The Megyn Kelly Show - Explosive Rittenhouse Trial Moments and COVID Testing and Vaccines, with Robert Gruler, Dr. Michael Mina, and Brian Dressen | Ep. 201

Episode Date: November 11, 2021

Megyn Kelly is joined by Robert Gruler, criminal defense attorney, Dr. Michael Mina of the Harvard School of Public Health, and chemist Brian Dressen, to talk about the facts in the Kyle Rittenhouse t...rial and the case, the judge vs. prosecutor in the trial, the attacks in the media on the Rittenhouse judge, the attacks in the media on the judge, how testing can help end the COVID pandemic, why testing is not more prioritized by our government and health experts, the difference between antigen, antibody, and PCR tests, the latest on vaccines and therapeutics for kids and adults, one chemist's wife's serious adverse vaccine reaction, and more.Follow The Megyn Kelly Show on all social platforms: YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/MegynKellyTwitter: http://Twitter.com/MegynKellyShowInstagram: http://Instagram.com/MegynKellyShowFacebook: http://Facebook.com/MegynKellyShow Find out more information at: https://www.devilmaycaremedia.com/megynkellyshow

Transcript
Discussion (0)
Starting point is 00:00:00 Welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show, your home for open, honest, and provocative conversations. Hey everyone, I'm Megyn Kelly. Welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show and happy Veterans Day. We begin today with the extraordinary developments in the Kyle Rittenhouse trial, a case that has captured national attention. The now 18-year-old stands accused of intentionally murdering two people and trying to murder a third at a Black Lives Matter riot in August 2020 in Kenosha, Wisconsin. That riot took place in the wake of the lawful police-involved shooting of Jacob Blake, a man resisting arrest who pulled a knife on cops, who was then shot seven times by an officer. Days later, then 17-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse went to Kenosha to protect the city from the planned riot,
Starting point is 00:00:51 burning, and looting. He was given an AR-15 by a friend in Kenosha and was heard on tape saying he wanted to help act as a medic and to keep the peace. Chaos ensued, and Kyle shot three people. For over a year, the media has condemned this kid as a vigilante domestic terrorist who went on an unjustified killing spree. No open-mindedness to his claim of self-defense, nor the videotapes that clearly back that up, or to his story that he went to Kenosha that evening to stop the lawless behavior of others when police would not or could not. Here's a sample of that media coverage. Kyle Rittenhouse, the 17-year-old vigilante. Kyle Rittenhouse, the vigilante. Kyle Rittenhouse, the armed teenage vigilante. A 17-year-old vigilante, arguably a domestic terrorist, picked up a rifle, drove to a different state to shoot
Starting point is 00:01:41 people. Kyle Rittenhouse, a guy who's deeply racist, went with weapons to a Black Lives Matter protest looking to get in trouble. He did. He murdered a couple of people. Rittenhouse, the 17-year-old kid, just running around, shooting and killing protesters. You see the 17-year-old who was radicalized by Trumpism, took his AR-15 to Kenosha and became a killer. A white, Trump-supporting, MAGA-loving, Blue Lives Matter social media partisan, 17 years old, picks up a gun, drives from one state to another with the intent to shoot people. A 17-year-old boy who drove across state lines with an AR-15 and started shooting people up, including a guy with a skateboard.
Starting point is 00:02:33 There's so much misinformation in that butted soundbite, I don't even know where to begin. I don't even know where to begin. Kyle Rittenhouse's former lawyer was on the show yesterday saying there will be libel lawsuits, more than one. The Rittenhouse trial began on November 2nd, and it has been an utter disaster for the prosecution. Rittenhouse does not deny shooting the three men in question, two of whom died, one of whom was severely injured in the arm. Instead, he argues that he acted in self-defense. Self-defense is an absolute defense, and it is up to the prosecution to disprove it. Here, the prosecution is trying to do that by arguing that Rittenhouse provoked the attacks upon him, thus rendering the claim of self-defense unavailable.
Starting point is 00:03:16 First, a brief primer on the relevant law. In Wisconsin, a self-defense claim generally will not prevail if the man raising it provoked the attack in the first place. Now, there are two kinds of provocation. Intentional, for example, goading someone you want to kill into attacking you so that you can murder him. That's not what happened here and doesn't seem to be what the prosecution is arguing, though with this DA, we cannot entirely rule it out. But then there's unintentional provocation, okay? Unintentional provocation, which can, but doesn't always, prevent a defendant from claiming self-defense. That's at the heart of this case. Unintentional provocation is where a man engages in unlawful conduct that is reasonably likely to provoke a violent response. Unlawful conduct that is reasonably likely to provoke a violent response.
Starting point is 00:04:18 If you do that, you might lose your ability to claim self-defense. That's what the DA says Rittenhouse did here. He says the unlawful conduct was Rittenhouse carrying a rifle while under 18, which is a misdemeanor in Wisconsin. This quite simply is a joke. All right. First of all, just carrying a gun illegally is not likely to provoke a violent response. Do you know how many people were carrying illegal firearms that night in Kenosha? Why didn't each one of them provoke a violent response? The mere carrying of a gun illegally or not is not by itself a violent provocation. Second of all, there are real questions about whether the Wisconsin law applies to long guns like the one Kyle had and still more questions as to whether the law in question here is too vague to withstand
Starting point is 00:05:13 constitutional muster. Andy McCarthy's got a great piece about this on National Review, which you should read. But let's assume for now that Wisconsin's gun law will be upheld and that Kyle was breaking it. And further, let's assume that the prosecution can convince a jury or this judge that a reasonable person would have known that unlawfully carrying an AR-15 was likely to provoke violence. Okay, already we are in legal la-la land, but let's do it. Let's go there. Rittenhouse still, still would have the right to claim self-defense if the violent response that did happen was an attack on his life. The law recognizes that. In other words, a man doing something unlawful that provokes someone
Starting point is 00:06:00 to attack him need not simply sit back and let himself be killed. The law recognizes that. That's Rittenhouse's argument, that he was not breaking any gun laws, that even if he was, doing so by itself was not likely to provoke a violent response just by carrying a gun that you didn't have the lawful right to carry, and that even if it was, Rittenhouse still had the right to defend his own life when the violent response was attempted murder. So does the evidence support Rittenhouse's claim that his life was threatened by each of the men he shot? The answer is clearly yes. And this case, in my legal opinion, should never have been brought. By the way, all of this, the facts and the law are impeccably spelled out by Andrew Branca over at Legal Insurrection. And
Starting point is 00:06:52 my thanks to him for his thorough analysis and reporting in this case. He's been great. So let's take them one by one, the three men who were shot. Number one, Joseph Rosenbaum, 36. Rosenbaum was a convicted child molester on medication, only recently released from a mental facility, none of which the jury will hear because it's not technically relevant since Rittenhouse didn't know itbaum chased him and threatened to kill him. This is all on tape. Rittenhouse says he was trying to retreat from Rosenbaum, yelling, friendly, friendly, friendly. If you watch this later on YouTube.com, you can see the video that is playing while I speak. But he says Rosenbaum continued pursuit. That's when Rosenbaum's friend, Joshua Zeminski, fires a shot in the air,
Starting point is 00:07:46 causing Rittenhouse to turn. He sees Rosenbaum charging at him, yelling, fuck you, and trying to grab Rittenhouse's gun. Listen. And as I'm turning around, Mr. Rosenbaum is, I would say, from me to where the judge is, coming at me with his arms out in front of him. I remember his hand on the barrel of my gun. So you turned around? Yes. And as you see him lunging at you, what do you do? I shoot him.
Starting point is 00:08:23 And how many times did you shoot? I believe four. That exchange was witnessed by, among others, Daily Caller video journalist Richie McGinnis, who took the stand in this case and testified as follows. And you've already established that after the shooting, Mr. Rosenbaum never says a word. Correct? Correct. You don't know, as you sit here today, what Mr. Rosenbaum was thinking, do you? You mean at the time of the shooting? Yes. Or at any point in his life. I mean, you have no idea what Mr. Rosenbaum was ever thinking at any point in his life. You have never been inside his head. You never met him before.
Starting point is 00:09:06 You don't know. I've never exchanged words with him, if that's what your question is. So your interpretation of what he was trying to do or what he was intending to do or anything along those lines is complete guesswork, isn't it? Well, he said, fuck you, And then he reached for the weapon. Rittenhouse, now the focus of an angry mob after the shooting of Rosenbaum, begins to run. He says he was heading for a police barricade to surrender himself to the cops, but that the incensed mob followed him, threw things at him and may have pushed him.
Starting point is 00:09:45 The videotape shows Rittenhouse fall. Watch it here if you're watching this on YouTube later. The videotape shows him fall. Rittenhouse says just before he went down, a man named Anthony Huber swung his skateboard at Rittenhouse like a bat and that it did hit Kyle. Once Rittenhouse is down, which you can see right here, you can clearly see him being attacked from multiple flanks. An unidentified man in heavy work boots tries to jump kick him in the face, but misses. Rittenhouse fires his gun at that man, but Rittenhouse misses too. And that's when Anthony Huber, the second man killed, appears on tape with his skateboard and begins to beat Rittenhouse for what Rittenhouse is the second time now with that skateboard, this time over the head. Rittenhouse described this exchange on the stand yesterday.
Starting point is 00:10:30 As I'm running at first, I'm in the sidewalk and Mr. Lukowski, Jason Lukowski is in the sidewalk and I stop to talk to Mr. Lukowski for a brief second. I remember telling him that I just shot somebody and I need help to get to the police because the crowd there was a not a crowd of mob was chasing me. And did Mr. Lukowski offer you any help? I don't remember. What do you do then? I continued to run after hearing people say, people were saying cranium him, get him, kill him. People were screaming and I just was trying to get to the police running down Sheridan Road. What I remember is running past Anthony Huber and as I'm running past Mr. Huber he's holding a skateboard like a
Starting point is 00:11:27 baseball bat and he swings it down and I block it with my arm trying to prevent it from hitting me but it still hits me in the neck. Mr. Huber immediately after I'm kicked in the face runs up as I'm sitting up to try to get up and get to the police I'm on my back and mr. Huber runs up he as I'm getting up he strikes me in the neck with his skateboard a second time then what happened he grabs my gun and I can feel it pulling away from me and I can feel the strap starting to come off my body. And what do you do then? I fire one shot.
Starting point is 00:12:14 Huber then takes a final few steps off to the side and dies shortly thereafter. Within seconds of the Huber attack, Rittenhouse is attacked by another man, Gage Grosskreutz. Gage had a loaded handgun. It was concealed without a valid license, a charge the state has opted not to pursue. Gage appears to first raise his hands and surrender as he sees Rittenhouse with his rifle. Rittenhouse does not fire. Then Gage charges Rittenhouse does not fire. Then Gage charges Rittenhouse. Gage points his own handgun directly at Rittenhouse from just a few feet away. And only at that point does Rittenhouse fire his weapon, wounding Gage's arm.
Starting point is 00:12:58 When you were standing three to five feet from him with your arms up in the air, he never fired, right? Correct. It wasn't until you pointed your gun at him, advanced on him with your gun, now your hands down, pointed at him that he fired, right? Correct. This is all clearly self-defense. It's classic self-defense that was made clear during the prosecution's own case. In my view, there was no need for the defense to put Kyle Rittenhouse on the stand. But when they did, the prosecution floundered time and time again. First, Kyle was humanized. As I pointed out, the media has painted this kid as a monster in front of the jury pool and the country. This is really just a kid, one who's been through hell this past year,
Starting point is 00:13:49 thanks to an overzealous prosecutor, a dishonest media, and public figures who don't care at all about facts appearing to smell blood in the water. Yesterday, it all seemed to catch up with Rittenhouse, who broke down on the stand. As I take that step back, I look over my shoulder and Mr. Rosenbaum, Mr. Rosenbaum was now running from my right side. And I was cornered from in front of me with Mr. Zeminski and there were there were three people right there This is not some career criminal. This is a kid that made the wrong decision that night. Who felt frustrated by the lack of police presence and the ongoing destruction of property and decided to do something about it, which is not the way. I mean, you can understand why,
Starting point is 00:15:15 but it's not the way. He knows that himself now, whose life has been completely upended. Yes, two men are dead. But you can see why it happened. See how it happened. So in the wake of that testimony, did the media or these know it all activists do any self-reflection? You tell me. LeBron James just tweeted out, quote, What tears? I didn't see one. Man, knock it off. That boy ate some lemon heads before walking into court. Good gracious. Where's your humanity? anything at all? Have you bothered to look into it even a little? Have you followed the trial at all before you decided to make a public comment from that post? Disgusting, dishonest, and the natural product of what happens when the false ideological social justice crew meets actual fact-based courtroom justice, where truth and fairness still matter. Joining me now to discuss it all is Rob Gruler,
Starting point is 00:16:28 a criminal defense attorney and founding partner of R&R Law Group. Rob, thank you so much for being here. So what do you make of my assessment of this case? First of all, Megan, thank you so much for having me. I absolutely think it was brilliant. I agree with you completely. I've been following this case since August of 2020 when it happened. And I agree with your assessment that this case should have never been brought in the first place. We covered the probable cause statement, the original documentation that was supposed to justify the charges. And when we read through that paragraph by paragraph, a lot of the evidence that you just sort of revealed to your audience was in that document. We heard from Richard McGinnis, even, who was, he wasn't shot,
Starting point is 00:17:11 but he was the reporter who was running behind Rosenbaum. And he came out and confirmed a lot of the same things that we heard from other government witnesses, that Rosenbaum was the aggressor, that he was using the N-word, screaming that at people at supposedly a BLM protest, that he was the provocateur. He was the ultimate aggressor. And that set in sequence a series of events that led to the subsequent shootings. And so when you just break this down individually, you look at every alleged victim, whether it's Rosenbaum or Grossquitz or Huber, it seems pretty consistent that Kyle Rittenhouse in every instance was defending himself. And so for people like me, I'm a defense attorney. I was able to sort of
Starting point is 00:17:51 watch this at day one and see these facts clearly and communicate them on my YouTube channel. I was very frustrated by what I heard from the media. As you described, you said a lot of people were commenting on this case and characterizing it in a completely erroneous legal way that made it difficult to have a serious conversation about it. And this isn't some hardened criminal, like you said. This is Kyle Rittenhouse. At the time, he was 17 years old. He was frustrated with his environment in the middle of what many officers, even in this trial, Pep Moretti was an officer who came out and testified in the government's case in chief that they were in the middle of a war zone. And so not ideal for a 17 year old young man to be over there, but he was there. And the fact that he was assaulted,
Starting point is 00:18:35 attacked by multiple individuals, in my humble opinion, justifies him in his use of self-defense. And I think that what Thomas Binger has been doing throughout this trial has been really underhanded to sort of set in motion this caricature that he's this lawless, reckless maniac running around Kenosha just trying to shoot people. Mm hmm. Yeah, he he made it sound like I'm trying to find this. I think it's soundbite number five, like he that Kyle Rittenhouse went there wanting to kill intending to kill listen to the da uh sound by five good morning mr rittenhouse good morning everybody that you shot at that night you intended to kill correct i didn't intend to kill them i intended to i intended to stop the people who were attacking me by killing killing them? I did what I had to do to stop
Starting point is 00:19:26 the person who was attacking me. By killing them? Two of them passed away, but I stopped the threat from attacking me. By using deadly force? I used deadly force. That you knew was going to kill? I didn't know if it was going to kill them, but I used deadly force to stop the threat that was attacking me. You intentionally used deadly force against Joseph Rosenbaum, correct? Yes. You intentionally used deadly force against the man who came and tried to kick you in the face, correct? You intentionally used deadly force against Anthony Huber, correct? Yes.
Starting point is 00:20:05 You intentionally used deadly force against Gage Grosskreutz, correct? Yes. I mean, that's not in dispute that he intentionally used deadly force. That's not in dispute. But trying to get him to say he wanted them to die? I mean, what a swing and a miss. Well, you just saw it. Yeah, that wasn't a good attempt.
Starting point is 00:20:23 And we saw a lot of this with Thomas Binger throughout this trial. It was a lot of filler, just a lot of attempts to sort of ask the same question five, six different ways. And I think that the jury really starts to get sort of tired of that. I mean, I got tired of it, listening to it. I'm a lawyer. I sort of geek out about this stuff. And, you know, that sequence of questions was asked sort of in different permutations all throughout the trial. Wait, let me show them that. Let me hold the second part of your thought, because I'd love to get the audience to hear what you're talking about.
Starting point is 00:20:54 Here's the prosecution going at it again, soundbite six. Mr. Rosenbaum was chasing me. I pointed my gun at him, and that did not deter him. He could have ran away instead of trying to take my gun from me. But he kept chasing me. It didn't stop him. Mr. Rittenhouse, you're telling us that you felt like you were about to die, right? Yes. But when you point the gun at someone else, that's going to make them feel like they're about to die, right's what you wanted him to feel no you wanted him to get the message from you that if you come any closer i'm gonna kill you that's why you pointed the gun at him right i pointed the gun at him to deter him from i pointed the gun at him so he would stop chasing me it's amazing kyle rittenhouse is smarter than this da i mean that's every exchange this is what i want to wind up thinking this kid is smarter than this DA. I mean, that's every exchange. This is what I wind up thinking. This kid is smarter than this DA. There were some areas where I think his attorneys maybe could have jumped in to object and protect him a little bit more.
Starting point is 00:22:05 But by and large, I mean, Kyle Rittenhouse, think about this young man. And I was communicating about the stressors and the pressures that exist upon anybody in the criminal justice system. But not to mention an 18-year-old young man who is facing decades in prison, who is dealing with homicide charges. He's looking at a jury panel of now 18 people all judging him. He's got a year of the media beating up on him for a year and a half. I even think some people in the Biden administration used his image as a white supremacist. And so, you know, you have this discussion about whether he should have taken the stand and the pros and the cons, and you can get into that till the end of the earth. But he did. He took the stand. I think a big part of it is he wanted to clear his name. He wanted to make sure that he could rebut all of the allegations that were coming his direction,
Starting point is 00:22:49 even if they weren't necessarily criminal legal charges. There were still accusations his direction, and he cleared a lot of them up. And he did so masterfully. I think that the defense gave the prosecution sort of an opportunity on a silver platter and they totally blew it. Yes, exactly. Exactly. To get him on the stand and to be that inept as the prosecutor prosecution in your cross examination. It's embarrassing. We're going to talk next about why the defense has filed a motion for a mistrial with prejudice. They want this thing kicked and in a way that it could not be refiled and why now some are coming after the judge as racist. Much more with Rob right after this. So one of the other I mean, there's so many bad moments from this DA, the assistant district attorney Thomas Binger to choose from. But one of
Starting point is 00:23:45 the other areas in which it fell flat that the audience can hear for themselves is where he was questioning Rittenhouse about whether Rosenbaum, the first man killed, ever said he would take Kyle's gun. This is soundbite number eight. Listen to tell the sense. What was the risk to you of death or great bodily harm at the moment you killed Joseph Rosenbaum? If I would have let Mr. Rosenbaum take my firearm from me, he would have used it and killed me with it and probably killed more people if I would have let him get my gun. Mr. Rosenbaum never said anything to you about taking your gun, did he? He didn't say anything, but he tried to take my gun. And whoever's got that gun is a threat to everyone else? If he would have taken my gun, he would have used it against me. He didn't say anything to me about taking my gun. He just tried to take it.
Starting point is 00:24:57 It's been very strange to try to tease out what Mr. Binger's acceptable standard of self-defense would be, because we've already heard from a number of the different alleged victims in this case that they've done something that is sort of aggressive, a little bit provocative. Again, we heard from Rosenbaum physically chasing Rittenhouse, but apparently that doesn't qualify. We heard about Anthony Huber, who was swinging a skateboard over the head and hitting Kyle Rittenhouse in the head. Apparently that doesn't justify self-defense. And then we saw from Gage Grosskowitz that he actually pointed a gun, his hands were up, but then actually re reengaged Kyle Rittenhouse, who then used self-defense at that moment as well. But every single time that Thomas Binger asked Kyle Rittenhouse about this, he sort of makes it appear that that was totally unreasonable.
Starting point is 00:25:36 And so it's, you know, we're sort of joking about this on the Internet and on LawTube and LawTwitter that the only time that it would actually be justified is maybe if Kyle actually was shot or actually got stabbed in the middle of an actual physical assault taking place. Maybe then Binger would be okay with self-defense. Yeah, that's right. And by the way, what's with Binger asking all the open questions, right? You don't do that on cross. It should be yeses and nos on cross only. That's it. You drive the dialogue. You don't let the witness drive the dialogue. OK, so the judge and Binger, the ADA, got into it yesterday. And let me just set up this soundbite. So basically, Binger did two things that ticked off the judge and the defense counsel. Number one, he tried to bring into evidence Kyle Rittenhouse saying a couple of weeks prior to this incident in watching some sort of property damage. I think he just watched it online, right? He wasn't even there. I wish I
Starting point is 00:26:30 had my gun so I could shoot these guys. It's just like bullshit rhetoric, right? Fill me in on that, Rob. Fill that out. Yes. It's a 17-year-old kid who's just, you know, it's kind of body talk. And there was a prior incident back in August where Kyle Rittenhouse was in the area, in the vicinity. There was a CVS video where apparently he was outside of CVS. And there's somebody recording footage of him watching shoplifting happening and saying something to the effect, if I had my weapon, I would be able to stop this from occurring. And so what Thomas Binger wanted to do is bring that in as evidence and sort of show that Kyle was acting in conformity with that prior statement. And so the way he fleshed this whole thing out, it was very underhanded in my opinion, but he started to walk down a line of questioning with Kyle Rittenhouse about property and about defending property and says, you know, you can't shoot Rosenbaum to protect property, right? You can't use deadly force in order to save car source, which is the
Starting point is 00:27:30 property that we were talking about there. And so he gets Kyle to agree a number of times that, yes, I agree. You can't use self-defense to protect property. So then he says, well, then why did you say that in that earlier August 17th or 15th date to that person who was recording you outside the CVS? And at that moment, there was an objection from the defense and the judge had already known that this was an issue that was discussed during the pretrial proceedings, that this shouldn't have been considered to be a wide open door for the prosecution to just walk through. Judge wanted Binger to give him some acknowledgement that this might be coming so the judge could issue a ruling. And when Binger didn't do that, the judge really scolded him aggressively.
Starting point is 00:28:11 Right. Because the judge in the pretrial motions had said, I don't think I'm going to let that in. And when that is said to you as a lawyer, that means if I try to get it in, I got to get the judge's approval before I go here. I can't just spring this in front of the jury because I've already been admonished by this judge. He doesn't think it's coming in. And that's what the judge got so mad about. That was one. And the second the second sin committed by Binger was he said as followed as follows to to Kyle Rittenhouse. He basically questioned his his Fifth Amendment right not to testify. So Binger comes up and says to
Starting point is 00:28:46 him, this is the first time you've told your story since August 25, 2020, isn't it? And you've had the benefit of seeing countless videos of your action that night and hearing the testimony of 30 some witnesses who have testified in this case. And the defense attorney, Mark Richards, objected. That was sustained. And the judge was mad. Why? Well, because that's sort of the rule number one is you don't comment on a defendant's right to remain silent. I mean, it's in the Constitution. It's a pretty sacred right. And it's one of the first things that I would, I've never been a prosecutor, but I would imagine they tell you when you're going to trial practice as a lawyer, you know, don't cross those sacred constitutional
Starting point is 00:29:24 boundaries. And Thomas Binger is not an inexperienced attorney. The DA's office over there in Kenosha is not very big. I think we did a count of all the different county attorneys there, something like nine to 12 different attorneys. And so you could presume that if a case of national importance comes across their desk, they're going to give it to somebody who they consider to be highly litigious, somebody highly competent who's been doing it for a while. And so that presumably was Thomas Binger. And Thomas Binger gets out there and in front of the jury starts commenting on the right to remain silent and a defendant's constitutional protection in that regard, then starts to
Starting point is 00:29:57 even thread the needle a little bit further by trying to get that other evidence admitted from the CBS video that took place earlier in August. And so the judge is just seeing a very experienced trial attorney looking like they might be intentionally trying to cause a mistrial or straddle that line in a way that is not permissible. Yeah. So that was some speculation that the DA was trying to cause a mistrial because normally a mistrial is the case gets dismissed in the middle of the trial without prejudice. So you get a second try. And I mean, normally, it's the defense attorney who wants a mistrial because you get the advantage of seeing the
Starting point is 00:30:35 prosecution's whole case, and then you get another bite of the apple, right? You're better positioned in trial too. But right now, the defense doesn't want a mistrial because they're winning. If they want a mistrial, they want it with prejudice, which they did ask for at the end of yesterday's proceedings based on the things that you just mentioned. But just here is some of the judges leading up to now the accusations that this judge is some sort of a racist. This well-respected judge, he's, I think, the most senior judge in the Kenosha Circuit Court. So he is calling Binger to task for those two errors that you just outlined. Here's some of that exchange. First of all, your honor, this was the subject of a motion.
Starting point is 00:31:14 I'm well aware of that. And the court left the door open. For me, not for you. Why would you think that that made it OK for you without any advance notice to bring this matter before the jury? You are already, you were, I was astonished when you began your examination by commenting on the defendant's post-arrest silence. That's basic law. It's been basic law in this country for 40 years, 50 years. I have no idea why you would do something like that.
Starting point is 00:31:48 And it gives, well, I'll leave it at that. So I don't know what you're up to. He's acknowledged that he's used this gun to protect property. He's also just acknowledged that he knows he can't do that. I am attempting to impeach him now with the prior August 10th incident, 15 days prior involving the same gun where he is threatening to use that gun to protect property. It goes- He didn't have the gun with him. Your Honor, he is saying he wished he did so he could shoot people.
Starting point is 00:32:18 You know, there's a lot of difference between commenting about something when you haven't got a gun and threatening someone when you do. Just hours ago, I said I had heard nothing in this trial to change any of my rulings. That was before the testimony, Your Honor. Pardon me? That was before the testimony. Don't get brazen with me. You know very well that an attorney can't go into these types of areas when the judge has already ruled without asking outside the presence of the jury to do so. So don't
Starting point is 00:32:51 give me that. I thought this is my good faith explanation to you. And if you want to yell at me, you can. My good faith feeling this morning after watching that testimony was you had left the door open a little bit. Now we had something new and I was going to probe it. I don't believe you. There better not be another incident. I'll take the motion under advisement. Um, and you can respond. Um, when you say that, that you were acting in faith, good faith, I don't believe that. Okay, let's proceed. Everybody in good faith. Not a good day for the prosecution. Not at all.
Starting point is 00:33:31 Not at all. And to be fair, I don't believe him either. I think that he was intentionally trying to kind of squeeze that one through. If you did listen to the pretrial proceedings in a little bit more depth, then you would have seen that they discussed a lot of this stuff. And the judge is a little bit different than some other jurisdictions. So for example, if you say this judge, compare him to Judge Cahill that we saw in Chauvin, just a little bit of a different demeanor. He's a little bit more loose, sort of likes to hear stuff on the fly. We didn't have a lot of resolutions on the pretrial proceedings, a lot of these motions in limine. And so he did say, yes, at a later time when the evidence comes up, when the time is right, you need to flag this for me, Mr. Prosecutor, Mr. Defense Attorney, so that I can make a
Starting point is 00:34:12 decision about where this line of questioning goes or where this evidence should, whether it should be admissible or not. And from my watching of it, it felt like there was a pretty clear understanding that that was going to be how this was going to work. It's you ask for permission when you get there. You don't just get to decide, well, the judge didn't make a ruling on this. So I'm just going to try to skate this one through. And you might excuse a prosecutor for making a mistake if they're a first year prosecutor or this is not a case of national importance.
Starting point is 00:34:42 But this is Thomas Binger. This case has been in national news for almost 18 months now. And so it's something that I think the judge is exactly right to presume that maybe there's something else going on here. Not not in evidence yet, but it does feel underhanded because the judge said pretrial. I'm predisposed not to allow this. And, you know, very well as a lawyer, you have to ask permission. It's not your courtroom. It's the judge said pre-trial, I'm predisposed not to allow this. And you know very well as a lawyer, you have to ask permission. It's not your courtroom. It's the judge's courtroom. He or
Starting point is 00:35:10 she gets to set the rules. You're just there to follow them. And the last thing you want to do is take off the judge. The judge is getting guff for like being tough on the prosecutor. The prosecutor provoked it. When I talk about provocation, he provoked that. So what now specifically is the defense basing its motion for a mistrial with prejudice on? Was it the Fifth Amendment thing that the attempt to get the that other CBS comment in or both or more? It's the idea that the prosecution might be intentionally trying to cause a mistrial. So there was a break later that afternoon and defense attorney Corey Chirifisi went out and did some research with his defense team and came back and he cited a case. I don't remember what it was, but he says, judge, there's two things that you need
Starting point is 00:35:52 to consider here moving forward. Number one, whether the government, the prosecutor's conduct was intentional. So, you know, did they intend to do these things? Was this a mistake? Was this an accident that they commented on this or tried to get this evidence introduced? Doesn't feel like that to me. I think you can probably check the box on that, that even prosecutor Binger said, I want to ask him about this. It's sort of the next line of questions in his notes. And he was going barreling ahead right into those without ever getting permission from the court. So was it intentional? Maybe yes or no. But if that element has been met, then you can move on to the second element, which is that the court finds the judge makes a finding that the defendant's testimony, where you start to try to walk along those constitutional lines, not so that it's a direct violation where you get in
Starting point is 00:36:51 trouble, you get a bar complaint, you lose your law license, nothing like that, but enough that it just kind of crosses that line so that the case is tainted and you have to have a mistrial. And if the court makes that finding that maybe these highly experienced prosecutors were trying to tip the scale so that they can get a do over, as you mentioned earlier, they know that they're losing. And so if if they lose, they can't get a do over. But if they get a mistrial, they can. And if there's that little bit of sort of underhanded nefariousness there, if the court makes that finding, that would justify a motion to dismiss with prejudice so that they cannot bring this back. It would be the end of the case for Kyle Rittenhouse. Oh, my gosh, that would be huge for the defense. Do we know how the judge is feeling? He's announced to the jury he thinks the case will wrap up, I think he said on Tuesday. The fact that he didn't grant a mistrial, you know, right then and there, does that mean it's not going to happen? So he did take it under advisement. I still think that it's probably unlikely that it does get granted. A lot of people are saying the fact that he took it under advisement is a good thing.
Starting point is 00:37:52 Oftentimes, a judge will just say no and make a ruling right there on the record. So at least he is thinking about it. He is considering it. And if you compare that with a lot of the other clips that we have seen and testimony from the trial, the judge has been very unhappy with this prosecutor consistently. Even in some of the clips you played here today said, I warned you about that this morning and you're continuing to do it again. Don't let it happen again. But I still think it's probably a little bit of a long shot just because this judge has made multiple statements saying that he wants to make sure this is done the right way. He wants to make sure the jury is considered to be the fact finder. So I don't think that the judge politically wants to take this away from them. I think he wants to allow the process to work
Starting point is 00:38:35 itself out without causing anything that would derail this long process because it has been a long one. Especially in a case this carefully watched to take it away from the jury and say it can't be refiled. I mean, that would just be incredibly bold. And I would say in the prosecutor's defense, it was a sin. I don't think it was a dismissal with prejudice level sin. I know other lawyers disagree with me. I just think if he had sort of gotten all over Kyle and said, you know, you didn't testify, you didn't say anything because you knew you were guilty. You didn't want to take a position that now we're talking. But like just sort of this is the first statement you've made since the beginning. It's not OK, but it's not that bad. Yeah, it was Weasley.
Starting point is 00:39:19 It was not kind of the right thing to do. He had, I think, some plausible deniability there. He could go back and reference the judge's prior statement and said, well, you left the door open. And the judge did. And this is sort of the downside of having a little bit of a looser format in your courtroom where you don't have all of the motions in limine ironed out before the trial even starts. So Thomas Binger, I think, was exploiting that to some degree. I think that if you're going to be an aggressive litigator, you're always sort of, you know, pushing the envelope a little bit, not doing anything unethical, but you're trying to win. That's sort of the point of being a strong advocate is you're using the tools that are in front of you. I don't excuse anything Binger did, but I'm just saying, like, I don't know that it rises to the level of the trial goes away immediately and can't be refiled. But I will say, you know, you're in there as a prosecutor. You're you're supposed to be on the side of justice.
Starting point is 00:40:09 You're actually not supposed to be on the side of get a conviction. It's supposed to be that on the side of justice and you're representing the state and its interests. And so he has sort of a higher calling and he's not living up to it, that you're not supposed to behave like that um listen that exchange and and some others now are bringing some fire on this judge a very well respected guy i guess his longest service uh longest serving circuit court judge in wisconsin and there was a moment where his cell phone rang and it played a certain tune and that's going to play into these accusations that he's some sort of a racist um We're going to pick it up right there after I squeeze in this quick break. More with Rob right after this. And remember, folks, you can find The Megyn Kelly Show live on Sirius XM
Starting point is 00:40:54 Triumph Channel 111 every weekday at noon east. And the full video show, which you really should watch today, go ahead and subscribe if you haven't, because you can see all the videos along with my monologue at the opening and some clips clips too. And you subscribe to our YouTube channel, youtube.com slash Megyn Kelly. If you prefer the audio podcast, just go ahead and subscribe on Apple, Spotify, Pandora, Stitcher, or wherever you get your podcasts. And now you'll find our full archives that have over 200 shows. So this judge, his name is Bruce. It's's written schroeder but it's pronounced schrader it is yeah and schrader i think sounds a lot more tough like shredder um yes that's what i call my little strudwick shredder because that's what he's doing to everything destroying it uh my puppy
Starting point is 00:41:42 sorry it's a long-standing issue. So the judge has made a bunch of pretrial rulings, one of which was you may not refer to the three men shot, two of whom died, one of whom did not, as victims. But you may refer to them as looters, rioters or something else. Can. Can you just expand on that? Because this is now at issue. Yeah, causing a lot of contention for a lot of the commentators out there. But the idea being that the word victim has some negative connotation to it. It sort of implies that somebody was wronged at the conclusion of a crime. And it is also legally significant. It means that somebody was the actual victim of a crime. So it's got sort of this public perception of being a negative word
Starting point is 00:42:31 and a legal connotation to it as well. And so when you're talking with a judge about a criminal defendant who has not been adjudicated or convicted of anything yet, has not been found guilty at all, that person is still innocent. They still retain the presumption of innocence. And so even though it might make the prosecution feel good to start labeling Gage Grosskreutz and Anthony Huber as the victims, they have not been legally found to be the victims yet. Kyle Rittenhouse still maintains the presumption of innocence. Until that's disproven, it's not fair. it's not right to call them that because it's not legally accurate right we're trying to figure out who who the real victim was here so the judge in
Starting point is 00:43:10 the midst of how long is the sound bite with the with the with the phone uh because we don't have much time we're up oh yeah okay listen listen to this his phone rang and here was the sound uh the actions that I had talked about were done in bad faith. It's like Green was proud to be an American. Now, listen to what Ellie Mistel of he's a justice correspondent for the nation, Harvard undergrad, Harvard Law School, his summation of this judge. And we've heard this elsewhere. Take a listen.
Starting point is 00:43:43 So if you look at all the decisions that Bruce Schrader has made, they have been heavily balanced and weighted towards Rittenhouse, towards his defense. I see very few neutral decisions in his history. What we have is a judge who, from my perspective, has prejudged the trial in favor of Rittenhouse and has decided, again, even at the pre-trial stage, to use every bit of his power to put his thumb on the scale towards Rittenhouse's side, not just saying that these people can't be called victims. Look, legally speaking, they were victims of homicide. That's just a fact, but fine. You want to say they can't be called victims because of the nature of the self-defense defense? All right. You can kind of defend that decision.
Starting point is 00:44:29 But then he says they can be called looters, rioters and arsonists, which is ridiculous. The surviving victim hasn't been charged with looting, rioting or arson. So calling him a victim is just factually inaccurate. So calling him a rioter is just factually inaccurate. So calling him a writer is just factually inaccurate. So you see what I'm saying? When you put the one and one together, racist judge with his Trump rally cell phone that is trying to get Rittenhouse a walk. Wow. Your thoughts on that? Well, when you start to lose the argument, I think you just start to cry foul. You start screaming about racism and bigotry and all sorts of biases and prejudices. I don't see that from this judge at all. This judge has talked about the Constitution a lot. He's talked about the Roman era, and he's got a lot of depth when it comes to the way the Constitution works and how it was assembled. And so I don't think that
Starting point is 00:45:40 some of his comments in favor of the Constitution are anything to consider to be racist. I think he's just being a good judge. By the way, apparently he has a longstanding rule of not allowing prosecutors to refer to people as victims before his juries. He thinks that that's something the jury gets to decide. So this is not a Kyle Rittenhouse thing. This is a judge with a longstanding practice. We'll continue to follow it. We really appreciate your expertise, Rob, and keep an eye on the trial and keep an eye on sources like Rob and this show. If you want honest analysis, because the mainstream media, you heard how they're going to spin this and they will right through the verdict. All the best,
Starting point is 00:46:18 Rob. Hope we can talk again soon. In our next hour, we're going to start talking COVID, the vaccines, the new therapeutics. Don't go away. Joining me now is Brian Dressen. He's a chemist based in Utah, and his wife, Brianne, took part in a U.S.-conducted trial of the AstraZeneca COVID vaccine with disastrous results. And now they're speaking out about it publicly. Hours after taking the very first dose, Breanne began to feel dizzy and her symptoms continued to worsen,
Starting point is 00:46:54 eventually leaving her unable to walk. When the trial information was released, her participation in the trial, to the Dressen's surprise, Breanne's data was not accounted for. It wasn't in there. They didn't mention what happened to her. They say the CDC knows about the severe symptoms that some people are experiencing and the harm to vaccines that the vaccines pose to children. And now they're fighting to share her story and the story of others like her. Brian, thank you so much for being here.
Starting point is 00:47:20 Thank you for having me. This is a nightmare. You guys testified before the FDA panel when they were considering the vaccine for five to 11 year olds. And your wife did take place in this trial for AstraZeneca. And she was living a healthy, robust life prior to this. She wasn't somebody who had some sort of chronic illness or psychological issues that continued to make her feel ill at every turn. She was fine. Yeah, she was absolutely fine. Healthy, hiking mountains, taking care of the kids, rock climbing, skiing,
Starting point is 00:47:52 all of the things that we love to do. So she decides to take place in the trial of the AstraZeneca vaccine, which is widely used in Europe. Why? Why did she decide to do that? So me being a scientist, we're a science loving family. We were concerned about COVID. We wanted to, you know, protect our family. We wanted to further the science. We wanted to help end the pandemic. And so she was presented with the opportunity to partake in the trial and chose to sign up. You know, she was so confident in,
Starting point is 00:48:22 you know, the vaccines being developed that, you know that she would be able to get a vaccine potentially and then not have to experience COVID herself and help protect her family and her community as well as further the science. And so when did she take place in the trial? So she had her first dose November 4th of 2020, so just over a year ago. Okay. And what happened? So right after she got the shot, we were driving home and she said, something doesn't feel right. She had tingling down her arm where she got the shot. She started to notice that her vision was changing. Her ears became very, very sensitive to sound. Her eyes were so sensitive to light, she had to put on the darkest sunglasses. Later that night, she had the typical vaccine response that they tell you to expect, you know,
Starting point is 00:49:15 the fever and all of those things. But that had resolved by morning. However, she experienced new symptoms that next morning. She couldn't really walk properly. Her left foot was sort of slumping, she calls it. She was walking into doorways. The sound and light sensitivity were severe. She was still experiencing the numbness and tingling. And the symptoms just kept progressing and getting worse. We called the test clinic. They didn't respond for a couple of days. Finally, they responded, brought her in, did an exam, said, you know what? There were a couple of instances of transverse myelitis and MS in the previous trials. You might have MS and you should go see a neurologist. So we ended up in the ER three days later. They did all of the tests that they could, ruled out any of those pre-existing
Starting point is 00:49:57 type conditions and essentially said, we don't know what's going on, but best of luck to you and sent her home to continue to decline. We went to the ER two more times and then a fourth time and she was finally hospitalized. At this point, she couldn't walk. She was incontinent. She was peeing her pants. She still had to wear earmuffs to be anywhere that wasn't a dark room. She had extreme sensitivity to sound. You couldn't touch her. She couldn't brush her teeth. I mean, it was just a hellacious experience.
Starting point is 00:50:32 How old is she at this point? She's 39 years old at this point. Oh my goodness. Now she's 40. So who do you go to specifically, the people running the clinic? Who do you call to say, you need to know this happened? Right. So each of the clinical trials, you know, they're essentially performed by all these
Starting point is 00:50:53 trial sites in all of the different states and cities. And so we call the test clinic. That's what they call these. So they're the ones who administer the shots and, you know, collect the data and then send it on to, in this case, AstraZeneca. And so that's who we called was the doctors at the test clinic to say, you know what, something's not right here. Something's going on. And they didn't offer any help to you.
Starting point is 00:51:19 You were on your own and dealing with the fallout from it. And then it seems like the other shoe to drop was when you saw her negative outcome was not included in the results of the clinical trial. Right. So the clinical trial report wasn't released until last month, but I was a little bit suspicious given that the test clinic sort of didn't seem super interested. The feedback we were getting from AstraZeneca was essentially, we need a diagnosis, we need out to the NIH to see if they had any thoughts on this. And to my surprise, they actually responded really quickly. We had a telehealth visit with doctors at the NIH. They wanted to bring her out for testing and possible treatment.
Starting point is 00:52:21 However, this was January and the NIH is located in Maryland and around this time we had a lot of civil unrest and other things going on. They weren't sure with the inauguration if they could safely bring her out. And so they weren't able to bring her out at this time. They offered to talk to her doctors locally to try and get them to perform the proper tests to come to a proper diagnosis. But even with their involvement, our local doctors were still incredulous. And because none of the test results would come back, you know, abnormal, they just said, well, this might be all in your head. It's probably just anxiety. You can't walk because you have anxiety. Oh, my gosh. So, I mean, did anything show up on any test?
Starting point is 00:53:07 Because one of the things I read was that she started to suffer severe brain damage and was obviously advised by those running the trial not to get the second dose. Was that something that manifested in a CT scan or something? No. So all of the adverse reactions were essentially symptomatic until we actually were able to go to the NIH and get proper testing done. And so all of these symptoms, you know, the neurological decline and everything else was very, very concerning, but nobody really knew what to do with it because when you do the, you know, the CT or the MRI,
Starting point is 00:53:46 everything looks normal. All of her testing essentially was coming back normal. So did you ever make it to the NIH? We did. We went to the NIH in June where they did a whole battery of testing and she was eventually diagnosed with a bunch of vaccine-caused injuries. So the NIH acknowledged that? Yes. So how does it wind up that as recently as last month, her negative vaccine-caused injuries are not in the report?
Starting point is 00:54:15 Exactly. So in a clinical trial, essentially the participants are given an app on their smartphones where they report any of the side effects. However, the only side effects you're allowed to report is a bulleted list of selected adverse events, the things like fever, muscle aches, injection site pain, headache, you know, tiredness, things like that. There is no free form where you can write, you know, I can't walk anymore, or I can't be in bright light, or
Starting point is 00:54:44 my ears are so sensitive, or any of the other things that she experienced. You have to call the test clinic, explain to them what's going on, and then it's up to them to report up the chain, right? With potential reporting and clinician bias, you know, the adverse events. And they didn't. It would appear not. When they said it's a vaccine-caused injury, did they explain what the injury is that's causing all these symptoms? So their hypothesis is that it's an immune-mediated response to the spike protein that in certain individuals results in severe neurological injury. Oh, my gosh. So you here's a I know you connected with Senator Ron Johnson and Senator Lee, and your wife gave some testimony before a Senate committee about what what has happened to her.
Starting point is 00:55:37 We've got a clip of that so we can see Brianne here. Watch. We all suffered the same constellation of symptoms and we reached out to our elected representatives, both blue and red. We reached out to the COVID committee. We then reached out to the media, being repeatedly told that we can't make the vaccines look bad. We reached out to our state health boards, our state health departments, all of them persisting in the narrative that if this was really happening, the CDC and the FDA would have said so. We are completely on our own. We need the CDC to acknowledge us. They know about the issues with the clinical trials. They know about the deaths. They know about the lack of follow-up on VAERS. They know about the injuries to children. They know about the suicides as the results of months-long suffering. They know about the aggressive censorship. They know about the media listening to that. What? Why don't we hear more of it? Why? Why? Why are they stifling shot. And if you tell them that some people aren't doing well with it, you know, it would increase the number of people who might not get the shot.
Starting point is 00:57:10 And you're not, you're actually not vaccine hesitant. Is it true you actually got vaxxed after this happened to your wife with a different vaccine? That is true. I was vaccinated with the Moderna vaccine in March and then the second dose in April. So five months into her injury. This is crazy that they wouldn't allow you to tell your story because I understand you've formed a group. You found other people who are suffering similarly. And is it true that you continue to be censored by by places like Facebook?
Starting point is 00:57:40 Oh, definitely. I mean, we had that event in D.C. just a few weeks ago, the beginning of November. And immediately following that event, several of the support groups were shut down. As soon as they become aware, they hunt them out and shut them down, which really limits people's ability to find support. I mean, these are people who are very, very injured. They're suffering greatly. A lot of them are suicidal. And the only support they have is through the other injured. And so cutting them off from that, we don't know what harm comes from that. That is immoral. That is immoral. And you know, it's supposed to be informed consent to getting these vaccines. You can't give informed consent if you don't understand the full panoply of risks, including from somebody like you who's not anti-vax. I mean, you're not telling people not to get it. You're saying
Starting point is 00:58:28 you should know what the risks are. And so you tell me what you think. Do you guys have kids? We have two kids, yes, a seven and nine year old. So what do you think now about the, you know, because now they've approved it on an emergency basis for five to 11 year olds. Already we have an approval for 12 and up. And now in more and more places that they are making and will make it mandatory for kids as young as five. VA's review of the Pfizer data for the five to 11 year olds. I have significant concerns in the amount of data that was actually collected. They only used approximately 3,100 kids in the trial. To put that in perspective, the standard clinical trial usually involves 30,000 to 50,000 people and lasts like two years. So this was a trial that was significantly underpowered, and the safety subset was only followed for two and a half weeks, not nearly long enough to
Starting point is 00:59:32 determine if there's any adverse events that persist. It's not a large enough sample size, they don't follow them long enough. And in Pfizer's own data, they were unable to determine that there was a medical benefit to vaccinating this young of an age group. So they chose to model what the risk benefit analysis would look like. So they chose five scenarios. rate of COVID spread was, the assumed vaccine effectiveness, as well as one risk, which was myocarditis, which we know is an actual risk for these vaccines. And it seems to increase in probability the younger the people are that receive it. And so they did these models, and only in one of those scenarios did the benefits appear to outweigh the risks. And that was when COVID was assumed to be spreading very, very rapidly. In all of the outweigh the risks? And that was when COVID was assumed to be spreading very, very rapidly. In all of the other scenarios, the risks outweighed any benefit to the vaccine.
Starting point is 01:00:31 And this was in the FDA's model of the Pfizer data. Oh my, I saw a written report to this effect the other day. And the population is some 28 million, right, of kids in that age group. So you're talking about 3,000 kids and the population is 28 million. And we're supposed to believe. I mean, it's wonderful when the doctors reassure us that it's safe, it's safe, it's safe. But the truth is they actually don't know more than you just said. Right. Yeah.
Starting point is 01:00:58 We don't know what the long-term safety aspects of these vaccines are. Science just does not know. And do you believe that our public health officials, I mean, the NIH, I'm encouraged that they had you out there and actually did the testing and concluded what they did. But do you believe that they're complicit in, for lack of a better term, the cover-up of these cases and this data? Interestingly enough, the NIH was very communicative from January on. And we've actually had meetings, Zoom meetings with the heads of the FDA. And after we had those meetings and brought up the NIH information, the NIH has since gone dark. They will no longer talk to any of the
Starting point is 01:01:39 injured. My wife wasn't the only one that went out there. There was approximately 50 to 60 vaccine injured individuals who went out to the NIH for testing and treatment, and none of them are getting any more response from the NIH. Is it all AstraZeneca? No. No, this is, AstraZeneca wasn't approved in the U.S. Right. So the vast majority of the vaccine injured in the U.S. are from the other brands, and the injuries are all the same of this neurological type. Okay, let me ask you, having met them, having met the other people, do you, is there reason to believe these are kooks? These are people, you know what I mean?
Starting point is 01:02:14 Because that's what a lot of people think. They're just psychosomatic. They needed attention. They found a way of creating this sort of injury so they could, whatever, have more time at home. These are the things you hear. Right now, absolutely not. I mean, these are real people with real stories, real moms, real sisters, real dads, real children. You know, they're real people and they're suffering and they're doing it alone. Would you tell people to get the vaccine for themselves, for their children? I think that we need full and informed consent.
Starting point is 01:02:48 So I think all of the information needs to be provided, and then you can make that choice for yourself. If you believe that you're in a risk category where it makes sense, I would say that, yes, you should get the vaccine. However, for most healthy young adults, and certainly children, the risks begin to outweigh any benefit of the vaccine. However, for most healthy young adults and certainly children, the risks begin to outweigh any benefit of the vaccine. And I know they told you don't have don't give it to your kids, because obviously what happened with Brianne and now, of course, your kids will not be given an exception to go into the restaurants in New York or San Francisco because they have a legitimate
Starting point is 01:03:22 medical exemption. No one cares. And these schools, the LA, they've gotten rid of recognition in a lot of these places of even medical exemptions. That includes our school, where the only medical exemption they'll give you for your child is if he or she, not the parent, had an adverse reaction to the first shot. You have to stick the needle in them
Starting point is 01:03:40 and see how they do. It's insane that you guys would be in that position too. So how's Brianne doing now? She has made some improvement. She can walk again. She's able to be around the family. The sound sensitivity has reduced, the light sensitivity, those sorts of things. She still has this electrical sensation throughout her whole body 24-7. And then the other symptom that's most plaguing is what most people describe as internal vibration, as if you had like a whole mess of cell phones inside your body or a massager that is just sort of vibrating all the time. Gosh. Oh, please send her our love and best wishes for a full recovery. And
Starting point is 01:04:27 I mean, I just applaud your courage in speaking out. You were trying to help. You pro-vaccine. You volunteered so that you could get this thing approved and help everybody. And this is the thanks you get, a cover-up, no return phone calls, even though they've acknowledged it's a vaccine injury. This is dreadful. Brian, thank you for speaking out and all the best to you and your family. Thank you for having me. My gosh. Wow. That's unbelievable. We're going to continue the discussion next when we're joined by Dr. Michael Minna, an immunologist and epidemiologist and physician at the Harvard School of Public Health. We'll talk about this case. We'll talk about the new
Starting point is 01:05:08 COVID antiviral pills and how he says at-home testing can put an end to this pandemic. Oh, still so moved by my last guest and that story. And joining me now to discuss it more is immunologist, epidemiologist and physician at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Dr. Michael Minna. Dr. Minna has been a champion for COVID testing plans safe, saving lives, and potentially helping us take those masks off and ending all the vaccine mandates too. Thank you for joining us, Dr. Minow. What do you make of Brian's story? I mean, I found him very credible and I find the whole thing really disturbing. Well, when we're talking about potential adverse effects of vaccines, we have to always place those in the context of what would happen otherwise if you got infected. I've spoken long before COVID, I have spoken with many, many groups over the years about concerns around vaccines, around vaccine safety. And I think that it is absolutely
Starting point is 01:06:18 right for people to have personal concerns about vaccine safety, because this is something, it's one of the few things that we actually put into people when they're healthy and to protect them in the future. And so when we're talking about potential inflammatory effects, like we just heard, we have to recognize that they might occur associated with the vaccine,
Starting point is 01:06:43 but they also occur associated with the infection. but they also occur associated with the infection. And I think oftentimes that piece is lost. And so from a public health perspective, it becomes, which I will distinguish from the personal choice, but from a public health perspective, we have to weigh the costs and benefits at a whole aggregate community level. And sometimes that means that we have to weigh the costs and benefits at a whole aggregate community level.
Starting point is 01:07:11 And sometimes that means that we have to recognize that despite having potential, and I say potential because we're not sure adverse effects of a vaccine, sometimes the risk of that is so much lower, even though they might be real, than the risk of the actual infection and those exact same types of effects happening after somebody gets infected, that it just makes it, it clearly pushes the balance towards the vaccine. But that's not to say that these types of, that these types of events don't exist. I think they do. But I do not believe from a public health perspective that they are, that they would warrant a rethinking of whether or not the vaccine is appropriate to give to individuals at a public health level. What about, doesn't this totally undermine the mandates though? story, deemed by the NIH to be a vaccine injury and say, I don't think it's worth the risk for me.
Starting point is 01:08:13 And I should be what if what if there's a woman sitting at home right now who says that to herself and she's forced to get the vaccine or lose her job right by let's say she's a New York City cop, right? Something like that. Shouldn't it be her choice? Well, I have, I mean, when it comes to that, I would argue for myself here that I am not a bioethicist. You know, vaccine mandates are, have to be looked at through many angles. And I look at it through, you know, one or two angles, and the President of the United States looks at it through different angles for me. And I do think that there's arguments to be made on both sides. There's personal choice about whether or not you need to have something put into you that could protect you, but could also have a very, and I want to emphasize, very minimal risk, but a real risk, even if it's extremely minimal. You know, that should probably be somebody's choice.
Starting point is 01:09:06 But the question is, does, you know, does society deem that the population level risk of not mandating a vaccine doesn't overwhelm the risk to individuals to the small minority who do end up having some sort of adverse reaction? And that is, I would argue that it's really for, it's for society to choose. And, you know, I can speak about biology and medicine, but whether or not, you know, when it comes to freedoms and liberties, I think I can give my own end of one opinion, but I don't think it's worth very much. How do we know it's minimal risk when you have the people who run the clinical trials and the drug makers keeping results like Brianne's with these vaccines, a massive, massive post-market ongoing evaluation. And what I can say is we haven't seen the number of adverse effects becoming so significant that we actually start to think
Starting point is 01:10:21 that it's a real reason to recommend against vaccination. But what's the data? What data are you looking at? I mean, I'll tell you just anecdotally, but I can speak to this firsthand. A female friend of mine of childbearing age, when the first thing broke about Johnson & Johnson causing blood clots, and they said there are six women who have had blood clots, she had a blood clot right after getting J&J. She got it in her finger. She called the doctor. She's like, what do you think this is? And then it blew up like a red balloon after I got the vaccine. He was like, get to the hospital right now. So she went and they did all these therapeutics on her. They wouldn't use heparin because I guess you can't have that
Starting point is 01:10:59 after you just had the J&J vaccine. So they used all these sort of homeopathic things on her. She had about 12 doctors taking care of her because they really didn't want a negative effect from the J&J or any other vaccine. She was not one of the six. She wasn't counted. And this is it had happened prior to them announcing we've had six. So I just there's reason to question these numbers. And I have the vaccine. I would recommend the vaccine. I had Pfizer. But these are some of the reasons why I question the mandate. And I really question it when it comes to children who don't need this vaccine. Yeah, I do think, I mean, we have, just to be very clear, we have given millions and millions and millions of vaccines. And the problem has always historically been with vaccine adverse effects. And again,
Starting point is 01:11:46 I do not want to pretend like they don't exist. I do want to be clear that they're rare. But the problem with them is that because vaccines are one of the only medical interventions that we actually give to people during a period of health, we have almost no tolerance for error and for any sort of adverse effect, which is good. But what is often lost is that side effects from a vaccine rise to the top very quickly and become compounded in the media. But what is not discussed very much is that those identical side effects do occur when somebody gets the infection itself as well. And so that is often lost. And so it's very easy to talk about the side effects from a vaccine, while pretending like the side effects from the actual infection don't exist, because
Starting point is 01:12:39 they're not side effects there. You know, we think of them as real effects of the infection that we're trying to avoid. But I guess this is the way that I balance it. And I do want to, like, I don't, I personally don't ever pretend to think that anyone's side effects are not real. I believe that they are. Anytime we initiate an inflammatory response in somebody's body, we cannot pretend that that doesn't come with a risk. But the way that I look at it is that
Starting point is 01:13:05 that same inflammatory response or a much worse one does also occur with the infection. And I think it's not as clear cut a story. But when it comes to mandates, I think it's absolutely reasonable to be having this discussion. 100% I think we should all be having the discussion and it's not wrong to talk about it and try to figure out what is the best path forward for society. A news item to our listening audience. And then I want to ask you about testing and also these new therapeutics, which, you know, maybe those, those two things are the answer to vaccine hesitancy and all of this, but just an update on the, on the news, California,
Starting point is 01:13:45 this is according to a wall street journal article is increasingly scrutinizing doctors who are providing medical exemptions to parents for their children, right? Who are subject to the vax mandates. One doctor's in trouble for quote, considering parental input on the, on the risks to their child. That's crazy. Who else are you going to listen to? It's like the kids, my kids have no idea what their medical history is. A judge recommended that this one doctor that that her license be revoked, the one who listened to parental input. And so more and more doctors who give you a medical exemption are coming under scrutiny for giving them to you. That's disturbing, right? Because it's like,
Starting point is 01:14:25 like I said, Brian and Brianne, if they were at my school, their kid would have to take the vaccine, even though their kids clearly should not take the vaccine, given what's happened to their mom. So it's crazy. Okay, so let's talk about alternatives that are now more and more in the news and potentially becoming available. Let me just start with the therapeutics before we get to the testing. So Pfizer has got one now now and Merck has got one now. Pfizer is going to seek approval. I guess they haven't yet, but apparently they had such great results. They're no longer taking new patients in their clinical trial due to the overwhelming efficacy, they say, of their new therapeutic and experimental pill that treats COVID. They say it could cut hospitalization rates by nearly 90%. They say in the clinical trial, it prevented death in 100% of the cases.
Starting point is 01:15:10 You have to start it within three days of symptoms. So you've got to get to it fast. I don't know what the Merck one requires. But Scott Gottlieb, former FDA commissioner, says the pandemic could be over by January. And he's on the board of Pfizer, we should point out, but thanks to the Pfizer and Merck therapeutics. So what do you make of those? Yeah, I think that this is a tipping point, or at least a real game changer in this pandemic. The fact is, if we what we really want to avoid during the pandemic is our severe outcomes. And if we have therapeutics that can limit and potentially prevent the most severe outcomes. And if we have therapeutics that can limit and potentially prevent the most severe outcomes, then it really changes the balance of the overall risk of this pandemic to society.
Starting point is 01:15:53 But one of the most important pieces here is what you mentioned, which is that these drugs have to be started very fast. They generally have an EUA that says that they need to be started within three days or three to five days. But the reality is, the benefit does start to fall off quickly with each passing day. And so the quicker that we can get people diagnosed, and get them a therapeutic, you know, ideally delivered to their door, and we can talk about what I call test to treat, is going to be crucial. And that's also where we'll also discuss rapid tests and how we can use testing and greater availability and access to fast tests to our major advantage here when we consider that we now have therapeutics coming down the pipeline that are really going to be life-saving entities.
Starting point is 01:16:45 All right. So let's talk about testing. I confess I haven't really been paying attention to the status of testing, at-home testing, you know, since the beginning when it was impossible to get a test and people were like, unless you knew or related to Andrew Cuomo, you know, how has that come along? Where are we now in terms of testing and its availability? And what would you like to see? Yeah, I mean, I think testing in the U.S. has been one of the greatest failures of this pandemic. We've done it all wrong in what I would argue has been wrong. We focused on the wrong metrics around the test at the expense of focusing on the metrics that would actually curb transmission. And so all of 2020, we had a real focus on laboratory PCR testing for
Starting point is 01:17:33 the most part. And even when tests were taking 7, 10, 12 days to return, we were still recommending, you know, we, the scientific community, we're still recommending that people got tests to limit transmission. But when you have a test that's taking five, seven, 10 days, it's essentially absolutely pointless. From a public health perspective, you need a test result that's going to be given very fast. So that if you're infectious, you know your results before you go out and infect other people. And you need that test to be accessible. A test once a month or a test once you're feeling symptomatic isn't sufficient if your goal is to stop transmission. And so given that backdrop, something I've been calling for since really April or May
Starting point is 01:18:20 of 2020 has been to increase accessibility in the United States to rapid tests, tests that people can have in their home, so that the moment you start to feel symptoms, or the moment your friend calls you and says, hey, you know, I just turned up positive, and we had dinner last night together, you might want to test yourself. There's no barrier to entry for somebody to get tested. We need inexpensive tests to just be at our disposal, similar to Band-Aids. We don't go out and buy Band-Aids when our child gets a cut. We have them in our cupboard already so that we can put them on and stop the bleeding when it's necessary. And it's the same thing with COVID tests. If we can put these fast, accessible, simple tests into people's homes, then we can really do a good job
Starting point is 01:19:02 at stopping transmission, even in the era of vaccines. Do they exist? I know you can go into the clinic for a rapid test. Yeah, so they do exist now. It's been a very long slog to try to work on how to encourage the scientific bodies and the FDA and such to understand these tests as I think of them as transmission indicating tests or they're tests that turn positive when you're infectious. And they don't turn positive when you're not infectious, unlike a PCR test, which stays positive for way too long. And these tests do exist now. But as people have noticed, they're very hard to get. They go to Walmart or CVS and they find that they're sold out over and over and over. But finally, the government is trying to increase accessibility and scalability of these tests,
Starting point is 01:19:52 but it is taking time. And I've been probably the world's greatest advocate for trying to improve testing access in this country and globally. But there is a part of me that's starting to wonder, this is too little too late. I don't think so. But, you know, I am frustrated that these tests were not in every individual's home, you know, a year ago. Yeah, did we put any of that money, you know, that we put towards finding vaccines and so on behind this? Not really, you know, the US has been has generally historically been very, very poor at recognizing what are appropriate uses of money when it comes to public health. We have a very biomedical centric enterprise when it comes to
Starting point is 01:20:32 how we allocate funds. And so if it's something you can inject into you, great, we'll dump all the funds into it. But if it's something that really is designed to stop transmission and work at a public health level, the public health strategies themselves are generally underfunded. And that's why, for example, when the vaccines finally did come about, it was like a shock to the system. Nobody knew how to really allocate them and actually distribute them in the States. It was kind of a surprise that we put all this money into developing the biology behind it, but then the logistics and the real public health part of it was sort of short-sighted and not really developed enough. Like why wasn't Fauci talking about this? Because this is an easy sell. I mean,
Starting point is 01:21:11 even the most vaccine hesitant wouldn't be opposed to testing and making sure they don't have it. Even if they don't want a vaccine, especially with these new therapeutics coming out, they would 100% get a test and probably get a pill to stop hospitalization or death. So I mean, why don't why don't we put more energy into this? I don't know. It's been interesting. It's and I have I've talked to both sides of Congress, Senate, you know, the White House, both administrations. This is one of the most bipartisan efforts that could be in place. We've published on it an enormous number of times the last 18 months. It appeals to everyone,
Starting point is 01:21:52 because like you say, everyone is happy to know if they're testing, especially this can be a test that is done in the privacy of your home. So those folks in the country who don't want the government involved, you can use a test at your own counter and nobody has to know the result. That's right. And then you at least don't go outside. I know a lot of people who are like, I don't want the government knowing I have it. So fine, you know, in the privacy of your own home. And then, of course, unless you're just a complete jerk, you would not go out in public and start breathing on a bunch of people. So what Um, so what, what about antigen tests and antibody tests are, do we have those at all readily available and how could they play into getting all of this over with faster? Sure.
Starting point is 01:22:35 So the fast tests that I'm talking about now are the antigen tests and an antigen test is a test that detects the protein, which is called an antigen in scientific terms, of the virus. And so the antigen tests are existing. Those are the ones like the Abbott test and the Quidel and the Allume that was just recalled. These are antigen tests. Antibody tests are different, and they are the tests that look at the person's immunological response to the infection or the vaccine. These tests also exist. There was a slew of these tests that were really poorly created and just not accurate back in early 2020. And these were fast antibody or immune tests. And that kind of put the whole the FDA and the government,
Starting point is 01:23:26 everyone kind of like push down antibody tests, antibody testing, and understanding immunology of pathogens is what I normally do in my research. And so it's been frustrating to see that even these antibody tests have been sort of downplayed. But now we're starting to see that they are becoming more available. There's one company that does it with just a swab of your gums, you take a swab of your gums, and you can get a good antibody result. And I think we're under utilizing those. Because what we could do is we could say, hey, do kids really need two vaccines to be or does any person really need two vaccines to be considered fully immunized if they've already been infected and have a strong antibody response. Maybe what we could do is we could take these fast antibody tests.
Starting point is 01:24:12 And when somebody goes to get their first vaccine, they also take an antibody test. And if the antibody test is positive, then they get one vaccine because they've already been infected based on the antibody positivity. And then they are considered fully vaccinated without or fully immune without having to get their second dose. You know, that type of efficient public health thinking just has more or less been absent. And I don't know why, you know, it's as though the scientific and policymaking bodies have decided or deemed that we can't trust immunity from infection. But when we have perhaps half of all Americans having been infected, we should at least leverage that. And we can't turn back time. I don't want people to go out
Starting point is 01:24:56 and get infected so that they only have to get one dose of the vaccine. But the fact is, many people have been infected, and we can't undo that. So we may as well utilize it to our benefit. And I think that there's a real role there, but we haven't really brought it forward. Kids in particular, because the negative effects of the COVID vaccine on like young teenage boys tend to come after a second shot, like the myocarditis and so on. So what if you could avoid that altogether? If you have to get a shot, you have to get vaccinated. Perhaps you could at least avoid the second shot if you've had COVID in the antibody show. But I'm sure a lot of
Starting point is 01:25:29 my audience out there is saying, why do you need even one shot if you have the antibodies? You know, you've got natural immunity. That Israel study showed it's 27 times more effective at preventing infection, reinfection as the vaccines. And this is why a lot of people say we, like some countries in Europe, should be counting natural immunity already as an exemption to these vaccine mandates. Yeah, I do think that we should at least be considering it. Am I going to get up here and say to you that I don't think we should give a single dose vaccine for people who are immune? Probably not. The reason I would say that is because we
Starting point is 01:26:10 do know that the vaccine kind of supercharges the immunological memory for people who have been infected. Do I want to say that maybe we don't need both vaccine doses? Absolutely. I think there's good data to support that. But I think going to say that maybe we don't need both vaccine doses? Absolutely. I think there's good data to support that. But I think going to say that people who have any antibody level don't need to get a vaccine, you know, that's not, I would say that the data is less robust to suggest that. But I do think we should absolutely be considering it, you know, and especially we should really be looking at what are called immune correlates of protection. So can we come up with quantitative values, quantitative antibody values, that would say whether somebody who has been infected actually
Starting point is 01:26:55 has sufficient immunity that they don't need any vaccine or not? And what's this called? That's something that again? Well, these are this is just an area of sort of medical research called correlates of protection, we look at trying to say, you know, just I'll give fake numbers for a moment. But if you have above 100 antibody level, maybe you're protected, you're very well protected from infection. And if you're below, you're not. And we've done this for a long time with measles titers, for example, for healthcare professionals. Every few years, healthcare professionals get a measles antibody titer drawn. They look at the amount of antibody people have and they say, your antibody levels have fallen too far below. We'll give you a booster.
Starting point is 01:27:40 That's brilliant. That is so brilliant. That puts an end to this whole debate about whether the vaccine gives you better immunity or the covid infection it's like well let's just see what your immunity is let's just look at it okay like we don't have to prioritize one over the other let's just see what it is and then you can make the decision you know what to do from there because i don't think most people want covid especially seeing you know what it does to older people and so on but um they don't also want to be ordered around by Uncle Sam and what to do with their health care. All right, listen, I want you, if you're willing to stick around, because I know our audience is calling in. And folks, you can call in right now. It's not too late. Call in right now because our doctor friend Michael staying with us, Dr. Minna, 833-44-MEGAN, 833-44-MEGYN, which is 446-3496.
Starting point is 01:28:27 Call us right now and free medical advice. No, it's not medical advice, but just thoughts on your questions next. We've got physician Dr. Michael Minna, and he's got thoughts on your questions. We're going to kick it off with Mike in Arkansas. What's your question for Dr. Minna? I called my doctor and asked about the testing to see what my antibody level was. And she said that she's not a big advocate for it because it's only about 40% accurate. So that's really what my question is.
Starting point is 01:28:55 How accurate are they and what does it actually mean? Go ahead, Doc. Yeah, so that's the question that we're trying to figure out. I wouldn't say that 40% accurate. I'm not quite sure where your physicians come in with that number. But what I would say is we're still trying to understand how to interpret what the results of somebody's antibody test actually mean. at just a positive or a negative, if somebody says, yes, you're positive for antibodies, what you don't know, given the tests that are available right now, is it low positive, high positive? And so we need to keep developing the technology a bit more. But in general, you can assume that if you are positive, at the very least, and you've never been vaccinated, it means you've been exposed. And if you have been vaccinated, it means you probably have, you clearly have some immunity from it, but how immune and how protected is still something we're trying to work out those new tests for. We got to work. We got
Starting point is 01:29:54 to figure that, that one out. Thank you for the call, Mike. Let's go to Natalie in North Carolina. Natalie, what's your question for our doctor? Hey guys. So I had COVID in November of 2020. And around August of this year, I went into my local doctor's office and had the antibody test done and my antibodies or the immunity level was 1500. So my question is, how often should you take the antibody test to check your level? Yeah, so it's a similar-ish question, but I can't speak to that particular number. The interesting thing with antibody values is it's really like 1,500. I can't interpret if that's high or low without knowing more about the exact test. But what I can say is that one thing we should be thinking about doing, and that I've advocated quite a bit for, is that we should offer people antibody tests every few months. And the idea there is that some people retain their immune memory very well. And some people do not retain their immunity very well, just like people's regular memory.
Starting point is 01:31:05 Some people have good memories, some people have bad memories. And one thing we could do is we could say, hey, here's a, you know, do this test, you know, once every three months for nine months and see if your antibody levels are staying flat and high or if they're dropping off really quick. And we could actually use that to determine maybe who needs a booster, who doesn't, who will be protected next year, who won't be. And I think we have a lot of ways that we could be using these antibody values and the numbers that we're not currently doing. But I would say every few months is probably if you're wanting to track your antibodies,
Starting point is 01:31:39 it's not a day-to-day thing. It's more like test today, test again in three months, and see where you're at. You don't have to do it every week, for example. What could this testing do in terms of our treatment options? How could it change them? Yeah. So testing, I would argue that testing with the antigen test, the tests that actually look for the virus can be one of the most powerful tools we have today now that therapy is coming around. So we talked earlier about how it needs to be started fast. So I have this idea, you know, what if Medicare, or however, positioned these tests in every person's home who's high risk, and just said, you know, here's three tests, if you use them,
Starting point is 01:32:23 we'll send you more tests. And anytime somebody felt symptoms, especially somebody who's high risk and just said, you know, here's three tests. If you use them, we'll send you more tests. And anytime somebody felt symptoms, especially somebody who's at risk of severe complications with COVID, they just pull out a test and they do a proctored test, you know, a telehealth proctored test where you actually get on, you scan in your test and up pops a proctor. They watch you do the test. And the reason you want that is because then if you're positive, you can immediately get a prescription. And within 12 hours, you could have a therapy show up at your door that you could start, you know, we could actually be in a world where we start treatment within 12 hours of, you know, first having symptom onset, it could totally, greatly eliminate the need for hospitalization. And of course, especially these numbers from Pfizer are true, right? 100% reduction of death is pretty good.
Starting point is 01:33:11 Dr. Mena, thank you. We appreciate your expertise. And we appreciate our viewers calling in. Tomorrow, we've got comedian Jim Brewer. He's hilarious. Don't forget to check us out on youtube.com slash Megyn Kelly and download the show show thanks for listening to the megan kelly show no bs no agenda and no fear

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