Ask Dr. Drew - UK Regulator: Pfizer CEO “Misled” Parents About mRNA COVID Vaccine w/ Molly Kingsley – Ask Dr. Drew – Episode 182

Episode Date: February 23, 2023

“The chaos and disruption inflicted on today’s generation of schoolchildren is unmatched in any previous era,” Molly Kingsley wrote in The Daily Mail. ••「 LINKS FROM EPISODE: https://drdrew.com/2102023 」•• The UK mother, faced with constant COVID lockdowns and school closures, pleaded for authorities to realize the grave harm they were causing to children – a generation that was falling behind in their education even though their risk from the pandemic was far below any other age group. Molly Kingsley is a co-founder of UsForThem, a parent campaign group formed in May 2020 to advocate against school closures during the COVID-19 pandemic. Follow her at https://twitter.com/lensiseethrough and https://twitter.com/usforthemUK. 「 SPONSORED BY 」 • BIRCH GOLD - Don’t let your savings lose value. You can own physical gold and silver in a tax-sheltered retirement account, and Birch Gold will help you do it. Claim your free, no obligation info kit from Birch Gold at https://birchgold.com/drew • GENUCEL - Using a proprietary base formulated by a pharmacist, Genucel has created skincare that can dramatically improve the appearance of facial redness and under-eye puffiness. Genucel uses clinical levels of botanical extracts in their cruelty-free, natural, made-in-the-USA line of products. Get 10% off with promo code DREW at https://genucel.com/drew 「 MEDICAL NOTE 」 The CDC states that "the i-word" and "the h-word" are not effective for the treatment or prevention of COVID-19. The CDC states that COVID-19 vaccines are safe, effective, and reduce your risk of severe illness. Hundreds of millions of people have received a COVID-19 vaccine, and serious adverse reactions are uncommon. Portions of this program may examine countervailing views on important medical issues. You should always consult your personal physician before making any decisions about your health. 「 ABOUT the SHOW 」 Ask Dr. Drew is produced by Kaleb Nation (https://kalebnation.com) and Susan Pinsky (https://twitter.com/firstladyoflove). This show is for entertainment and/or informational purposes only, and is not a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. 「 GEAR PROVIDED BY 」 • BLUE MICS - Find your best sound at https://drdrew.com/blue • ELGATO - See how Elgato's lights transformed Dr. Drew's set: https://drdrew.com/sponsors/elgato/ 「 ABOUT DR. DREW 」 For over 30 years, Dr. Drew has answered questions and offered guidance to millions through popular shows like Celebrity Rehab (VH1), Dr. Drew On Call (HLN), Teen Mom OG (MTV), and the iconic radio show Loveline. Now, Dr. Drew is opening his phone lines to the world by streaming LIVE from his home studio. Watch all of Dr. Drew's latest shows at https://drdrew.tv Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Thank you for joining us on this special, special stream. It's a different day, a different time. We are organized around UK timeframes. Our guest today is in the United Kingdom, and so we wanted to give her a reasonable time to be interviewed here. And she is somebody that I caught on social media and I thought it would be very interesting to speak to her. She is Molly Kingsley, the co-founder of Us4Them, a parent campaign group formed in May 2020 to advocate against school closures, of course, during the pandemic. She has said, quote, the chaos and disruption inflicted on today's generation of school children is unmatched in any previous era. I think certainly in the modern era, that's certainly true. She said that in the Daily Mail. She's a mom and she was faced

with constant lockdowns and school closures and has been pleading with authorities to realize the consequences, the risk reward, which is what we kept asking about throughout the pandemic, of their actions. So she's had some success recently. I want to hear an update on what she's doing and you will too. Let's get right to it. Before you kill people. I am a clinician. I observe things about these chemicals. Let's just deal with what's real. We used to get these calls on Loveline all the time. Educate adolescents and to prevent and to treat. If you have trouble, you can't stop and you want to help stop it, I can help. I got a lot to say.

I got a lot more to say. We'll be right back. favorite player or your style. There's something every NBA fan will love about BetMGM. Download the app today and discover why BetMGM is your basketball home for the season. Raise your game to the next level this year with BetMGM. A sportsbook worth a slam dunk. An authorized gaming partner of the NBA. BetMGM.com for terms and conditions. Must be 19 years of age or older to wager. Ontario only. Please play responsibly.

If you have any questions or concerns about your gambling or someone close to you, please contact Connex Ontario at 1-866-531-2600 to speak to an advisor free of charge. BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with iGaming Ontario.

Whether you own a bustling hair salon or a hot new bakery you need business insurance that can keep up with your evolving needs with flexible coverage options from tv insurance you only pay for what you need td ready for you and there seems to be a lot of activity swirling around today regarding our interview with naomi wolf yesterday as well as the ron johnson interview from the day before. A lot of provocative things said. People who always are on me to push back harder.

I have no frame to push back on some of those political sort of ideas that particularly say Naomi was putting forward or some of the environment, let's just call them bureaucratic observations of Ron Johnson. We'll see. We will see. So I just think it's important to put ideas out there. And as you know, I hope all, if not most, of what Naomi Wolf was talking about is wrong. I hope that in the most sincerest way.

But my experience with her has taught me, be careful. She has a way of sort of drilling into the truth, if not completely, but at least to some degree. And so my experience with Naomi is to sort of sit by and let's see how things play out. So today, as I said, is a very interesting guest. Her name is Molly Kingsley. She is an author, a former lawyer, co-founder of Us For Them. It's a parent campaign group formed in 520, advocating against school closures, amongst other things. She also has some other interesting ideas about screens, which they have adopted an orientation towards screens that I said would arrive one day was less deleterious less damaging than screens will have been to generations uh amongst us so let's bring in molly kingsley molly welcome to

the program hi drew thank you so much for having me on it's a privilege so so tell us just give a sketch out for us the landscape in england and united kingdom uh as i told you before the mics heated up i i have some exposure to it really through john campbell who has been questioning and advocating and all the while with the you know extraordinarily dry british wit that is such a pleasure to watch uh you know sort of uh ironically stating things in such a way as he keeps his YouTube channel on the air and live, but clearly saying that there's some major problems here that the government should be looking into. And it seems like you've had some success. So talk to me about what you saw

and what you've done and where you are now. Yeah, I mean, I guess I would preface it by saying it's all relative. So I think, you know, whenever I've spoken to colleagues and parents in America, I guess, yeah, we have had some success by comparison in that it hasn't been as bad generally for kids here as it seems to have been in at least certain states there. But, you know, it is relative. And I guess maybe if I just talk a little bit about like where we came in perhaps and kind of where we are now. Absolutely. Perfect. Perfect. Yes. So us for them formed, as I think you said, in May 2020. And on the day we formed, there were three of us and we were just worried parents. And actually, it was this would have been about six weeks into school closures in the UK.

And the trigger was actually less the school closures, because, of course, we were all being told then that, you know, it will only be it will be short term. It will only be another few weeks and we'll get them back. And, you know, we were worried about that. But actually, the conversation had begun to move to what school would look like when the kids went back and my kids at the time were very little I had a three-year-old and a six-year-old they would have been then and there was this like new term in town social distancing you know what an oxymoron that turned out to be but at the time there was this really quite shocking photo flying around the internet naturally Naturally, it was a playground in France and it showed nursery age school kids.

And they were in this very urban, very concrete playground. And they were in, you know, each child, two, three years old, no older, was sitting in a delineated box, a kind of two by two square box with no other child, no adult near it. And I think, you know, the children in the photo would have been about the same age as my youngest at the time and kind of drew an intake of breath. And something I think just very instinctive as a parent spoke to me seeing this photo, I was like, this is wrong. You know, like whatever it, however we get these kids back to school, it is not in two by two meter squares denying them contact with their friends. And I wrote a blog post and the blog post, I put it up on Twitter, as you do. And I was lucky in that a relatively prominent journalist, another parent in the UK, retweeted it.

And it turned out there are a lot of parents that share these concerns. And I think until that moment there had not really been any pushback there'd not been any questioning of school closures and of you know this this thing social distancing that was beginning to be talked about and very very quickly we just we formed a campaign we got that live and um within you know the first week, probably our little band of three became hundreds and then thousands. And it just, I guess, mobilized parents who, like us, were really, really worried that children appeared to have been forgotten, actually, in the pandemic response. You know, who was thinking about the kids here and the fact they were out of school, the fact that, you know, children need socialization and they need friends and they need routine and normality. And that was really how.

Molly, Molly, let me, let me stop you. Let me stop you right there because there's so much to unpack what you've said already. How could you forget that children need school and nurturing and socialization. They didn't forget it. They were in some sort of a state where it didn't matter. Literally, they seemed unable to make a risk reward assessment of their so-called non-pharmacological interventions. That to me was and remains astonishing, astonishing. The idea of potential harms done did not seem to enter their consciousness, or at least they were in such a hysteria that they had trouble considering that as a major issue relative to the hysterical phenomenon they were presented with. Do you agree with that so far? Absolutely agree. And I think we were desperately naive. I mean, we had no experience of policy

making of politics. And we did genuinely think this was an oversight. And the first letter we wrote to the government, you know, it was a very detailed to my background was as a lawyer, and we very quickly actually lawyers found us because, you know, they picked up the point that you've just made, they said, you you know this is this is not proportionate governance this is unreasonable you know in uk law you have standards even in a pandemic even in an emergency you know governments are meant to act reasonably they're meant to act proportionately and they're meant to weigh up harms and benefits you can't know if you're acting proportionately unless you know what the harms are and what benefits are and you've made some kind of value

judgment about those. So it was very clear that hadn't been done and we actually threatened to take the government's court over it. We sent what's called a pre-action letter here which was, you know, this would have been a few weeks after we were originally formed, setting out in a lot of legal detail this lack of harm benefit and what the impact was on children and their education. And, you know, it's very hard to know what impact you have, but it was a few weeks after that. You can reasonably predict, reasonable people, as you say, reasonable people would predict

that this is not a good thing. I shared with Molly my feelings about the Ukrainian women coming to Poland demanding that schools start immediately because kids have been out of school for two whole weeks, like unthinkable, out of school for two weeks, as you were into God knows how many months, and we went on for two years in many states. But now let's go back to the action, the safety uberalis policies that they had. Are you aware that the term social distancing, as we know it now, really has never existed in medicine? It's just not a term that you'll find in any infectious disease textbook. And that the six feet or two meters, as you say, was invented out of whole cloth one day in a

conference room in Washington, completely made up. They were trying to decide between one meter and let's see, 10 meters, no, no, 20 meters. They were trying to say between three feet and 60 feet and they had no evidence whatsoever that any of that was useful or what the frame ought to be for so-called social distancing are you aware of that yeah i think we were i think someone told us about that you know two years ago at the time and it's you know they they talked a lot here about following the science and actually it turned out they were making up the science as they went along no science no science follow the scientists scientific bureaucrats follow the bureaucrats Actually, it turned out they were making up the science as they went along. No science. No science.

Follow the scientists and scientific bureaucrats. Follow the bureaucrats. That's really what it is. Follow the bureaucracy. Follow the bureaucracy. And I think the problem, particularly with some of these measures, and social distancing, I think, is a good example because it's, and masks are another I would put in this bucket. Absolutely. I would put in this bucket. You know, something that whether or not there was any basis in science for these measures working, it was so obvious that it was so damaging to children and children's health.

And I remember actually my eldest at the time when they did get back to school and it was all socially distant. And she came back and she showed me what they'd been made to do in the playground at school. And, you know, apparently the teachers were going around with holding their arms like this. You can't see because the screen will cut me out, but, you know, saying you can't get near your friends. You've got to do helicopter arms, helicopter arms. And you think, really? And of course, out of doors, out of doors where there have been, well, two documented transmissions on the globe, two documented outdoor transmissions documented in China. So maybe apocryphal.

We know we can't rely on anything coming out of there now. But it was two women that had spent 10 minutes at close proximity talking for a period of time, and there was a transmission. Very unusual out of doors, like unheard of when there's moving air. Now, so we have insanity all around. We have masking and social distancing so-called and six feet pulled out of the air. Kids being harmed without any concern seemingly whatsoever. And you went, did you have any luck appealing to the government? Here you would have been crushed. You would have been told that you're somebody interested in killing people.

You're a murderer. And you were interested in killing teachers. And don't you see our own Supreme Court justice, Sotomayor, on the bench when interviewing an attorney said, what are we supposed to do here? There's hundreds of thousands of children on ventilators. So that's the perception of our government. There was maybe a few children on ventilators, maybe a dozen, maybe hundreds of thousands was the perception of our government. They literally lost their minds. And the insanity ensued, it seemed like, and you tell me if you agree with this, after our public health officials visited China during their initial lockdowns in Wuhan and were convinced, convinced the wrong work, hoodwinked, lied to by the Chinese scientists that their political intervention, not medical

intervention of lockdown, political intervention, let's be clear about that. It was not, there was no doctor telling them to do that. It was Chinese Communist Party leaders trying to save face. The political maneuver of lockdown, we became convinced was how it ought to go. We told Italy to proceed. And then it seemed like everybody else followed in line, line and verse. Why? Why did everybody jump in? Was it a mass hysteria? What happened to your leaders? I kind of understand what happened to ours now. I've been dismantling it very carefully. What happened to yours? I mean, the same. You know, the narrative changed very suddenly. So if you look back,

and we did it, you know, for when we wrote the book, and actually since then, we have poured over the minutes of the advisory committees to the government. And I'll get my dates wrong if I attempt to give you exact dates, but there was a point at which the narrative changed so actually our government looked like they you know they were making noises about keeping things open keeping the economy running keeping schools open and then suddenly in that you know fateful week the end of March mid-end of March everything changed and the narrative went to closing everything down and I think to your point you know, the abuse that you got if you argued against it, I mean, luckily we were totally unprepared for it, but we absolutely got that abuse.

So, you know, the first time we had something in one of the mainstream papers here, I think we thought we'd be held up as heroes for arguing that kids should be in school. And, you know, we looked at the comments on this piece and there were thousands of comments and the vast majority were, you know, these three selfish women,

these, yeah, exactly, granny killers, you know, they just want, they want babysitting. What are they thinking about? You know, it's their problem. They decided to have kids. We've heard that so much. And I think it's very lucky we weren't prepared for that, because I'm pretty sure we wouldn't have done it. And that's been a continuous feature of this. I mean, that kind of level

of trolling and abuse has followed, and not just me and not just us for them. But you know, as you know, anyone that has put their head above the parapet has attracted that kind of vitriolic hatred, actually. And i don't understand where that comes from so i understand you might have a difference of opinion but actually surely you can see particularly for those of us advocating for children you know our motives are to look after our children and i think you know it's i still don't understand it actually you know where where why has it become so polarised? But yeah, going back to your question,

the government very quickly fell into lockstep with pretty much every other nation, apart from Sweden, in imposing these blanket, indiscriminatory, mandatory lockdowns. And that really is something that was just anathema to our, you know, what we would have said was our status as a liberal democracy. And I think many of us have been left

profoundly shaken, actually, because it turns out that the line between a democracy and, you know, something that isn't really a democracy is far thinner and far less stable, I think, than we had thought. Aidan McCullen, Ph. had thought. So hold on. So your brain goes right where my brain goes. So now what? We've discovered this.

I've discovered a lot of things during this pandemic. I've discovered things about my profession. I discovered things about bureaucracies, but I also remain deeply concerned about what I learned about certain wrinkles in, for instance, our Constitution and seemingly with your government's ability to respond certain ways, as you said, in a crisis that may be unreasonable by any measure, that there's no process, due process to it. There's no way of justifying what their actions are. What do we do? Do we have to sue the government? Do we have to just elect new officials? I don't quite know what the action is. Do we need, does this country need a state-by-state amendment to try to fill in those wrinkles i i can't figure out what to do but it seems profound that something's got to be done i literally lie in bed at night thinking

about these questions and i think there are a lot of people who are thinking like this now and you know we are in touch with some of them because i think if there's a learning that i have if there's one thing actually that I've learned during this period, you know, I never expect to be in the position of campaigning or at all politicised. I guess I was in that very lucky category who's, you know, my life was not directly touched by politics. Like I was okay, my family was okay, my kids were okay.

The UK seemed like a decent place to bring up kids. And I guess what I've learned, and I think a lot of parents have learned, is that our political structures are broken. You know, our freedom was illusionary. Our children just fell through fault lines. You know, there was no one in policy looking out for children. And I think there still isn't. And I think you layer that over long-standing problems affecting children which is probably a slightly different issue but I think when you look at this in the round you think well actually you know what do we do now I either we kind of say well the pandemic's over and we'll go back to having our you know trying

to pretend this didn't happen and having the life we had or you you think actually, once you've seen it, there are so many things here that need radical structural reform, if we're going to leave our children the future we thought we were leaving them. So I think it does need radical reform. And I think you've still got to hope that we are living in democracies in the, you know, I guess the ultimate safeguard in a democracy is that you can vote out your incumbent government. And that obviously supposes freedom of the press, a lack of censorship, that the population have been given accurate information about the government on which to make good decisions. I think all of those things are heavily, heavily in question in the UK, actually. I think, you know, it's a different issue, but the level of censorship and the ability of the population to live within a lie, I think, has been eye opening. But I guess ultimately you've got to think, well, you know, there will be a general election and that's kind of stage one.

And hopefully from the ashes of what has happened you know a new movement or a new wing of a party or new party come form but I think really if you know there are I hope a growing number of people that see the need for wholesale reform yeah I interviewed a woman yesterday and by the way I see Dr. James Thorpe is in my Twitter spaces here, and I want to get him in. I assume he has some questions for you. He's somebody I've interviewed in the past, and I'll take a break a little bit early so we can get him up to the podium here.

But I interviewed a woman yesterday that believes there's a certain amount of capture by the Chinese Communist Party, and that that is somehow adulterating what's going on here. So, you know, on one hand, there might be something horrific like that going on. On the other, it may just be literally weaknesses in the system that need to be solved. I don't, I'm very fearful that just more politicians are going to kind of, you know what I mean, they're going to just sort of move on. And there's no motivation to change things unless there's some sort of accountability lawsuits, something, some, you know, I know how my profession works. When you put doctors in jail, when you criminally go

after them for their behavior, that's when they, everybody changes their behavior. That's when they get the message. So it makes me wonder, should something like that be, unfortunately, I don't like the idea of that, but should somebody that's something like that be, unfortunately, I don't like the idea of that, but should something like that be aimed at some of these people that have gone overboard with the excesses? So, okay, there are a few things I think to pick there. So I agree with that. I think we have a problem in the UK in that we are not yet at a stage where the very profound and fundamental nature of some of these breaches is recognized in the mainstream. To the contrary, it is suppressed. So to give you an example, what we have here by way of a reckoning is a COVID inquiry. It is an inquiry set up by

the establishment. It's very early days, and I don't want to prejudge it, but looking at who that, you know, the official inquiry, looking at who are the key participants in that inquiry, it seems relatively likely that it will be a whitewash. So then you have to ask, well, you know, what is the mechanism even for discussing what was done? And, you know, again, there's many different facets of that to unpick. But, you know, just looking at it, you don't have to go beyond children to understand, to your point earlier, that, you know, this lack of evaluation of cost and benefit, it was reckless.

It was reckless. And actually that in itself is worthy of accountability. And then if you layer on top of that, all the emerging issues in terms of, you know, the pharmaceutical interventions and the lack of informed consent and the coercion that is accompanied that, I think you are looking at something that is incredibly serious potentially. And yes, there absolutely has to be accountability, but we have no discussion of that here.

Yeah, I'm afraid that's the way it's going to have to go. So that is what I want to get into after the break. I want to get Dr. Thorpe up here. You've been quoted as having said the Pfizer CEO misled parents. You put a post up to that effect, and I think that's where we can start that conversation. But that will be after the break. Let's take a quick break, and we'll get Dr. Thorpe up here, and we'll get your conversation about the pharmaceutical interventions after this. Not sure how to say I love you this Valentine's Day?

Well, nothing says I love you more than a few minutes of relaxation, and GenuCell Skin Care does just that. Gives you the luxury gift of feeling like you spent the entire day in the spa, all while in fact in the comfort of your own home. Susan loves to feel pampered and special, especially on Valentine's Day. So why not relax with a detoxifying mask and feel amazing after only one use? 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. Retinols, vitamin C cream, under eye cream, night creams. And then when I get to the counter, they're overpriced. All kinds of products that you can all find at GenuCell.com. I've fallen in love with this product at a fraction of the price. I've been using GenuCell for six months now, and I'm very impressed. GenuCell's mask works wonders by pulling out all of your imperfections to make you feel refreshed and looking like you just stepped out of a facial appointment. Order the Dr. Drew package today and try this amazing mask for free. That's right, every single Dr. Drew and Susan package includes a free mask to celebrate you and your loved one on this

Valentine's Day. Go to Genucel.com slash Drew and enter code Drew for an extra 10% off your entire purchase. Plus, all orders are upgraded to priority shipping for free. That's Genucel.com slash Drew, G-E-N-U-C-E-L.com slash D-R-E-W. Despite the U.S. blowing through the $31.4 trillion debt ceiling this January, the White House and the government still refuses to reduce spending. When it comes to fiscal responsibility, you can't afford to bury your head in the sand. Now would be a great time to consider gold with Birch Gold. In times of high uncertainty and instability, gold is king.

Birch Gold makes it easy to convert an IRA or 401k into an IRA in precious metals. Here's what you need to do. Visit birchgold.com to claim your free information kit, the info kit on gold, and then talk to one of their precious metals specialists. Think about this. To dig our country out of this mountain of debt. Every single taxpayer in the country would have to write a check for $247,000. And of course they're not, so it's only getting worse. Protect yourself with gold today by visiting birchgold.com slash drew. That is B-I-R-C-H gold.com slash drew. With an A-plus rating with the Better Business Bureau, thousands of happy customers, and countless five-star reviews, you can trust birch gold to protect your future here's what i want you to do visit birchgold.com slash true today

we are back again uh thank you all for being here of course i'm speaking with molly kingsley in united kingdom right now and her it is uh what nine or almost 10 o'clock at night there 9 30 something like that uh 8 30 i guess and uh so your kids are running a mock while mom is busily trying to trying to save the world here um i've got dr thorpe here uh i saw you there james uh what do you have to say for us sometimes a little delay before people can get up to the podium here uh it's connecting right now yeah it says you're still connecting okay and then they have to unmute the mic once they get up there so give it a second yeah spaces is a little bit glitchy i gotta say especially as this is if you're in a

large spaces oh no he left is that right you're having a tech issue on his side you had it correct but he's still coming up he had he's probably resetting his app right now there's been all sorts of issues with twitter the last few days yeah i've noticed that as they try to like make their their algorithms more sane they've gone uh off the rail a little bit so so molly let's go for to your comments first before i get dr thorpe back up here about the uh miss having been misled by, uh, Pfizer and, and, oh, wait, Dr. Thorpe is now here. Uh, go ahead, Dr. Thorpe. Goodness, this is so glitchy. I apologize. There you are. Dr. Drew, can you hear me? There you are, sir. How are you? Oh, I'm so blessed. Uh, thank you very much for having me on your platform.

What a tremendous show. Thank you. Did you have a comment for us? I just have really appreciated your interaction. And I don't really have anything that I wanted to bring up new, except I really appreciated the opportunity to listen to you interview your last visitor. It was awesome. It was crazy. I mean, and I don't mean crazy in a technical sense or clinical sense. I mean, it's just wild to consider these things.

I mean, I feel many times in the last two, three years that I live in the upside down. I just, I'm through the looking glass. And so as a result, I become open to ideas that I would have been just, I would have been very dismissive of six months ago even. But we all have to think about these things to make sure we get to the truth. Well, Dr. Drew, I really commend you. I think that, you know, I'd like to just honor you in the sense that you're one of the few, I think, academics, if I will, that can look at data and have the ethical and intellectual integrity to change your opinion or do an academic change, if you will. And that is a very rare asset. That's wild to me. That's a stunning, that's another one of the stunning realizations of the pandemic. I was trained as a real scientist in basic scientific method, and I was trained to constantly update. I guess I was trained as a – oh, crap.

What's the kind of – a Bayesian reasoning. I was always trained in Bayesian reasoning, and as such, I'm adjusting constantly, constantly. And the other thing I do that I would urge everybody to do, don't buy anything anybody says in whole cloth. Try to be careful and skeptical. And always consider the other point of view. One thing, James, I end up doing a lot of time is, like Dr. Walensky today went on a whole rampage about pediatric vaccination. And I feel like I must be missing something. How she can say some of the things she said, I don't understand. Therefore, I must be missing something. So I'm watching carefully to see what it is I'm missing.

Well, that's exactly what we should be doing as scientists. And I really respect and honor you for doing that. You know, I really put you in the category, and hopefully this won't offend you, but I put you in the category of, you know, stalwarts like, for example, Dr. Asim Mahaltra or even Steve Kirsch. I know he's not a doctor, but so what I, I'm kind of a ploy to get on here. What I wanted to do is honor you with a personal honor that I only give out to a few people. You have been formally inducted into the Royal Society of Veritas Librivit Vos. And that is our society that I'm handing out to only selected individuals like yourself that are only 1% of the population of professionals that can actually look at data, say, hey, I think I was wrong and need to readjust. So you're in there with some

really stalwart people like Asim Mahaltra, like Peter McCullough, like Mr. Steve Kirsch. So congratulations. Well, thank you, James. I appreciate the honor and I appreciate all the work you have done. And Pursuit of the Truth is all we're trying to get at here that's that's it so to that to that point let's get back to thank you james uh back to molly uh and what you were talking about in your pursuit of the understanding of some of the recommendations from the pfizer group yeah and i mean i guess maybe the back drop to this and i think you just said this as well, like living in the inverse. So there's that great Macbeth quote, isn't there? You know, the fair is foul and foul is fair. And I think particularly when it comes to the vaccination of kids with a product that had, you know, at least at the time it was originally rolled out to the kids, no long-term safety data. I guess I don't understand how those of us advocating for the, you know, wait and see, not yet, you know, do these kids really need this

product? How we suddenly became the extremists because that is what has happened here. You know, that became the unreasonable and the outlandish position to take. And I still don't understand that, actually, because it seems to me it is the most reasonable position. Right, I agree. To be moderate is somehow, somehow anathema right now. But to your point, the reason, this is what a lot of people don't quite understand, there isn't safety data for kids,

is the incidence of serious consequence from COVID in children is so remote that you can't get a study big enough to show a difference between adverse event from COVID and adverse and positive and adverse event from the vaccine. You can't get an N big enough to do that study. You would need millions and millions of children to get a few improvements. And so this is why moderate wait and see seems like a very reasonable thing because there's no downside. You're not risking anything. And we know the vaccine doesn't prevent infection. It doesn't prevent transmission. So what is it we would be doing? This is what I mentioned to Dr. Walensky a few minutes ago to Dr. Thorpe. This is the part where I'm thinking I must be missing something.

I must be. And for instance, one of the things I've contemplated, Molly, is that the risk-reward diathesis for a pediatric-trained individual perhaps is different than somebody trained as an adult doctor, right? We take a lot of risk all the time, and maybe the risk of anybody getting seriously ill on the pediatric population has such implication, such high value, and I agree it should, that you're willing to take risks to prevent that, if that makes sense, right? And so I'm wondering if it's just my thinking doesn't go the same as a pediatrician. What do you say to that?

I think when you look through the detail of the decisions here, and again, so the regulatory context here is we have the MHRA, which is the body that approves a drug for safety. And then separately, we have a body called the JCVI, and they are effectively the government's own vaccine advisory panel. So they make the decision about whether a particular drug is rolled out en masse to a population. And when you look at the detail of those decisions relating to the COVID vaccine for children, it is incredibly hard to discern benefit. And actually, in the UK, I think we were a little bit different to other nations, including the USA, in that the JCVI here, when the question of whether to roll out the vaccine to kids was first looked at,

that was July 21, and actually our vaccine panel said, no, we're not gonna roll this out to kids. And actually in declining that, they made a very interesting comment, and they said that there are too many, and I'm paraphrasing here, it's not the exact quote, but they basically said there are too many unknown unknowns'm paraphrasing here it's not the exact quote they basically said there are too many that unknown unknowns you know that we don't know that's right there is that's right literally unknown

unknowns that's right and it is and like and and they have you know the table setting out benefits and you would have had to vaccinate you know in fact I think I did write down the unit about 1 million doses for 12 to 15-year-olds would have prevented just over two in, you know, ICUs, so serious pediatric hospitalizations. So let's look at that data. Let's examine that data. Now, in adult medicine, that would have been no. That would have been a no.

But is that something that in a pediatric group, somebody would go, well, we don't see any, we have unknown unknowns, but we seem to be safe and effective, safe and effective. They've convinced themselves it's safe and effective. And we can talk about, obviously, all day whether that's accurate or not. But if they really convince themselves it's safe and effective, and they're going to save two ICU beds per million children, it starts to kind of make sense. So to me, it's the willingness to accept unknown unknownsouts. This was for the 12 to 15 year olds, and this was over the summer of 21. And they said, actually, the margin of benefit versus the unknown unknowns is too small. We're not going to do it. They then did something very, very unorthodox because the climate at the time, as you probably are aware, was this one of

escalating political pressure. The politicians were desperate to get these jabs in the kids arms so they did not know why what what what was that why i it that's again i want to understand what if i can understand that i can maybe make sense of things but i don't understand the excessive enthusiasm i neither do i think i find that the most sinister aspect of all of this because it was is it sinister is it hysteria is it chinese capture is it pfizer capture is it just dumb what what all the above well i think there's a theory i'm sure we'll probably come on to it i think there's a really big question mark about regulatory and big pharma capture of our governments, of our broadcasters, of our regulators. So I think that is a real

question. It made no sense to many of us, particularly as some of these very same ministers who by summer 21 were so desperate to jab the kids, had themselves said six months or nine months before that, you know, this is an adult only vaccine. We will not be vaccinating not at risk groups like this is what they had said. Even with that pressure, our vaccine advisory panel would not recommend it for mass paediatric use. They wouldn't do it. But they shirked it. And what they did is they gave a get out to our chief medical officers. They effectively are the most senior government medics. And they said, you know, we're washing our hands of this effectively. But if the chief medical officers

want to effectively overrule us, they can do so. And what then happened, and it was really, really weird, is the chief medical officers overruled the vaccine experts and said, well, we hear what the vaccine experts have said, but we're going to do it anyway. And they constructed artificial benefits to legitimize that. So what they said is, well, if we don't vaccinate kids, there'll be lots of school closures i mean this made no sense because obviously school closures were a political policy decision so and they went ahead and did it and i think i think that was the moment at which a lot of us lost faith that um well in public health actually you know something shattered

then because oh my god yes. I've lost faith. I was back with the masks and the mandates where I lost it. And, you know, it's interesting, a couple things. I mean, when I hear stories like that, it makes me think, is there something about COVID that these people know that we don't know? Is there something horrible about this infection that they're not sharing with us? I'm not seeing it. I don't know.

So it makes me, again, I want to understand what their thinking is. I mean, what is going into that crazy thinking? Is there something we don't know? Number one, and I was going to tell you a story when I was doing some broadcasting during the pandemic, and I was there in the studio when the LA County decided to shut its schools down. And, um, I was school board member came in and he announced it. And I said, what infect, who did you consult with to make this decision? Did some infectious disease expert come in and tell you to do this? Who was the, what's his name, her name, who was telling you nobody, we just think it's the right thing to do. That's the level of insanity we were into at the time.

Nobody told them to do it. Nobody with expertise felt it was the right thing to do. And yet we were swept into it. Now, in terms of the the the situation with the vaccine in the UK, hasn't it been rolled back a little bit very recently or did I misread that? Oh, I mean, it's not very clear. You're rolling you're rolling your eyes i mean i think they're trying to quietly retreat into the hedges um yeah so it has been rolled back but certainly the boosters for adults i believe next week um for for non-risk groups are being rolled back the kids can still get it they're certainly not pushing it in the way they were.

Neither have they come out and done what other countries, I believe Denmark, I think maybe Norway, have said actually kids can't get it. So we're not yet at that stage. But yes, it has been quiet. Well, there's good news. Molly, good news. Today, my understanding is the U.S.

has put it on their mandated vaccines for pediatric patients or their vaccine schedule for pediatric patients, which next step will be in order to go to school, you have to have this. Now, what it effectively does is continue the vaccine without any liability for Pfizer. So they're able now to give it and not worry about the liability. Now, perhaps because they have no liability, we'll be able to get at the truth now. It's one possible outcome here. But the fact that it's on its way to the schedule with measles and mumps and

everything else is sort of extraordinary. I find that incredible. And I think parents Sorry, go on. Go ahead. There was such tremendous pushback here, you know, from us, but actually from a lot of other parents too. And it became quite evident, I think, as they moved down the age groups, you had this very unorthodox

decision for the 12 to 15 year olds. They then moved down to the five to 11 year olds. And that has been rejected on mass by parents. And there were it never became mandated or outright coercive in the way that I know has been there for the kids. There would I mean, I think that would have been riots. I really do. And I don't think that's an exaggeration. And I think David Fubini, Ph.D.: by the way, I that would be I would I would contemplate that to be evidence of goodness and greatness amongst the population of the UK. I found it very attractive. I don't know if you're aware of the French youth were in the streets a year and a half ago with the same complaint, which was you're you know, you've told us this thing is not going to kill us, not going to harm us.

And you're going to force us to take a vaccine. That's not Li not liberté. No, no. That's a founding principle of this country you're violating. Now, it's interesting to me that the French young people were able to draw that line, and yet the same line was crossed in Great Britain and in the U.S. seemingly without, not only without pushback, but with people crushing anybody who did pushback, which is super odd, super crazy. Are you still under any heat? Are you being seen now more as somebody with a rational approach? No, I mean, we get huge pushback still, including actually from, you know, there are quite eminent academics and, you know, experts in the US, actually, who really seem to have a thing about us. And you just like, we just have to ignore it. You know, let them do their thing. What is the, just so I know what, who, who is getting on you and what is their sort of orientation that you're not going to analyze university who really

don't like us but you know and i see it i block it now or i don't you know i try not to look at it it's upsetting actually because they say the most horrible thing you know extreme anti-vaxxers and i mean this is just not labeled i ever you know i had all my vaccines my kid just had all my vaccines how can i be an anti-backer it makes no sense yeah but there you go. Yeah, it's creating strange bedfellows. And the U.S. right now, because of the narcissistic turn of so many of the population, everything is viewed as all one way or all the other way. And that is pathological thinking. People need to recognize it for that. It is pathological.

You need to be able to hold two ideas in mind. It is possible to have a nuanced opinion about a lot of these things. And it doesn't mean you're anti or pro anything. It means you're trying to get to the truth. So disgusting. It's disgusting to me. And I personally am totally prepared to be wrong. I'm trying to find my way through this.

I mean, maybe you are overdoing it, Molly. Maybe you are. i don't know um but it doesn't doesn't the evidence is sort of as i sort of take it in does not seem that it's pointing that direction it's in fact pointing out i really hope we are wrong actually because you know this this product has been given in its millions of doses to children and that is not not a nice well and let's let's let's let's moderate ourselves for a second and say you know look it for the most part it does seem to be quite safe and not effective in the sense that we were originally told it was effective but it seems to at least in adults reduce like i i've been treating some very complex COVID cases lately, people with tuberculosis on multiple medications where Paxlovid is going to cause horrible liver problems.

And the fact that these people, often over the age of 75, were vaccinated gave me great solace. It really helped me make decisions about what I was going to do because I couldn't use the things I wanted to use because they were more dangerous than the illness itself in a vaccinated individual in that age group. It really has helped the very elderly patients. It just has. And I keep defending that over and over again.

And there may be the same risk there for the elderly that we're all concerned about, but the benefit is far greater. This is the whole point. Now, if there is more risk in the young people and there is not the need for it because there's not so much benefit to be gleaned, that's where it's a problem. And we need to be super careful about that and super clear about that. That is medicine 101. Do no harm. that is it and if we are in a situation where we're getting limited benefit and more harm than we anticipated that is a time to stop

and really think about the fact that we harm patients when we do too much which is very common in medicine terribly common i think most people are kind of aware of that now, but they think about that in adult medicine, not so much in pediatric patients. To be fair, again, mostly safe and effective, but whether that safe and effective is in proper balance relative to risk is what we're really talking about here. And that's why it's so interesting to me that just to talk about that becomes anathema again. You've said it yourself. I think this is exactly right. I think the age and risk stratification varied greatly. And that was a conversation that actually, it was had, and this is what I find so confusing, that conversation was had and it sounded like a

decision, the right decision, I would say, had been made and a sensible decision. And actually the decision not to vaccinate kids for this with this vaccine, to my mind, was sensible because actually what you don't want to do is destroy trust in other vaccines. And I do think, you know, I'm not anti-vax, and I do believe that there are many immunizations that children need. And actually, for me, one of the most worrying things is we do seem, both here and I understand in the US, to have destroyed that bond of trust. And, you know, such has been the misinformation

that has accompanied the true risk benefit for children for this vaccine, it's going to be hard, I think, for parents to trust their governments again when it comes to other things. Look, let me just, let me put a, I want to put it in an even finer point. I fought for the HPV vaccine and I continue to fight for it. I've said on the record many times, there are not enough vaccines around for me and my family. I would take them all. But I held back, for instance, on the chickenpox vaccine for my kids when they were little because it was new and it wasn't really clear. These things are not without risk. It's

just I'm clear that certain ones are quite well worth the risk. But it's odd to me. Here's what's happened to me personally as someone who is vehemently pro-vaccine. I have interviewed and talked to people that are anti-vaccine, and I've become very much more sympathetic to their point of view because of the excesses of this experience. It is going to, I can see easily how it can push people into this anti-vaccine camp. And that is not the fault of the anti-vaccine people. That is the fault of the people who are trying to use vaccines properly. And they should take that responsibility very seriously. Absolutely. And I think it's the censorship as well. I think,

you know, there is no doubt in this country now that the, you know, there are people that have been vaccine injured and that is getting no airtime. It is getting no recognition. And worse than that, worse than that, these people are almost at risk of being shamed're, they're marginalized and shamed overtly here. If they go on social media and tell their story, oh my God. And you and my peers treat them as sort of dismissal. Like, yeah, you'll be fine. You'll be fine. It's in your head. Kind of don't worry about it. And that's the, oh, they are absolutely categorically shamed and marginalized.

All of them. And I mean, this is terrible, isn't it? Because it does, it destroys the balance. It just, there's no equity. Which is a big concern for people over here. And you're right. Well, listen, I feel like we've run the cycle, as they say. You did not disappoint in terms of what it is

I thought you were doing and what was in your mind as you were doing so, and I appreciate everything you've done. You're it, would it be safe to say you're just trying to be rational? You're just trying to use rationality to make good choices, right? That, that would summarize pretty much what you're saying. I think so. And actually, you know, we have been throughout very proud and very careful to be evidence-based. And actually one of our original co-founders had a background

in health economics. So her job was literally weighing up risk and benefit. And that really informed our thinking. And that has stayed with us throughout, you know, where is the benefit? Where is the risk? Is it rational? Is it proportional and none of this hasn't met any of that those standards none of it correct i'm not surprised so going forward what are you doing what's the plan um well i think having had our eyes opened to i think the vested interests which you know having such a negative impacts on children's lives obviously we haven't actually talked about Pfizer but you know we we did make a complaint that was in part successful in here in the UK

again against Pfizer the regulator did find that dr. Borla had made misleading statements and capable of substantiation. And I think that whole process has been eye-opening. I think our team and many of the parents who support us would like us to tackle those vested interests. I think another thing coming out of the pandemic that we as parents feel, just again, it's gone against everything we felt strongly about as parents is remote learning, which is a contradiction in terms, by the way, doesn't exist. You can't teach a child on a smartphone, you shouldn't be trying. And I think, you know, we have seen such an increase in smartphone screen use among kids. That is something we feel very,

very strongly about. You mentioned at the beginning of your show, we have just launched a campaign, very embryonic, but calling the smartphones to be treated in the same way as tobacco, you know, heavily regulated, aggressive health warnings and put out of the reach of children. And again, I think it goes back to a similar issue. It's big corporate interests, in this case, big tech rather than being a big farmer out of control and really really detrimental to children's lives and well-being in some cases no i understand i i feel the same way it just it needs to be under the risks need to be understood and those risks need to be mitig, and those risks need to be mitigated.

It's health 101, everybody. And by the way, it's democracy 101, too, in terms of how we do this. But okay. My question to you in terms of the word embryonic that you used, have you contemplated any satellite embryonic units here in the United States? No, I think we would love to. So we are in touch with a wonderful group called Restore Childhood, a New York-based advocacy group. And only the other day, they've become friends, we were saying, actually, I think the time is now for a more global collective movement. And, you know, I think there is a need.

I think we did quite well in the UK because we got in early. And to an extent, we probably changed the narrative. It was also, I think, easier in the UK because it's only one, well, in England anyway, there's only one legal system. So, you know, we don't have the laws of 50 different jurisdictions to grapple with it was more straightforward yes yes but I do I feel that you know if we can hopefully help to make things a bit better that we would love to do that you know we have a website we have an email address any parent that is worried please do email us you can find that on on our website um that's us for them

us for them.co.uk not not.com it's us for them.co.uk so before i wrap up i want to just push on something one more time because you seem so clear in your thought process and i'm just i'm just trying to get smart people to help me understand what's going on here. I proposed four possibilities about what had happened to us. One is that there's something about COVID that we don't know that governments know. Two is that they just simply have a psychological problem. They got caught into a hysteria that there really were, it's mental illness, let's call it what it is. Three would be pharmaceutical capture, and four would be Chinese Communist Party capture. Those are my four theories about what happened to us. Give me your best thoughts on, are any of those likely?

Are all of those likely? What are your thoughts as you lie quietly in bed at night, worrying about how to take on the public health bureaucracy to me it feels too stupid to be stupid and i don't i don't pretend to know any more than that but these some of these decisions have seemed so egregious and so damaging particularly to children i struggle to see a benign explanation. Now, that might not be a big conspiracy. I don't think I'm necessarily there. I do think that there has been regulatory capture.

I mean, you can see that just from our experience. Whether that accounts for all of it, I don't know. I mean, even before we had thought of a vaccine or that had been on the horizon, the governments were making these terrible decisions. And they were doing so in the face of very loud pushback from some very qualified, eminent people. That's what I don't understand. You know, there were people screaming about harms and about cost benefit and about how some of these decisions seemed beyond reckless. And these people were ignored. And I don't understand that because I don't think government, the people in government are stupid. I don't think they're that stupid. So something has gone very badly wrong.

But, you know, some combination of things. And I think probably most important now is we look and work out where we go from here, because this is not an acceptable political framework in which to bring up children. Like, it's not. I agree. And I love the phrase, too stupid to be stupid. I'm going to use that if you don't mind. I don't think that was my actual call in that from someone else. So I can't remember who.

Okay. Well, I won't quote you, but I'm going to be, it's going to be something that I'm going to have to, it'll stay with me, I assure you. But I'm recalling a conversation I had with a major government figure here in the United States. And he impressed upon me how particularly in legislature, particularly at the state level, you can't imagine how stupid. He just kept saying dumb is the word he used. You cannot overestimate how dumb. And I thought, I didn't want to believe that, but the evidence is accumulating that he might be onto something. I certainly, when I listened to the UK parliament, they certainly seem to have command of language and logic and speech.

But maybe underneath that is a complete lack of reasoning and inability to do that sort of thing. I don't know. Sometimes the flower of speech can hide dumb, can hide really a lack of reasoning capacity. It's possible, I suppose. It can. I mean, the other thing that happened here is they suspended our parliament so you know democracy was effectively suspended for two years so within that context it is not surprising that these decisions were not scrutinized so you know there was no debate only a fraction of the legislative bills were even

brought before parliament. So, you know, I hope you're right. I hope it is stupid because then there's hope, right? Well, it is also, there is another thing I've learned very recently is that there are entrenched federal, in this country, officials that really aren't under supervision or at least control of our elected officials. They really run amok on their own and that's another layer of misunderstanding i had that again back to solving these problems that that's got to be dealt with in some way it has and i think this is where your regulatory capture comes in as well because there are a lot of these organizations that are you know in some farm

farmer does have huge reach and enormous wealth and if you look certainly at some of the bodies that you might have expected to have provided in that context a check and a balance it hasn't happened and you know that's in part perhaps because there's a you know revolving doors between some of these industries and the state and the regulator yes and the other thing you know i hope people enjoy this conversation. This is a very rational, sober conversation. I've noticed as more of the excesses and the concerns have come forward,

people have spiraled out to an extreme conspiracy type theories. Moderate yourselves, everybody. It doesn't, it's inadvantageous to run to the other side of the boat. The truth is going to be somewhere out there and we'll get to it, but just don't let fear or sort of conspiratorial thinking, just don't let that be your, be your go-to just, there may be something going on, but we got to have the evidence before we run to those sorts of things. And when I interviewed Naomi, we'll go ahead.

People should keep in mind that the fear and anxiety could be part of the goal. So don't fall for it. Don't let it affect you that much. Caleb, Caleb, Caleb, Caleb comes from the conspiratorial. Yeah, that's my background. That's where I grew up in all of this. And everyone thinks, oh, it's coming true. This is what we told you when you were two years old, Caleb. We told you it was coming true.

A lot of apologies. We did an interview yesterday, which was sort of startling to observe theories that caused people to spin a bit. But just kind of stay sober. Molly is sober. She's solving problems. Stay in that zone. I think that's where we all need to be. Molly, thank you for coming in

and sharing your thoughts with us. Again, what would you like people to do if they want to support you? Go to our website, find us, email us. I mean, you can donate and you can work volunteer-led organization. So, you know, that is, I think also, it's been our like secret power.

We are passionate passionate we are parents and we really really care about kids and then that creates a force to be reckoned with so please come find us and yeah let's start u.s satellites i said i said uh see if susan put this in here somewhere she's i see her in the rumble rumble rants because she always brings up the fact that i said probably a year ago i said when kids are in the Rumble Rants because she always brings up the fact that I said, probably a year ago, I said, when kids are in the equation, that's when this thing stops because the moms, amongst other things, will not allow it. And I just knew that would be where this thing

goes over the waterfall. And so thank you for being that agent that pulls us back. And if there's stuff to do, please keep us in mind here. If you have things you want to put out there or talk about, hope you'll come and join us again. Thank you so much for having me on. It's been a real privilege.

Thank you. You bet. Molly Kingsley, everybody. And for the rest of you all, we have still more stuff coming up. Dave Rubin coming in at noon on Monday. So again, that's an unusual time for us. We will be with Duncan Trussell

from Austin, Texas on Valentine's Day. And are we doing a Wednesday show next week, Caleb? I know we're not doing Thursday. I'm looking at the calendar. Let's see. I'm not actually... It's sort of in there. Oh, no, that's Jessica Rose.

That's an important that's an important interview so yeah she will be very interesting in particular in the face of all these new sort of the vaccine recommendations that are going on right now be very much interesting hearing what she has to say so join us there we'll see you Monday noon

Pacific Ask Dr. Drew is produced by Caleb Nation and Susan Pinsky as a reminder the discussions here are not a substitute Thank you. 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 help