Ask Dr. Drew - With Endorsement Of Kamala Harris, Scientific American Magazine Injects Politics & Bias Into Science w/ Dr. Marty Makary & Dr. Brian Hooker – Ask Dr. Drew – Ep 404

Episode Date: September 22, 2024

“We must protect science from politics!” science journalists shouted from 2017 to 2021. Then yesterday, the editors of Scientific American – the oldest ‘continuously published magazine’ in the USA, with contributors including Albert Einstein and Nikola Tesla – endorsed their second presidential candidate in the publication’s 179-year history: Kamala Harris. Their first endorsement? Joe Biden in 2020. The publication had only a few positive words about the previous administration and “Operation Warp Speed, which developed effective COVID vaccines extremely quickly.” Should science publications stay out of politics – and how can scientists rebuild their credibility as nonpartisan, unbiased truth seekers? For one night only, there are over 100 theatre screenings of VAXXED III which features Dr. Brian Hooker. Get tickets at https://vaxxed3.org Dr. Marty Makary, MD is a Johns Hopkins professor and member of the National Academy of Medicine. He is the author of two New York Times bestselling books, Unaccountable and The Price We Pay, winner of the 2020 Business Book of the Year Award. Dr. Makary has written for the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, and the New York Times, and he has published more than 250 scientific research articles. He served in leadership at the W.H.O. and has been a visiting professor at 25 medical schools. Follow him at https://x.com/martymakary and read his latest book “Blind Spots: When Medicine Gets It Wrong, and What It Means for Our Health” at https://amzn.to/4erBm4V Dr. Brian Hooker is an author and the chief scientific officer at Children’s Health Defense. He holds five U.S. patents and has authored over 70 peer-reviewed publications, including 20+ papers on vaccine injury epidemiology. He co-authored the New York Times bestseller “Vax-Unvax: Let the Science Speak” with Robert F. Kennedy Jr. A former Biology Professor at Simpson University, Dr. Hooker specialized in microbiology and biotechnology. Find more at https://childrenshealthdefense.org and follow him at https://x.com/BrianHookerPhD 「 SUPPORT OUR SPONSORS 」 Find out more about the brands that make this show possible and get special discounts on Dr. Drew's favorite products at https://drdrew.com/sponsors  • FATTY15 – The future of essential fatty acids is here! Strengthen your cells against age-related breakdown with Fatty15. Get 15% off a 90-day Starter Kit Subscription at https://drdrew.com/fatty15 • CAPSADYN - Get pain relief with the power of capsaicin from chili peppers – without the burning! Capsadyn's proprietary formulation for joint & muscle pain contains no NSAIDs, opioids, anesthetics, or steroids. Try it for 15% off at https://drdrew.com/capsadyn • PALEOVALLEY - "Paleovalley has a wide variety of extraordinary products that are both healthful and delicious,” says Dr. Drew. "I am a huge fan of this brand and know you'll love it too!” Get 15% off your first order at https://drdrew.com/paleovalley • THE WELLNESS COMPANY - Counteract harmful spike proteins with TWC's Signature Series Spike Support Formula containing nattokinase and selenium. Learn more about TWC's supplements at https://twc.health/drew 「 MEDICAL NOTE 」 Portions of this program may examine countervailing views on important medical issues. Always consult your physician before making any decisions about your health. 「 ABOUT THE SHOW 」 Ask Dr. Drew is produced by Kaleb Nation (https://kalebnation.com) and Susan Pinsky (https://twitter.com/firstladyoflove). This show is for entertainment and/or informational purposes only, and is not a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Now in keeping with my commitment to free speech, after I speak to Dr. Marty Makary, I'm gonna be speaking with Dr. Brian Hooker from Robert Kennedy's group, the Children's Health Defense Organization. And he's got some very powerful, interesting points of view, and I'm going to listen carefully and see what he has to say. And in doing so, and allowing people to speak, and allow the discourse to proceed, I've learned a ton. So in keeping with that, we will speak with Dr. Brian Hooker. He's a widely published biologist specializing in microbiology and biotechnology.

You can find out more about him on X at Brian Hooker PhD. But first, we're going to talk to Dr. Marty McCary, somebody who I've wanted to speak with for a long time. Johns Hopkins professor, member of the National Academy of Sciences. His new book is Blind Spots, When Medicine Gets It Wrong, and What It Means for Our Health. He's written widely, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, New York

Times, published more than 250 articles, and he served in leadership positions at the World Health Organization. We're going to get his thoughts after this. Our laws as it pertains to substances are draconian and bizarre. 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 f*** sake. Where the hell do you think I learned that? I'm just saying, you go to treatment before you kill people. I am a clinician.

I observe things about these chemicals. Let's just saying, you go to treatment before you kill people. I am a clinician. I observe things about these chemicals. Let's just deal with what's real. 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 help stopping, I can help. I got a lot to say. I got a lot-the-counter medication i'll introduce you to that provides great relief using the power of check it out chili peppers

capsidin is made with a proprietary formula that contains no non-steroidal anti-inflammatory agents no opioids no anesthetic or steroid, nothing. No chance for addiction, no side effects, no chance it's going to interact with other medication you might be taking. Capsodin contains capsaicin, which is the substance in chili peppers that burns your tongue. That gives you that burny feeling. And of course, I've recommended capsaicin creams to patients over the years, but other

capsaicin creams burn your skin. That's what makes capsaicin creams to patients over the years, but other capsaicin creams burn your skin. That's what makes capsaicin so unique. In clinical trials, capsaicin has actually been demonstrated not to burn. I've been using capsaicin to relieve my pain in my hands and my wrist from carpal tunnel syndrome and arthritis. The results have been amazing. I use it every day during my show, and I highly recommend it. Get the pain relief you need from various sources, even backaches, sprains, bruises even. Order now at capsidin.com slash drew to get a 15% discount plus free shipping. That is C-A-P-S-A-D-Y-N capsidin.com slash D-R-E-W. You can follow Dr. Mark McCary at Marty McCary, M-A-K-A-R-Y on X.

You can also get his book right now, which is number two on Amazon. He and I are going to chat a little bit about what is in the book and why you should get it. I've read it. It is, I'd say nothing in it I disagree with. I would call it non-controversial, but for some people it may be very eye-opening. So please welcome Dr. Marty McCary. Dr. McCary, thank you for joining us. Hey, great to see you, Dr. Drew. You as well. So there's blind spots behind you. Congratulations on that. I guess we should start with the book. I've got a lot of stuff I want to talk to you about, but I want to get that out there up in front. Who should read it and why?

Well, really, this book is to go directly to the public because I realized there's amazing new research on things in the blind spots of modern medicine, things that we don't talk about in academics in our journal. But there are scientific breakthroughs that people need to know about. And if my own colleagues at Johns Hopkins were surprised and shocked when I shared with them some of the new research out there, I think everybody should learn about the microbiome and gut health and how we prevent peanut allergies and the latest thinking on preventing cancer, hormone replacement therapy for postmenopausal women, and our food supply. We have a poison food supply. So it's no wonder all of our chronic diseases are going up. We've

got to stop and ask what's going on. I think your indictment of food came at an opportune time. We have Callie Means and his sister running around raising awareness about how the food industry gets its way with us. And even I was, my jaw was on the ground when I talked to Callie Means myself. He was a food, are you familiar with them? Yeah, I just talked to Callie today, actually. They're doing great work. Okay. Okay. And so for those of you that don't know Callie, he was a food lobbyist and he documented how the food industry used the exact same techniques and very people that the tobacco industry used to addict us to tobacco to hurt us. Guess what? They're doing the same thing with foods, and we don't have to fall for it this time. But your discussion of

foods I thought was spot on. Also, let's dig into the hormone replacement therapies a little bit. You're a little bit younger than I am as a practicing physician. I want to tell you a quick story. I had all my elderly women on estrogen replacement therapy. Back in the day, we had something called Premarin, which was not a great drug, but it really helped a lot of women. And what we were observing was, and we all observed this, that their bones were staying better longer. They felt better. They were not getting all the atrophic vaginitis and the problems that were so miserable that way.

They had less dementia. All of a sudden, the Women's Health Initiative comes out and I will never forget, I think it was JAMA. I wish I could pull that article. There were- At JAMA.

And there were multiple articles saying the same thing, but it essentially said, if you do not listen to this Women's Health Initiative results, it is conclusive. And if you do not follow the mandates required by the findings here, you are literally, quote, no better than a witch doctor. I'll never forget that. And I thought, wow, how could I be that off-base with my clinical observations?

And I shared with my peers, did I see something distorted? Everybody saw the same thing. Well, we dutifully took everybody off hormone. We made women miserable. Depression went up, dementias went up. Of course, bone fracturing went through the roof. And now it's like, oh, sorry, sorry, we had it wrong. There were some weaknesses in the study. We missed a couple of things. And you evaluate all that. And now women's hormone replacement therapy is becoming a routine part of healthcare. Yeah, hormone replacement therapy for menopausal women is basically a miracle. It's a modern day miracle. There's probably no medication in the modern era, with the exception of antibiotics, that has improved the health of a population more

and has the potential to improve the health of a population more for all the reasons you cited, Drew. But tragically, 80% of doctors today in America still believe the dogma that was put out 22 years ago at a press conference by this NIH researcher claiming that hormone therapy causes breast cancer. I interviewed him for the book and basically get into a long conversation with him pointing out that there was no statistically significant increased risk in breast cancer. And the backstory I learned is that before he made the announcement, other doctors said, you can't put that out there in the public domain that hormone therapy causes

breast cancer. If you dangle fear in front of women with something as sensitive as breast cancer, you will do tremendous damage for generations and you may never be able to put that genie back in the bottle. And those words were prophetic. Yep, absolutely. And by the way, we have a similar weird bias against testosterone therapy for women, which is part of the triumvirate of what should be used for women, the progesterone, estrogen, and testosterone therapies. And as well, men could be benefited. And they're sort of slowly, we're learning about that as well. But the fact that we left one of the primary hormones, sex hormones, off the menu for women because, no, that's the man's hormone. Let's just men have that. But of course, ovaries produce testosterone,

you know, adrenal glands produce testosterone, but go ahead. So it's unbelievable. In the book, I go through the latest scientific research. And if you look at it as on whole, it's unbelievable. Women live three and a half years longer. They feel better. It alleviates not just the short-term symptoms of menopause, but it cuts the rate of heart attacks in half in one study, reduces cognitive decline by 50 to 60 percent, and in another study reduces the risk of Alzheimer's by 35 percent. And if a woman falls, they're far less likely to break a bone. It's unbelievable, these benefits. And the vast majority of women are candidates when they go through menopause. People need to know the truth. And thank you, Drew, for

what you're doing, getting the word out on this terrible medical dogma that I think is one of the greatest mistakes and screw-ups of all of modern medicine. And it still continues to this day. Well, you mentioned dogma. Maybe we got to go right at that because I want to talk about gut dysbiosis and those topics too. But probably about 15 years, maybe 20 years ago, I thought to myself, you know, why am I giving that IV Lasix to this patient in this setting? I said, oh, well, the nephrologist I trained with,

who I respected greatly, was a brilliant dude. He did this, and he trained me to do this, and I thought, I always do this. I think I'm in a cult. This is weird. I mean, am I in a cult? And then I started really kind of thinking about it, and I convinced myself that I was not, but I was certainly in a military system where I was indoctrinated. And if I wasn't careful and I have no other word to use, but careful with my reading of the literature and my assessment of my practices, I would just be wrote repeating what the dogma had told me to do. And that's wrong a lot of the time. Yeah, we have this terrible culture where we do this forced memorization and regurgitation in medical school for our young students. We crush the creativity

out of them. We don't encourage big ideas in healthcare, like how do you cure cancer or how do you make people feel better or what's causing autoimmune diseases or why has autism gone up by 14% every year for the last 23 consecutive years? We don't talk about these things. In my own field of pancreas diseases, I'm a surgeon and we do a lot of pancreatic cancer research. We do more pancreatic cancer research than any group in the country. Has anyone in our group, and they're all good guys or my friends or great doctors, has anyone ever stopped and asked, why has pancreatic cancer doubled in the last 20 years?

No, these are giant increases in all of these diseases. And it's sort of no one's job. And that's why we've got to stop and look in our own blind spots. It's why I wrote this book. It's where we need to redirect funding. But in the interim, people need to know the latest scientific research. I think personally, Drew, we've done a terrible thing to doctors in the United States. We've told them, put your head down, focus on billing and coding and short visits, and we're going to measure you by your throughput.

And they do that. They do what we tell them to do. And that's why we have one-third of doctors burned out and the highest suicide rate of any profession, in my opinion. And we don't give them the time or resources to stop and actually look into these root causes oh oh yeah and it's it is not going to get better i i cannot believe what happened to our profession and and it and it was laid bare by covet frankly and some of the excesses there but we'll talk about that in a minute but you you said we don't talk about it and you know i i sigh when i when i say i say this you know not with any sense of satisfaction that for instance on the autism front the the reason we don't ask is because

there might be you can't ask because maybe it will implicate something we don't want to talk about it was the same thing look i don't know if you saw, did you see the data on, I kept asking about, what was I asking during the sort of the early days of Omicron? I was sort of asking for, why are we seeing myocarditis? Why are we seeing myocarditis in young male? Why are we seeing it? And I thought, oh, we can't even ask the question because it might implicate the vaccine. It might. I'm not saying it is. It might be Omicron. I mean, it might be the illness. It might be the vaccine. It might be the illness and the vaccine. And I don't know if you saw that recent study. I think it was out of Japan. Lo and behold, it's the illness and the vaccine where you get the worst outcomes. Okay, fine. Why couldn't we have asked that question two years ago?

Yeah, there's a modern day tension in medicine between an old guard medical establishment, a few people at the top that want to control what everybody says and thinks, and independent free thinkers who are experts and they're trying to challenge deeply held assumptions. It's the Spanish Inquisition.

It's a canon. It's canonical. But that's being kind. I think because if you look at the Spanish Inquisition, they were a very, very thoughtful group. They kind of got a bad rap because of some of the people they put on the spike and all, but except for that, they tried to be very, very thoughtful, not just about the materials put before them,

but the impact of the material. And that's where they went off the chain. They started saying, well, how could the sun, earth go around the sun? Because then there's this, there's one thing that happens where in one of the biblical chapters, the sun stands still in the sky and that wouldn't be possible and blah, blah, blah.

So therefore we can't contemplate what you're suggesting. And by the way, go away, Mr. Galileo, which is what really what this is like. But this is the world we are in right now. And then we end up with mandates without the bioethical standing for a mandate for a vaccine. I got to ask you about this. This is the start that kills me but i do want to uh what's the matter susan susan's laughing at me because i'm having a rush this poor guy he's like when do i get to talk well okay all right fair enough i was excited to talk to him fair enough um and we did i did say we will talk about the fact all right let's let's go do that. Let's talk about the fact that science has been adulterated by politics. Even so far as the first time in the 175 years of the Scientific

America, they are endorsing a political candidate. There it is, Kamala Harris. And I don't care whom they endorse. I don't think science literally can't be involved in politics. And now here we are. Dr. McCary, what do you say? Well, one political party is claiming to be the party of science, and I don't think science belongs to one political agenda. The purpose of science is to challenge deeply held assumptions, and that may be assumptions made on either side. We just watched our government, in my opinion, do the most dangerous thing a government could ever possibly do. They pushed through a novel vaccine through the FDA,

firing two of the top vaccine experts at the agency who opposed its approval for young, healthy kids as a booster shot. Then they mandated it on the population and then silenced many doctors who raised concerns saying, hey, we'd like to see the data before we recommend it. That's a very dangerous thing. And that's what we just saw from the so-called party of science. Look, I'm politically independent. I don't have an allegiance to a party. But the purpose of science is to have transparency and an open dialogue.

That means we should disagree and evolve our position as new data comes in. Absolutely. Absolutely. And in fact, the press and the public and the government have become so befuddled on what science is. Science is a, it gets complicated when you get the weeds, but as its foundation, it's observational material that causes you to arrive at a hypothetical assessment of the sensory information coming in. Then you design an experiment to test for that hypothesis.

And you do something called a null hypothesis. And it's either confirmatory or unconfirmatory. It's either confirmed or not. And then you do a statistical analysis. And you've built it on a set of assumptions. And that's it. It's an instrument for examining reality. That's what the scientific method is.

That's it, period, end. That's all it does. Now, you's it, period, end. That's all it does. Now, you can build a lot of interesting technologies from it, but it is a hypothesis, experiment, statistical analysis, and you do that enough times with the same hypothesis, then that hypothesis becomes a theory, not a fact, a theory. And that's it. That's where we are. Yep. Yeah. Look, more than ever today with our chronic disease epidemic, with half of our nation's kids overweight or obese and all of these diseases rising, including cancer, more than ever, we need to challenge what we're doing, challenge conventional thinking. Maybe we need to treat more diabetes with cooking classes instead

of just throwing insulin at people. Maybe we need to treat more high blood pressure by talking about sleep quality and stress than just throwing meds at people. Maybe we need to talk about school lunch programs, not putting every overweight kid on Ozempic. Maybe we need to talk about environmental exposures that cause cancer, not just the chemo to treat it. We have the most medicated generation in human history. We cannot keep going down this path. We're getting sicker and sicker as this crazy system becomes more and more expensive on the backs of everyday American worker through their paycheck deduction. That is so, so true. I have seen, I just, I don't, you know, that we are not, we are an N of two here and I'm

not, you know, I'm not disparaging people for prescribing this, but I've seen some catastrophic reactions to Ozembic. Not to say that the right patient for the right reason shouldn't get it, but this is not being widely reported and I'm just an N of one. I'm wondering if you're seeing some of this stuff. It's unusual, but it happens more than I'm comfortable with. Yeah, it's hard to know what the denominator is because we see some of the complications, especially in my field of gastrointestinal surgery. It slows down. It does mimic the body's normal hormone, but what are we doing to this muscle mass wasting? Are we accelerating frailty? Oh, yeah.

That's a big concern. Yeah, especially as you get older. I mean, sarcopenia is the enemy. That's one of the biggest indicators of how we age. But I'm going to throw this out to you. I'm not saying this happened. I'm saying this is my theory, given what I've seen. I have a feeling, and please don't, nobody accuse me of anything. I have a peer here. I just want to throw out a theory to him, a peer that works in this field. I have a feeling that in addition

to delayed gastric emptying, it is delaying small bowel follow-through in some substantial way that is leading to massive ischemia, like diffuse ischemia throughout the small bowel that's resulting in acute and sudden massive overwhelming septicemia. And I think that's what I'm seeing. Have you seen, keep your eyes open. I could be completely wrong.

I'm prepared to be wrong, but something weird like that is going on where people are suddenly dying in the middle of the night and stuff. So just, I think that's what's happening. So we have to take a break in a minute. But before we do, I want to, before my wife interrupted me

for being so enthusiastic about talking to you, I want to go back to mandates. And I'm sure you know Aaron Cariotti, right? The psychiatrist from UC Irvine. Yeah. You know Aaron? Yeah. Okay. And so he was immediately put on leave for, yeah, me too. He was immediately put on leave for, there are a few poster children for this excesses of COVID. You're one, Cariotti's one, Bhattacharya's one. I mean, there's just people that just, they're just poster children for, when the history books are written, trust me,

your guys' pictures will be in there. But the mandates were what he raised his hand and said, look, I've been your head of bioethics for years. I'm raising my hand now and saying that you don't have the bioethical standing. It's hardest to walk the walk when you have to walk the walk. And I've always told you that. And now I've got to be that person. You don't have the bioethical standing. It's hardest to walk the walk when you have to walk the walk. And I've always told you that. And now I've got to be that person. You don't have the bioethical standing to mandate this. Thank you very much. You're fired. And so my question as it pertains to continued mandate, and by the way, the present boosters are aimed at the JN1 route. And I'm seeing that we have a completely different subvariant heading our way from Africa

or something that's massively contagious that will probably have no efficacy against this vaccine. That's MZ1 or something. I forget the name of it, but it's another different route entirely. And it's going to have no, this vaccine is going to have

little or no activity against it. And yet young males are being mandated to get it to go to college. And it's gonna have no, this vaccine is gonna have little or no activity against it. And yet young males are being mandated to get it to go to college. My question is, first of all, I want them if they get myocarditis to sue those institutions because that is a disgusting overreach, number one. But my question really is, if it's so important to get a vaccine in order to go to those institutions, why aren't we contemplating whole viral alternatives? Why do we keep looking at the same spike protein that we know is pathogenic and we know is the most flexible,

changing part of the virus? What's wrong with Covaxin? If you have to get a vaccine, why not a whole viral vaccine? Why don't they ever, ever, ever mention it? Well, I think the reason is that there's something very cozy between Moderna and Pfizer and government regulators. Why did the AstraZeneca-Oxford vaccine never get approved in the United States? Not enough people took it. It was like a billion people took it. Is that not enough for the FDA? There's something very fishy and cozy. And if it were up to Pfizer, I think we'd be all getting vaccine boosters every Monday morning when we show up at work. Yeah. So you're articulating what I fear. the idea that somebody may be able to give me an answer for why the whole viral alternatives, or at least the Novavax, is not something pushed in the same breath as other vaccines that are

being mandated. But until somebody gives me a sensible explanation for that, I'm going to assume what you just said is the reason. I've talked to really smart vaccine developers. They've been working on a universal flu shot right now that you take once in your life, and it may be good for your entire life against many future variants of flu. Instead of trying to guess every year, it appears to work against bird flu and animal studies. It's finished phase one human trials. But they cannot go anywhere because all of these large authorities in medicine, all the oligarchs have said, why would we fund that if it's not an mRNA vaccine?

We're only interested in mRNA. Wow. Oh, boy. See, I'm a fan of mRNA technology for many other disciplines where particularly we're looking at life-threatening illness, then it makes perfect sense to me to take all kinds of risk. But if we are going to switch all vaccinology to mRNA, I am gravely concerned about that. I mean, this is the groupthink again. And so it's one of the examples of groupthink in my book. But groupthink is epidemic. We've got to encourage people to think independently. Our current medical leaders

have failed us. We have the sickest population in this world, the most over-medicated, and all we're doing is treating back-end, late-stage complications of health problems. We're not dealing with the root causes. How about the NIH spends more money studying the microbiome instead of funding bat coronavirus research in Wuhan, right? We've got our funding priorities messed up and our entire system is a whack-a-mole system. I think we need fresh new leaders. Our current healthcare leaders have failed us. Yeah. I'm sorry to say that's true, but for you and me, our profession is, I don't know what's gone haywire. That we're all employed by somebody, that we are not taught basic science, you know, and we're not taught

critical reasoning. We're not given time to use our judgment, which is the only reason patients see us is just to apply judgment. Surgeons, believe me, have more freedom than the intellectual so-called disciplines. You guys still, when you're in the surgical field, you're allowed to make judgments. We are not.

We are still filling out algorithms and pathways and insane, insane things that have nothing to do with the practice of medicine. And it's becoming ossified too, these on high, they're not recommendations, they're mandates. Thus say it the Lord and how the opposite of the practice of medicine. And my sense is the reason they really have it in place is to get doctors out of the way and put it in a place so they can let nurse practitioners and physician assistants do the whole thing.

And, of course, all the liability will still flow up to us because we'll have to supervise everybody. So we'll have all the liability still, but we won't be doing the care. You know, half of my medical students, Drew, they see this broken system. They don't want to be cogs in the wheel. They're invited to step on to the hamster wheel and they're saying, no, thank you. We're going to do something different. We're going to spend time with patients. We're going to talk about food as medicine and general body inflammation and ultra processedprocessed foods and pesticides and all sorts of things where we can recommend lifestyle changes instead of just blaming everybody in the public for their diseases, which let's be honest, that's the

background of our medical culture is blame individuals. We blame everything on smoking and obesity. Well, you know what? Maybe we've poisoned the food supply. Maybe obesity is a symptom of a larger problem. Maybe pesticides kill pests. What are they doing to the gut bacteria in the microbiome? So we like to blame individuals for their conditions in the old patriarchy medical culture. But a young generation of doctors are now saying, look, I don't have anything to do with this broken healthcare system.

We're going to redesign care differently in a clinic model with a startup company that's going to help fix one part of healthcare. So I'm excited. I'm optimistic, ultimately. We're seeing some cool stuff. That's nice to hear, because I'm seeing the upstream stuff. But when we come back, I do want to the upstream stuff and it's, well. But when we come back, I do want to talk about inflammation and gut dysbiosis. And you're sort of tilting at or pointing at mental health and psychiatry and changing behaviors, which is terrifically complex and terrifically under attended to, frankly.

Why are we obese? Why are we doing these things? And there's a lot going on there. All right, we will be back in just a second. Go get the book if you're not convinced already. If you haven't been convinced, I suggest you do it right now. It's Blind Spots,

Medicine Gets It Wrong, What It Means For Our Health. Also follow Dr. McCary at martymccary, M-A-K-A-R-Y on X. And we'll be right back with a little more conversation after this. I'm excited to bring you a new product, a new supplement, FATTY. I take it. I make Susan take it.

My whole family takes it. This comes out of, believe it or not, dolphin research. The Navy maintains a fleet of dolphins. And a brilliant veterinarian recognized that these dolphins sometimes developed a syndrome identical to our Alzheimer's disease. Those dolphins were deficient in a particular fatty acid. She replaced the fatty acid and they didn't get the Alzheimer's. Humans have the same issue and we are more deficient in this particular fatty acid than

ever before. And a simple replacement of this fatty acid called C15 will help us prevent these syndromes. It's published in a recent journal called Metabolites. It's a new nutritional C15, pentadecanoic acid it's called. The deficiency that we are developing for C15 creates something called the cellular fragility syndrome. This is the first nutritional deficiency syndrome to be discovered in 75 years and may be affecting us in many ways, and as many as one in three of us. This is an important breakthrough. Take advantage of it. Go to fatty15.com slash drdrew to receive 15% off a 90-day starter kit subscription or use code drdrew at checkout for that 15% off

or just go to our website drdrew.com slash fatty15. Many of us have not gotten over COVID. I'm not talking about the virus itself, but the response. We were flabbergasted about what the government could do to us. There is no telling what they might pull next time and it's looking more like there will be a next time. So we all have to be what I call rationally ready.

That's where the wellness company comes in. TWC is about access. Access to physicians via telehealth. Access to potentially life-saving medication. Years ago,

having access to medication and telehealth might have seemed crazy, but now it seems crazy not to. Now, with claims that gain-of-function research have been done in the bird flu, I urge everyone to take control of their healthcare with the help of the wellness company. Go to drdrew.com slash TWC for 10% off all their products, including the four medical kits, each of which has a different purpose. And we've added Tamiflu to one of them in case the bird flu does become a problem for humans. Be rationally ready. DrDrew.com slash GWC for 10% off.

Dr. Drew said the best way to quit drinking is by going cold turkey. And he's a doctor. So why would you question doctors? Dr. Drew called me unfixable. of our friends at paleo valley ancestral superfood one scoop of the bone broth protein is 80 calories in the chocolate this is the unflavored and 70 calories and when i say unflavored i mean nothing you have no idea if you added it to anything. It has zero flavor. It actually is 15 grams of protein, while the chocolate, which we love, we use every day in our coffee, is 13 grams of protein.

310 milligrams of potassium, non-GMO. Bones not hides, as we keep saying. It's grass-fed finished beef. Cattle are grass-fed their entire lives. And no hormones, no steroids. It's a great source of collagen, glycine, various amino acids and protein. Comes in chocolate, vanilla, and plain. And again, we just really love the attention they pay. They're very, very careful how they source their foods and how they care for their animals. And the beef sticks, of course, are part

of that. And we use them a lot. We'll talk about gut dysbiosis in a minute. In order to get your first order, go to drdrew.com slash paleovalley for 15% off that first order or subscribe to save 20% if you don't run out. That is drdrew.com slash paleovalley.

And I know many of you have tried this. You tell me if you're not happy with this as a food source. The bone broth is great for appetite management. Great. And it's...

Every day. Yeah, we take it every day. So... I'm going to put it in my Ninja Creamy and make you an ice cream with bone broth. All right, I'm in. This sounds fascinating. I'm in.

Vanilla's good. All right, fair enough. Let's get Dr. Marty McCary back here. Obviously, he's a surgeon. He's at Johns Hopkins. He's teaching still. He's written a book called Blind Spots. He knows from whence he writes.

And we were going to talk a little bit about, there's the full, you go get that. It's number two on Amazon right now for a reason. I suggest you check it out. Dysbiosis, gut health. Oh, there you can get it right now by just clicking on that QR code. I wonder if we, do we have any kind of,

Caleb, are we giving any kind of discount with that? Is that just to make it easy? It might, but this is just to make it easy. So while they're watching the show, they can screenshot this, finish watching the show, and then go and get it right after. So they don't have to skip anything. Perfect. All right, Dr. McCary, gut health.

Give us a primer on that and what you review in the book. Well, there's some incredible new research that's showing exactly what the microbiome is doing, the garden of bacteria that normally live in the GI tract. They're involved in not just digestion and training the immune system. Some of those bacteria produce serotonin. Some produce GLP-1, the active ingredient in ozempic. Some help regulate estrogen levels.

And there's probably a lot more we don't know about. But one thing that's emerging is that when we alter the microbiome, when we kill some of the bacteria, letting others overgrow, when we reduce the diversity of bacteria in our gut, we get sicker. Higher rates of colon cancer in people who were born by C-section, which is known to alter the microbiome. That study just came out and I just put it in the book. Antibiotics are known to carpet bomb the microbiome. They kill some of the bacteria. Now look, both C-sections and antibiotics, as you and I know, save lives, and many times they're necessary. But 60% of the time, the antibiotics are unnecessary, according to new studies.

And 40% of the time, the C-sections are unnecessary. In a Mayo Clinic study, when they looked at kids who had antibiotics in the first couple years compared to kids who did not. Kids who took antibiotics in the first few years had a 20% higher rate of obesity, a 32% higher rate of attention deficit disorder. Remember that gut health connection via serotonin and other things. A 90% higher rate of asthma and nearly a 300% higher rate of celiac. So when people ask us what caused my celiac and we give them some nebulous non-answer, no, we have a pretty good clue now. We've altered the microbiome in the modern world.

Pesticides, ultra-processed foods, heavy metals in drinking water, and these things that we do in the modern era, like give antibiotics liberally for no reason sometimes. And when you're born by a C-section, just to give you a sense as to how that alters the microbiome and why we don't want to be doing unnecessary C-sections. The baby in utero has no bacteria along the lining of the gut. The microbiome is normally formed when the baby passes the birth canal, and those bacteria from the vaginal canal seed the baby's microbiome, along with skin bacteria, breast milk bacteria. But when you're born by C-section, a baby that is sterile with a sterile gut is extracted from a sterile operative field.

And what may seed that baby's microbiome are the bacteria that normally live in the hospital. And so some medical centers like Mount Sinai in New York are now doing clinical trials swabbing the mother's vaginal fluid on the newborn skin when they're born by C-section. It's important. Breastfeeding is important for the baby's microbiome. Not all women can breastfeed and that's okay. That's out of their control sometimes. But there are many things that affect gut health. We've been blowing it off in modern medicine. When I share new research on the microbiome with my colleagues, they're blown away by it. It affects every aspect, all the cancer work we do, all the autoimmune diseases, chronic inflammatory diseases. Well, guess what's happening? When we eat these chemicals, when we have alterations in the

microbiome that are not natural, the body reacts. There's an immune system in the wall of the intestine. The GI tract is loaded with immunity because that's the front line of defense of what we take in. And so the body is reacting not with an acute inflammatory reaction, but with a low-grade inflammatory response. And over time, it just makes people feel sick. And the solution is not more medications. Right, that's for sure. I'm worried, and I know some of the regulatory agencies are worried about the over-deployment of the term inflammation,

that we have to get very, very specific about what we're talking about. And I think oftentimes a lot of what people are describing as inflammation is actually macrophage, lipids, endothelial interaction in our arteries. Or spike protein endothelial interaction causing essentially an inflammatory reaction that's hematogenous. And I'm convinced that's what spike protein is doing, for instance. But the kind of inflammation you're talking about is actually activation of the cytokine system and some of the actual immune cell function. And there's even other kinds of inflammation that are often not specifically talked about. How do we help people sort through that landmine, that minefield rather?

When we talk about health in 100 years, we're going to be talking about how is your inflammation. We're going to have better tests to measure how inflamed you are. Now, I've learned my own body, and I can actually tell when I feel inflamed. There are certain manifestations of it that I'm able to identify. We know the triggers of inflammation, not only all this bad food that we take in and our poison food supply, but stress can drive inflammation, changes in normal balance of different things in the body like fatty acids. So we're going to get better tests. Some people are doing biopsies of the GI tract and they can actually look at a microscopic level at the degree of inflammation in the GI tract and they can actually look at a microscopic level at the degree of inflammation in the GI tract. But that's not practical. We can't biopsy everyone's GI tract every

week and track their inflammation. But it's amazing how many people come in with this kind of inflammatory response at the level of their GI tract and we don't know what to do with them in medicine. We're great in the hospital if you get shot or we have to do an emergency chest tube. But when you come in with inflammation, it's like we're at a loss. It's one of our giant blind spots. We have these umbrella wastebasket terms like irritable bowel syndrome or chronic pain syndrome or all these low energy diagnoses, the reality is what's probably happening is people have poor gut health

in ways that are modifiable, but where we've just not educated people about gut health and the microbiome. You know, I was thinking about inflammation. Again, this is just sort of another kind of inflammation that got onto my radar during COVID. Again, COVID did us some favors. Things like zooming have become much more routine now. And the use of fluvoxamine

as a potential anti-inflammatory for the brain. We don't talk about the brain that much with inflammation, but there's a whole receptor system. I think it's the Sigma-2 receptor system, if I remember right, that fluvoxamine stimulates, suggesting that even the antidepressant property of, say, fluvoxamine may not be the serotonin system

as we've sort of been, again, the canonical dogma has demanded we digest it may be actually an anti-inflammatory it's amazing and i i remember actually uh drew now when you were talking about fluvoxamine many of us were saying hey wait it's an anti-inflammatory we have randomized control trial data showing that it has a benefit in patients with COVID, which is an inflammatory illness. And guess what? One of the greatest risk factors is of COVID.

The most common modifier or risk factor of COVID is obesity, which is an inflammatory state. And so here is an anti-inflammatory with great clinical trial data. Overwhelming. The signal was clear and only a couple of doctors were talking about it. And then the NIH puts out a statement basically saying, we don't recommend it. Ignoring the data of this clinical trial. And I remember talking to the researchers who recommend it. Ignoring the data of this clinical trial, and I remember talking to the researchers who did it, and this is the problem with groupthink in medicine. When we have a small group of oligarchs

deciding from on high what everyone should say and believe in the medical field, we have a lousy track record. When we use science, we help a lot of people. But when we get these edicts from on high We have a lousy track record. When we use science, we help a lot of people. But when we get these edicts from on high based on an opinion of a couple people at the top who are living in a bubble, guess what? They do tremendous damage. They got the opioid epidemic wrong.

They got the opioids wrong. For 30 years, they said it was not addictive, igniting the opioid epidemic. They still get hormone therapy and menopause wrong. 22 years and running. They said kids should avoid peanuts and peanut butter, igniting the modern-day peanut allergy epidemic. They put out the food pyramid, one of the worst pieces of misinformation from our government, igniting the modern-day obesity epidemic. They don't have a good track record. Yeah, they do not. And why we would trust it or consider it thus say at the

Lord and not really just think critically about things and reconsider things is just is mind boggling to me. Caleb put up a little banner there that said that this, you know, the body's second brain. I worry about that construct because there are lots of second brains in the body. There is a whole autonomic nervous plexus on top of our guts, on top of our chest, in our, you know, these autonomic webs that we have no idea how they function, but they are almost peripheral brains in themselves. We kind of know how they function. But in terms of them being an afferent system, we're not all that clear on what they're doing. Yes, there are webs of neuronal material in the gut also.

And yes, the gut produces a lot of what we call neurotransmitters. And yes, the gut produces hormones. So there's a very complicated story to be told of the relationship with the brain, the brain body, the gut brain, the gut autonomic nervous system, the autonomic brain. We are in the infancy of our understanding of this stuff. What's clear to me, Drew, is that the old guard medical establishment is talking about none of this. And it's not because they're bad people. It's because they're so busy with their billing and coding throughput

system. No one is stopping to look up and look around and see what's happening. The role of the microbiome, the complex neuron system of the body that we don't even think about. We think it's just a transmitter of electrical current. Look at the octopus. The octopus only lives about a year, and yet it's incredibly intelligent, emotionally intelligent, structurally intelligent. An octopus can do math problems, do tasks independently with different arms. Just check out the show, My Octopus Teacher, which was very popular on Netflix. And what's unique about the octopus, it has very high levels of estradiol. It's estrogen rich. And after about a year, and I go into this in my book, the estrogen level drops off and the animal withers

away and dies. It doesn't even make it to two years of age. What's going on there? The estrogen has some powerful, rich effect on a complex nervous system. This is fascinating stuff. This is the new science of medicine, and it's been in our blind spots for a long time. And thus the book, Blind Spot. Put up the screen again. If you now should be convinced, there it is behind you, his left shoulder as well, our right.

But it is a book worth your time. And read, by the way, it's really well written in terms of not just the content, but in terms of the ease of reading. It's an easy book to read. It moves along nicely. And you can go from chapter to chapter or

topic to topic that interests you. And each time you'll come away with having benefited from it. Well, I think I'm just thinking about the octopus. I just want to do one more pitch for the autonomic nervous system because you guys cut through it sometimes. It always worries me when you're cutting through because I do, you know, working in mental health for so long, I do believe that that autonomic plexus and its complex relationship with the sympathetic system and the afferent, you know, I don't know about you, but I was, you know, trained that the, trained, I was taught in medical school that, you know, the vagus nerve moves the stomach, the acid secretion a little bit, otherwise it just slows the heart down. And

that's your vagus nerve. Well, 78% of the vagus nerve is afferent. It's moving back to the brain and is connected to these very complex peripheral brains in our gut, in our chest. When people say their heart hurts because something bad happened to them, there's a bunch of nerves there that are actually hurting,

and we don't pay much attention to that, and we use it a lot, that regulatory system, in helping people get their brain body aligned so they can regulate their emotions, frankly, and be more present in the world. I'll give you last thoughts. You know, one of the tasks I have at Johns Hopkins is in our pancreas center, I'm in charge of our chronic pancreatitis center where a lot of people come in with chronic pain. And I observed in some cases, we take out the entire pancreas and they still have the pain. And over many years, it finally

hit me. We have yet to truly understand pain. We have yet to truly understand how the nervous system works. And it turns out the emotional component of pain, even the smallest amount of anxiety, can magnify or the mind can address pain and reduce pain simply by through distractions, be it watching a movie or cold or other things that we've noticed for years. And so when we think we understand things in medicine, it turns out we've got blind spots where we realize, hey, we are just, we don't, it doesn't make sense. And maybe we're missing something entirely. There's a certain nerve impingement of the shoulder. And it used to be that when we saw that nerve impingement, we would recommend surgery.

And then somebody pointed out that 25% of young athletes have that nerve impingement, we would recommend surgery. And then somebody pointed out that 25% of young athletes have that nerve impingement if you were to get a MRI randomly on every young athlete. And then we realized, hey, maybe this is the medicalization of ordinary life. Maybe it's not the impingement. Maybe it's something else going on. And maybe it's a more central nervous system phenomena, not as much localized to what we've described as a mechanical peripheral phenomena. So there's a lot we're learning. And that's why I think the most important quality of a doctor, of one of my medical students, is their humility, their ability to know their limits, to say, I don't know when that's the right answer, and to research

something when someone suggests something that may challenge deeply held assumptions in the field. A couple of things you might, I'm just throwing this out for you. Maybe I'll email this to you. There's a great book called How Do You Feel by a neuroscientist named A.D. Craig, C-R-A-I-G. And it's, I don't know why we're not routinely training our students on this stuff. And I will tell you that he has some unbelievable stuff on pain and other kinds of perceptions in the insula. The insula, it turns out there's a homunculus in our insula.

We have our sensory homunculus. Lo and behold, the insula has an anterior to posterior insula that goes from vague to highly defined. And it's very much hooked in with the pain system. And the cingulate, of course, is the sort of the emotional component that is used in helping, we don't know, I guess, regulate the insulin. But your answer, read that book.

How Do You Feel? It's called, and I promise you, it will not let you down. It's extraordinary. It's not that young. It's not that new either. It's kind of been out a few years and I'm just stunned

that it's not become more. We got the opioid thing so wrong. The way we approach pain so poorly during the opioid crisis, that I think people are afraid to go back into pain and take a look at it. I think that may have been what happened. Yeah. That's what we need to teach in medical school, not just forcing the kids to memorize the molecules in the Krebs cycle over and over again.

We need them to read books like the one you mentioned, to talk about big ideas, big questions, not just put your head down, do your job. So thanks for what you do, Drew. I really appreciate it. You are out there educating doctors and the public alike and challenging deeply held assumptions in the field, and that's what we need. It's an extraordinary time. And I'm inviting people in here to challenge me because I've landed on the protection of free speech as my primary principle because if we can't talk about stuff, we are in big, big, big trouble. And so I have people come in that I may disagree with, but fine, let's talk. That's great.

Thank you. Good to see you. Dr. Marty McCary. You betcha. Get that book, please. Support him. Follow him on X at Marty McCary. My next guest coming right on in is Dr. Brian Hooker. As I described to you at the opening of the show,

he is a decorated professor of microbiology and biotechnology from Simpson University. He is working with the Children's Health Defense. You can find out more at childrenshealthdefense.org. Follow him on X, Brian Hooker, PhD. And he's got a lot of materials out there. He's got a, let's hang a second. There he is, Dr. Hooker.

Thank you for joining us. Thank you, Dr. Drew. It's really an honor to be here. So Vaxxed 3, Authorized to Kill, is a movie you were involved with. You can find out more about it at Vaxxed number three. So V-A-X-X-E-D 3.O-R-G. There it is. Tell me a little bit about that film. Well, you know, obviously it's the third in a series of, you know, three movies entitled Vax. This particular movie focuses on the COVID pandemic and the response, the official response to the COVID pandemic. And it is really a series of stories that were recorded on a bus that Children's Health Defense sent out in 2022 and 2023 regarding, you know, looking for COVID-19 stories. And primarily, we thought we were going to see COVID-19 vaccine

injuries. I mean, you know, vaccine injury is something that we talk about a lot at Children's Health Defense. We saw that. We saw a lot of individuals that were suffering, you know, long COVID vaccine injury, you know, turbo cancer, things like that. But we also saw a lot of stories regarding hospital protocols and the hospital protocols that were used, you know, by the hospital doctors and administrators that were really following the standard of care that was laid out by the federal government.

And a lot of these hospital protocols, unfortunately, ended in death. And it was very, very difficult to know what was going on with these individuals, with the hospital deaths. And that's one of the reasons why the movie is subtitled Authorized to Kill. I want you, I know exactly what you're talking about when you describe hospital protocols. I have had, since early in my career, an aversion to these things, a deep aversion. They used to have them, they would call them clinical pathways. They were suggested clinical pathways for therapeutics on how to approach certain patients. And at that stage, I thought, okay, I don't mind them

suggesting stuff to me. But it very quickly, you started hearing from what used to be called utilization review and quality assurance and then quality improvement and then quality control and all these different regulator systems within the hospital to comply. Just comply. Just do it the way we say to do it. And now it has become impossible to do anything but the protocols. You would get in trouble, particularly in an ICU setting. I remember when I was talking to a pulmonologist about what was going on. It was in the darker hours of pulmonologist about what was going on, it was in the darker hours of COVID. Omicron was coming in, but it was still a lot of stuff in the ICU.

And Toxelizumab had just come in. And I had seen some decent use from Toxelizumab. And I remember talking to this guy and he goes, yeah, we just put it on the protocol, so I guess I can use it now. I was like, what? You couldn't have used it if you thought it was in the best interest of your patient before the protocol said you? And then it became the protocol. The protocol was you must use it, which is equally as dumb to me. But you tell me what you heard and if that fits with what the kinds of things you were hearing.

Well, Dr. Drew, it absolutely fits with what we heard on the road. And one of the things that these patients and loved ones of patients were saying was that the first thing that they were asked in hospital was whether they were vaccinated or not. And the lion's share of the individuals that we interviewed on the CHD bus were unvaccinated. They came into the hospital unvaccinated. And I was astounded to see that there was different protocols and that the hospitals were following different protocols between the vaccinated, those that have received the COVID-19, primarily mRNA shots under emergency use authorization and those that didn't. And there were more aggressive protocols that were used on the unvaccinated.

It seemed to follow a course of action. Of course, they were given remdesivir. And remdesivir is a drug that was repurposed from a failed Ebola trial. In the failed Ebola trial, about half of the patients died. It was difficult to know whether they died from Ebola or from remdesivir, but there was sketchy data at best regarding the efficacy of remdesivir, a product that was on patent. The patent was jointly held by Gilead Sciences and NIAID at the National Institutes of Health. And so these were on patent drugs.

They were big business. The hospitals were getting a large amount of reimbursement for using remdesivir, and they were also causing organ failure. And so they would go on remdesivir and they were also causing organ failure and so they would go on remdesivir then they would be you know put on uh you know some type of oxygen source uh maybe uh or a breathing source c-pap or or or bipap and then that turned into mechanical ventilation and after the mechanical ventilation then icu and then after ic, then finally, you know, if they resisted, then a cocktail of medicines like propofol, morphine, fentanyl, in order to keep them sedated so they couldn't leave the hospital. Some of them were even in four-point restraints if they would, you know, threaten to leave the hospital. And then a lot of the patients terminated. A lot of the patients died. So we were talking to loved ones of dead patients.

And at every step, there was more reimbursement for the hospital and more just sort of lockstep adherence to that particular protocol. Yeah, well, lockstep adherence, because that's in the system. That's what's required now in the system. And this is what COVID laid bare. Laid bare the fact that most doctors are employed by the hospitals or big systems, that the systems dictate medical care from on high the insurances review the dictates and that's how the hospitals get paid it's just it's just a mess

um and I did you guys are you guys thinking of solutions for this we are thinking of solutions for this you know I, I think that it is so difficult. You know, I have a lot of friends in the medical profession. They complain about it. You know, I live in the state of California that tried to outlaw free speech for physicians. You know, gosh, what was it?

I'm aware. In 1998. And so they couldn't even talk about it. By the way, you want to be chilled. You want to be chilled. You want to be chilled. The chairman of the California Medical Board is a nice woman. Her dad was a urologist. She's an attorney.

And she said to me, she goes, you know, we already have this authority anyway. We don't need this bill. I thought, oh, wow. Well, there you go. Well, it sounds like California, doesn't it? Oh, boy, it does, sir. It certainly does. It's really difficult. And to see the persecution of those physicians that dare would prescribe something off-label, something different than standard of care, whether it be hydroxychloroquine,

ivermectin, and we can go down the road of the ivermectin trials that were done incorrectly. And I believe in some cases just sort of fraudulently to show that, you know, somehow was not effective for COVID-19. Because, you know, if indeed it was showed effective and if indeed it was officially embraced, then that entered the emergency use authorization for the COVID-19 shots, as well as for things like remdesivir. So let's talk a little bit about how bad things are in medical science. And I'm putting science in quotes. You're a biologist, right? I was trained as a biologist too, originally. I'm actually a biochemical engineer but that you know yeah i do a lot of biology okay okay so so and and i explain to people the difference you know a pure biologist and a biochemical engineer so people get that well a biochemical engineer

is really trained up to go directly into biotechnology and that's anywhere from the bench in biotechnology which is life science and biology and molecular biology all the way to like big process considerations big fermenters big tanks things like that so you know i have a really a rather broad education uh lots of epidemiology lots of statistics uh but you know it is it it's more you know a foundation in the biological sciences as well as a foundation in the engineering which i probably took way too much math in college you know compared to you know well i mean i i no no no i listen i i disagree i think uh the more math the better the basis of biology is physics, and the basis of physics is math.

I mean, it's just the way it is. And certainly, if you're going to understand thermodynamics, you better understand math. And I had lots of applications for that in biology, that's for sure. And so to this point, I raised this with Dr. McCary as well. I am concerned about the state of medical,

no, not medical training, science training in our country. I was trained, I had very, I had excellent science training. I was so grateful for it. I was trained in the scientific method. I was trained in rigorous consideration

and thought and application of that method. And I'm just astonished that most people, certainly in medicine, have never had any of that, let alone the kind of, I was kidding with a friend of mine this afternoon, what I was trained in, my professors were going for,

and I mean this literally, they were going for monastery meets prison, was the sort of vibe that they were going for us in training at the time. I love it. And it was serious business, right? But we're just not doing that, it seems like, anymore. And I value that so much. Am I wrong?

Or some people, it seems like they're doing it at MIT and Caltech, at least in the physics they are, and in applied math and things I think they are. But in the biological sciences, I don't see it. I think critical thinking is getting diluted further and further down over and against memorization, over and against knowing

this A plus B equals C. But we really need critical thought in the sciences. We learned over the pandemic to trust the science. That's one of the least scientific terms I think I've ever heard before. We need to question the science. We need to pummel the science. I work in a realm of vaccine injury, and a lot of our publications are not very popular with the medical press. And so therefore, we pummel each other. I mean, we make sure that the science is absolutely, you know, rock solid. I'm used to sitting around in conversations and Zoom meetings,

you know, with people confronting me about how lousy my science is because I'd rather have that on the inside than have it during the peer review process to get into a scientific journal. But I think we've really, really lost that ability to ask really, really good questions. And if you ask the wrong question at the wrong time, then who knows what the medical board is going to do to you. I'm a PhD, so I don't have to worry about that. I worked before I retired from the university at an institution that valued academic freedom. And so I had a very, very different path than some of my colleagues that have been dismissed from Harvard Harvard University, UCLA, you know, other universities

that, you know, very abruptly because they said the wrong thing at the wrong time. And they dare to ask these questions, Dr. Drew. And really at the foundation of good science is humility before the process. I mean, humility in the presence of this process we call the scientific method and the understanding that even doing good science, we can still be wrong. Absolutely.

Even with great science, we can still be wrong and we need to be prepared for that. I mean, as I keep repeating over and over again, the null hypothesis is either informative or not informative. That's the best I can do. That's the best application of science I can, the purest application that I can do. It's either informative or not. And doing that a lot of times and maybe refining my hypothesis, maybe I'll get at something close to the truth, maybe. Exactly. And, you know, I've taught a lot of statistics course.

I was teaching undergrads and nursing students statistics before I retired. And I love that experience because you do get into that thought. Are we going to accept or reject the hypothesis rather than, you know, these, these sort of coming out of the air standard of care, you know, consensus science, things like that that really don't have a place in the scientific method. You know, they, they, they basically take the scientific method out of the equation and, you know, it's, it's like, okay, I'm, I'm, you'm you know i'm i'm cramming for the exam for what tony fauci wants me to do look you just made me squirm with a term i had not yet heard and

somebody's gonna have to explain defend it to me consensus science that is like oxymoronic it's like these are two words that do not which of these two things don't belong together? Consence. Well, consensus is where you get in science, but that's with a lot of time and a lot of effort. But the idea of science being consensus is just, again, ridiculous. Exactly. I mean, think of the individuals like Galileo, Copernicus, Sir Isaac Newton. Those, if they would have gone with consensus science, where would we be today?

What advances would we have missed out upon? Yes, and listen, people need to really examine themselves. People want to believe they would have been Galileo, yet the vast, vast majority of people are behaving like the Spanish Inquisition. The vast majority. You would actually have been part of the Inquisition. Or if you were someone advocating for and demanding insane policies, mask up between bites, and you were vehemently exerting your influence on other human beings with that insane idea, you would have been a German prison guard in 1938, for sure. That's what you, and you need to examine that and don't let that happen again.

You do not want to have been the prison guards. Right, right. I wish I could disagree with you. I mean, you know, that was not the case. But we were masking up between bites. And, you know, little known to you, I was teaching a lecture in a mask, you know, which was preposterous, you know, given the fact of how little it filtered out and given the fact that, you know, the air was probably populated with whatever it was going to be populated in the room, you know, the full room, a small classroom within, you know,

10 to 15 minutes, regardless of whether you were masked up or not. And maybe they could put some plexiglass up to make sure it didn't circulate and then didn't find a way to ventilate the room. It's just such stupidity. It's such stupidity. And people want to say, oh, we didn't know. We didn't know a way to ventilate the room. It's just such stupidity. It's such stupidity. And people want to say, oh, we didn't know. We didn't know. How did I know?

I'm not that smart. How did I know? And by the way, okay, we didn't know. But yeah, we thought it was maybe droplet as opposed to aerosol for about five minutes. And then we knew for sure it wasn't. And yet mask mandates went on for years. Surgical, useless surgical masks. Exactly. There was so much about compliance. There was so much in the pandemic that was about the arrows, the six foot social

distancing, the arrows in the grocery store really got me. I really wanted to go upstream, regardless of where the arrows were pointing. Even if it was inconvenient, I would take the cart and I would go upstream and take my son along with me just so I could teach him to go upstream. You're a rebel. You're a maniac. Exactly. You're a maniac. There were so many things like that that you were taught to comply. You were taught not to ask questions.

You were even taught that questions were dangerous. And then we saw the carnage of the individuals that were made examples of because they dare question the system. All right, I'm going to give you a chance. Let me just frame my own stuff here. I was an extreme vaccine enthusiast before the mRNA stuff. Now I'm more like Joe Rogan. I'm like, maybe the earth is flat. I don't know. So I'm open to a lot of things that I would not have been open to four years ago. Oh, we have a clip of the documentary. We'll tell that in a second. But before I go to that, I just want to frame that I'm still a vaccine advocate. And I used to say that it was the greatest advancement, one of the three great advancement in the history of medicine. And maybe at one time it was,

but now I'm getting worried about it. Now I have all kinds of concerns. I want the data to be better. RFK Jinder alerted me to the cozy relationships and the lack of good data. And certainly Joseph Freiman, you know, uncovered the horrible data as it pertained to the Pfizer vaccine studies. So there's a lot going on. But I do not have an opinion. Well, I'm not convinced about the issue of autism, though it's undeniable that it's going up in this country. So let's watch a little bit of the film. And then when you come back, you can give me your defense of whatever your position is on where that's coming from. Okay. These were fundamental violations of human rights. So we here at Children's Health Defense are going to go back out on the road. We are going to speak to every single one of you.

What have you been through? Those are my eyes. This is a huge tumor. This is the bottom of my lung that is filled with blood. They said it was the most aggressive cancer that they've seen. I held on to my husband for the very last time, and I stayed with him until his body got cold. I told him that I loved him.

Not to be afraid. What have your children been through, through COVID? Through all of the issues that we've had over these last few years, we wanna hear all of your stories. It was hard seeing 25-year-olds coming in with heart attacks, with strokes, because they received the vaccine.

The success rate of these patients getting better was next to zero. There's something wrong. There's something has happened and you have to consider the vaccine. This is a pandemic of the unvaccinated. That pandemic was so awful and we just botched it. We just freaking botched it.

But here we are still trying to get our feet back under us. And I will get criticism for platforming whatever your opinion is going to be. But I'm here to defend free speech. So I'd like to give you a chance to give me your position. Well, I really do appreciate that, Dr. Drew. And I also have the permission to be wrong. And that's one of the things that I appreciate about this is that, you know, I was very pro-vaccination. I grew up in a family where my mom was a public health nurse in charge of distributing vaccines in one of the larger counties in Southern California.

There's some pretty large counties in Southern California. So I grew up with the literature. I grew up with the vaccine information sheets. I grew up, you know, also with a healthy fear of STDs, you know, before anywhere near age of sexual activity. But, you know, that's another point. But still, I, you know, I grew up in this public health family. I was proud to vaccinate my son on time and with every vaccine that was available at that point. Unfortunately, when he was 15 months of age, he had an active ear infection and he received three vaccines that day. Against my wife and my better judgment, we asked the nurse practitioner, she said, oh, we vaccinate sick kids all the time. And it was not a good outcome for him. It was a very, very rapid regression after a fever spiked at 103, 104, high pitch screaming, a whole nine yards. And very, very quickly after

that, he lost eye contact, lost language. It was as plain as the nose in your face. It would have to be a very unusual coincidence if indeed it was a coincidence. And then three months later, he was diagnosed by the same pediatric practice with full-blown autism. And he has not spoken to this day. He is what's called a speller. He does communicate through a letter board, and that's a great advancement for him. He's now 26 years old and the light of my life. And that started my quest to understand better vaccine injury. You know, if we look at the COVID vaccination alone, I mean, there are so many issues and I think that that's an easier issue to start with rather than looking at the entirety of the

vaccination schedule. You look at the COVID-19 shot, it was approved under emergency use authorization. The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines were tested in phase two, three clinical trials for just a number of weeks. I mean, you know, really 10 to 14 weeks worth of post-vaccination surveillance after they received two shots of the Pfizer and I believe two shots of the Moderna as well. And so it was a woefully under-timed clinical trial, if you could call it a clinical trial. And then it was rolled out into the tune of these surveillance systems like the Vaccine Adverse Event System, which is the CDC system, VAERS, was woefully underreported. But there have been about 1,500,000 reports and

VAERS of vaccine injury for the COVID-19 vaccines. This was the Pfizer, Moderna, and then while it was on the market, the J&J in the United States. And it was unlike anything that we had ever seen. The level of injury was unlike anything seen prior to the COVID-19 vaccine. So I think in starting there, I think it's very fair to say that it was poorly tested. There's a definitive link with things like myocarditis, pericarditis. The spike protein interacts with platelets. Everybody knows that. So it clots blood. So it causes microcirculatory problems at a minimum and causes a lot of death. I mean, you know, there have been estimates of the amount of death that it caused in the United States. Mid-pandemic, Mark Skidmore came out with a paper from Montana,

I'm sorry, Michigan State University, and he estimated the deaths around 300,000 just for the COVID-19 shot. And this is the type in the United States. And this is the type of information that is being suppressed from the mainstream news. Yeah, yeah. And you're not even, I don't know if you noticed, but there was, I was talking to McCary about this,

that there was a study that came out on myocarditis and that showed the worst outcomes were for COVID and vaccine in terms of downstream effects. Makes sense. Myocarditis and that showed the worst outcomes were for COVID and vaccine in terms of, you know, downstream effects. Makes sense. Myocarditis. And you're right, it does make sense. And I kept saying forever, it could easily be the illness and the vaccine, but we're not even allowed to ask the question because it might implicate the vaccine in some way. And you couldn't even ask the question,

which was insane, insane, insane. Oh my God, was that crazy. But we're at least starting to see a trickle of information. Are you hopeful we're going to get to something like the truth here? I am hopeful. It's horrific that Pfizer was trying to seal the records for 76 years. So we couldn't look at the clinical information. We couldn't look at the adverse events information. But I am hopeful that we are starting to get it to the truth. You know, there's the House Select Subcommittee on the COVID-19 pandemic response. I think that they're doing very, very good work.

And there's more and more information for the truth coming out. But I still think that, you know, the same old agencies that I believe have been captured by large pharmaceutical interests, the FDA, the CDC, and the National Institutes of Health, they're trotting out more vaccines, more poorly tested vaccines, COVID-19 shots for babies that have never cleared FDA approval. They're still under emergency use authorization, but yet they're on the CDC's infant childhood schedule down to age six months. And that to me, Dr. Drew, that really, really scares me that we're vaccinating babies for a disease that has been shown to have very, very mild effects in the pediatric population, especially those that have no comorbidities.

I'm glad you brought that up. The head of the CDC said yesterday, she said, we're still seeing hospitalizations in the elderly population from COVID. And then she said, and I listened very carefully, and I hope I got this right, the second biggest population for hospital visits, not hospitalizations, but hospital visits was under age five. And I thought, well, of course, because we have a system in this country where people get their pediatric care from the ER and from the urgent care. Of course, they go to the hospital. She didn't say hospital admissions. At least I don't remember her saying that. She said hospital interactions or hospital visits or something. Yes, yes. If we had a better system, they would never go near the hospital. But most people get their primary care pediatrics from an ER, especially when a kid is sick.

And that has nothing to do with how severe COVID is. Yeah, exactly. And, you know, I've been investigating the CDC, you know, literally for the past 24 years, really since my son's vaccine injury. And, you know, there's so much information that comes out of the CDC that is so duplicitous, that is so, you know, the intent is to, for lack of a better term, manipulate the population of individuals in the United States to achieve a particular outcome, regardless of where the truth lands in that. And I think that, especially in the pandemic, we've seen that magnified. Yes, sir. Well, Dr. Hooker, I appreciate you spending a little time with us. Again, the opening sort of topic today was that the scientific magazines, the

Scientific American is now making political judgments and recommending particular political... There it is. Get presidential candidates. So get your political direction from scientific journals. That is the place for science to rest.

Oh my God. The fact that that's even happened is just mind-boggling to me. How much about being the impartial arbiter? My goodness. I'm sorry to cut you off, Dr. David. No, I thank you. I appreciate it. It is just so, so, so frightening to me. And I hope that the great institutions step forward and get science, wring it free of these encumbrances because they are not healthy for any of us. We will look for you on X at BrianHookerPhD and Vaxxed3.org for the film. I appreciate you spending all the time with us. And as stuff comes along, I hope you'll send it my way. Thank you so much, Dr. Drew. There will be a special announcement regarding how you can view Vax

after the movie comes out on September 19th, but there is a special announcement on September 19th of how you can access the movie at that time. And we'll follow you on X to get that information? You will follow me, absolutely. You can follow me on X. You can follow Children's Health Defense on X. I think it's at CH Defense. Perfect. Thank you, sir. Thank you so much. Appreciate you being here.

Let's look at our schedule coming up. Very interesting show today, I thought. These are good guys, good guests. Thank you, Emily Barsh, for these incredible guests. Laura Trump. As usual, our content creator, Emily Barsh for these incredible guests. Laura Trump. As usual, our content creator, Emily Barsh. Laura Trump in here tomorrow with Greg Lukianoff.

Also, it's going to be very interesting. I mean, Laura triggers all kinds of feelings of people, but Greg and FIRE, the group is FIRE Free Speech. I've gotten more involved with since I... Actually, when I heard him on Lex Friedman's show, my free speech ideas started evolving, frankly.

Matt Walsh on the 19th. And then the following week. Calling out with Susan Pinsky. Will be on that Thursday as well. Graham DeMatteo and Brian O'Shea. Oh, wow. Interesting. They'll be on Miller.

The two psychic mediums. On the 25th, her book, her movie about Reagan. She'll talk about that and some of the encumbrances she has come upon. And Dr. Scott Atlas is set up for October 16th. Many good guests coming. So tomorrow, September 18th, we are at three o'clock.

Yes, we are at three o'clock. We'll see you here. It is Laura Bush. And- Laura Bush. Laura Trump. I'm sorry, Laura Trump. I'd love to have Laura Bush on though. Yeah. Well, Laura Bush Laura Trump Laura I'm sorry Laura Trump I'd love to have Laura Bush on though

yeah well Laura Bush was which one is Laura Laura was George Bush's I know this because I'm from Texas it's President

George W. Bush's wife yeah George Bush George W. Bush's wife yeah so she can come on my show oh yes anytime

she's dead right no Laura Laura Bush is alive no no Laura Bush I'm thinking of Barbara Bush yeah dead, right? No, Laura Bush is alive. No, no, Laura Bush. I'm thinking of Barbara Bush. Yeah, you're thinking of Barbara Bush. Barbara Bush is, I believe, long gone. Yeah, Barbara can come on my show. Yeah, that's kind of what my head was doing. There's too many

Bushes in the White House. All right, we'll see you tomorrow at 3 o'clock. Ask Dr. Drew is produced by Caleb Nation and Susan Pinsky. As a reminder, the discussions here are not a substitute for medical care, diagnosis, or treatment. This show is intended for educational and informational purposes only. I am a licensed physician, but I am not a replacement for your personal doctor, and I am not practicing medicine here. Always remember that our understanding of medicine and science is constantly evolving. Though my opinion is based on the information

that is available to me today, some of the contents of this show could be outdated in the future. Be sure to check with trusted resources in case any of the information has been updated since this was published. If you or someone you know is in immediate danger, don't call me, call 911.

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