase in cancers we're seeing? Well, we've got this document and it started and we started seeing this explosion of cancer. And credit to Ryan Cole, who brought it up before anybody else that I can remember. Ryan's been talking about cancer from the COVID vaccines for a very long time. And y'all smart people, you doctors, you talk about the immunoresponse frequently. And that's one of the areas that I'm aware of. I can't explain it as well as you guys can. But what I can tell you is, you know, I started looking and I find this document from 2006.

And it's an industry guidance document from the FDA. And in that document, they're quite specific about how they define gene therapy and the increased risk that gene therapy poses for creating delayed adverse events like cancer, right? They're very specific about that. This picture that you're seeing on the screen now, it's an 06 document. It's from the HHS, FDA. And within this document, they, first of all, they describe on, I believe on page two, they describe what's going on here. And they say exposure to gene transfer technology means exposure to products. And they go through and basically what they do, and this is an important point because you called me on this last time I was here, Doug. Gene therapy products, you know,

you had talked about as integrating into the host genome. Now, I think there's plenty of evidence that that's happening with COVID or the COVID vaccines, but we can't prove it yet. What we can say is that the definition used by the FDA here is a little bit different. Here, the definition used includes the introduction of genetic material. So the mRNA would fall under the definition of gene therapy as laid out in this 06 document, right? And this 06 document then goes on, And you can you can argue with me if you disagree. It does talk about transduction of transfer gene therapy products into cells and things like that. So it goes through that. Then later, it says that there are delayed adverse events of special interest. And that's at the bottom of page two and the beginning of page three. And they say that within that potential list of side effects is cancer, right? Well, again, the end of the bubble. And of course, this is why, and Tom, this is why everyone's so excited about the SV40,

was it SV70, SV40, whatever that promoter gene is, that's plasmid DNA that appears to have contaminated some of the vaccine. And before that, there was a lot of pushback by myself as well as anybody saying, well, RNA has these special things attached to it to get into the nucleus, and it doesn't have a reverse transcriptase, and all

these things. And then there were some observations in liver cells in vitro that maybe there was a reverse transcriptase. And so it was back and forth. But the idea of a plasmid with a promoter gene, that is concerning. And then there's also some concerns about the liquid nanoparticles. And then I introduced you to a biotechnologist in an email that she just responded to, by the way, that she has another mechanism out there that you might want to look into.

So there's concerns. There's real serious concerns that are legitimate. Yeah. Well, and including the pseudouridine, right? So pseudouridine is a cancer marker. And pseudouridine is really the thing. So mRNA, and we talked about this in the past, was never messenger RNA. Messenger RNA, everybody's got that.

It's a natural thing. Mod RNA, it's when you take something that looks like messenger RNA and you tinker with it in the lab, right? And in our case, one of the things that they did in the COVID vaccines is they added something called pseudouridine to make this stuff last longer and be more robust. It had all sorts of benefits to stabilizing this stuff so it could actually get into your cells and do what it does. But remember, we're still introducing genetic material in the cells. Now, whether it gets to the nucleus or not, we still are introducing that genetic material into the cells. Now, there would be a question, I think, that could be asked. Could that mutate the cell? The FDA answers that apparently because they talk about the duration and how long

whatever gene product is there is within the body and active. The longer it's there, the higher the risk of cancer, according to this document, right? So I'm looking at these different things. I'm looking at the pseudouridine and I'm seeing that pseudouridine is considered a marker for a lot of cancer stuff. And what we're seeing is just a ton of evidence that is pointing to the fact that the explosion in cancer that we're seeing, and that we're going to continue to see over the next five years for sure, is stemming from these mRNA poisons that they gave us during COVID. Now, I understand that you may not have had a personally terrible experience, but again, I think that the thing that we've got to ask ourselves is not, did everybody die from COVID vaccines?

The question is, how much damage versus how much benefit? And then the other thing that we've got- And why can't we ask that? Why isn't that question on the tip of everyone's tongue? That's the thing that's been astonishing to me. That's a scandal that it wasn't, I mean, maybe it's COVID, maybe it's COVID plus vaccine,

maybe it's all the spike protein. I mean, but it's scandalous that we're not rushing to try to figure this out. But Drew, we know, I mean, you tell me, you're the doctor. We know that the point of the vaccine was to produce the spike protein. Spike protein, which is the pathogenic. And I keep saying, if the vaccines are so important,

why aren't you pushing the whole viral vaccine? This is a smoking gun for you. There are good whole virus vaccines out there that are probably more immunogenic and do not emphasize the spike protein production. And you won't hear a word about those because guess what? They're not produced by the big companies, right?

And so that makes me wonder because if you need a college kid to get a vaccine, why would you give them the one that gives them myocarditis? Why don't you give them the one that doesn't? And why do you even give them that option? You don't even give them the option. That's just weird to me. Let me ask you even more importantly than that, Drew.

I mean, listen, is it your belief? I mean, because we know statistically, according to the National Center for Virological Statistics, there was no flu that first year of COVID. There were zero flu cases. So does any sensible doctor believe that that's true? I mean, literally zero cases. That's the statistic. There is this weird, there is a weird ecology, ecological theory of viruses that when one virus just takes over it it's like lions moving onto the serengeti they just take over the hyenas are out um and and if that is a legitimate thing then it

makes some sense to me then and when i first started hearing that i i thought of that theory and there may be an ecology of viruses that may be true i don't know well but let me ask you this so i lined up for one of my cases uh the the the cdc or nih uh definition right so disease is a collection of symptoms right it's not a syndrome too disease it has to have a common genetic and environmental heritage. Yes, but the disease itself is defined not the virus, not the bacteria. Signs and symptoms. It's defined by signs and symptoms. Right? So with that in mind, I lined up the symptoms and signs that defined COVID versus the symptoms and signs that defined the flu.

Do you know what the difference was? Smell. That was it. The only distinguishing factor between the two. So I would suppose. Rhinoviruses, Coxsackieviruses, herpesviruses, they all have very similar body-linked response in many ways. COVID was different in that cytokine activation thing. That was very different.

Even though we don't start to see that more. Go ahead. In no way, shape or form. I doubt that COVID was the thing I'm taught, but where I'm going with this is first of all, how, how frequently was it overdiagnosed?

Second of all, what we know is with any virus, unless I'm wrong about this, what you do is typically, you know, we don't have a whole lot of antivirals. Antiviral treatments are fairly limited. So with most viruses, particularly, you know, things that start getting into your lungs, what we do is we manage the symptoms while our body heals. So Dr. Richard Bartlett talked about budesonide and some of the steroid use, some of these different treatments. Why would we crank people up on a vent on a level that we knew was going to cause lung damage? Because I also have the CDC stuff on, on, you know, ventilation. They, they put people on vents,

they destroy their lungs and then they're surprised that they die in pneumonia while they're not treating them properly with their, they're not using first, they weren't using steroids at all. Then they were using too low of a dose. They wouldn't give people access to other symptoms, symptomatic treatments. This to me, when we look at what happened in the hospitals, again, I keep going back to this larger question and it ties in with what you asked.

Was there collusion? Was this a plan? Was this intentional? Was COVID a mechanism that was used to kind of facilitate a transition into this vaccine world. I mean, now we want a vaccine for everything. And we want vaccines that last for three minutes, and then you got to go get the next one. And it looks like the vaccines that they're giving us are causing an additional layer of problems. Is it fair to ask the question,

when $14 trillion with a T was transferred just in the United States over COVID, and no one's gone to jail over that, is it fair to ask whether there might have been a plan here? For $14 trillion, what would you do? And I think that there's enough people that we can ask that question of, what did people do? And why aren't we investigating it? Why aren't we investigating it why aren't we investigating is is like that's that's where my head's at all the time and you know the other thing i i was astonished by is why public health made no effort literally zero in fact crushed efforts to help patients become educated about how to address the illness when you got it? What is a monoclonal antibody? It's available for free. Somebody will come in and infuse you in your home. What is budesonide?

You brought that up. How much decadron should I take? Is doxycycline useful? Is hydroxychloroquine? What, you know, why didn't we make a, why were we sending out computer blasts on, hey man, somebody in your family is sick. Here's what you can do. Never. Not one peep. In fact, if you remember, the astonishing thing to me, when the Florida Public Health Department started sending vans around to infuse people with monoclonal antibodies, which I thought was a brilliant idea, the federal government shut off the supply of monoclonal antibodies to Florida. That was one of the darker chapters of this outbreak for me.

Do you remember that? Oh, I absolutely remember it. And Doc, you got to be careful. You're starting to sound like me. You know, here's the thing. When we start looking at this, when we start looking at this. It's just a lot of unanswered questions. Yeah.

And then nobody rushing to give us some answers. But, but when it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, how many different traits of a duck do you have to have that you can identify before you say, you know what? I think it's a duck. And again, remember, you've got to distinguish between your mechanism of proving something in mind. Because as a doctor, as a scientist, proof is a lot different than proof in the realm of public. And so what we have to do is we have to say, we don't need to prove it in the way that you would, you know, with clinical studies. What we need to do is we need to understand because these are people, right? These aren't tests. These are people. And these people had motives, and they took steps. And what we need to do is we need to recognize that the standard of proof here

is depending on whether it's a civil or criminal case, you know, it varies, but your preponderance of the evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, regardless, at some point, at some point, the fact that we're not even asking these questions, as we're already beating the drums for disease X and bird flu this and bird flu that, I mean, we've got Deborah Birx out there. Deborah Birx, who literally stated publicly her job was to lie to the president every day. That Deborah Birx is now telling us that we need to take all these steps to deal with bird flu. Yeah, I'll get right on that. Let me get my mask back on. Well, Tom, you've been very generous with your time and we're sharing your thoughts. This is the closing minutes here. What are your last thoughts?

Well, I'm going to ask a favor of the fans and that would be, you know, listen, we're getting hit by, as far as I'm concerned, a judge that is as crooked as can be. I'm getting sanctioned on a case that I charged zero for and not only charged zero, but I didn't even track my hours because I wasn't going after attorney speeds. I was just trying to help some small businesses. We're getting hit on a lot of fronts and we are looking for help. If anybody's willing to support us, give, send, go slash Wren's Law. Give, send, go slash Wren's Law. We've got an update there, lays out what's going on.

I had six licensed attorneys plus myself and the Sixth Circuit have all said I didn't do anything wrong, or at least not what I was accused of. And this guy went ahead anyways. This is actually, from a lawyer's perspective, about as bad as what Trump's dealing with. Whether you like Trump or not, this case was terrible. And so we are looking for help at GiveSendGo slash RentsLaw for anybody that's willing. What was the first part of it? You kind of ran that all together. Yeah.

It's a www.give, send, go. It's kind of like go fund me, but it's give, send, go. Yeah. Give, send, go. Give, send, go. Slash rents law. Slash rents law. One word.

Rent's law. One word. All right, Tom. we're going to keep fighting keep fighting the good fight hopefully I know a lot of fans are here watching

and I'm watching the restream and they appreciate you and they appreciate what you're trying to do and raising questions and trying to hold the hand of the fire to get some answers

to a lot of funky funky material that's flying around. And we're all just trying to understand what we've been through. And I don't know about you, but I can't get over what the government did. And so I'd like some answers, and I'd like it not to happen again. Ask Dr. Drew is produced by Caleb Nation and Susan Pinsky.

As a reminder, the discussions here are not a substitute for medical care, diagnosis, or treatment. This show is intended for educational and informational purposes only. I am a licensed physician, but I am not a replacement for your personal doctor, and I am not practicing medicine here. Always remember that our understanding of medicine and science is constantly evolving. Though my opinion is based on the information that is available to me today, some of the contents of this show could be outdated in the future. Be sure to check with trusted resources in case any of the information has been updated since this was published. If you or someone you know is in immediate danger, don't call me.

Call 911. If you're feeling hopeless or suicidal, call the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline at 800-273-8255. You can find more of my recommended organizations and helpful resources at drdrew.com slash help.