Ask Dr. Drew - VAERS: Are mRNA Adverse Event Reports Accurate? Dr. Jessica Rose w/ Dr. Kelly Victory – Ask Dr. Drew – Episode 184

Starting point is 00:00:00 And everybody, once again, we are coming to you from Austin, Texas. Of course, Kelly Victory joins us today. We'll be watching you on the Restream and over at the Rumble Rants. Today's guest, Dr. Jessica Rose. Dr. Rose has multiple degrees. She's a Canadian researcher with a degree in Applied Mathematics, Master's in Immunology, PhD in Computational Biology, and she has been concerned about data analysis,

Starting point is 00:00:23 particularly as it pertains to the VAERS data. And what should we be doing with this data, and how should we understand it? I've got lots of questions, and we've been looking forward to speaking to Dr. Rose for quite some time, so let's get right on to it. Our laws as it pertains to substances are draconian and bizarre.

Starting point is 00:00:40 A psychopath started this. He was an alcoholic. Because of social media and pornography, PTSD, love addiction. Fentanyl and heroin, ridiculous. I'm a doctor for. Where the hell do you think I learned that? I'm just saying, you go to treatment before you kill people.

Starting point is 00:00:55 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.

Starting point is 00:01:19 BetMGM, authorized gaming partner of the NBA, has your back all season long. From tip-off to the final buzzer, you're always taken care of with the sportsbook born in Vegas. That's a feeling you can only get with BetMGM. And no matter your team, your favorite player, or your style, there's something every NBA fan will love about BetMGM. Download the app today and discover why BetMGM is your basketball home for the season.

Starting point is 00:01:44 Raise your game to the next level this year 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.

Starting point is 00:01:59 If you have any questions or concerns about your gambling or someone close to you, please contact Connex Ontario at 1-866-531-2600 As I was saying, Dr. Rose is very well trained to comment on things like the VAERS system and the data there. I'll repeat, in addition to being a Canadian researcher, there's an undergraduate degree in applied mathematics, a master's degree in immunology, and a PhD in computational biology. And of course, Dr. Kelly Victor will be with you in a few minutes. We'll take a little break. I'll bring her in here after I talk to Dr. Rose for a few minutes. So let's bring Dr. Rose in right now there we are hi welcome hey there so thank you i

Starting point is 00:02:48 i we have so many questions and it was such a privilege to talk to you i'm glad you had a chance to come come in to talk to us uh i'm trying to understand i'm trying to try to understand a lot of things i every week i come at this show with like i have so many questions i what is happening why is this happening? And as I was thinking about the conversation I wanted to have with you, I was thinking about the phenomenon of risk-reward analysis, okay? That when I, my clinical experience deviates somewhat from the data I'm hearing about on a regular basis. For instance, it seems to me that there is significant benefit,

Starting point is 00:03:28 certainly for windows after boostering, for people who are much older with multiple comorbidities. In those populations, I find the, I don't want to say ease, but the margin of error I have in dealing with those populations that have severe covet with multiple other things i'm trying to accommodate who have been properly well who've been vaccinated and boosted it seems to give me a margin of safety and flexibility that i just didn't have back in the days of alpha and delta and to be fair it might just be omicron but it feels like there's something a little more beneficial going on.

Starting point is 00:04:06 At what risk is always the question. Now, let's just posit, again, just to sort of adjust my clinical experience here, posit that there is some significant benefit to be grained and the risk isn't, it's worth the risk. Let's put it that way. As you get younger, 30-year-old males particularly, we start to see signals in the VAERS data that are very concerning. What I've been thinking about lately is not only are those signals concerning, why do we think we have to protect people from an illness that isn't going to hurt them? I think we've gotten very tied up in the risk part of the vaccine and arguing about that. But shouldn't we

Starting point is 00:04:46 also be arguing about what potential benefits we're trying to derive, what those numbers look like relative to the risk? And isn't that where the rubber hits the road? I'll leave it to you with that. Yeah. Thanks for having me, by the way. It's quite an honour. I think that the risk to young people is so minimal that, well, first of all, I'd like to just say that I think it still remains a personal choice whether or not you get injections, whether you want to get COVID and let your immune system handle it, whether you want to take prophylactic treatment, et cetera, et cetera. It's got to be your choice. As for the question of risk, benefit, safety, efficacy of these particular COVID products, I've done almost a 180 in the last three years on this. I am

Starting point is 00:05:46 firmly advocating that nobody gets any more of these shots right now. This is based on the peer-reviewed literature, case studies, pharmacovigilance data, which is completely atypical. If you look back 30 years, you can do that in VAERS. VAERS is the vaccine adverse event reporting system for the United States and it's been on the go for about 30 years and the average total number of adverse event reports submitted to VAERS for all vaccines combined and that includes all the childhood vaccines so so there are a lot, is about 39,000. And currently, in the VAERS database, in the context of just four products, not including these bivalent shots, we're at 1.5 million reports. It stands in complete stark contrast. And it's not just the number, the absolute number of reports

Starting point is 00:06:45 that are standing out and signifying very loud safety signals. It's the range of adverse event reports. I've looked at this upwards, backwards, and sideways, and there's no comparison to what we're seeing now and what we've seen historically, magnitude wise or range of adverse event wise. So the young people seem to be being is clustering neurological and cardiovascular problems and looking at the distribution of the signals across age groups. And the young people are not faring well in either of them.

Starting point is 00:07:36 So your comment is well taken. They don't really, young people don't really get bad effects from COVID. So there's no reason to take the risk because the safety signals are very loud and clear, especially in specific contexts like myocarditis in young men, for example. So that would be my quick and dirty answer. Right. That's what I would expect, you would say. And so when I think about that kind of analysis, I'm trying to understand, and poor Kelly hears me every week ask almost the same question in some version. What are they thinking over at the FDA? What am I missing?

Starting point is 00:08:21 What could possibly be? You don't know? What are we all missing? No, I can't. I'm really sorry. All I can say is if I was the director of the CDC, we wouldn't be where we are right now. It is people might not know this, but VAERS, this vaccine adverse event reporting system, is a government database. You can go to prison for submitting a false report. It's a serious vetted data set. It's owned by HHS, the CDC, and the FDA. They are responsible for detecting safety signals from this data and doing subsequent analyses, including PRR analyses, causality assessments,

Starting point is 00:09:09 Bayesian analyses, whatever, what have you, whatever they decide is appropriate. This is what they've always done. They pulled the rotavirus vaccine in 1999, when there was a handful of people, young people, who had reported interception. So based on a handful of cases in VAERS, which comprised a safety signal that was assessed to be causing, this product was causing these interception cases, the product was pulled. That's how it works. That's what the pharmacovigilance databases are for. So we're not talking about a handful of cases. We're talking about over 14,000 different types

Starting point is 00:09:52 of adverse events being reported in the context of four products. Many of them are death. We're at, let me double check my numbers here. We are at well over 30,000 deaths. It might actually be 40,000. Just let me update. We're looking at a very broad range of what we call severe adverse events, which does include disability, death, hospitalization, emergency room visits, birth defects, and life-threatening ailments. So there's nothing I can say to explain it because it's on them.

Starting point is 00:10:42 The onus is on the owners of the data to do what they've always done, and they're not doing their job. Because it's so odd, people come up with all kinds of explanations, including this is intentional, all kinds of explanations out there. I'd like to see some evidence of what it is they're doing and why they're doing it, like some of the minutes from some of these meetings or something. On one hand, there is evidence, again, trying to stay with an evidence-based explanation, that people have been in an hysteria there's been an absolute hysteria hysteria has been around covet itself that's why perhaps they took excessive risk that's why

Starting point is 00:11:32 perhaps they're you know sort of inclined to sort of protect against it uber alice against everything else but let's say let's say the hysteria also exists on the ver side let's say that the that that hysteria is is operating, just for the sake of argument. I'm not saying that it is. I'm just saying for an argument's sake. It's ginning up a lot of the data on the VAERS side. Let's say it's by a factor of 10 to the second power. It's a hundredfold even if it's a hundredfold i still don't understand the relative

Starting point is 00:12:08 risk analysis that they're doing that let's i'll give the hysteria on both sides even in hysterical state i still can't make the math work am i am i right about that i oh yeah no well i can't make their math work either. But if anything, I mean, some people are making the claim that VAERS is being over-reported right now, and that makes me laugh. But let's say it is. Let's say it is by a factor of 100, or even

Starting point is 00:12:36 1,000. Let's say 1,000. Take the worst-case scenario. It still doesn't add up. It still doesn't add up. And so that's the part that i keep thinking is it 10 to the 7th is that the problem here is that even then it's like well okay now we're about equity we're still we're still not quite there yet where i'd say enthusiastically recommend the vaccine right and if it is 10 to the 7th overed, then can you guys explain to us why? What's going on there? There's

Starting point is 00:13:06 a problem here, people. So yeah. But just so that everybody knows, it's not over-reported. It's severely under-reported. And this has been studied. And we don't know by what factor, but even if you do not include an under-reporting factor, you do not have to in order to see the safety signals loud and clear. I mean, 1.5 million people have filed reports successfully that have made it to the front end system. So this is very significant without needing to consider underreporting. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And so I always like to ask this question too, is, is as you pull back and try to make sense of this in your private thoughts, what, what do you think is going on here? What, what is your explanation? Um, yeah, well, I, I just heard what you said about maybe they were freaked out in the beginning

Starting point is 00:14:04 and maybe there was a bit of panic and maybe they actually believed that they need an emergency use authorization. tens of thousands of researchers and doctors have been able to, to determine by looking at the data and the case studies, et cetera, that there's no need to have any, any word emergency tagged onto anything right now related to COVID. It's just, no, I think that, I think that maybe they dug a hole for themselves and they don't know how to get out so uh they're they're digging up right now which of course we all know is not going to work because you can't take your way up out of a hole can you yeah so yeah there's a lot of money uh tied in there's a lot of um a lot of people who need to answer really serious questions

Starting point is 00:15:07 that are probably really scared right now uh and i i think they literally just don't know what to do and i think that they really don't know what to do now because i i think the snowball is getting really big i think a lot more people are becoming aware that Houston, we have a problem and they have to start taking it seriously now that they might actually have to stop with the nonsense. And, you know, when I think about, as you say, whether they're afraid or what they're thinking is, I just look at Deborah Birx's book, right? She wrote this book about the actions she took during the pandemic, which included glorious, by her description, glorious reports of how she went rogue without the direction of any elected official or even any cohort amongst her

Starting point is 00:16:03 federal employees that she should have been doing what she did. She did it on her own as an evangelical to lock down the country, misled and manipulated and misrepresented to the elected officials in order to get her way and writes that story as though it was a hero's tale. And I worry, and how she could even do that in this day,

Starting point is 00:16:30 to me, is just astonishing. It worries me that that's the kind of thinking that's still going on in many of these officials' minds, where we're the heroes, we did this thing, everything was right and just, and they want us to back off our, you know know, what we call it, our our crusade. It is our crusade. And we're you know, we're marching to victory and they don't see that they're in a hole. Maybe I worry about that. I do, too. And I think that you're right. And it's alarming to me how many people might actually think that those lockdowns did save lives without even considering the fact that they killed a lot of people.

Starting point is 00:17:10 I mean, there's no doubt in my mind about that. I think the detrimental effects of what we've all been put through in the last few years, we're still seeing the impacts. I mean, imagine there are children that have that they've been like they've known nothing else they were born two three years ago think about that it's like this is the world that they were born into it's demented and the look no better uh canary in the coal mine i'm trying to think of a better word than that, sort of a harbinger than adolescent females who are now two-thirds or so, is it two-thirds or half or something? I'll have to look up the number. I don't want to overstate it, are suicidal for the first time. There's

Starting point is 00:17:57 contemplating suicide at an extraordinary rate. This was all highly predictable. Anybody with clinical judgment who was doing a risk-reward analysis when people decided to do these so-called non-pharmacological interventions, it could have been easily predicted. The addiction, the mental health, the loneliness, the despair, the economic consequences. There should have been mathematical models for that as well. And it seems like they ran through without even thinking about these things let alone modeling them and you're going to have more deaths and more long-term life consequences from what they did than certainly than what they saved from the lockdown certainly yeah I I don't know if they saved anyone, my friend.

Starting point is 00:18:45 I really don't. Well, let's give them, I'll give them 100,000 just to be, you know, sort of out of good nature. There's going to be a lot more than that dying. There already has been, and there will continue to be because of their actions. All right. So it's time for me to take a little break, Dr. Rose. And what we do here is I take a little break, and then we bring Dr. Kelly Victory in to sort of take over the interview and I'll be the gadfly to continue to stir things up as possible. We really do appreciate you being here. We've Well, nothing says I love you more than a few minutes of relaxation, and GenuCell Skin Care does just that.

Starting point is 00:19:30 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, scrubs. And then when I get to the counter, they're overpriced. All kinds of products that you can all find at GenuCell.com.

Starting point is 00:20:06 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

Starting point is 00:20:31 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

Starting point is 00:20:46 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,

Starting point is 00:21:20 the info kit on gold, and then talk to one of their precious metals specialists. Think about this. To dig our 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. That is B-I-R-C-H gold.com slash drew. With an A-plus rating,

Starting point is 00:21:50 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 drew today. Some platforms have banned the discussion of controversial topics. This episode ends here. The rest of the show is available at drdrew.tv. There's nothing in medicine that doesn't boil down to a risk-benefit calculation. It is the mandate of public health to consider the impact of any particular mitigation scheme on the entire population. This is uncharted territory, Drew. Risk reward analysis, Dr. Kelly Victory, take over.

Starting point is 00:22:32 Hey, thanks so much for joining us, Jessica. Really, really happy to have you. I've got tons of very specific questions I wanna ask you about, but I wanna start with, clearly you have an extraordinarily impressive academic pedigree and are more than qualified to talk about the data coming out of VAERS. But by way of background, were you always a VAERS guru or did you get into the VAERS data and understanding this as a result of the COVID pandemic specifically? Yeah, absolutely not.

Starting point is 00:23:10 I had no idea what it was until recently. So I had just completed my second postdoc in biochemistry, and that was the end of 2019. And I had planned this wonderful surfing tour in Australia. And pretty much the day that I was supposed to leave they declared the pandemic so I had to change my plans so I I was in Israel when all of this happened and it was real hardcore when they they started the the mandating the locking people up, the restricting movement, the injection rollout, the masking, temperature guns, you know, it was pretty extreme. of the militants of the police that I witnessed was so high it seemed very clear to me quickly that this wasn't really about public health this was more

Starting point is 00:24:14 about control and so I started looking around plans for the modified mRNA products to be put in the market. And Israel was going to get the Pfizer product primarily exclusively in the beginning. And so I didn't really, I didn't jive with the fact that as opposed to five to 15 years for a conventional vaccine to get from concept to arm, we were being told that these things were going to be going from, you know, pretty much concept to arm in less than a year. And these aren't conventional vaccines. So I just anticipated that we were going to start seeing injuries occurring in the context of these things. So I, I had a choice. I could have chosen UJAR or Yellowcard or whatever, but

Starting point is 00:25:06 they're not really user-friendly. So VAERS is quite user-friendly. You can just download that data as a CSV file and the rest is history. I started teaching myself how to use R, which is a statistical programming language, and I'm still not good at it, but I'm learning. Well, interesting, and as an aside, that for all of the draconian measures that Israel took early in the pandemic, the majority of the great studies and articles coming out now about everything from vaccine injury to the ineffectiveness of masks, ineffectiveness and dangers of a lockdown are also coming out of Israel. So perhaps they are getting on the right side of history here. With regard to VAERS and the vaccines, suffice to say, you and I are in lockstep.

Starting point is 00:26:00 I am also been calling for a complete recall of all of the vaccines for everyone. This is something that Drew and I respectfully disagree on. I don't find any age group at this point who stands to benefit from these vaccines. And I think the safety signals are so overwhelming that it is just preposterous to continue to suggest that these are safe, let alone effective. So let's talk a little bit about, I follow your sub stack and read different things that you post. So let's talk a little bit, you know, everyone is aware now, I think, that there's a concern about myocarditis. And Drew and I have covered this many times with many different guests at different levels.

Starting point is 00:26:46 You interestingly were pointing out in a Substack relatively early on that there was a difference with regard to the Pfizer and the Moderna incidents of myocarditis. Both of those are mRNA vaccines, but not identical clearly. And you had pointed out a difference in the incidence of that particular adverse event, myocarditis, inflammation of the heart muscle, between the two different manufacturers. Talk a little bit about that and where you think that's going or what's causing it. I'm not sure if I can say where it's going so it's interesting because from the VAERS data from what I can recall that was a long time ago um it was Pfizer that was implicated more in

Starting point is 00:27:35 myocarditis reports but in Canada Canadian data it was the Moderna product that was implicated uh to to cause myocarditis more frequently. So there are a couple of conflicting ideas about which is worse, but I don't think it matters because they're both bad. I haven't divided by vax manufacturer the myocarditis reports when I analyze them lately. So I can't tell you what's going on right now. But what I can tell you is that the signal is still very strong in young people. It's the strongest in the young people. And I mean, 15 years old, young, following dose two. So again, I don't know if this is specific to Moderna or Pfizer. I do know that you see it in both. And the signal is probably a little stronger in Pfizer, like I said.

Starting point is 00:28:31 I have a question. I have a question, which is why... Oops. Okay, we'll see if Caleb can fix your... There they are. There's those tech difficulties. We'll see if he can fix that. He, there they are. Can fix your... There's those tech difficulties. We'll see if he can fix that. He's coming right back.

Starting point is 00:28:48 Got me? Got me now? There you are. I'm back? Oh, yeah, he's back. Why do they... Why is... Everyone knows about this signal.

Starting point is 00:28:58 It seems to be well accepted. And yet they made a big issue of the cerebrovascular events in elderly patients, but did not make an issue of the myocardial events in the young males. What was it about that cerebrovascular data that caused it to be something that made national press, if anything? And yet the myocardial data in populations which have less to be gained, theoretically, from the vaccine, we barely hear about that. Well, it's a distraction, some kind of tactic similar to fudging the data. That's what my guess would be. I'll tell you a story. I published a paper with Peter McCullough.

Starting point is 00:29:45 Can you hear me? I hear a lot of weird sound in the background. Yes. Sorry, I just connected the wrong mic to Drew. He's coming right back. You can keep going. All righty then. All right.

Starting point is 00:29:54 I did a descriptive analysis of myocarditis reports in VAERS over a year ago. This was a long time ago. Peter McCullough and I co-wrote it. He's a cardiologist, so I needed input because I don't know anything about carbs. I mean, I do. I'm just kidding, but it's best to have a cardiologist as co-author on a paper about myocarditis. We got this paper peer-reviewed and published. I was scheduled to speak in the VRBPAC committee meeting to, I had three minutes to speak to the FDA and explain to them why we should not put these things into five to 11 year old children in the United States. So what the paper showed

Starting point is 00:30:40 definitively was that there was a very high preponderance of reporting going on in 15-year-old males. It was very obvious. The signal was there. It was clear. So that paper got withdrawn, is the word that they used, without notification to myself nor Peter five days before that meeting was to occur. So my point is, I don't believe in coincidences. And I think that was a genuine attempt to censor a paper that was already gaining traction in preprint that probably, you know, it might have made an impact, maybe not at the VRBPAC meeting, because they'd already decided what they were going to do, because they already bought all the shots. But maybe it would have made an impact on the parents and pediatricians and etc, who would have had a chance to decide for themselves after reading the paper whether

Starting point is 00:31:45 or not it was a good idea to inject their 5 to 11 year old children. So there's a very, very loud signal for myocarditis in young people, not just children, but like young adults. And I have no idea why this is not being red flag addressed. I mean, it's a big problem. It really is. It's a human crisis. With regard to Drew's question about why they drew attention to the cardiovascular events, specifically the cavernous sinus thrombosis, cerebrovascular, that was cavernous sinus thrombosis,

Starting point is 00:32:26 was because that was with J&J. No, no. There was another announcement about stroke. They announced that the Pfizer, there was a signal in elderly patients of an increased incidence of stroke. We don't know if it's anything yet, but there's this signal. What's that just yeah well I I think I think what it is is that they are what I was I think they try to make it

Starting point is 00:32:50 appear as if they are acting on certain things they try because then they could say see yes we are we are acting on things and uh because then and then obfuscate and essentially you know look at the shiny object over here see we you know we're blowing this balloon out of the sky, as it were, while we ignore the others. So, it's a UFO. Exactly. Exactly. So, that's what I think is going on.

Starting point is 00:33:18 So, to be clear, yes, the signal with regard to myocarditis is overwhelming. And we're seeing it clinically. We're seeing it is not people's imagination that young, healthy people are dropping dead literally while playing sports or dying unexpectedly in their sleep. Another thing that you talked about in a Substack some time ago that I thought was fascinating because Drew and I did an entire show about the lipid nanoparticles. You actually pulled the material safety data sheets, which is available on all chemicals that are available and certainly those used in pharmaceuticals. Talk a little bit about that. We did a show on the dangers of lipid nanoparticles. It's not just the mRNA that's problematic in my

Starting point is 00:34:06 estimation in these shots, but what you uncovered about this specific lipid nanoparticles that they are injecting was horrifying. Talk about that. Yeah, it's still hard for me to verbalize because it's right there on the Cayman safety data sheet. So I used to have to order a lot of chemicals when I was in the biochemistry lab. And the first thing that you do is you check the safety data sheet to find out how you handle it, what you have to do to ship it, what PPE you need, etc. So I'm in the habit of doing that when I find something that I don't know the nature of. So these lipid nanoparticles produced by Pfizer and Moderna have, you know, they're the same, but they have slightly different recipes.

Starting point is 00:34:56 So they're comprised of four different lipids each. And one of those is a cationic lipid, highly charged positive lipid. And the Moderna product uses one called SM-102. And if you pull up the safety data sheet for this product, you'll notice, and this is current, that it clearly states that it's not for human use. And it's not even for veterinary use. It's for laboratory use and it's not even for veterinary use. It's for laboratory use only. And so I was

Starting point is 00:35:27 like, okay, well, this can't possibly be the stuff that they're using in their lipid nanoparticle mixture. So I brought up the information for their product and indeed it's the same product. So my first question and my first thought is always the precautionary principle line of thinking. It's like, well, if it states on the safety data sheet that you shouldn't introduce this to humans or pets or animals, and I imagine that means intravenously, right? Then wouldn't you want to kind of find out in a large number of people what's going to happen and wait to see for a long time? This gets back to the safety testing aspect. I mean, personally, I don't think we should be injecting anyone with these lipid nanoparticles. They have a long history of being tested, tried, very problematic.

Starting point is 00:36:33 And they have a known toxicity profile. This is one of the reasons why the technology hasn't been successfully utilized in humans on a large scale before now. So it raises more question marks about why the hell and how the hell, pardon my language, did both of these manufacturers manage to come up with a different cationic lipid that all of a sudden is safe? You know, the answer is they're not. PEG is also questionable. This is another lipid that they use, both of them use in their formulations. Everyone's heard of PEG producing anaphylactic reactions from certain people, and this is definitely a problem. But again, toxicity profiles, allergenic profiles are known in the constituents of these lipid nanoparticles.

Starting point is 00:37:25 And for those people who don't know, these are the packages for the modified mRNA, which are specifically modified to be very stable and durable. So they don't break down quickly, like we were told. And the LNPs are slippery and slidey and designed to, they basically go everywhere. They go everywhere. They bioaccumulate. They dump their payload wherever they land. And that could be in the ovaries, in the heart, in the liver, in the adrenal glands, in the spleen, in the brain, wherever they land, they're going to dump their payload, which

Starting point is 00:38:00 is this modified mRNA. And the cells are going to start manufacturing mass amounts of protein, toxic foreign protein. So yeah, that was a long answer, but it's shocking to me and it's still hard. It's hard to swallow. I, you know, how do you tell people that the thing that that is, you know, comprising this thing that they're being injected with is not supposed to be being injected into humans no one would believe yeah i i no right no i actually looked at the safety data sheet because you had posted it and was horrible i mean i know that lipid nanoparticles have their own issues and we as i said we did an entire show talking about the data behind that. But this specific lipid nanoparticle isn't even supposed to be used in humans or

Starting point is 00:38:50 animals. So how they managed to get around that is beyond me. And as you said, obviously, mRNA technology is not new. We've been working on it for well more than a decade, but the fact remains, we have never been able to create a safe mRNA vaccine. It's never been done. And many times, not that we haven't tried, it's never been done. And sometimes the vaccines have failed with horrific results with all the animals dying and things of that sort. Speaking of telling a story, when I was in the hospital early on when the vaccines rolled out, I had an orthopedic injury and required surgery and emblazoned on the front of my chart were my two allergies as they put them on the front of the chart, big red letters. I'm allergic to tetanus toxoid and I'm allergic to polyethylene

Starting point is 00:39:40 glycol, PEG, as you just said, one of the key ingredients. And I had no less than probably three dozen healthcare practitioners come in and try to compel me during my hospital stay to get vaccinated. And I said, you understand, I am deathly allergic to polyethylene glycol. And their answer was, well, you're in the hospital. So if you have anaphylaxis, we'll be able to take care of you. And this is truly, I mean, I'm a physician and they told me if you get anaphylaxis, we will, we will bring you back. I said, yeah, thanks, but no thanks. So truly, I mean, this is, this is insanity. Now, my next question. Yeah, scary stuff.

Starting point is 00:40:27 I was afraid to go to sleep for the entire duration of the time I was in there. I was afraid they would come in and jab me in my sleep, which they did not, fortunately. One of the other things that you've addressed that we've talked about quite a bit in previous shows is this issue of vaccine lot inconsistencies, this, you know, the vaccine lot saga. And I have said that it appears that a disproportionate number of adverse events are occurring from a relatively small number of lots.

Starting point is 00:41:01 What those numbers are, I don't actually know. You've addressed that and looked into that, I believe, this disparity in the distribution of adverse events. Yeah. So I have absolutely no doubt that that's true. It's tricky to use VAERS to show evidence of this because the VaxLot data itself is really, really bad. It's poor quality. Nonetheless, there is compelling evidence there. But more compelling to me to prove variability are investigations into the handling and development of the products on site, even going back to the clinical trials themselves. I don't think that these products

Starting point is 00:41:53 come off of the assembly line in good shape. I have nothing to base that on. It just seems to me from what I've heard and the talks that I've listened to and the experts that I've referred to, it seems to me that that's a distinct possibility. Even if they're all rolling off the assembly line perfectly the same, they have to make it to the person who's going to administer the product. And that person has to administer the product properly and they have to handle it properly. There's a publication that came out recently that shows the impact of repeat freeze thaws on the lipid nanoparticles and it causes lipid nanoparticle degradation, which causes mRNA to be released. And we don't know the impact of that. But even more scary, I would say,

Starting point is 00:42:50 in reference to product quality, is the issue of percent mRNA integrity, which is an issue raised by the MA. There are some leaked documents that came out that show truncated versions of the mRNA. And the manufacturers were told that they had to address this. They have to answer the question, what happens when you inject someone with a truncated version of this mRNA? Are they having protein translation? What proteins are being translated? What's the impact on the body ofes, were only of 55% mRNA integrity. That's about half what they're supposed to be okay in terms of the product being efficacious once injected is 60. I still think that's a bit low, but that's what it is. So in order to get

Starting point is 00:44:18 around that, they just lowered the acceptance criteria to 50. And so that's what I was talking about, about data fudgery. This isn't exactly data fudgery. This is acceptance criteria fudgery. But the things that I've seen, the protocols, the good practices, I mean, wow, wow, what happened? What happened? Is everyone just bought? I'm finding it hard to believe um just about one thing

Starting point is 00:44:47 at least every day you know what I mean I'm wondering if you have a a cohesive theory about what's going on because you're like you're like me Dr Rose it's like every day I'm like I what what's happening how could this be do you have an overarching hypothesis no I'm like, what? What's happening? How could this be? Do you have an overarching hypothesis? No, I'm not an overarching one answer kind of person because I don't think it's ever one thing. I think it's a bunch of different things causing an absolute smorgasbord mess. I think there's a lot of incompetence combined with negligence. I think that a lot of people are genuinely think that what they're doing is okay. I think there are evil people around. I really do. I never used to use that word before three years ago. But I mean, just to be on a brighter note, I also think that the silver lining here is that a lot of people are seeing things that they mightn't have believed

Starting point is 00:45:55 have always been going on, that they believe it now after the past three years of shenanigans, because it's come forth. The regulatory body is not doing their jobs. I mean, I suppose they might have always been kind of inefficient, but now they're just downright absent. So we're seeing that now. And there's always been a problem in the academic world with peer-reviewed publication. I mean, I loathe the process. And now I can really put my finger on why. It's because I don't want to have everything that I want to publish being vetoed because somebody doesn't think that it's interesting. If it's science and I'm doing it,

Starting point is 00:46:39 then it's interesting. But apparently if it's not, you know, quote unquote, sexy enough to the funders, then you'll never get your work published or your lab funded, etc. So that's another thing that's been revealed to me and a lot of other people. It's still happening. I mean, we're still having trouble getting our work published if it has anything to do with reports on the COVID product injuries, which everybody really needs to know about now. They need information. They're begging for it. Well, the intrusion of third parties, specifically the government and big pharma, into our academic institutions and into our academic literature is really terrifying. There's no question that the veracity of the scientific studies is really in question because, as you said, you submit something and it can actually just get pulled or not published or just summarily rejected. On top of that, we've had unprecedented breaches of regulatory standards. Let's face it, these injections are still only available in the United States under emergency

Starting point is 00:47:54 use authorization. There is no FDA approved, quote, vaccine available for COVID in the United States. Yet in order to have an EUA, they are required to show at least 50% efficacy, efficacy in preventing, you know, contraction of the illness. We have been so far below 50%. It's been, it was down in the low thirties within months of the rollout. Yet all of a sudden, what happened? Why do they still have an EUA? This is beyond me and no one's answering that question. Yeah, this is the thing, right? It's such a... Sorry, go ahead. No, as I say, no, just respond to that and then I've got a next question. Yeah, it's one of these very basic questions that's really on the tip of the brain of everyone, I think.

Starting point is 00:48:47 How many deaths are there in VAERS is a real simple question to ask. And the director of the CDC can't answer a simple question like that. She's on video showing herself to not be able to answer that simple question. Why do we still have an EUA going? Are we in an emergency? Are the products more than 50% efficacious? Why? No, they're not. So, yeah, it's just, it's remarkable. It's just like you can, you're shouting at the clouds and all that's happening is the tumbleweed is going by and it's not good enough. But I want to ask a quick question about that because let's I'm trying to

Starting point is 00:49:28 I agree with you about the incompetence and negligence. I think that may be a lot of what's going on. But in terms of the 50% threshold, the reality is in certain age groups, certainly the vaccine does reach a 50% or so threshold for about three months, doesn't it? And are they hiding behind that? And are they able to sort of fudge their bet by saying, well, look, there's a 50% right here. It's just it doesn't sustain. And maybe there's nothing in the EUA authorization that requires a sustained effect above 50% or something.

Starting point is 00:50:06 Yeah, but the thing about that is, and the ludicrousness of repeat boosters, they're calling it. I mean, that's such a joke. They're basing all of this on repeated antibody levels getting higher, but they're completely, I mean, I don't want to go into that because that's not what I want to focus on. It's the safety issue that's important. Every time these people are getting injected, there's a potential risk of injury and the cumulative effects have been shown. Here's a good example of that. This is dose two response. The green are the reports of myocarditis by age. In this case, it's young people after dose two. So there's a cumulative damaging response going on. We don't know why. We have no idea why, because the investigation, we have to acknowledge that there's a problem, number one. And number two, we have to do investigations to try and find out why. And then we have to help people. I mean, this is the one, two, three that we need to do.

Starting point is 00:51:15 Well, it's after stopping all the shots, in my opinion. But yeah, it's like, OK, fine, you might need to get boosted to get this, you know, your antibodies up every three months or whatever. But what's happening to your immune system in general? Because there's a lot of data that's coming out now that's showing that it's causing autoimmune conditions to come back. It's causing cancers to come back. I mean, these are known things now. You can't refute what we're seeing on the ground in the medical doctors. So, I mean, this is- Right. And we're not talking about trying to prevent smallpox. We're talking about trying to prevent a virus from which most people have an extraordinarily mild course of events. Exactly. You know, when we are talking now about the underreporting, this issue, and you rightly so, Jessica, point out VAERS is their own system. It's their darn system.

Starting point is 00:52:20 The CDC owns it. They are the ones who put this in place, and then they're now refusing to actually acknowledge it and look at the data that their own system is capturing. I 100% agree with you that it is grossly underreported. Let's talk specifically, you used the DMED data, the Defense Military Epidemiology Database, and incidentally, we had Dr. Teresa Long as a previous guest some months ago to talk about the data out of the defense military, what they capture. But you used the DMED database to really prove or look at or expose the underreporting specifically about spontaneous miscarriages

Starting point is 00:53:06 and to show that the VAERS database is not accurately collecting anywhere near what's really happening with regard to spontaneous miscarriages following these vaccines. Is that correct? Right. And it's not just, I mean, I don't remember that one. There have been two different data sets that I've been able. Actually, Liz, my friend from OpenBears did a really nice write-up. If you go to OpenBears on her write-ups, you'll see an article about calculating the underreporting factor from the V-safe data. This was brilliant. It also confirmed an earlier estimation that I had done.

Starting point is 00:53:46 And more recently, Denis Rancourt has published a paper on ResearchGate that's been yanked as of yesterday. They didn't like that one very much. And I was also able to calculate an under-reporting factor for death using his data. Steve Kirsch as well. So it's somewhere between, I would say 20 and 40. It's roughly 30, which was the original estimate that I calculated using the severe adverse event data or the rate in the Pfizer phase three trial data. So, yeah, and it's like, we don't really need it because the signals are so loud and clear already. I mean, we're talking about hundreds of thousands of distinct signals. And by the way, these data points are not data points, they're people. That's why I always show absolute counts because it's like these are people that we're

Starting point is 00:54:45 showing when i show my data um so yeah to be clear when you say when you when you say 30 30 are you saying 30 underreported or 30 times 30 times so it's a multiplication factor so whatever yeah whatever adverse event you're talking about uh multiply that number that you hear me say by 30, and you'll probably get a better idea of the real number of people, the actual number of people who are suffering. So I'm really bad at head math, but if you multiply 1.5 million by 30, you'll get an idea of how many people are probably sustaining injuries currently, which are ongoing, by the way. We don't know the long-term effects because there was no safety testing for these products. No long-term, no short-term.

Starting point is 00:55:33 And again, this underreporting of VAERS is something that hasn't been talked about just in the context of COVID and the COVID shots. Harvard did a study over a decade ago looking at VAERS, and their number, they said that the underreporting to the VAERS system was somewhere in their estimation between 10 and 100 times. They couldn't get their finger. But it's always been widely acknowledged that VAERS is grossly underreported. This is not something that we're making up just because we're trying to gin up the COVID vaccine numbers. Now, you also, I'm watching our clock wind down. Something else that I know you have been

Starting point is 00:56:16 really, I guess, a victim of, again, you've danced around it a little, is the egregious censorship that's happened amongst even our own peers and colleagues. I think you have been, unfortunately, part of that, where people have really tried to shut you down, something I've never seen before. It certainly happened to me over and over during this. Where do you stand? Do you have an academic appointment? What do you do? Do you have a social media presence? No, and no, but it's by choice. When I ended my last postdoc, my plan was not to go back to another research project. I wanted to get my own lab on the go. So maybe I'm starting to think about that now. But you know, there was this thing that happened in the last two or three years that kind of sidetracked me. So I haven't lost any opportunities, let's say. Although having said

Starting point is 00:57:21 that, I have not sampled the water. So I have no idea if I'm hireable. I'm sure that I am with people that I'd actually want to work with. So that's a good thing. And social media, I was like a Facebook feed for like 14 years. I'm a photographer. So I really used Facebook to show everyone some beautiful pictures that I would take of nature and stuff. So I was kind of heartbroken to have to leave that because I used it every single day. I had a lot of connections, but I had to, because there was, I was reminded by someone I spoke to

Starting point is 00:58:00 the other day that there was a lot of hostility starting to be aimed at me. And that was in the very beginning when I was very, very much more sensitive to all of this. So I left Facebook and I basically have no social media until recently. I opened up this Twitter account for a gag, although I got suspended from that too for quoting CDC data of all things, literally verbatim from the CDC website, some VAERS data. And they thought that was misleading. And so they got rid of me. I'm back now. But no, I'd have to say all in all, I feel like I've gained more than I've lost. I know I'm unique in that way because I know that a lot of people have lost, but I'm very, very focused on this truth-telling thing. It's basically all that I'm doing now and it takes all of my time. So yeah, I'm trying to focus on that positive aspect of all of this.

Starting point is 00:59:18 Well, I got kicked off of Twitter for over a year for posting a link to sworn testimony in front of Congress, in front of Senator Ron Johnson's hearing. I posted a link to that. And that was misinformation, according to the Twitter fact. Yeah, so I got booted for over a year. So how do people find you on? I know that you if there's some current events, there's another newsletter that I have, jessica5b3.substock.com. And I have a website that I created called Jessica's Universe, which has VAERS updated data. VAERS comes in every Friday. Amazingly, they're still releasing data and it's continuing to grow every

Starting point is 01:00:32 week. So I update that every week. I do short analyses. All of my interviews are there. My CV, if you want to see if I'm actually legit. My publications from before this mess, the publications during this mess, and the Twitter thing, which is basically just for reach. I mean, it's mainly bots, isn't it? But it's still useful in a way. Yeah, I think. Have you, incidentally, have you ever, have you reached out personally

Starting point is 01:01:03 in all of your analysis of this data? Have you reached out to in all of your analysis of this data? Have you reached out to the CDC to get their solicitor? Have you had any luck? Have they responded to any of your inquiries? No, I did one measly FOIA request, but I backed off because I got scared. And I've written personal emails to Walensky. But of course, they're not going to answer me. My email was very, you know, polite. I'm a Canadian and I don't curse people out if they, you know, haven't done something bad to me. So I was cordial and I just asked her if she could answer some questions and

Starting point is 01:01:46 no, they're not going to answer it because they know who I am, right? Well, at a minimum, you've done all of their data analysis for them. You've done exactly what they should be doing and haven't done. So they owe you a debt of gratitude as far as I'm concerned. And a lot of back pay. Yes, I wouldn't wait by the mailbox. I wouldn't wait. I don't think your fruit basket is coming anytime soon, unfortunately. But I agree with you. You have found kindred souls amongst us, including many people who you've been working with like uh peter mccullough and others um and i appreciate you very much being here i don't know

Starting point is 01:02:31 have we lost we may have lost drew um into technical difficulties and if that's like we do there we go i'm back so i've been messing around here for the last 10 minutes trying to get reconnected so i i want to ask you just one question that i that i think again i keep like you know i harp on this stuff kelly and then but why is somebody like jessica so threatening for merely trying to arrive at the truth why is asking questions to try to approximate the truth nobody any agenda. Nobody has any desire to anticipate the truth being one way or another. We're just trying to get to the truth. And so why do you think, I'll ask you first, Jessica, why do you think people would be, why would they take it upon

Starting point is 01:03:17 themselves to be aggressive towards you that your attempt at approximating the truth is somehow so threatening well i think that um truth is the antidote for lies i mean that's that's the obvious answer and so it would reveal that they've been lying and then that would probably mess up their, not just the COVID and the mRNA general scheme that they're trying to create, but it might actually create real vaccine hesitancy. You know, that they've put this stuff on the childhood vaccination schedule now, which is the most ludicrous thing I've ever heard in my life. But yeah, I think I'm a threat because the truth kind of dissolves lies and and they're afraid because they know that they're lying. Well, and Kelly, any any new thoughts from you and thank you for caring.

Starting point is 01:04:20 Well, no, today I've been I've been S.O.L. here with my microphone. No worries. No, you know that I believe the same thing that Jessica is saying, which is they have a vested interest in us not exposing that they have been lying. Not only because I think that there's potentially criminal implications to that, but it certainly removed the liability protections. If you can prove fraud, then the blanket liability protection that these vaccine manufacturers have enjoyed goes away. I think there are people who are absolutely complicit in this. I don't think it is overreach when people start throwing around terms like Nuremberg 2.0. I think these are crimes against humanity. And I would remind you that seven people with MD after their names hung after Nuremberg.

Starting point is 01:05:16 And I think that there are people, this is not the first time in history when atrocities were perpetrated against humanity with the assistance of the medical community. And so I think that there is a lot at stake here, not only financial, but potentially in terms of, as I said, really changing the structure of our entire healthcare system, our public health system, our regulatory agencies. This is big, big stuff. It has upended my life, much like Jessica's, for the past three years. I wouldn't have it any other way. If I had to do it again, I would do the same thing.

Starting point is 01:05:57 But we are still, we do not know where this is going to take us. But as we expose more and more, I think more and more people thankfully are beginning to have their eyes open, whether or not they feel this way about vaccines or not, I can't say. But I think people have now developed a very healthy skepticism, let's say, about our government and our agencies. With that, we'll have to wrap things up. And Jessica, thank you so much for sharing your thoughts and data with us. We appreciate it. And we will look for you on the Substack. And if the new things come along, I hope you will come join us and tell us what you're thinking.

Starting point is 01:06:41 Thanks again. It was a pleasure. Thanks, Jessica. Thank you. Kelly, as thanks jessica thank you kelly thanks as always kelly thank you so much dr kelly victory uh caleb let's throw up the upcoming guests here if you could we have uh brooke jackson i believe next wednesday yes brooke jackson next wednesday yes and uh i don't know if you have other stuff scheduled yet some of them we just recently uh moved the schedule around so the schedule that I have isn't correct, so I'm not going to put that on screen yet.

Starting point is 01:07:07 But they can see it at drdrew.com and on YouTube. And definitely Brooke Jackson next Wednesday, correct? Yes, that's correct. Yes, that's correct. All right, we will leave it at that. We thank you all for being here. And our next show, Susan or Caleb, straighten me out on this,

Starting point is 01:07:24 will that be Tuesday, 3 o'clock Pacific time? Tuesday, three o'clock Pacific time. We don't have a guest yet, so stand by. It may just be me answering questions. So Tuesday's not gonna happen tonight. So the next show is gonna be Wednesday? All right. So it's going to be a week before we do another show.

Starting point is 01:07:47 We will see you then on next Wednesday. See you then. 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

Starting point is 01:08:17 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.

Ask Dr. Drew - VAERS: Are mRNA Adverse Event Reports Accurate? Dr. Jessica Rose w/ Dr. Kelly Victory – Ask Dr. Drew – Episode 184

There aren't comments yet for this episode. Click on any sentence in the transcript to leave a comment.