All Episodes
Previous Next
April 27, 2024 - Jim Fetzer
01:04:30
Tom Renz & Ex-Pharma Executive Sasha Latypova – Ask Dr. Drew, April 24, 2024
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Okay, we are back.
Sasha Latipova, a pharmaceutical R&D executive for over 25 years, clinical trials, clinical technologies, regulatory approvals.
She owned and managed several contract research organizations, worked for more than 60 different pharma companies worldwide.
She interacted with the FDA regularly as part of her job.
She can be followed on X at Sasha underscore Latipova.
I can't get the second, Latipova.
I keep wanting to put the accent on the first syllable.
I apologize for that.
Her substack, again, same.
Let's bring Sasha on in.
Welcome.
Thank you for being here.
Hi, Dr. Drew.
Thank you for inviting me.
So, before you came in off the air a little bit, you sort of were starting a frame where you said, doctors don't know anything.
And you went into a very interesting conversation from there.
And I thought it'd be good if we just started right there.
Well, what I mean by anything, we were talking about these, you know, vaccine science and law.
And my point was that most of this crime, I treat it as intentional crime.
So most of it has to do with understanding the law.
And also understanding pharmaceutical regulations, which unfortunately practicing physicians do not.
They're, you know, they're treating patients and they believe what the authorities tell them, the health department, the regulators, and what pharma reps don't tell them.
I mean, we, we, we are busy, but we should be reading our own literature.
I mean, we should be looking at the question is the literature adulterated, but, but tell us more.
What, what were you specifically thinking about when you say that?
So, as I said, you know, after looking into this, and I started with VAERS, by the way, and I totally agree with Tom that the regulators are lying about, and CDC is completely lying about VAERS data, and they do have those dozen different other databases that are much more accurate, and so they know precisely how many deaths and injuries are Due to the vaccine.
And they're not even in court filings, they don't deny it.
They just lie to the public.
When they have to respond to court, they say, yes, we know, but it's all legal.
And that's correct.
Because the evidence of the intentional crime is the changes of the US law that have been done going back to even late 80s, starting in late 80s.
And then more recently, the partnership between HHS and Department of Defense And also evidence of premeditation of this crime goes back to around 2016-2017.
I published on my Substack leaked audio from AstraZeneca CEO, Pascal Soro, and VP responsible for monoclonal antibodies, Mark Esser, discussing this in late 2020.
So they described that the Department of Defense approached them in 2017, To start working on the program where the Department of Defense will identify viruses that will cause pandemics, and then the pharma companies will respond with drugs and vaccines made in 60 days.
At which point... Let me stop you.
But again, I always try to be reasonable with these things.
But I want the defense, if we have a bioterrorism event, I want the defense to have a relationship with pharma where they could do that.
No?
It's not possible to develop anything within 60 days.
That's fiction.
And that's exactly how experienced drug developer Mark Essar responded initially to this.
He said, I thought it was science fiction.
And that was correct reaction because it is science fiction.
It's a narrative.
It's a fake story.
That these guys at the Department of Defense manufactured because they want to develop biological weapons, but they can't because the Bioweapons Convention prohibits them from doing so.
So this is the story that they sold to everyone, including Congress and pharmaceutical companies.
And pharmaceutical companies quickly were convinced to throw away their skepticism because there was money involved, of course, and, you know, for no particular deliverables.
And so since 2017, they've assembled a consortium.
So Department of Defense assembled a consortium of over 300 companies, including pharma companies, academic institutions, and all kinds of other organizations, where they were, you know, keeping this base of people who will agree to do this, from which they've selected ultimately six or 10 companies.
that participated in Operation Warp Speed got billions of dollars.
And the deliverable was emergency use countermeasures, prototypes, and demonstrations purchased through other transaction authority, which is a very secretive mechanism to buy prototypes without disclosing anything to the Congress, to the people, you know, where the money is going.
Of course, all of these contracts were no bid.
Awarded to friends and cronies of Robert Kudlik.
And by law, emergency use countermeasures under public health emergency are not pharmaceutical products.
They're not regulated as pharmaceuticals.
They do not have any consumer safety protections that you expect from them.
And it's a legal impossibility to conduct a clinical trial Using emergency use countermeasure because you legally cannot provide informed consent and IRB does not imply.
So that's why I'm saying when physicians are told this is a vaccine, it's safe and effective.
And when you read all the law that applies and doesn't apply to emergency use countermeasures, it becomes very clear that this is a premeditated, very carefully planned, long term executed strategy to deceive everyone into taking these poisons.
And also to address what Tom Renz just said, I am very sorry that his wife is sick with cancer.
It's a tragedy.
I just had a guest in my house whose 18-year-old daughter was injected with Pfizer and she has cancer.
I sat across numerous people who lost their children To these injections.
Some died immediately.
Some deaths were gruesome.
And these people have to go and testify to lawmakers and anybody who would listen and recount the story over and over and over again.
And this is a massive, massive crime and it needs to stop.
Now, FDA was fully aware that these things will cause cancer because they've written numerous guidance documents.
That's how they regulate industry.
So even in 2015, and I read those guidance documents, 2015, 2013, even more recently than that, They wrote extensive guidance documents explaining to the manufacturers who wanted to develop mRNA products that they need to study, especially cancer, that these products can cause death, that these products can cause fertility issues, blindness, strokes, cardiovascular issues.
All of that is written because that's called regulatory knowledge.
They had this knowledge and they told manufacturers, you have to study these risks and you have to exclude them.
And they were also not allowed to even study it in healthy volunteers because it was considered unethical.
It was considered too dangerous.
So then we come to 2020.
All of a sudden, all of this is solved.
This is this is a joke.
Okay, so to me, that's where I became extremely suspicious and started looking into it for myself.
But that's what I'm telling you.
It's a premeditated crime, regulators knew, and the military conducted this fake exercise to capture all these pharma companies and make them make these weapons.
Tom, let's bring you in here to respond to what Sasha was just saying.
There's a lot, and it's mostly legal, so I want you to give us your thoughts.
Well, I mean, there's an immense amount there, right?
And the devil's always in the details, but that's the key here, right?
So let me give you a great example.
So when we talk about whether these gene therapy products are gene therapy products, one of the things that we see, and I'll relate this to the medical, and you can tell me when I get it wrong, Doc, but, you know, they talk about the gene therapy products, right?
And they say, well, they're not gene therapies because they don't rewrite your DNA.
Well, first of all, that's not true.
They found SV40 virus in there, which is a retrovirus, which does have the capacity to reverse transcribe.
They found all sorts of issues in there.
I mean, we know that SV40 can be delivered into the cell through the lipid nanoparticle.
There's all sorts of issues in there.
Also, Uh, you are, in fact, introducing genetic material into a cell.
That is the purpose of this vaccine.
So, it's literally putting gene therapy into a cell and then saying that's not gene therapy.
You're putting genes... Well, hold on, but hold on.
This is, we're kind of mincing words here, and this is why I want to go back to Sasha a little bit, because for us, You know, when we think of gene therapy as a biologist, we think of CRISPR.
We think of DNA being inserted into gene sequences.
But Tom, you pointed out that legally they put a definition that included a description.
This is the SV40.
This is a different thing.
And Caleb is interested in this, which is the plasmids that contaminated the vaccine, which is another topic we'll get into.
So take that off, Caleb.
That's a different topic.
That's plasmids.
That's plasmids.
Different thing.
This is whether or not the messenger RNA, which is a transcription, it's a message.
It's what's called messenger RNA, right?
It takes DNA, converts it to RNA, the messenger is sent out, it's converted to a protein.
But Sasha, I'll let you answer that.
How is this gene therapy?
Because for me, when I first started hearing people say that, I kind of pushed back.
Gene therapy is not limited to CRISPR.
And gene therapy as a class was, you know, so mRNA technology was always in that class from a regulatory perspective and that's where the guidance has come from.
Because they have ability to enter the cell and if something can be delivered into the cell, Uh, depending, so you can't control where these deliveries go.
For the longest time, this technology had a problem of, uh, breaking the cellular membrane because we have all kinds of defense mechanisms to protect the cell.
And, uh, for the longest time, they couldn't deliver the cargo into the cell.
And then when they solve that problem, it's like, first you can't get your mail and then your mail gets sent to All zip codes in the country, they couldn't control where it goes.
Okay, so because it can get into the cells that are rapidly dividing during the division, the nucleus disassembles.
So by just throwing stuff while the nucleus is disassembling, here you go, you are now incorporating whatever you delivered into the genome.
And most of the time it's just damages it, it tracks it.
And that's one of the mechanisms of cancer because now the cell is confused.
And if it's a rapidly dividing cell, it's going to start creating these, you know.
Tom, we're going to get into a biology here, Tom, before you give me some more legal stuff.
But I've seen that, and I've seen the data on that, and I just don't understand how that gets even into the nucleus, let alone interferes with the DNA replication.
So I worry about that.
However, the plasmid stuff, well, that's a little bit different.
So talk about plasmids and the SV40.
And go ahead and comment on what I said, too.
Yeah, no, I want Sasha to talk about this.
Tell people what a plasmid is, what's concerning about SP40, and then go ahead and respond to my statement that I don't get how feces of DNA get into the nucleus, even, and do anything, unless the nucleus is, even when the nucleus is open, even when the DNA is open, I don't see quite how it gets incorporated.
But go ahead.
Yeah, so the SP40 is another method by which this can happen, what I just described.
Because it is known in science as a nuclear targeting component.
Exactly how it sounds.
There is a lab at the University of Rochester, upstate New York, where I'm very familiar with them, Rochester, New York, called Dr. Dean's Lab.
Dr. Dean is his name.
And you can look it up on the U of R website and find it.
And his whole research explains how SV40 or its components can be used as a nuclear targeting component to again, break into the cell walls and then break into the nucleus of the cell.
And so by having this component of SV40, it's not the full SV40 virus that used to contaminate polio vaccine and was determined to cause cancer.
It's the most important component of it that they're using.
And again, it has the same functionality.
So, that's the attachment that you need to have to break not into the rapidly dividing cells in RECM, but to break into any cell and get into the nucleus of the cell, even when the cells are not dividing.
You explained to me why it's there.
Right.
That is a concern.
So, it's almost a little...
If it weren't so concerning, it's comical.
So I've been, you know, I think everyone is concerned about gene editing and about CRISPR and gene therapies generally and particularly these, let's call them DNA-adjacent therapies and whatnot.
And not to take anything away from the people that developed CRISPR and all these wonderful things, but there's grave, grave, grave, grave, grave issues.
And we know that China actually has been messing with it in humans already, which the world reacted to very powerfully, appropriately.
But I bring all this up only to say that I read the New England Journal of Medicine every week very carefully, and it usually comes into my inbox during the show.
Lead article, Welcoming the Era of Gene Editing in Medicine.
Lead article.
So there's this kind of, I hope they are not forging ahead without the appropriate caution.
But I sort of have to say that on the heels of what you were saying.
Caleb, do you have other questions before I bring Tom in for defining?
I know you wanted to know what cyclic GMP was, which is a messenger that the cell uses after something abides to the surface.
What's the other thing you have?
No, I had just prepared definitions for a lot of the things that were Sasha's concerns.
So I just have those ready to go on screen and I just jumped on them.
Okay, so you can put up the SV40 again.
Go ahead.
Because she says, you know, what is that doing there?
And that's kind of an interesting question.
And then it was in a plasmid.
Which is what they use to make the RNA, right?
It's a small circular piece of double-stranded DNA.
And they're supposed to be washed out of the vaccine, or at least essentially washed out.
Okay, Tom, let's bring you in here and you can respond.
Sasha unloads a lot of stuff that I can't respond to because of its legal nature.
So I'll have you pick up if you don't mind.
Yeah, yeah, well, so there's a reason that I jumped into that when you asked me about the law, right?
So first of all, this goes back to the point that I made earlier, Doc.
I can point to you, and we've discussed a number of times, where they've outright lied.
I can literally show you the paper.
In fact, during the break, I emailed Caleb a document that lists a bunch of these different databases that the government said they were going to check for injuries, right?
So this is demonstrable lying.
So when we talk about this and when we have scientists who risk everything, risk their credibility, they risk being attacked, they risk all these things to put out this data.
And the only response we get from the government who are known liars is, oh, they're wrong.
And then they don't actually provide any data or evidence to the contrary.
Why would I trust a liar?
I don't.
So we have the Cleveland Clinic study that shows negative efficacy of these vaccines over time.
We have all these different things where legitimate scientists have shown that everything that the government promised was a lie.
Okay, why does this matter from a lawyer's perspective?
Well, because I'm of the belief That this was this was known ahead of time, right?
I actually presented in front of Marjorie Taylor Greene.
She had a hearing in Congress and I went down there and I presented to her and I had from a whistleblower medical records of a soldier.
I can't say any more than that.
And those medical records show five different encounters in the year 2014 and 15.
I believe going into 15 where this soldier says five different times.
This is his official medical record.
Or her official medical record, I've never said which, said Moderna COVID-19 vaccine five times.
Now, why in a record, and these were very, I put my name on a declaration under penalty of perjury stating that I had done the requisite work to verify these records.
Why would an official medical record of a soldier, how could that mistake happen?
How could that mistake happen?
Why in 2014-2015 would someone have written Moderna COVID-19 vaccine?
How would they have even known that was a thing to write?
Because this didn't exist back then, right?
According to what we're saying.
But when we ask these questions, they're thrown out.
I would propose this, and I know that this is a stretch.
But here's the thing.
In science, you're supposed to be able to pose a hypothesis.
I'm a lawyer, so I'm going to pose a legal hypothesis, or at least a narrative hypothesis.
I'm going to pose that this stuff was developed a long time ago.
I'm going to pose that Sasha is dead right.
That the EUA and all these laws that apply were done and used for a reason.
See, you've got to understand, she is dead right about the fact That we have so many layers of liability that there is no one that I could even come close to suing for this, right?
So you have the Department of Defense is contracted to distribute these vaccines, which aren't vaccines.
And so if you wanted to sue anybody for getting them, you'd have to sue the Department of Defense.
Well, good luck on that one, right?
Then they distribute it with PrEP Act, CARES Act, all these different things going on, and they call it a vaccine, and they do this.
There are probably five to ten different layers of legal immunity around these.
Why?
Why, why, why?
This is not something that you could have came up with real quick, right?
This is not a legal accident.
The amount of effort that went into the planning to ensure that there was absolutely no even possible legal recourse for the people dying and being murdered by these is monumental.
This would be, this is just, as a lawyer, I can't even begin to describe the complexity And the effort that it would take to create this many legal shields and to do so, I mean, it's mind-blowing.
So these are, in fact, I mean, what do you want to call it?
I don't believe they meet the definition of vaccine, first of all, right?
So the Supreme Court ruled not that long ago on the major questions doctrine, and in that case, Uh, they they said that, you know, that there's limitations to what these administrative agencies can do, and this would certainly apply here.
So I don't think that legally these would stand as vaccines.
And if we get if we get the chance, I can't wait to test that in court.
But even if they don't, Even if they don't, you could give me your patient, Doc, or I could take any of a thousand other patients at the drop of a hat.
I mean, we've got the REACT-19 group, all these different groups of vaccine-injured people.
I could take the most compelling and obvious story you've ever seen.
I mean, we've got stories of people who went in, they got the shot, perfectly healthy, and literally dropped dead.
There are stories like that that exist.
I could file a suit on that and I would be thrown out of court immediately and I'd probably be sanctioned because the law specifically says that I cannot sue over that.
I can't sue.
You go get the shot and drop dead.
I can't do a darn thing about it.
Is there something you can do?
So what I have been trying to help and assist multiple groups with, you can do legislative action.
So first of all, an attorney general of a state can initiate criminal action.
So all of this liability protection and all that, that's all civil.
And that's what Tom is describing.
It's absolutely true.
People are trying to sue for liability and it's a dead end.
It's a complete dead end because they built a castle within castle defense system.
And that took a long time.
But you could do criminal, but you need a prosecutor who will do it.
And so far, everyone we talked to refuses.
The highest ranking person I personally talked to was Attorney General of Idaho, Raul Labrador.
He agreed with me and my colleagues, but said our federal courts are too corrupt.
That was his answer, okay?
Too corrupt?
Uh-huh, yeah.
Well, Tom's smiling at that.
I'm shocked at that.
But Attorney General can initiate criminal action because this is murder, premeditated murder.
And also, these laws can be nullified.
They're unconstitutional.
They're void because they're violating the Constitution in so many ways and all human rights.
So I know how you get a case, Tom.
Tom, you accuse Trump of murder, then they'll go right for it.
Absolutely.
That's why I'm saying that persecution is so fake.
They could get him any time on this, but they don't.
They prefer this, you know, big show, right?
Well, there's trillions of dollars on this, right?
And you see the upcoming mRNA cancer vaccines, which I find to be completely ironic.
You've got all of these different things.
They're incorporating it into shingles, RSV, flu shots.
They're incorporating it.
Everything is moving mRNA.
Doc, as a scientist, we can go back and forth.
We can say, OK, maybe it gets into the DNA.
Maybe it doesn't.
Maybe it changes your genes.
Maybe it doesn't.
But guess what?
We can't argue about the fact that typically there would have been 10 to 20 years of studies to determine whether or not it does.
And if it did, it wouldn't have been moved forward.
In this case, you have a disease with a case fatality rate not that far dissimilar to a bad flu season.
And yet we push together something or push this thing out.
And we not only push out this dangerous untested technology, but we pushed it out and then used The fake law that they essentially created to push it out to then propagate a whole ton more of these drugs, right?
They use COVID to blow up this whole gene therapy technology stuff.
And I'm going to tell you, I'm going to go out on a, you know, typically if I don't have a piece of paper, I won't say it.
So I'm going to tell you that I'm speculating.
I feel as confident telling you this as I've been about anything I could say.
For some reason, these people are hell-bent on controlling the genome.
And by these people, I mean the people pushing this technology.
Now, you can ask yourself whether you believe that's for nefarious purposes or not, but you just saw the headline in the New England Journal of Medicine, and I could, if we had another four or five hours, go through all the stuff that I think qualifies as evidence suggesting that.
I can't prove that, but what I can tell you is that there is an immense amount of evidence that I could put in a courtroom, and I think that I could overcome the preponderance of an evidence standard, To show that this was absolutely part of the goal.
Everything is about controlling the genome.
Well, you know, a bunch of things.
Sasha, as somebody who worked in pharmacy, you know that there's been conversation for at least the last decade and a half about changing the paradigm from the cell surface to the nucleus, right?
So there's going to be purposeful, directed stuff going that way, not with therapeutic intent, right?
Is it?
Well, I don't know.
I'm making that case.
You're making the other case.
Wait, Sasha, before you go.
And the other thing is, in the setting of cancer, you take much different risk.
Very different risk stratification for what we do with our therapeutics.
We cause cancers all the time.
With our cancer treatments, with our radiation, with our chemos and things.
And so to do mRNA vaccines, it's been thought of in cancer for quite some time because it's a setting where the risk is reasonable.
Sasha, go ahead.
Well, that was true before this 2020 scenario, and I believed regulators.
I worked in the industry, and as I said, this category of product was developed for very serious, severe terminal conditions such as cancer.
Cancer was one of the areas where they were trying to develop them properly through investigational FDA compliant rules, clinical trials.
And they could not.
They failed.
They tried for so many years, for decades, and they failed.
And then that's why I became so immediately concerned because I knew that this is an inherently toxic product.
It will cause cancer.
And now they're saying, oh no, we inject children and pregnant women with it and it's a prophylactic vaccine.
So I agree with Tom.
That's such a huge lie that you can no longer believe a single word that they're saying, no matter what they're saying anymore.
And so that's why I'm saying that they, by doing this, they destroyed all the trust that anyone with a brain and independent thinking could ever have in the public health agency or a regulatory agency or what.
And now it needs to be completely Completely investigated and then restructured and then we need to figure out how to regain that trust.
And Doc, if I can just interject one other thing.
I understand again, and by the way, my wife is not vaccinated.
Her cancer does not have anything to do with the vaccine.
She just had bad luck, but.
I will say this.
Maybe you want to say that with someone who's got a terminal cancer, it's worth the risk, right?
I mean, I was stage four.
Maybe.
Okay, but, but, but, but... Why the shingles vaccine?
Why RSV?
Why the flu shot?
Why everything else?
And again, why not... RSV is not...
You know, a bane to the human existence.
I mean, yes, it's an annoying thing and it does cause death sometimes, rarely, but, you know, here's the thing.
Why not take the 10 to 20 years to properly study it?
I mean, there's no crisis... Well, that's my question.
That is constantly my question.
It's like, why don't they go back?
Like, I'm prepared to excuse everybody in the emergency.
Like, okay, we're in a hurry.
You took an incredible risk.
Maybe it did, maybe it didn't pay off.
We could argue for years about that.
But let's go back and do the work now.
Let's go back and do the proper testing.
And what you get back is, oh no no, we did 7 billion vaccines, we have the test, we did it in real time, and that's not a test, that's observational data.
So Sasha, respond to that.
Well, right, exactly.
Sorry, my dogs are barking.
Exactly.
They have never gone through a proper approval process with this because, as I said, they tried for decades.
They failed.
All of a sudden, they went on the market as EUA countermeasures and the public health emergency.
Those are not pharmaceuticals.
They're devoid of consumer protections.
They're devoid of compliance with FDA.
And by the way, FDA removed largely The regulations of biopharmaceutical manufacturers.
And that happened even before 2020.
Scott Gottlieb did that.
So they removed the requirements of the inspectors to go and test the product independently and to go and inspect those plants at least every two years.
So they removed all that as administrative rule change.
So now all these behemoth biopharmaceutical manufacturers that are making vaccines for humans and for animals, and mRNA also for animals, And there is also mRNA pesticide already being approved.
So they're unregulated, completely unregulated, because we're still in the public health emergency.
COVID public health emergency is not over.
We still have the PrEP Act coverage until at least end of this year, but they will extend it.
And they have all these new other public health emergencies that they're constantly announcing because they can't, they cornered them.
So they put themselves into this lying more and covering up with lies.
And now they're in such a corner that they can never end this.
Because as soon as they end this, it doesn't work.
Am I remembering correctly, that was one of the first sort of flags you threw.
was on the shift in the manufacturing administrative rules regulation.
You were like, wait a minute, this is, I've been, if I remember right, just to sort of put a shine of light on your comment, you were somebody that ran that kind of equipment.
You did it.
You were used to running these manufacturing situations and you were used to the standards of care of that.
Yes, so I was under the requirement to be in compliance all the time as a contractor to large contractors to large farmers.
My company had to be able to withstand audit at any time by a pharmaceutical company, by a large CRO, small CRO or by the FDA.
And so we were we were obsessed about quality, obsessed, you know.
And when I saw what they're doing, how they're removing all these regulations and quality requirements, I am telling you, this is extremely, extremely bad.
Even if they, in theory, can say, maybe this mRNA will fix this kind of cancer at some point.
They can't make it.
They can't make what they're saying they're making.
And it's full of contaminants, as my colleagues are testing independently, which FDA does not do anymore.
So our colleagues are testing this independently, and they're constantly finding these extremely dangerous contaminants, including plasmids, including E. coli, including endotoxin, and heavy metals that are not supposed to be there at all, and all kinds of other things.
Tom, have you met Sasha before today?
Sasha's work I've seen a million times and I've used it as a basis for research, but this is the first time we've met.
I feel like you should reach out because you see how compelling she is.
Why aren't other people that have been in this business as concerned as you are?
How are other people that have been in this business as concerned as you are?
Sasha?
Some are.
I have some colleagues who are very concerned, you know, like Dr. Mike Eden, probably, I guess, the highest ranking person in the pharma.
He's ex-chief science officer for Pfizer.
We're friends and he speaks about the same issues and the same problems.
There's some other colleagues in, you know, what's called pharma regulatory space that are speaking internationally.
I know people in Australia and France and in Canada, but there's so few of us and there's machinery.
So again, everyone working... Why?
Why is that?
Why do you think?
Because people who are working in the industry, the minute they speak up, yes, they lose their job.
They lose their clients.
They lose their contracts.
Same with lawyers.
A whole bunch of them are federal contractors.
They're conflicted.
They can't.
We have, Doc.
I want to speak on that.
I had a case that I was assisting a friend on, and I can't go into specifics, but his particular case was very high profile.
He had retained one of the most powerful and respected law firms in the state that he was in.
I mean, these are big shot people.
Ex-politicians, ex-this, ex-that.
Big, big people.
They were very skeptical.
As they got going on the case and started following the evidence, they became believers.
They realized his lead attorney, who was a partner in the firm, was a firm believer in what he was doing.
The case was going to be a win for him, right?
It was going to be a win.
And as things were moving forward, all of a sudden, he gets a call from these guys, and I was involved.
And they say, well, we can't do this case anymore.
What do you mean you can't do this case anymore?
Well, the partners have agreed that they're going to accept some other clients and there'd be a conflict, so we've got to drop you.
Now, there's some questions whether or not that was ethical to do, but at the end of the day, you don't want a lawyer representing you that can't or doesn't want to fight your case.
Turns out that the clients that they accepted were a major hospital system, and one of the attorneys on the case took a job for a pharmaceutical company.
So, you know, this was something that happened.
They took out most of the good lawyers, and y'all were stuck with people like me.
So this was not an accident.
This was absolutely planned.
And then I want to throw in one other thing, because I saw when the comments were coming up on the screen, I want to throw something out to you.
And Doc, I'm throwing this out to you specifically.
If I told you, and I'm throwing something out that I want to sound absurd, right?
I want this to sound absurd.
If I told you That there is active work being done on creating the internet of bodies.
People's bodies, connecting their bodies directly to the internet for monitoring, for whatever they want to do with it.
If I told you that that was actually not only being done, but that the process was truly advanced, would you tell me that sounds absurd?
Because it sounds absurd to me.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Okay.
I mean, that's what you're saying.
Sasha's laughing.
Well, let me tell you why.
There's a governing body, it's called IEEE.
They're a standards board, right?
They create standards for internet communications, for technology things, for different things like that, right?
They're a very well-respected thing.
All of the big industry tech people work with them.
Run a search on the Internet of Bodies there.
There are numerous studies on how to connect people's bodies to the Internet.
How to collect data from your body to the Internet.
This sounds like science fiction to me.
It sounds absurd to me.
Can you imagine your body being connected to the Internet?
I can't believe that.
And so I didn't believe it.
But then I read numerous, not one study, not two studies, they have standards already created for this.
And I bring that up for a reason.
A lot of what I've talked about today, to me, seems like science fiction.
Right?
I mean, remember, in 2019, I was fully a believer in vaccines.
I didn't know about any of this.
I thought it was all gobbledygook.
So I, to this day, still find myself being skeptical.
But we talk about the Internet of Bodies, and I think it's one of the most profound examples I've ever seen.
Because to me, that sounds so absurd and so ridiculous that it's just beyond me.
But then when I go and I look at the documentation, I'm an attorney.
I follow the evidence.
The evidence just is what it is.
The science is what it is.
I'm not making it up.
I can't make the science.
I'm an attorney.
I look at it.
I look at the evidence.
I read and interpret it.
But I can't create it myself.
So I'm looking at this.
I'm seeing standards.
I'm seeing protocols.
Things that allow your body to... So the reason I bring this up Is when we're asking you as a credible scientist to believe that maybe these people who have not stopped lying for four years now, maybe these people who have done things, I mean, that we can show that they knew people were dying and that the vaccines were ineffective.
We've got their words, their documents, their this, their that, yet they continue pushing it.
I got just got to tell you, I got to a point as a skeptical person where I just had to start thinking, you know, Maybe we really do need to consider whether or not these things are true.
The evidence is pointing to it.
And you know, if you talk to, I'll read crime things now and then, you know, you'll read about these serial killers, right?
You read about a serial killer, they say, well, yeah, hey, I killed 50 people.
Well, that sounds absurd, right?
No, you didn't.
But if they start pointing out bodies, And you get the first 10 bodies, should you not believe them another 40?
I mean, at what point, when enough evidence is presented to you that these psychopaths are literally just doing this stuff, at what point do you start to question and say, you know what?
Maybe these guys are actually that nuts.
Maybe they really are that bad.
Maybe there is intent.
Maybe there is motive.
You know, I can only follow the evidence.
And that's what I would challenge you with that, Doc.
So, let's just kind of wrap up by maybe saying, or trying to look forward to, are there any organizations who are actively trying to, other than yourselves, are there any governments, is the British Parliament, is the UK looking at, is there anybody that's
Sort of a part of what you're describing is sort of a cabal Which is just I feel like I'm in this living in a simulation thinking about this as something happening, but but but okay Is there anyone who's breaking the into the site in the vault so to speak that we should be watching or anybody that?
any in any organization other than yourselves that out there I mean I I guess it would be, Sasha, it would be the criminal cases coming from the state attorney generals.
Go ahead, Sasha first.
Yeah, so I would like people to be aware of the mechanisms to nullify these laws.
So one pathway is criminal prosecutions, and technically they can be done by any prosecutor, even a county prosecutor can start a case.
But the problem is the investigation and budget, and then the Attorney General of the state needs to provide sort of coverage for this kind of scale of the crime.
So that's one pathway.
Second one pathway is nullify these laws.
States can easily nullify laws.
Marijuana is still federally criminal, criminalized, right?
But, you know, so many states decriminalized it and that's called nullification.
They said we disagree with this law and we're going to nullify it.
And these laws are evil laws.
There's actually a category, I just learned about this, there's a category of law that's called evil law.
And this falls square into it.
We need to call for a commission on international evil law and discuss this openly and then start investigation and that would be kind of the starting point from which people can start nullifying this and restructuring this and actually using proper regulations to develop proper pharmaceuticals, medical devices and have reasonably honest science as opposed to what we have now.
In your opinion, Sasha, is anybody doing the kind of science that you used to be required to do for your products that you were bringing to market?
Is there any country, any organization?
Not doing it generally, but doing it on the vaccines because lots of people push back with data.
Vaccines definitely not.
I spoke to some scientists anonymously who worked in that space and they told me how they got their grants withdrawn, their companies put out of business.
All kinds of, you know, almost criminal acts.
Some of them got killed.
Whoever wanted to develop sort of, you know, really safe vaccine or spoke up about dangers of this kind of technology, they got rid of.
And in science, you know, like all the money is doled by NIH.
If you don't affirm their dogma, if you don't affirm that, you know, mRNA is the safest, most wonderful technology, well, guess what?
You're not going to get funded.
So that science is not going to happen.
That's where we are right now.
And Tom, don't you like us biologists just saying that, oh, a criminal case, quick and easy, no problem.
That's our perspective.
But what do you say?
Well, well, I mean, there's some truth.
There are some criminal options.
And there actually is.
I've got one civil option.
And I caught so much hell when I said this.
I've identified one civil case that I think could actually work.
There's a couple of loopholes that we could leverage, but it would cost between five and ten million dollars to do the case.
And not because it would not because I need to make five to ten million dollars, but because I would have to pay a full time staff of, you know, five or six, seven lawyers and two or three paralegals nonstop for three, four years, plus experts, plus travel, plus all.
I mean, my cost would be five to ten million dollars if I if I if I made zero on it.
The problem is, is there are certain things that could be done.
Now, I will tell you that there are certain criminal cases that could be filed as well.
I'm very much of the belief that there are some places there.
But, you know, there's not a state AG in this country, I think, that'd be willing to file that.
If there is, I will volunteer my services to assist them in the case.
I mean, and I'm sure that I could get people like Sasha and Dr. McCall, I don't want to speak out of line, but I would absolutely do whatever I could to assist in that, to whatever capacity I have.
The problem is, though, is the corruption that we're seeing.
Even at the state level is so monumental right now.
I mean, it is absolutely incredible.
There are legal opportunities available.
There's a couple different things that we could also do to potentially stop this.
That would be, you know, there may not be muddy damages, but it could certainly disrupt what's occurring.
But, I mean, they're getting harder and harder because we keep passing legislation that's, you know, 4,000 pages long and nobody reads it all and they sneak in 14 different more layers of protection and 14 more layers of this and 14 more layers of that.
And so, I mean, honestly, time is of the essence.
And, you know, ultimately, there's a reality.
We, the people, have always had control of this country.
Now you can argue, and a lot of people will tell me, well we don't anymore, the corruption, the people at the top run it.
But we do still have something to say about things.
And ultimately, if we the people want to get this done, then we the people have to support it.
You know, I've given, I spent, for three years, I don't know if I've ever told you this, for the three years of my work on COVID, I did not send out a single bill for my legal work.
Not one.
All the people who want to complain about, I did this, I did that, I didn't bill one of them.
So, you know, hey, sorry if you didn't like what you didn't pay for.
No one can do that forever.
And you aren't going to get a team of doctors and lawyers that can do that for four years on the kind of case that's going to end up in the Supreme Court and do that well without support.
So if we the people want to back it, they're going to have to back it.
Otherwise, we're kind of stuck with what we get.
Because honestly, the only other alternative Is influencing our legislators.
I do like my own little show.
I mean, you got like a bazillion people to follow you.
I got like four, but I do that for a reason, right?
Because we're trying to activate people to push their politicians, to push their local elected officials, to push some of these people into action.
We're trying to tell them, hey, you've got to get active.
Lawfare, as I've defined, it's three parts.
Legal, political, PR.
PR is the foundation of it all, because if we the people aren't involved, it doesn't happen.
And ultimately, all law is a manifestation of the will of the people.
If everybody's driving 60, nobody gets a ticket for it.
But if one guy's driving 80, he's always going to get a ticket.
If we the people are behind something, we can make it happen.
But that's our best bet right now.
Last quick questions here.
Susan, anything from you?
Caleb, anything from you?
I've got one last.
No, you hit it.
Okay.
Caleb, anything?
Did we get all your terminology covered?
Yeah.
No, no.
You got it.
I had a question.
I totally forgot it.
I've been paying so much attention to the conversation.
Okay.
Sasha, what would be... I don't want to use a word like wrong.
So what if the regulatory standards have been loosened and things are brought to market that are More dangerous than usual for people that are otherwise healthy.
Why not leave it up to the medical providers to make that, to guide those decisions?
It's like, you know, it's 150 years ago.
That's the way it used to be.
We would have to figure it out for ourselves and decide what was right for our patients.
What if that's the world we end up living in?
Well, that would be one way to go, but we're not in that world.
Today, the medical professionals are not free to provide informed consent.
They're not allowed to say anything negative about vaccines.
If they do, they will lose their license.
The health board will come after them.
So, they're instructed to lie to people, and they are instructed not to tell the truth.
By some organizations.
But, I mean, some of them are mindlessly doing what their superiors tell them.
You're allowed to sort of say, I've got some concerns here, and bring out your concerns.
Some of you are saying no, though.
For a while there, you were not.
I'll grant you on that.
For a while, it was scary.
You looked like you would get in trouble if you were to speak honestly.
Well, I represented a lot of the doctors who did.
Yeah, it's getting worse.
And actually, this was the case a long time ago.
I ran into that with my children when pediatricians were telling ridiculous things, especially for somebody who works in the pharmaceutical industry.
And as I said before, doctors have a very vague idea of what goes on in pharmaceutical regulations.
Nobody understands it.
Uh, as far as you know, I've, I've met numerous physicians.
I've worked in the industry.
We worked with many, many medical doctors and research scientists in prestigious universities.
They have really vague idea of pharma regulation, and now they're not allowed that you must follow the script.
Also, you must say what Epic system tells you.
So everything is programmed into EPIC.
They're becoming just a bandage to EPIC's system.
You're talking about the electronic record.
You're right about that.
The electronic record is really, oof, problematic.
Why do you think Obamacare couldn't be rolled back?
We're becoming box checkers, you know, as opposed to, you know.
Okay, so here we are.
It's disturbing to hear all this stuff.
It's hard for me to process.
I'm listening.
I accept what you guys are saying.
I'm trying to anticipate the pushback people are going to... I suppose you guys have experienced the pushback already.
Well, I'll give each of you, before I wrap up, what is the pushback you get, Sasha?
The pushback that I get is it's not possible.
These are pharmacies, you know, you don't understand.
These are clinical trials.
So people who just basically regurgitate back what the HHS is saying and calling me a conspiracy theorist.
And that's basically the pushback that I get.
And I ignore that.
And that's why I don't really widely participate on social media.
I'm just writing Substack and that's a subscription based You subscribe for free, but you still have to subscribe.
So, you know, that's why I'm like, I am here to deliver information to people who want to understand what's going on.
And I'm not interested in those who just hear to regurgitate HHS narrative.
And Tom, what kind of stuff are you getting?
So here you were in front of Marjorie Taylor Greene.
I'm guessing that had a reaction.
Oh yeah, yeah.
I mean, we, you know, I haven't really had too much trouble because, you know, my job is to argue with people.
So what I've had is kind of a different angle, right?
So they started out, and I did legitimately go through a period where I got death threats or people that would offer me, you know, jobs that I'm not qualified for and paid way more money than I should ever get.
And, you know, just, hey, but you shouldn't fight this anymore.
I did go through that.
I haven't had that for quite some time.
Now what I get is more, once in a while I'll get some community notes buffoon who will say something, but that doesn't really Doesn't really register because I'm a soulless lawyer, right?
So, uh, the only real pushback I get is the censorship.
Uh, and I have an immense amount about that.
Yeah.
Well, we'll see, we'll put stuff out and, uh, we'll see, you know, thousands of reactions on Twitter and, uh, you know, like a hundred thousand impressions.
Uh, we'll, we'll see, you know, when you look at it and compare it to other places and Twitter does a great job.
Like I love Elon Musk.
I love what he's done, but I mean, remember, You know, they're subject to regulations too.
We've got the FISA stuff, we've got the investigations.
So we'll see some backdoor stuff.
We do get some very direct attacks that I don't feel comfortable talking about publicly because if I do, I'm going to empower the people doing it to try and step it up.
Are there any legitimate?
Is there any feedback either of you have gotten that has helped refine your position or been legitimate?
- When I came on here.
- Sasha?
- You mean like any pushback that I got that was sort of legitimate? - That made you think, oh yeah, that seems right, huh?
I'm refining my position, you know what I mean?
Let me just tell you, I'm watching the stream show and I'm like, uh-oh, people are going full, they take this material and they go way downstream into all kinds of other conspiratorial ideas, which is not our point.
Our point is trying to stay with what you guys' opinions are.
Go ahead.
Yeah, I basically, yeah, so on these sort of jump into, oh my God, this is the global cabal, Bilderberg, blah, blah, blah.
Right, right.
I always tell people, step back, you have to investigate.
And as I said, this comes after three years of very, very deep investigation.
So I can prove in a court of law what I'm saying.
This is a crime, needs to be treated as a crime scene.
And when you look at the crime scene, you look at who pulled the trigger, who pushed the needle, and secondary, who paid them.
And so that I have very well documented.
And so that's where I'm focusing on.
Well, Sasha, we appreciate you coming, sharing your thoughts with us, and sharing the screen with a soulless lawyer who, supposedly... What do you want to say, Tom?
You want to make our last comment?
That's what he said!
That's what he called himself!
I told him I wasn't going to let him get by with all the aw-shuck stuff today.
He's like, I'm just a soulless guy from the country.
On a good day, I'm a soulless lawyer.
On a bad day, I'm much worse.
You know, at the end of the day, though, Doc, I, you know, we talked about some stuff today that, you know, I, I always, every time I've came on this show, I brought you receipts and I've always taken great pride in that.
And I understand that a lot of this, uh, people take and they take it in places where I can't provide receipts on.
Right.
But I would challenge anybody that wants to argue with me.
If you want to argue with me legitimately, because, Doc, the first time I came on, you were much more skeptical on a lot more fronts.
And over time, you've been very reasonable.
You've been mind-blowingly open-minded on this.
And I've been really honored to have this conversation.
And I hope that this can preserve as a model.
for other conversations with other people.
There are three headlines in my head that I keep wondering what is up.
One is, why are we pushing the vaccines on the young males?
I've seen myocarditis.
I've seen SV, supraventricular arrhythmias.
I've seen all this stuff in people with a zero risk from the vaccine, from the illness, zero, zero, zero.
And I don't care if it's one in 10,000 cases of myocarditis.
Half of those are persistent, and that's too many for an illness that has a zero risk.
So why that?
That's confusing to me, number one.
That's the most obvious confusing spot, number one.
Number two, why not go back and do the formal testing?
I guess there's no money for it at the EUA or whatever, but somebody should be suggesting that.
Yeah, right.
That's number two.
Uh, yeah.
And number three is, there are whole viral vaccines out there that are excellent for COVID.
Why aren't we talking about that?
Why aren't we talking about Covaxin?
Why aren't we talking about other whole virus vaccines?
It's not even mentioned.
It's not even brought up as, hey, you know, you may want to talk to your doctor about other options, part of a conformed consent, if you have concern.
We don't have concern about the mRNA vaccine, but if you do, talk to your doctor about whole virus.
Any idea why they would not?
It's just completely shut out of the conversation.
Why?
Sasha, other than sinister, any ideas?
Am I misrepresenting the whole virus?
Well, I don't, so I personally don't believe in the vaccines anymore after this.
And I did, but after this, I'm like, I don't want to touch this area because it's also a biologics product that has the same deregulated biologics problem.
I get it.
But can you think of anything that would have them not using a decent vaccine?
Maybe it's not as effective or something, but it'd be fine.
It's still an option that should be discussed as part of informed consent.
It should be.
Yes.
So if, if this was honest, if the regulators were honest, if, if the story was honest, you know, it was a, it was a terrible rush and we didn't know they would have corrected themselves long ago.
And they would have also considered these other alternatives and they wouldn't have pushed it and forced it onto pregnant women, which is another interesting category that they are just hell bent on injecting with all sorts of things and children.
You know, so that just gives you, and by the way, the pregnant women population was identified in Moderna military contract.
They said, oh, we need this for 4 million pregnant women in the U.S.
specifically.
Under what scenario is this okay?
Tom, your last thoughts?
Sometimes evidence comes from inference, right?
If I see you leaving a crime scene, And I, you know, I didn't see you shoot anybody.
I didn't see you kill anybody.
But I go in there and I see a dead body.
There's no one else there.
And I see you leaving it.
I can infer reasonably that you may have had something to do with that.
You asked why they're not looking at full virus vaccines.
Well, again, I can provide you dozens of documents, dozens of things that all suggest they're pushing towards these genetic therapies, right?
I know they are.
I get it.
That that's what we need to look at and what we really got to do because I don't have the evidence to show I mean listen everybody has been asking me for two three years now say it's depopulation I can't prove to see population but let me tell you what I can tell you there is absolutely indisputable evidence that these vaccines are unsafe and ineffective
There is indisputable evidence that they were not properly tested, that mRNA vaccines are probably largely unsafe, and that we bypassed all the traditional safety measures that responsible scientists would require before they would recommend something like this.
By inference, much like seeing someone leave the crime scene, Why would we do this?
Now maybe it's not depopulation, maybe it's just deep pockets.
You can decide what you want to believe on it.
What I can tell you is that the evidence is quite clear that it's not because it's for the best interest of the patients or we the people.
There's no reason that, as you said, you'd give this to a young male.
There's never a reason for that.
There were no healthy kids that died of COVID.
None.
There were no records.
We've looked, we've looked, we've looked.
We couldn't find any healthy children that died of COVID.
Why are we doing this?
There was no proper testing at all.
On pregnant mothers.
Why are we giving it to pregnant mothers?
There is no reason that we're doing this.
And whatever the reason is, it's not the best interest of the public.
And what we need to focus on is not trying to necessarily prove something that we can't prove, which is the motive.
It's that it's quite clearly a bad decision.
And whatever the motive is, it ain't good or we wouldn't be doing it this way.
Well, we certainly need more information.
We need more fresh air.
We need to understand these things more.
And that's why I've been doing this.
And I appreciate your efforts, both of you, what you're doing.
Any last words from either of you?
Tom first and then Sasha.
Tom?
I just appreciate the open-minded discourse, Doc.
And I hope, hope, hope, hope that we're able to continue this and that we can expand this because we have got to get We've got to get this true information.
This is questions.
We've gotten to a point that we're not supposed to ask questions.
Well, if we can't ask questions... Well, hey, that's a great point, and I totally agree with you.
That's been my whole thing.
I'm used to discourse as part of science.
Would either of you be willing to come back and take calls from my listeners?
I saw a lot of people lining up who feel very differently than you, but I just didn't have time to get to it.
But maybe just bring you each back individually, and we'll do a whole thing of back and forth and see what people say.
Again, my whole thing is keep it civil, everybody.
We're all professionals.
It's okay to disagree.
My two guests have very, very, very specific experience, built on long experience in these areas.
Uh, and I'd love to hear a challenge.
I like that.
I think that's a good thing when things are challenged.
And like I said, you might refine your opinion, you might, I don't know, you might refine your argument at least.
But Sasha, last words.
Yes, absolutely.
I agree that open dialogue and asking questions and having an open discussion is the way to go.
And this is how you can have people honestly debate, understand the topic and then change their mind as necessary.
So I'm delighted if anybody wants to have a, you know, on air question answer session.
Absolutely.
I love answering questions and I have a lot of, a lot of evidence.
Okay, Susan, how does that sound to you?
Caleb, you guys up for that?
Sounds great.
Yeah, let's do it.
I think it's overwhelming when both of them are being bombarded with questions, but if we get each of them... They have way too much to say.
Yeah, they have a lot to say, and it has to be kind of a controlled environment, because things get out of hand so quick and so easily in these conversations.
So, all right, I know a little bit about hosting these things.
So I try to do the best I can.
I mean, we might get a troll, but you just have to let it go.
Oh, for sure you will, but that's okay.
Listen, that's part of the deal here, and that's fine.
But in any event, so those of you that are on Twitter Spaces, it's very patiently waiting.
Please come back, watch our schedule.
We will bring each of these guys back for a specific Q&A kind of session with our listeners.
And that's the way we do it.
Those of you that are out on other platforms, we set up a tweet at X, what's it called now?
Is it still called Twitter Spaces?
Yes.
And you line up, you raise your hand, I bring you up, and that's that.
And so I've given, let me, I guess, give again both of your guys' particulars.
Where do you want people to go?
I'll let each of you say it.
Yes, so for my substack, it's called Due Diligence and Art, the name of the publication, and it's Sashalatypova.substack.com.
And Tom?
And for me, please go to TomRentz.com.
We're grifting hard these days, so please support us in any way you can.
We've got a grift to keep in business.
I get called a grifter all the time, but I don't bill for most of my legal work, so I've got to keep the family fed.
So, for the soulless lawyer, grifter, Tom Rentz.
I appreciate you being here.
And we are saying a prayer for your wife.
It's a lot to go through, stage four of anything.
And so our thoughts are with you and her.
All right, guys.
Thank you, guys.
Thank you, everybody.
We'll do this again with each of these guys for questions.
And let's just put up the schedule that we have here.
We had a quick redo.
Harmeet Dhillon's going to come in on Tuesday, is that?
And then May 1st, Mike Lindell.
May 2nd, Kyle Lucey.
Peter McCullough will be in Florida with him.
And, yeah, we'll kind of keep this going.
So, appreciate you all being here, and we'll see you... Now, this is the end of the week for us.
We're a little early.
We've got a big event coming in our family.
We'll be back on Tuesday.
Let me double-check that it's at 3 o'clock.
One second.
Yes, it is at 3 o'clock on the 30th.
We'll see you then.
Ask Dr. Drew is produced by Caleb Nation and Susan Pinsky.
As a reminder, the discussions here are not a substitute for medical care, diagnosis, or treatment.
This show is intended for educational and informational purposes only.
I am a licensed physician, but I am not a replacement for your personal doctor, and I am not practicing medicine here.
Always remember that our understanding of medicine and science is constantly evolving.
Though my opinion is based on the information that is available to me today, some of the contents of this show could be outdated in the future.
Be sure to check with trusted resources in case any of the information has been updated since this was published.
If you or someone you know is in immediate danger, don't call me.
Call 911.
If you're feeling hopeless or suicidal, call the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline at 800-273-8255.
▲
Export Selection