TruthArchive.ai - Tweets Saved By @drdrew

Posted - January 30, 2026 at 8:51 PM

Saved - January 31, 2026 at 2:38 PM

@drdrew - Dr. Drew

She escaped Mao's Revolution – now @XVanFleet warns that elites in the USA are enabling the CCP while funding chaos & crime across the world. Xi joins @HMDatMI (author of "When Race Trumps Merit") on @AskDrDrew LIVE at 2pm PT https://t.co/yZTSeAnjTf

@drdrew — Dr. Drew

Posted - January 13, 2025 at 11:16 PM

Saved - January 14, 2025 at 1:03 PM

reSee.it AI Summary

This weekend, YouTube accused me of spreading medical misinformation and removed two videos featuring licensed physicians. I’ve been a board-certified doctor for over 40 years and believe in free speech and open debate among experts, even when I don’t fully agree with their opinions. I highlighted statements from Dr. Fauci and Rachel Maddow that remain on YouTube, questioning the consistency of their moderation. To remove the warnings, I must undergo YouTube's reeducation training, but I refuse to compromise my content. I'm grateful for platforms that support free speech.

@drdrew - Dr. Drew

This weekend, @YouTubeCreators accused me of spreading "medical misinformation" & took down 2 videos with an MD & a lawyer. I've been a board-certified physician for over 40 years – 2x @YouTube's existence. So let's take a closer look at the timestamps they say are "harmful"...

@drdrew - Dr. Drew

Violation 1: medical misinformation at 22:52. Dr. Kelly Victory shares her professional opinion about young people who were injured by mRNA side effects, saying the "vast majority of the people who have been injured are young, healthy people who were under the age of 50 who had fundamentally zero risk from COVID itself. They all got COVID. 98% of the population has documentation they've had COVID. These are people who would have been fine if they were just left alone." The two people on screen – @DrKellyVictory and me – are licensed, board-certified physicians who completed medical school decades ago. I was chief resident at Huntington Hospital, an Assistant Clinical Professor in medicine & psychiatry at Keck USC, and a Director of Addiction Services at Las Encinas Hospital for 25 years. Do I agree with everything Dr. Victory says? I do not. And she wouldn't hesitate to say the same about me (often on my own show). But I have a commitment to free speech and open debate between dissenting experts. It is not medical misinformation for a licensed doctor to provide an opinion on a broadcast.

Video Transcript AI Summary

The tragedy is that many young, healthy individuals under 50, who had minimal risk from COVID, were injured. A significant percentage of the population has documented cases of COVID. These individuals would have been fine if left alone. Instead, many were harmed, often against their better judgment, as they felt pressured to comply with mandates to keep their jobs or attend school.

AI Similar Videos

Full Transcript

Speaker 0: And the the real tragedy with this, Drew, is that the vast majority of the people who've been injured are young, healthy people, people who were under the age of 50 who had fundamentally zero risk from COVID itself. They all got COVID. 96%, 98% of the population has documented and well known that they had COVID. Okay? These are people who would have done fine if they'd just been left alone. But instead Yes. They were maimed, many of them against their better judgment, against their best, you know, interest. They could you know, they had to do it to keep their jobs, to go to school, to whatever it is. Yeah. And so we they were harmed.

@drdrew - Dr. Drew

By the way... here's Dr. Fauci in 2023 insisting "there's no doubt that masks work" despite the data and opposition from public health experts like epidemiologist @DrHarveyRisch (a Yale professor) who told me "in reality, what you’re talking about is putting up a chain link fence and hoping that it blocks mosquitoes.” Dr. Fauci's interview is still fully available on YouTube: https://youtu.be/e3AMslS6cKw?t=228

@drdrew - Dr. Drew

Violation 2: medical misinformation at 38:21. Attorney Warner Mendenhall of @akronlawfirm shares his professional opinion and details about a case he's fighting. "I believe about half a million people have died from taking the shot. We are currently representing one of my clients who is extremely ill. Her spinal cord has been damaged... she's having trouble breathing... she goes by @thecoercednurse." Do I agree with everything Mendenhall says? I do not. I haven't seen convincing evidence that 500,000 people died from the shot. But it is not medical misinformation for an attorney to discuss the details of an ongoing case, even if those details do not align with the CDC's preferred narrative at the time (e.g. the Tuskegee Study, Guatemalan STD experiments, Willowbrook Hepatitis study, Camp Lejeune water contamination). It is not medical misinformation for someone to state their belief that a large number of people were harmed by a medical product or study. That is his opinion based on evidence from his cases.

Video Transcript AI Summary

I believe around 500,000 people have died from the vaccine. We are currently representing clients affected by this. One client, Dani Baker, is severely ill; her spinal cord is damaged, her diaphragm isn't functioning properly, and she's struggling to breathe at just 40 years old. She took the vaccine due to her job. Dani, known as "course nurse" on Twitter, is a strong advocate, and we aim to highlight her case.

AI Similar Videos

Full Transcript

Speaker 0: I believe about half a 1000000 people have died from taking the shot. We are currently representing people, you know, one of my clients unfortunately is extremely ill. You know her spinal cord has been damaged, her diaphragm no longer works properly, she's having trouble breathing and she's 40 years old and she took it because of her job. That's a lady named Dani Baker, by the way. She goes by course nurse on Twitter, and she's a fantastic client to have and we're gonna try to make a point with that.

@drdrew - Dr. Drew

By the way... here's Rachel Maddow telling MSNBC viewers "we know that the vaccines work well enough that the virus stops with every vaccinated person. A vaccinated person gets exposed to the virus, the virus does not infect them. The virus cannot then use that person to go anywhere else. It cannot use a vaccinated person as a host to get more people." Maddow's statements are still fully available on @YouTube: https://youtu.be/teb8Trr7JWs

@drdrew - Dr. Drew

How do I get these warnings removed? It's simple: I must attend YouTube's reeducation training and be a good boy for 90 days, or else they will delete my channel and its 1000+ videos. https://t.co/MNfw4ZXfXG

@drdrew - Dr. Drew

These aren't the first warnings or strikes I've received from @YouTube. The first time this happened, my producer got on the phone with them & made peace (it's hard to moderate billions of hours of content and YouTube will make mistakes sometimes). But when it happened again last year, my producer politely asked them if I could do a "provider to provider" call, from one physician to another, so I could have a clinical conversation with the person on their side who is judging my interviews – the hallowed YouTube moderator who graduated medical school, spent time in residency, and treated enough patients to confidently claim my professional opinion is harmful enough to justify censorship. Of course that person couldn't speak to me, because that person does not exist. YouTube doesn't have physicians on their moderation team.

@drdrew - Dr. Drew

YouTube is free to stay on the wrong side of history. Their house, their rules. But it's times like these when I'm especially grateful that @ElonMusk brought free speech back to the public square. Both @AskDrDrew episodes are still available on X, and I refuse to delete even 1 second of them to appease Google's unqualified, unlicensed, untrained, unidentified censors. • 1/10/2025 with @DrKellyVictory & @HarryFisherEMTP: https://t.co/uvYIMkYSRp • 1/8/2025 with Warner Mendenhall & @DrRandallBock: https://t.co/EbXnnA9gid

@drdrew — Dr. Drew

Posted - October 16, 2024 at 9:57 PM

Saved - October 16, 2024 at 11:30 PM

@drdrew - Dr. Drew

「 LIVE 」 Dr. Scott Atlas: Award-Winning Stanford Professor Told The Truth About COVID & mRNA, Then Needed 24/7 Security Against Death Threats • @ScottAtlas_IT on @AskDrDrew https://t.co/iLRYapsmQz

@drdrew — Dr. Drew

Posted - October 4, 2023 at 5:07 PM

Saved - October 5, 2023 at 1:34 PM

@drdrew - Dr. Drew

It's getting harder for them to say @NaomiRWolf is wrong when the science keeps saying she's right. A bombshell study now confirms mRNA shots can cause "unexpected vaginal bleeding" in women. Naomi joins @DrKellyVictory & @joshg99 at 1:30 PT on @AskDrDrew

Bombshell Study Admits "Unexpected Vaginal Bleeding" RISES After mRNA Shots w/ Naomi Wolf, Joshua Guetzkow & Dr. Kelly Victory – Ask Dr. Drew | Dr. Drew Official Website - drdrew.com Bombshell Study Admits "Unexpected Vaginal Bleeding" RISES After mRNA Shots w/ Naomi Wolf, Joshua Guetzkow & Dr. Kelly Victory – Ask Dr. Drew | A new study published in Science Advances finally admits what Naomi Wolf has been warning for years: mRNA shots for COVID-19 can cause serious side effects in women, but medical authorities are choosing to ignore the safety signals. | Ask Dr. Drew | | A new study published in Science Advances finally admits what Naomi Wolf has been warning for years: mRNA shots for COVID-19 can cause serious side effects in women, but medical authorities are choosing to ignore the safety signals. drdrew.com

@drdrew — Dr. Drew

Posted - September 11, 2023 at 10:11 PM

Saved - September 12, 2023 at 5:27 PM

reSee.it AI Summary

FDA directors heard physicians' concerns about mRNA vaccines and the underreporting of adverse reactions, including the death of a 7-year-old after receiving Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine. The recorded call revealed a lack of statistical testing on adverse events, raising serious doubts about the drug approval process. The system's failure to follow up on a cardiac arrest case further highlighted the flaws. The conflict of interest in allowing pharmaceutical companies to conduct their own trials was also criticized. The call was recorded in March 2022 and can be heard on AskDrDrew.

@drdrew - Dr. Drew

In an internal phone call, FDA directors heard physicians' concerns about mRNA & how VAERS reports of adverse reactions were falling through the cracks – including the cardiac arrest & death of a 7-year-old, days after receiving Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine. We obtained a recording.

Video Transcript AI Summary

This video features a discussion among speakers regarding the analysis of adverse events in drug studies. The speakers criticize the FDA's approach of counting the number of participants who experience adverse events instead of the total number of events. They argue that both methods provide valuable information and that the FDA's approach may miss important data. The speakers also express concerns about the FDA's reliance on real-world data, which they believe is less reliable than clinical trial data. They highlight issues with the reporting system for adverse events and question the FDA's handling of serious adverse events related to COVID-19 vaccines. Overall, the video raises concerns about the FDA's approach to drug safety and calls for more rigorous evaluation of adverse events.

AI Similar Videos

Full Transcript

Speaker 0: Oh, this was a top level meet a meeting of directors of biostats directors. Speaker 1: You have some recordings legally, recorded. Yes. Speaker 0: Here. I'll I'll put the first thing here, which is what they said, regarding, here. I'll just play this here. Speaker 2: So is, You've analyzed the total number of events, rather than the number of people who had at least 1 event. So if you look at those tables at the top, that sort of number of people with an SAD. Speaker 0: Now this is the first thing that they brought up, the first critique of our study. They said we Analyze the number of events versus the number of participants. This is a seems like a statistical argument that's of of irrelevance. But Turns out that the FDA, for all of its previous drug studies, they don't count the number of serious adverse events that happened to people In a clinical trial. Speaker 3: They count the number. Speaker 0: They only count the number of people who have them. So if you're a person who has multiple Things. And especially imagine in a trial where you're given 2 doses to have vaccine 1, vaccine dose 1, dose 2. If you have a serious adverse if you have a heart attack after dose 1, Then you have a stroke or another heart attack after dose 2. That's counted as 1. And now the fact that the FDA just doesn't count the number of events at all, there's no reason to not also count that. It's I'm not saying that Counting the number of participants is bad. No. No. No. They're both useful and give different information. FDA doesn't do it, and I would put out for anyone who's listening. If you wanna go back through FDA trials because they, hint, have not done that in any of our prior trials, and that is a much more sensitive. It will catch more events. It will catch more harm because people who are sensitive to a drug's serious adverse events, Turns out they're probably sensitive to more than 1. That's just how how medicine works. If you're gonna get one bad one, you're probably More likely to get another bad one. And that has been, not, not what our FDA has been doing, which concerned which concerns our our group, I would say, our entire group. And they also I will continue on here from the FDA's meeting here. And they they didn't take care. I will play this video this recording here. Speaker 2: We don't do statistical significance testing of raw numbers of AEs because we don't consider that informative for safety, for multiplicity of reasons and also because, for instance, if you look at the list of ADSIs, There are many things that are related and it could be different manifestations of the state phenomenon. And then some of these things are completely different. SOCs are unlikely to arise from the same mechanism of action, and locking them altogether for a significant test is necessarily Clinically logical to us. Speaker 0: The the the purpose here what what these what they're saying here is they're not doing statistical testing Not statistical testing on on on adverse events. They, They they are seriously this is this is really insane to me. They they Speaker 3: No kidding. Speaker 0: They are they're they they he's seriously saying there, we only just look. If there's a huge difference that's so obvious that we don't need test. Then we say, okay. That's a big difference. Let's look into this. That is that that's absurd because then he goes on to say That the way that they look at these adverse events is they look at each one. And then there's a guy, this guy. He is a sent that was the the one who was the Who's who's saying this, that when you when they identify them, they they try to connect it to go, okay. Is this In the right amount of time from the is this in the right amount of time from the vaccine? Do you have any comorbidities? Maybe that's what I've explained this. But when you're using a novel vaccine, how you're supposed to know what What what serious adverse events are coming? And this is this was this blew the minds of all of the all of the researchers I was working with, physicians And scientists that this is the FDA was doing this in such a sense here. This is one of my coauthors questioning them on this about not using the fact that it's a randomized controlled trial. You've randomized these 2 groups. If there's more of something in one of the groups, there's one reason why there's more. It's the thing you used, the medical intervention. That's the whole reason we do randomized controlled trials. When you do observational studies, when you find the difference between groups, you're always like, oh, was it something else that don't know about that. We're not thinking about. It's called the confounder. It's the reason observational studies are so unreliable. Here, they're evaluating randomized controlled trial data the way you evaluate observational data, which is insane because I think I said this the last time I was here. A Vioxx heart attack. Someone has a Vioxx heart attack. They come into my ER, and they were taking Vioxx. And and How do I know that that heart attack was from Vioxx? Or was that just a regular heart attack? And they would have had a heart attack if they weren't taking Vioxx. The only reason we know it is because in the randomized trials, more people who took Vioxx had heart attacks. That's all we know. It wasn't like the placebo had zero heart attacks Only you know? So Hey. This is this is one of my coauthors here trying to hit this point home here. Speaker 2: An event Very likely to have occurred to them in any case, then that event is less likely to be related to the investigational product that we're speaking with. Right. Speaker 0: It's it does I mean, it sounds like what's done in in pharmacovigilance. But is how do you then leverage the fact that you're dealing with a with a randomized trial? Speaker 2: So I'm not sure what you mean by that. Again, the using the randomization to do hypothesis testing to look for A causal relationship between the investigational product and placebo. Again, it's typically not done For a variety of reasons. One of which is the multiplicity concern because we may have a Speaker 0: So he's saying there, multiplicity is the reason they don't do statistical testing? We are not doing multiplesies saying if you test a hun 200 different serious adverse events, You're gonna find us a false positive. He's right. We just combine them all. We we ran 1 test. It's 1 test, all of them combined. And then if it's increased, you know you have a problem with your drug. You don't know exactly which one of these adverse events is causing it, but You know there's a problem if there if the vaccine group has a has a higher rate of them. This is It was very, very concerning. The this entire meeting terrified my entire work group, To to be fully honest, they they went on to explain to us that they then began to say that Their re their rationale for not being concerned was, was essentially because of, real real world data didn't didn't confirm with, what what, didn't didn't connect. And it's If you believe in evidence based medicine, that's not really how that works. If you find it in the clinical trial and the observational data isn't, Connecting it. That is that's a problem with your observational data, not the clinical trial. So they they need to Relook at this. And, here, this is Speaker 4: I I guess the question for me is that and I I actually bring this up for our our our folks just so that maybe Steve and Rich can comment more on this. Is it what what I guess what if I if your your thesis that seems to me, if if I understand it correctly, Is that more people experience serious adverse event. There was a greater number of serious adverse events with the vaccines and there were people who, we're prevented from having serious COVID nineteen. That seems to be a little bit at odds at what my understanding, is of understanding the global real world evidence, and post marketing surveillance. So I just, I I just it was Speaker 0: So that that's a real big disconnect from anyone who understands evidence based medicine that you're going to compete your, They use the term real world data. I don't know when this term came into popularity, but real world data is called observational data. When I went to medical school, and I was taught it's not that reliable, yet real world data sounds great. It sounds oh, it's a real world. That's that's that's the real thing. It just turns out, it's not that reliable. And then we have this problem Speaker 1: that I was doing that. None of that, but we, we spoke to the Danish researcher that published that observational real world data on, lots having more adverse events than other lots. You know, other certain certain of the manufacturing seem to be associated with much higher adverse event rates. Could not get that published for 2 years. Speaker 0: Right. Speaker 1: And since published, completely ignored. So there is there's some weird bias within the real world data that's concerning as well. Speaker 0: I wanna we were challenging them on that if their surveillance data is adequate. And one of my coauthors who's a, a rheumatologist, a pediatric rheumatologist had he had this to say. It's Speaker 5: Patrick Quail, and I'm a UCLA pediatric specialist. This is just an end of 1. But February 25th, I filed a VAERS report on a 7 year old patient who had a cardiac arrest following his first Pfizer vaccination. It was about 30 30 hours after he got the vaccine. I didn't receive any follow-up about it. The patient died about 8 days later. I submitted another email offering to update the, You know, the report with the death of the patient, it's been 2 weeks now, so I haven't heard anything. So I'm wondering if there's more extensive Surveillance and just spare space surveillance for cases like this. And I would think that if the death of a 7 year old following the vaccine is not, You know, Meriden, follow-up. Either the system is totally overwhelmed or there's there's something wrong with the reporting system. Speaker 0: I I wanna play you some of the responses to to this because we're we're explaining to them that there's a You just from this man's you know, with 1 physician who just happens to be within our, within our study group. He this is his own experience with the bears experience, with bears. And here's, here's what here's what they happen. Speaker 4: Such interest. We're happy to, make sure that it it didn't get waylaid somewhere. Usually, the the pediatric deaths, I know that they have been very good about, About chasing down. I know because I've heard details of each of them, in in many cases. Speaker 0: That doesn't mean that you this is this is the the worst response you could think. This man's saying you didn't Speaker 6: Word of sound. And Speaker 0: and I I wanna finish this with Pete. Our FDA the FDA instead what this should have been like is a holy this is a holy shit moment. Leaders of the FDA, a guy saying it's been 2 weeks since a kid died. And you haven't contacted me saying, okay. We are gonna figure out what went wrong here. We're gonna fix this problem. You should have been contacted. Instead, we're getting things about, oh, email us. Email us. Oh, just write write a a a huge study and then get a a meeting with the heads of the FDA, and then you could email us about something. But here, let's just Speaker 4: But, does that does that sound right, Steve? Speaker 2: Yeah. But they should be followed up within Within Speaker 4: a matter of days, actually. Speaker 2: So we'll so just just drop me an email, or, Rich, and then we'll pass we'll just send it to our surveillance Speaker 0: That's our surveillance. Just to make sure our email. Speaker 2: It it didn't Speaker 3: I got it. Speaker 2: Well, this is a fact. It Speaker 0: did fall through the cracks. Yeah. Speaker 4: It it it my my guess is, if anything, it's just that they're pine, but I can't believe they're I I can't believe something like this would fall through the cracks. Speaker 0: You can't believe something would like this it did fall through the cracks. You misheard Speaker 5: I'm pointing fingers, but I I think that the, the larger issue is Speaker 0: I Oh, cheers. Speaker 3: And just to put that we could grade preschool. Speaker 0: Yes. Speaker 3: Yes. You know, I was just saying just just to put this in in some per in some perspective, just a couple weeks ago, the FDA Reprimanded and shut down an infant a baby formula manufacturing facility because four Children were hospitalized and 2 of them subsequently died. Okay? 4 those that's tragic. Don't get me wrong. Tragic. But they shut down an entire manufacturing facility and pulled the product from the market because four Children were hospitalized. Compare that to the tens of thousands of reports that we have on various, which we know is grossly underreported, By the way, the V Safe, they pulled that entire surveillance system off the and stopped it. In fact, one of you should talk about that. The V Safe System, which was kind of the backup specifically geared towards the COVID shots where VAERS is, you know, takes all commerce for vaccines. The V Safe was again, not my system. I didn't create it. None of us created it. It was created by them specifically To look at adverse events related to these vaccines. They have been they've abdicated their responsibility to follow these up. If this doesn't piss off every American, I don't that you are asleep at the wheel because what you are exposing, doctor Frayman, I think is Horrifying. This is this is the state of what we've got for the FDA. God help us. Speaker 0: Yeah. No. I've I have much more than just recording that than terrifying. It's it's a terrifying thing that And and I don't believe yeah. Go on, please. Speaker 6: It's it's I just wanna tell you that this This is common. I I have regular conversations with the the woman who created OpenBears. We're we're always going back and forth on this data. And, it's it's it's a thing that if you file a report successfully into the system, which is a good deal, And it doesn't always happen for everyone that they go from having a temporary ID to a permanent ID. But if you try to do a follow-up report, IE, If you originally filed for myocarditis and then that person died, it it will never get done. It's it's almost a Thing that you can say about VAERS. And and it's it's true what you said. It's like, this is either most inefficient system ever, Or it's just kind of inherently designed that way. And and I don't know why. I mean, it's Speaker 0: Yes. I I can explain. I think that My concern personally is that we have a system here of of, the FDA. The FDA is responsible for approving drugs. Peter Marks, who was in that meeting with us, the is a head of biologics of for vaccine safety. Speaker 6: He was there? Speaker 0: He actually is. He was in that meeting. Yes. This was the top oh, this was a top level of meet a meeting of directors of biostats, directors. This was from The directors across the biological departments. And what he has his signature on the approval of a booster. I don't remember which one, but he has the signature on it. Now the same people who are approving drugs are responsible for checking if they made a good idea, If that was a good idea, that is a serious conflict of interest that we've had built into our system. The CDC is Making policy recommendations, and then they are the the government of studying if their policy recommendations were a good idea. We have built a system that is totally not making sense. And then to to cap this off, Imagine that, the we allow these pharmaceutical companies to do their own trials That they collect all of the data instead of someone like the NIH being responsible. Board government workers Just being unbiased saying, hey. Does this thing reduce hospitalization? I don't know. Let's see. 4, it's the most perfect use of bureaucracy. And And we can figure out if things work or not. But if you use a pharmaceutical company which pays, a re research, you know, lab clinical lab the researchers which is gets a new contract each time it as long as it keeps finding good results Speaker 2: Right. Speaker 0: You're going to end up with not Honest reviews. Like, when I buy a Samsung TV, I don't read Samsung's reviews Of the TV. I I look to see independent reviews. You got it? The way the way the way we are are are accepting drugs Into to be allowed into the population is essentially just reading the Samsung review that this has the best picture, the best sound. You know? And and that is That is a that is just a really serious issue that we is easily preventable. Are we have the personnel, the researchers, To do these trials properly and figure out what drugs work and what don't. We have all the resources. We know exactly how to do it. We're not doing it. This we are allowing co corporations who have criminal records for lying to us. We're trusting them. This is our system has major, major issues, and people do need to be scared because this is the COVID vaccine, if this is the thing that Brought people's attention to this issue. Go and look through all of the drugs and and and see see how they were approved. Then Go imagine doing the same amount of research onto every drug that a person is on the same way that you've heard about the COVID vaccine. And Speaker 3: Right. I Speaker 0: I can assure Or you you will not it will not bring you confidence for many of them, especially anything that's of the last 20 years.

@drdrew - Dr. Drew

The call – recorded by Dr. Joseph Fraiman in March 2022 – included FDA Director Dr. Peter Marks, Dr. Peter Doshi, Dr. Celia Witten, Dr. Sarah Walinsky, Dr. Lorrie McNeill & many others. "This was a top level meeting," says Dr. Fraiman. It "terrified my entire work group."

@drdrew - Dr. Drew

"What they're saying is they're not doing statistical testing on adverse events. This is really insane to me," says Dr. Fraiman. "You don't know exactly which one of these adverse events is causing it but you know there's a problem if the vaccine group has a higher rate of them."

@drdrew - Dr. Drew

It gets worse. Dr. Patrick Whelan, a pediatric specialist at UCLA, tells the FDA directors that he filed a VAERS report about a 7-year-old patient who "had a cardiac arrest following his first Pfizer vaccination" but says he "didn't receive any follow up about it."

@drdrew - Dr. Drew

"The patient died about 8 days later," Dr. Patrick Whelan says on the call. "I would think that if the death of a seven-year-old following the vaccine is not meriting a follow up, either the system is totally overwhelmed or there's something wrong with the reporting system."

@drdrew - Dr. Drew

Dr. Fraiman says the FDA's responses only raise further concerns about the entire drug approval process. "The same people who are approving drugs are responsible for checking if that was a good idea. That is a serious conflict of interest that we have built in to our system," explains Dr. Fraiman. "We allow these pharmaceutical companies to do their own trials... When I buy a Samsung TV, I don't read Samsung's reviews of the TV." "Go and look through all of the drugs and see how they were approved," he continues. "I can assure you it will not bring you confidence for many of them, especially anything of the last 20 years."

@drdrew - Dr. Drew

This call was recorded by Dr. @JosephFraiman in March 2022. He played part of the call on the 9/6/23 episode of @AskDrDrew w/ @DrKellyVictory & Dr. @JesslovesMJK. The audio has been enhanced for clarity but is unaltered. Watch the full episode for more: https://drdrew.com/2023/how-reliable-are-the-safety-trials-for-mrna-dr-jessica-rose-dr-joseph-fraiman-dr-kelly-victory-discuss-the-data-and-rct-concerns-ask-dr-drew/

How Reliable Are The Safety Trials For mRNA? Dr. Jessica Rose, Dr. Joseph Fraiman & Dr. Kelly Victory Discuss The Data and RCT Concerns – Ask Dr. Drew | Dr. Drew Official Website - drdrew.com How Reliable Are The Safety Trials For mRNA? Dr. Jessica Rose, Dr. Joseph Fraiman & Dr. Kelly Victory Discuss The Data and RCT Concerns – Ask Dr. Drew | Dr. Jessica Rose, Dr. Joseph Fraiman, and Dr. Kelly Victory return to discuss concerns about the reliability of safety trials for mRNA vaccines. | Ask Dr. Drew | | Dr. Jessica Rose, Dr. Joseph Fraiman, and Dr. Kelly Victory return to discuss concerns about the reliability of safety trials for mRNA vaccines. drdrew.com

@drdrew — Dr. Drew

Posted - August 22, 2023 at 9:07 PM

Saved - August 27, 2023 at 3:59 PM

@drdrew - Dr. Drew

David Martin connects the dots from mRNA to CRISPR & gene editing. He says Big Pharma used media hype & pandemic fears to coerce the public into accepting a new technology – and enrich their investors. David's evidence? Direct quotes from EcoHealth Alliance president Peter Daszak

Video Transcript AI Summary

The speaker discusses the goal of making mRNA a household word during the pandemic. They quote Peter Daszak, who stated that the media hype would be used to increase public understanding and acceptance of medical countermeasures like a universal vaccine. The speaker also mentions the Sackler family's abuse of opioids and the similarity between the opioid crisis and the COVID-19 response. They highlight the role of evangelical physicians and the funding from NIAID and DARPA. The speaker argues that the media hype is used to coerce the public into accepting these measures, and that the ultimate goal is to introduce gene editing through CRISPR. They emphasize the importance of the word "hype" in Daszak's quote, as it reveals the fear mongering tactics used to drive public acceptance.

AI Similar Videos

Full Transcript

Speaker 0: I have said many, many times, Doctor. Martin during this pandemic that I believe that the entire purpose of the pandemic was to make mRNA a household word. You used the phrase universal vaccine. When you say universal vaccine, that that was their goal. Do you mean specifically mRNA or what do you mean by universal vaccine? Unpack that. Speaker 1: Well, that's a beautiful question and let's go to my Favorite quote that I refuse to do a show without quoting, which is Peter Daszak. This is published in, In, February of 2016, but the statement was made in 2015 during the gain of function moratorium. And this is a quote from the criminals themselves. This is not Dave Martin's opinion. This is their quote. Until an effect infectious disease Crisis is very real present and in an emergency threshold, it is often largely ignored. Now listen to this carefully. To sustain the funding base beyond the crisis, we need to increase the public understanding for the need of medical countermeasures Such as a pan influenza or pan coronavirus vaccine. A key driver is the media and the economics will follow the hype. We need to use that hype to our advantage to get to the real issues. Investors will respond if they see profit at the end of the process. What do I mean by coercion, by domestic terrorism, by any of the things I'm saying? Well, what I mean is That this is a crime that was admitted to being perpetrated on America and the world by the people who perpetrated the crime. And they even told us it would be the media hype that would get the public to accept the need for the medical countermeasure. We would need you need to use that hype to our advantage and quote investors will respond if they see profit at the end of the process. Now, Doctor. Drew, Doctor. Kelly, certainly in my medical training, did you ever in any medical school day in your life get told That the first goal of public health is to make sure investors profit at the end of a media hyped process. Is that part of our standard medical training. Is it any, and, and Doctor. Drew, you know, listen, your work and the patent work in opioid crisis, You know, is something that I can't leave this opportunity without commenting on because I, for years, tried to highlight the Sackler family's abuse Of opioids and the opioid epidemic in the United States. The longest emergency use authorization we have had in this country is the opioid crisis and the public doesn't know this. But what they don't know even worse is that the Sackler family patented non addictive formulas of opioids so that they could not be produced. Okay. So, so this is not an accidental oops. This is criminals acting in a criminal fashion to harm people. It is not an accident. This is not an epidemic or an Speaker 2: I but I'm glad you brought the opioid crisis up because I I keep looking at that as a model for what happened during COVID In sense that the playbook, the playbook was exactly the same, but, but there's, there's 2 components, but there are 2 components. One is a completely macho Machiavellian business organization saying things like investors will respond is simply Actually true. It's Machiavellian as hell, but it's true. Alright. But the key ingredient the key ingredient Is an evangelical group of physicians who go out and persuade the regulatory organizations, the state medical societies, the professional societies, That this is the answer. They see themselves as wearing white hats and coming to save the world. They're they don't see themselves as criminals at Oh, they see themselves as saving the world. And so I'm wondering if these people don't, you know, look at the landscape of what's out there in viral research and think it's inevitable that something gets out. It's inevitable that there's a disaster. We must come up with these vaccine platforms, and we're gonna save the world. And the drug companies merely stand right behind them and say, yes, you will. That's right. That's exactly right. When in fact, both Speaker 1: And and Drew. Speaker 2: Are completely out of line. Speaker 1: And Drew, I agree, but we have to add a couple other pieces, which unfortunately blow up the Justification side of this. Remember that side by side with NIAID's funding. Side by side with that was DARPA's funding since 2005 of a biological weapons technology platform. You cannot put that genie back in the bottle. That is a statement that they made. It is a statement that Speaker 2: they made. But that's maybe where I agree with you. Maybe that's where the evangelical physicians are coming in. They know that, they see that, and they're thinking, oh, we have to have these countermeasures. We must come up with these gigantic pan, you know, universal platforms, and we've got to figure out a way to get there and then they become Machiavellian in their way of getting there. Speaker 0: Okay. But, but I wanna Speaker 1: go back because I think that you're right. Go ahead, Dan. All I was gonna say is I think you're right, but, but my, my issue here, and, and this is where I have been Outspoken and singular on this particular issue. You cannot take the 2015 statement of the proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences And you cannot spin that into anything other than a violation at the time of the Patriot Act's prohibition on coercion. The reason why the public is going to accept this is because of the media hype, not because of the facts, not because of the evidence. Speaker 2: Yeah. Speaker 1: We're going to use the media hype to accept And let's get clear on a second thing. The 1st funding for Moderna, Flagship Ventures, which is a mysterious organization, That's a whole nother show, but Flagship Ventures co funded Moderna and CRISPR at the same time. Kelly, it's not just about mRNA. This is about ultimately editing genes in the long play. And I've said this many times, this is not about mRNA, this is about ultimately getting the public to accept CRISPR and shutting up the Catholic church, Which was the largest opposition to gene editing up until COVID. And the only way you get the camel throws under the tent is get mRNA, create the problem, get CRISPR to be a solution, and the Catholic churches painted themselves into a corner saying that this was God's will. Speaker 0: So a couple of things. 1st, because I just think you hit the nail on the head. The part of that quote from Peter Daszak that I find chilling is the word hype. He didn't talk, Drew, about that's why it's not just Mackie Bellin. He didn't talk about the importance of the mainstream media and continuing to expose the facts and continuing to educate the public. He said Speaker 1: That's exactly right. Speaker 0: It's hype. That is the word that is chilling. It is the fear mongering, the fear porn, keep it ginned up, keep people with the hype. It's the hype that will drive this.