Liz Wheeler exposes a White House controversy where Attorney General Pam Bondi allegedly misled influencers about Epstein files, delivering empty binders while hiding thousands of documents. Simultaneously, Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong critiques the FDA for ignoring spike protein persistence, which he claims drives long COVID and aggressive cancers in youth via autoimmune mechanisms. He argues that current chemotherapy depletes natural killer cells, urging a "cancer moonshot" to replace toxic treatments with his BioShield therapy. Ultimately, both segments suggest deep institutional failures regarding transparency and public health safety. [Automatically generated summary]
Welcome to the Megan Kelly Show, live on SiriusXM Channel 111 every weekday at Noon East.
Hey, everyone, I'm Megan Kelly.
Welcome to the Megan Kelly Show.
Coming up, the billionaire cancer specialist, owner of the Los Angeles Times, Dr. Patrick Soon-Shung, will join me for the first time.
This guy's fascinating.
Has he discovered the cure for cancer?
and also for COVID damage or COVID vaccine damage?
We're going to get into it.
But we start today with someone who's never been on the program before, Liz Wheeler.
She's a conservative host who was at that White House influencer event back in February.
She was one of the folks handed the Epstein files binder by Attorney General Pam Bondi at the White House.
And we, of course, now know the binder contained nothing new.
But they and we were promised more was coming until on Sunday, the DOJ announced there was no Epstein client list.
No one else would be charged and that there would be no more disclosures from the investigation.
And as it turns out, the administration seems kind of annoyed that people want more answers.
Joining me now to explain exactly what happened that day, what was promised, and what she thinks in the wake of this bombshell announcement by the DOJ and the FBI on Sunday night to Axios.
Liz Wheeler, she's host of Blaze TV's The Liz Wheeler Show.
I've been talking a lot about Riverbend Ranch steaks lately, and for good reason.
The ranch is just a few miles from West Yellowstone, Montana, where we go in the wintertime, and their steaks are so flavorful and surprisingly tender.
Even someone like me who does not know how to cook can make it taste delicious.
It's thanks to the quality of the beef.
A lot of our listeners have been writing and sharing similar feedback.
Abigail Feynman will not stop talking about Riverbend Ranch, and I feel the same.
So these guys raise Angus cattle, but they've taken it even further.
For 35 years now, more than three decades, the owner has selectively bred Angus cattle with superior genetics for marbling and tenderness.
It's all about the marbling and the tenderness, creating a herd that truly stands out.
Their beef is born, raised, and processed too, entirely inside America without artificial growth hormones or antibiotics.
And it is shipped directly from the ranch to your door.
Riverbend Ranch is not just another beef company.
It's a legacy of quality care and craftsmanship that you can taste in every bite.
Order from RiverbendRanch.com.
Use the promo code Megan for $20 off your first order and you'll be eating the same steak that my family and I eat at night.
And let me know what you think.
RiverbendRanch.com promo code Megan.
Liz, welcome to the program.
Hi, Megan.
Thanks for having me.
My pleasure.
Okay, so this is crazy.
This whole thing is so crazy.
Confusion at the White House00:14:59
And I know you've been following our coverage a bit and say we have it almost right, but not totally right on what happened that day when you and Jack Basobiak and Libs of TikTok's Chia Raichik, a bunch of well-known right-leaning influencers were invited to the White House.
So tell us how that went down.
That's right.
And I appreciate your curiosity and your coverage of this.
I think most of President Trump's base doesn't consider this to be a closed case.
Most of us have outstanding questions and we should have outstanding questions.
But if you go back to that day in February, one of the misunderstandings, I think, is we weren't invited to the White House to receive the Epstein binders, those infernal white binders.
We weren't invited for that purpose.
We weren't even invited to meet specifically with Attorney General Pam Bondi.
We were invited to meet with Vice President JD Vance.
In fact, a couple weeks prior to that meeting, I had received a text message inviting me to come to the White House to meet with the vice president, and no reason was given for the visit.
And I remember turning to my husband at the time and being like, oh, I bet they're calling me to the White House to scold me because I had just been on Glenn Beck's radio program a day, I think the day before, criticizing President Trump's executive order on in vitro and suggesting that there might be a better way to help heal the chronic infertility crisis in our country.
And I said, oh, I bet, I bet they want to have some words with me about that.
And I kind of laughed about it, but you get invited to the White House, you go.
It's an opportunity of a lifetime.
It's so cool.
It's so incredible there.
I asked them, I was like, oh, yeah, what's this in reference to?
And they had mentioned like, oh, it's a group meeting with the vice president.
I was like, sure, I'll be there, of course.
So I go that day to the White House and I didn't know who else was invited.
I actually didn't know the names of any of the people that were also going to be in that room with us until we were standing in the security line in secret service together outside the White House.
And I see these various, you know, prominent conservatives, especially on X. You can call them influencers.
You can call them independent journalists, but pretty prominent conservative voices, independent journalists.
So we go into the White House and we are taken into, I was actually a couple minutes late because my flight was delayed that morning.
I had flown in at the crack of dawn.
And we're in the room, the cabinet room, which is right across the hall from the Oval Office.
And there's nameplates at each chair.
You know, we're all expected.
This is not just a tour of the White House.
This is where our meeting is.
And the meeting's being chaired by the press secretary, Caroline Levitt, who explains to us the purpose of the visit.
The purpose of the visit, she said, was because the mainstream media, the corporate media, is no longer going to be rewarded by the Trump administration for their lying and their smears, their propagandizing on behalf of the other side.
Instead, the White House is going to in a sense, coordinate a new media.
You are going to get access, she told us, to high-ranking decision makers and cabinet secretaries at the White House, because the mainstream media shouldn't be given that kind of access when they have just lied and smeared and cheated President Trump.
And so the schedule for the day, we're told, is we are going to have meetings with a lot of these different cabinet secretaries and decision makers.
And we're going to have a forum to ask them questions, to network with them, to get to know them, just to integrate our media efforts into the White House.
And so that's what happened.
It was actually a very, it's a very cool initiative from the White House.
It was an interesting experience.
We met with Secretary of State Marco Rubio and HH Secretary RFK.
That was an interesting discussion.
We met with Vice President Vance, of course.
We met with Caroline Levitt.
And then we meet with Attorney General Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel.
And I have to say, that was the shortest meeting of all because during our meeting with the vice president, we had an unexpected guest come into the room from across the hall.
The president himself, Donald Trump, knocked on the door, stuck his head in and said, hey, I heard there were famous people in here.
And then he looked at us all and he goes, which one of you is the most famous?
Always the stand-up comedian.
Very entertaining, very entertaining.
We, of course, are cracking up.
And I hope you said it's me.
It's me.
I hope you said it.
It was like everyone was pointing to someone else because no one, everyone wanted to be a little bit humble.
It was fun.
It was funny.
But when we're sitting down with Attorney General Pam Bondi, she's telling us a little bit about some of the initiatives that they're doing at the Department of Justice, good stuff that they're doing.
And then she brings out these banker boxes full of the white binders.
And she lifts one of these white binders out of the box.
And of course, we're sitting at the same table with her.
We see on the front of the binders that cover sheet that reads the most transparent administration in history, the Epstein files phase one.
And we all take a collective gasp, like, oh my goodness, what is in these files?
Are we really getting this?
And to her credit, Attorney General Bondi very quickly clarified, no, no, this is not the dirt.
This is not the juicy stuff.
This is what I was given.
She said, when I got to office, I immediately requested the Epstein files be brought to me.
She's like, and this is all I was given.
She's like, and I was skeptical.
I was like, this is it?
This tiny little sack of papers.
And she's like, I was assured this is it.
And she said, so I was going to release this to the American people, even though there's nothing new or interesting or juicy in here.
She's like, until yesterday, I received communication from a whistleblower who told me that the SDNY was hiding truckloads of documents.
And she told us, Attorney General Pamboni said that day at the White House, you know, videos and pictures, the lists, the juicy stuff, all the dirt that people are expecting.
The SDNY is subverting the president, the attorney general, the FBI director, and you, the voters.
And so she handed us that letter that she had written to FBI Director Kash Patel demanding that she be brought all of those documents from the SDNY.
And she hands that letter to us and says, this is the story.
The fact that the SDNY, there are still deep state swamp creatures who are trying to subvert the president in the government at this moment.
And she essentially said, you know, I know why you're here at the White House.
I know that you're going to be given access to the upper echelons of the Trump administration, you know, because the mainstream media has proven themselves to be dishonest.
She's like, here's a story for you.
You can break this story.
So we all understood what the story was.
It's a very believable story that the SDNY would be, that would be hiding evidence or destroying evidence.
We'd had other reports that that was happening inside the FBI.
So about at that moment, we get interrupted because the president invites us to come into the Oval Office.
So we all, you know, leave all of our stuff in that room and go across the hall to the Oval Office, which is an incredible experience.
It doesn't matter how many times you've seen it.
It doesn't matter how cool you are.
It is just the weight of history in that place will give you the chills.
And President Trump in the Oval Office is asking us questions and taking questions from us, giving us a tour.
Megan, he took a poll.
He asked us to vote on whether we wanted a photograph or a painting of George Washington or Ronald Reagan hanging in the Oval office.
So he's entertaining us, essentially.
At the same time, he is doing what he does best.
People are walking into the room.
Stephen Miller, Tom Holman, you know, now former NSA, Mike Waltz, all these people are walking in the room, asking him things.
He's dealing with them.
And then his attention comes right back to us without becoming distracted.
It's like watching a conductor of an orchestra to watch him manage not just our country and the government, but the world in this way.
It's incredible.
We take pictures with him.
He gives us hats and coins and pens and all the paraphernalia that he gives to guests in the Oval Office.
And then we go back into the cabinet secretary room and we meet with another person or two.
I don't remember who we met with after that.
But then we realize or the people running the event realize that the meeting has run over time.
The UK prime minister and his entourage were arriving and they were scheduled to be in that room.
So we were ushered rather quickly out the back door of the Oval office.
Of course, you surrender your cell phone when you go in the West Wing and in the little wooden box downstairs.
So we're all, of course, withdrawing from our technology, hoping to get to our phones as quickly as possible.
We go out the back door with our coats and our hats and the binders and our arms.
We go out the back door and we meet this gaggle of press that are camped out in the grass out back.
Unexpectedly, they were there, of course, to try to get a glimpse of the UK prime minister.
They see us and Megan, you should have seen their faces.
They were so bitter, so unhappy, so surprised and annoyed that we were given access to the White House while they were out in the grass.
That's actually what the smiles in those original photos were about is they were so they were just so jealous and bitter that we were laughing at them.
We were taunting them.
We were like, yeah, we were in the White House and how's the grass feel today?
Because there were many of the influencers who were showing the binders and showing them off.
I mean, I don't know whether you were one of them, but there were definitely some people there who were happy to show off what they'd just been given.
And that's what led people like me to think they're happy that they have these binders and they want they want the press to see that they've got the binders and that it was sort of like a justice is coming thing.
It wasn't to me, it didn't read like a middle finger to the press, though it could have been.
It read like a, we're about to get the truth.
I mean, that's, this is the thing that I've been hooked on all along, which is, why would the White House allow this?
Why would they allow their, you know, top surrogates, whatever, most loyal fans and friends and media to get embarrassed like this when they knew there was nothing in there.
Well, and I think that's where the infuriating part starts, right?
I certainly can't speak for the other people involved.
I know I was laughing at the press.
The press also noticed those binders.
Of course they did.
It's very prominently displayed on the front that says the Epstein files.
And they're like, what are you guys holding?
They took pictures of them.
I think our expectation, again, maybe I should speak here just for myself.
My expectation is we're about 10 seconds, 30 seconds away from getting our phones.
We're about to break this story ourselves.
And we knew, of course, the context of the story was not, oh, this is the dirt, the Epstein files.
We knew the context of the story, but obviously people's reactions are going to be the same reaction that I just had when Pam Bondi originally showed me that binder.
Oh, my goodness, is this the dirt?
Well, you pair that immediately with the, wait a second, the real story is the SDNY.
So I have this expectation that we're about to sing at this list because this confused me.
Okay.
Because I remember at the time, remembered this piece of the story.
At least two of the influencers or whatever conservative personalities who were there tweeted out the exact same tweet after this thing went down.
It had clearly been given to them by the White House.
There's just no question by somebody who was there.
It was the exact same tweet, you know?
And so to me, it was obviously somebody within the administration who was like, this might be a great tweet to send to frame what has just happened today.
And I pulled it just to this.
It was the people who tweeted it out included.
Chad Proud, right?
DC, yeah, who's DC Draino and Chad Proud.
And they tweeted the following.
Today I met with President Trump, Vice President JD Vance, A.G. Pambondi, and FBI Director Cash Patalin in the Oval Office.
They handed me a binder copy of the Epstein files, the most transparent administration in American history.
The best part, this is just the start.
A.G. Bondi confirmed there are thousands more Epstein file documents being secretly held in the SDNY, and they will be delivered to the DOJ in D.C. by February 28th.
People will be going to jail for what they've done.
So this is so crazy because these people clearly, if they were given this by the White House, the White House is trying to whoever.
I think that's worth clarifying.
Well, those two just happened to send out the same information.
No, Chad Prather.
Chad Prather actually came out later and said that he copied and pasted from DC Draino and he apologized for doing that.
And DC Draino, Rogan O'Handley, had written that himself.
Okay.
All right.
Well, that makes sense too.
So why would why do you think they're saying, like, is his framing is they gave us some stuff.
We've got Epstein files.
They're the most transparent administration in history.
And the best part is it's just the start.
Like it wasn't indignation.
Your messaging seemed to be different that night.
And I remember because you were more like, no, the binder is a scandal because it shows you that there's still a deep state out there that's got documents that's thumbing the middle finger even at the DOJ, namely SDNY, which appears to have the treasure trove of Epstein docs.
Anyway, to me, it was just confusing.
And I was wondering, not accusing anybody of doing anything wrong whatsoever, but I was wondering whether you guys were being given different messaging from the White House on this or just walked away with different takeaways because you were each confused or you just were all trying to figure it out in your own way.
Right.
Well, I can't speak for Chad Prather.
can't even speak for Rogan, although I think highly of Rogan.
I can only tell you we were not given any kind of, I would never actually do this anyway, even if I were quote unquote given talking points.
I would never do that.
I'm not a spokesman for the administration.
I'm a supporter of President Trump's America first agenda, but I'm not, I'm not running interference for him in any way, shape or form.
But notwithstanding, we weren't given anything like that.
I wasn't at least.
We were told exactly what I just detailed to you.
We were given these binders and then we were given that paper by Pam Bondi.
She's the one who said that's the real story.
And I actually asked her at the time because of what the cover sheet said, I asked her at the time, I was like, have you seen the SDNY documents?
And she said, no, she said she hadn't.
That was probably the first red flag for me was Pam Bondi admitting that she had not seen those documents before she wanted us to launch this story.
Now, when you're in a situation like that, you're like, okay, that's maybe not how I would handle it.
Also, something I, you know, when someone's on your side, this is what I've been saying all week.
When someone's on your side, you give them the benefit of the doubt.
I that day was hoping Pam Bondi would produce.
You have to choose at some point whether you're going to trust someone, because even if you're a journalist, there's only so much verification that you can do unless you have access to the source materials.
I obviously didn't have access to the SDNY documents.
So I have to choose, okay, am I going to trust Pam Bondi or am I not going to trust Pam Bondi?
When someone's on your side, at a certain point, you extend them the trust.
And I thought, okay, she hasn't seen them, but she must be pretty confident in them or she wouldn't launch these binders in this way with this story.
So you give her the benefit of the doubt.
The thing is, Megan, and this is something I didn't talk about because I thought, because I wanted it, I wanted her to produce.
I wanted her to live up to this benefit of the doubt that I extended her.
That day in that room, she, Pam Bondi was bragging about making the cover sheet on that binder that read the most transparent administration in history, phase one Epstein files.
She acted like she'd made it on a Word document and printed it out herself and put it in the front cover of that binder.
And to me, that is where when you fast forward just a little bit to this past Sunday and we have this announcement from the Department of Justice that suddenly says there is no client list.
There's no blackmail operation.
Epstein definitively killed himself.
You're not getting any more documents.
Dropping the Ball on Truth00:16:03
Thank you.
Goodbye.
No more questions.
You know, my reaction is, what are you talking about?
Not only did Pam Bondi go on Fox News and say, it is on my desk.
She was asked about the client list specifically.
So while she didn't say the phrase client list, she said, it is on my desk waiting for review.
I know two days ago, she said, I was talking about the Epstein files.
Okay, maybe that's what you meant.
That's not what you said.
And words obviously matter.
Words have implication to the people that hear them.
We perceive them the way that they are said, not the way that you meant, which is part of the problem here.
But you really can't square the Department of Justice announcement on Sunday that just says, actually, none of this is true definitively with the behavior by Attorney General Pam Bondi on that day.
Again, notwithstanding the fact that, and I've spoken about this before too, there was an embargo that was given to us halfway through breaking the story, right?
So you go back to that day outside after we'd run into the press.
We were taken down to our phones and we begin to break this story.
We post that picture that I posted holding the Epstein files.
My intention was within 30 seconds, because that's how you game the X algorithm.
You do a post, then you do the second post on the thread.
Everyone knows this.
My intention was to say, but that knows that you're going to do the story.
You just taught me something.
I did not know that.
Keep going.
It works like a dream.
Unless, of course, you're in this situation.
Then it gives the White House 30 seconds to tell you that actually there's an embargo on the story because they don't want President Trump to be asked during his press conference with the UK prime minister only about the Epstein files.
So suddenly, Megan, I find myself in this position where I'm like, oh no, because I also am, you know, chronically on X and I see that those media photos that were taken of us out back weren't just posted to a random website somewhere.
They were starting to catch fire online.
And it starts to look like the train wreck unfolding before my eyes that it was.
People, and I understand why they felt this way, they start to think, oh, these influencers are being gatekeepers.
They're engaging in clickbait, all of these things, which.
You make a decision at the beginning of your career when you're in this business.
Are you going to be bombastic?
Are you going to be hyperbolic?
Are you going to engage in clickbait?
Are you going to be ethical?
And anybody who, I mean, I've been in this business a long time now, 10 years, more than 10 years.
Anybody who's ever listened to me, watched me or read my work knows that I made the choice not to do that.
I'm very transparent with my audience.
I'm very honest.
I don't engage in hot takes, even if it might get you more clicks, because it's not the right thing to do.
So I'm, of course, personally infuriated at this point because this makes it look like I'm doing what I don't do.
So I am frantically behind the scenes, you know, in the Uber in Washington, D.C., screaming at the White House via text message, please let me post this.
Do you understand what's going on?
Not just from my personal perspective, but the way that it's making the administration look.
Bureaucracy takes forever.
It was at least an hour before we got permission to post the real story.
And the damage by that time had already been done.
So again, I held my tongue about this for a while because I thought, okay, maybe this unforced error was for me as an outsider.
And I'm only sort of an outsider, right?
Cause I'm a member of the press and I know the administration well.
But my experience of it was not for whatever it's worth that you guys were engaging in clickbait.
I saw you guys as a bunch of innocent victims of the whole thing.
I was like, these are, of course, I know all of you, at least by your tweets and so on.
And I think this is a very loyal group to the president.
This is a group that's been important to the president's election.
This is a group that helped provide context, you know, throughout the entire campaign when the mainstream was lying.
This is part of the group that would try to set the record straight, provide additional facts and context.
So there's no way this White House would willingly want to embarrass this group.
So they've invited them to the White House, clearly.
They've given them these binders that read, you know, Epstein file.
They've allowed them to be photographed holding the binders.
And those photos hit the internet.
And then within, you know, a very short time after the photos hit the internet was, I don't even remember how it came out, but it was like, there's nothing new in there.
There's nothing new.
It's, there's nothing, nothing new.
And then the narrative.
I went live at the airport.
Well, they've been like embarrassed.
They've been embarrassed because now here they are holding up the binders and there's nothing new.
And all I could think was, this is something you would do to people you don't like.
This is something you would do to people whose credibility you wanted to undermine.
But I never felt like you guys were guilty of doing clickbait.
I felt like somebody in the administration has totally dropped the ball here.
Why would they tell you guys there was something new or noteworthy or celebratory or in any way to show in these binders with the with the bit the label on them if there weren't?
Why would they do?
And to this moment, I still don't understand.
Even hearing you, I'm like, why would Pam Bondi, if she said to you even at the time, there's nothing great in here, but I'm waiting on additional documents I just found out about and I'll give you those.
Why wouldn't like, why would she go through the exercise of the binders, which anybody could would know had the potential to embarrass you?
Why would you ever want to hold something up, you know, as like exciting if it was all old news?
That's like a sin of journalism.
Every journalist knows you don't want to tout something as big.
That's literally old news.
And to this moment, I don't understand, Liz, whether it's because Pam Bondi was negligent in making sure, like, what's exactly in this binder?
And does she know there's actually nothing new?
You're about to humiliate people who care about you.
or because she has some other motive.
I don't know.
Well, first of all, thank you for giving the benefit of the doubt to us that day.
Not everyone in our movement gave the benefit of the doubt that way and did accuse us of clickbait, which I mean, like I said, you can look at my work.
That's not the case.
Yes, the question that you pose is a question that, believe me, I've asked myself a million times and I've done my due diligence trying to investigate.
The phrase that I use, I mean, I went live from the airport like 30 minutes after this meeting because I had to fly back home to my kids and I wanted people to understand exactly what had happened.
The only part of the story that I didn't tell that day was the part about Pam Bondi bragging about making that cover sheet.
And maybe I should have told that right then and there, because maybe that would have made it obvious that Pam Bondi should have been fired on the spot for what she did.
The only explanation that I can think of, and this is an explanation that is based on a pattern of Pam Bondi's behavior, is that she wasn't telling the truth.
Not necessarily because she's corrupt and trying to hide the contents of the Epstein files, but because she's clickthirsty, because she was more interested in making these big promises on Fox News, being a Fox News star and a mega champion, and she got out over her skis promising things that she hadn't verified.
And that's the root of this week.
I said, listen, if I'm President Trump, I am looking at what Attorney General Pam Bondi has done to the base.
He has lost his administration, even though he had nothing to do with this.
His administration has lost a tremendous amount of goodwill with voters because people care viscerally about the Epstein files.
They care deeply about this, partially because these are grisly crimes that were committed against children, but also because this represents justice.
We have been harmed so many times by the deep state, whether it's parents being told we're terrorists because we didn't want trans ideology and critical race theory being indoctrinated into our children, whether it's being censored on social media or arrested outside of the Capitol because we had questions about the 2020 election, whether it's pushing back against COVID vaccine mandates.
We have been vilified and demonized and targeted and subject to violence.
And we voted for President Trump because he promised justice.
Justice does not mean memory holing all of these bad things, this harm that was inflicted on us.
It means finding the people who committed the crimes, charging them with those crimes, holding them accountable in a court of law and sending them to prison for what they've done.
And people feel stung because when they see what Pam Bondi said in that Department of Justice memo on Sunday, she is telling us, ignore the evidence, the anomalies, the suspicious, fishy things surrounding Epstein's operation and his person and his connections and his death.
And instead, believe me, without evidence, she's telling us to ignore what's before our very eyes and believe her instead with no evidence.
And Megan, there is not a politician in this world that you should extend that amount of blind faith towards.
So she's put us in a position of having to decide which of her statements we're going to credit.
I mean, which one should we put the faith in?
Because, you know, we kind of put the faith in the statement from February 21st and then the statement she followed up with on February 26th.
And then the statement she followed up with on March 3rd.
And then the statement she followed up with on May 7th, all of which kept spinning this tale of, I've got the goods.
I'm getting even more goods.
You're going to see the goods.
This man's a filthy animal and you're not even going to believe what I've seen that she just seeded that trail ever since she took office.
And then instead of coming out on camera Sunday night or Monday, when she purportedly realized there was absolutely no there there other than the child pornography found on his computer, not involving third parties, like other than, you know, Jeffrey Epstein's predilection of, you know, disgusting random porn and saying, I got it wrong.
I overpromised and I'm under delivering and I'm sorry.
She.
leaked to Axios a two-page unsigned memo with absolutely no explanation, none whatsoever, and literally thinks that's enough.
And then unfortunately, we had the cabinet meeting where Trump seemed fine with all of that, where he kind of stepped in, was like, why are we still talking about this thing that I talked about repeatedly on the campaign trail and did tell you was an issue that we needed to get to the bottom of and that I would.
And then elevated two guys who talked about it all the time on their shows, Kash Patel and Dan Bungino, to run the FBI, the very organization that was at the heart of the investigation.
And another person, Pam Bonnie, who once I put in the office has been talking about it every other week and now looks at us and says, why would you still be interested in this?
Do you even want to answer that question?
And Pam Bonnie thinks she's putting it under the rug by being like, oh, there's a missing minute of the tape, but that's just because they always change over at one minute before midnight and we lose a minute of tape, which everybody was like, what?
And also when I said client list is on my desk, I really just meant file.
Bye.
It's just been totally insufficient, Liz.
Totally insufficient.
And no sane human being would at this point be saying, oh, okay, I have no more questions.
It's all answered for me.
Exactly.
And listen, President Trump is smart.
He's strategic.
He probably has a finger on the pulse of his base better than any politician that I've ever experienced in my lifetime.
I do think he's misreading his base on this one.
There's a story actually that country singer John Rich tells about having dinner with Trump.
And during this dinner, Trump turns to him and says, why do people boo at my rallies when I talk about the COVID vaccine?
And then President Trump sat there and he listened to John Rich's answer.
And John Rich said, because Mr. President, people have been hurt by the jab.
And President Trump listened to what John Rich said.
And I think that this is one of those moments that President Trump should listen to his base because people have been hurt by the deep state.
And that's what people are associating the Epstein files and the indications that there may have been a government coverup or at least a lack of transparency and a lack of honesty when communicating all of this to us.
That's what people associate this with.
They associate it with the fact that they want justice for COVID.
They want justice for Russia Gate.
They want justice for the phony Ukraine impeachment.
They want justice for the lawfare against President Trump.
They want justice for the assassination attempts.
They want justice for the rigging of election processes.
They want justice for Black Lives Matter riots.
They want justice.
And there's a phrase that we use often on the Liz Wheeler show.
We say we want perp walks and jumpsuits.
And not because we're vindictive, not because we're trying to exact some kind of revenge or target our political enemies, but because that represents justice.
Justice is actual accountability using our justice system to hold these people who committed crimes accountable.
And President Trump may be right.
Epstein, a creep.
Why are people talking about him?
Well, it's not so much that people care about Epstein the person or Epstein the creep.
It's that they associate the Epstein files and the government, Attorney General Pam Bondi's mishandling and dishonest communication about this with this open-ended question of, are we actually going to see justice for these egregious wrongdoings like we were promised?
What was your own personal interaction like that day when you saw Pam Boni?
I'm sure you spent some time with her.
How did she seem to you?
She was not exactly.
Well, let's just say this.
In the days leading up to that meeting, this was during the time that President Trump was nominating his different cabinet secretaries in the upper echelon of his administration.
I had made a list of who I thought was the best pick and, you know, all the way down to who I thought were the worst picks.
And Pam Bondi was towards the bottom of that list because I didn't think that she had the experience to deal with the swamp.
I didn't think that she had a proven track record of outsmarting the swamp.
I think she had shown incredible loyalty to President Trump during his impeachment proceedings.
She'd been one of his attorneys, I believe.
And that was essentially the reason it appeared that Trump picked her.
So I didn't go in there.
I went in there open-minded, but I didn't go in there thinking, oh my gosh, this is going to be the coolest meeting of all the meetings.
Not that I was aware of who we were going to be meeting with in the first place.
I actually was, I walked next to her when we went from the secret, the cabinet secretary room, the meeting room across the hall to the Oval Office.
I was the one who happened to walk next to Pam Bondi.
And, you know, she was talking to me a lot about what it had been like in the Department of Justice in the two, I think it had been two weeks since she had taken the oath of office.
And she said she was tired.
She hadn't done a lot of sleeping.
And she did a lot of complaining about Congresswoman Ana Paulina Luna to me because Congresswoman Luna had been asking a lot of questions about, hey, where are these files that were promised?
How come I, as part of the oversight committee in Congress, am being excluded from the Department of Justice's effort to release these?
And Pam Bondi did a lot of complaining about how Congresswoman Luna just didn't understand how this worked and these things take time and didn't she understand how busy she was.
And I have to say, I was, I was a little off put by that.
I was just like, oh, well, okay, that's what you're focusing on, even though you have the Justice Department to run.
Then when we were in the Oval Office, President Trump is introducing us.
There were probably 20 other people in the Oval Office at the same time, in addition to us.
And he's, you know, he's pointing people out.
He's like, yeah, this is Stephen Miller.
He's doing a great job.
Oh, this is a hero, Tom Holman.
He's doing a great job.
And he's pointing out different people.
And then I hear Attorney General Pam Bondi's voice from the back of the room.
She was sitting on one of the sofas.
She goes, What about me, Mr. President?
And to be perfectly frank here, the thought that went through my mind was, wow, that was a real pick-me-girl comment.
I did not think that that was, that that was a good reflection on the strength of her character.
Now, you can say, okay, that's just a comment.
Does that actually reflect in her ability at the Department of Justice or not?
I don't know.
I'll let you decide.
But maybe it demonstrates her efforts or her desire to be a mega champion and to be a Fox News star because she was demonstrating, again, a pattern of wanting attention.
And he did not give her the attention when he tweeted out about Dan and Cash last week when they came under fire.
Was it as recently as Monday?
I can't remember.
Hiding Evidence and Videos00:14:28
Yeah, it was after.
It was after the memo.
It was after the release of the memo.
It had to be because that's when they were getting pummeled.
And he sent out a complimentary tweet about Kash Patel and Dan Bongino and notably said nothing about Pam Bondi.
So I do wonder what the president thinks about all this and what the president knows.
I haven't yet figured out whether this is a Trump directive thing.
Like we're moving on from Epstein for reasons we don't understand, whether they're intel reasons or other reasons.
But I definitely think if the president said to these three, we're done with Epstein, it would explain all the behavior of this past week, not Pam Bondi's behavior prior.
Because I do see a real split here.
And I don't mean to just side with Bongino in this because I care about him and he's a friend.
I don't know Kash Patel at all.
I mean, if this is the logic I throw anybody I don't know that well under the bus, then he should be under the bus too.
But what I've seen since the beginning of the administration is those two guys who were very focused on Epstein prior to taking the roles have said nothing.
They have said they have not done the little breadcray Trump, breadcrumb trail from the moment of taking office.
They've said nothing.
And the first thing we saw from them was on Fox and Friends where we were all shocked to hear them saying he killed himself.
I mean, that's just what the evidence is.
And if you have something to prove me wrong, show me.
But I'm telling you, you're going to see some we saw cash on Joe Rogan being like, if I had evidence of him with all these, you know, little girls, or if I had a third parties with young girls, don't you think I'd show that to you?
And Rogan seemed to be saying, so you, you're, what you're saying is you don't have it.
And Cash is basically just saying, if I have it, you'll see it.
And we haven't seen it.
So they didn't do what she did.
And that I've, you know, over the course of the past four days, gotten to where you, you, I think are, which is, I, I think she was thirsty for attention.
I think she was enjoying the hits on Fox, on Hannity, on Waters in the middle of the day with John Roberts and saying like, I've got all the answers on Epstein.
I've got all the juicy dish and I'll be the one to give it to you until she either found out that wasn't true and realized this is why attorneys general don't talk like this ever about their ongoing investigations ever.
You almost never hear from attorney general.
It's the one person in any administration, Republican or Democrat, who you really can't get.
There's only so much transparency you're supposed to get from an attorney general, given the way criminal investigations work.
And then realize like she had an oh shit moment of she's humiliated herself and the administration.
Or again, I don't know something else, or it was real in the first place.
And now she's doing the lying.
This, I don't, I don't know the truth on.
No, and I think, I think there's a couple of things.
I'm also friends with Dan Bongino, and I can say with confidence that he is one of the good guys.
I actually appreciate that he has said so openly, listen, this is not about trust.
You don't believe something just because you trust me.
You wait for the evidence.
And I think that we should be focusing a lot on that comment.
I think that that's not only an incredibly humble comment and probably a very difficult comment for someone who's used to being able to set the record straight.
I think there's a lot more to that comment that meets the eye.
I also don't know Kash Patel personally.
I liked his book.
I like what he said.
We have to remember, though, that his boss is Attorney General Pam Bondi.
So there's only so much that you can do.
There's only so much that you can do in those positions if your boss is giving you a directive or to contradict your boss publicly.
So maybe that's me extending too much benefit of the doubt there, but I think that's a possible explanation.
I do think that the base, President Trump's voter base would have been or would have accepted more readily just an honest, an honest analysis.
When Dan Bongino and Kash Patel took over at the FBI, I mean, I know a lot of people at the upper echelons at the FBI and the and the Department of Justice now.
And I was told on good authority that it's like a thermonuclear bomb was set off in there, that they walk in and they don't even know where the locks are, let alone having the keys to unlock those locks.
No, they're being undermined.
They are.
And there's been evidence destruction.
There's been the hiding of evidence.
So if these individuals, Pam Bondi is the one that I think is the buck stops with Pam Bondi.
She's the one directing this narrative.
She could have said, listen, we got in here and the Epstein files are empty.
We don't know why.
We don't know if it was destroyed or hidden or if the investigation was done negligently.
We don't know whether there was a cover up, but we do want to be honest with you and say, no, we can't produce the dirt that you expected because we don't have it.
Megan, that's very different than giving us this definitive statement, like none of these things are true.
A client list doesn't exist.
He definitively killed himself.
What?
And almost like you guys are idiots for thinking otherwise.
Like there's a tonality in there that it's like, what kind of an idiot would be pursuing this at this point?
The other piece is that's really been irritating me is how she keeps being like, okay, we found these tens of thousands of pictures of child sexual assault material and no one is ever going to see that.
No one's getting as if that is what anybody wants to see.
Like she's trying to like diminish the demands for more information by pretending what people want is to see the child pornography that Jeffrey Epstein enjoyed looking at.
It's such a straw man.
No, no one would ever expect the DOJ or want the DOJ to release that.
She's just pretending that like the demands on her are so unreasonable because that's what these so-called influencers seem to be wanting from her.
That's not it at all.
She said there was a whole treasure trove of documents before she even knew apparently that there were all these pictures of child sexuals.
She was saying there's a ton of other stuff that you're going to get.
Before it appears even Pam Bondi understood that Epstein had troves of child pornography on his computer.
Yeah.
And by the way, that post that I, it was a long post.
It was like as long as an op-ed that I posted.
I think it was later that same day.
I think I wrote it like rage texting it on the airplane on my on my flight home, posted it when I landed that day in February after the White House, when I was talking about this is the real story, like understand the context of everything that happened.
The way that I described what was expected from the SDNY, I phrased very carefully because I used only phrases that had been used to me that day, meaning I don't have the post up in front of me, but if I said photos, it's because Pam Bondi said photos.
If I said videos, it's because Pam Bondi said videos.
I didn't list everything that everyone wanted to see and just said, and just recklessly said, oh, it's in that.
I only listed the things that the SDNY was supposed to be in possession of because that's what I was told by Pam Bondi, who hadn't seen it, that that's what the SDNY was going to deliver to her.
Yes.
Okay.
Wait, I'm looking at this post now.
This is you on February 27th saying, okay, Bondi promised to release the documents.
You're saying that Bondi, the FBI was told to deliver the files to Pam Bondi.
They did about 200 pages.
Bondi smelled a rap because there was nothing juicy in the 200 pages, just flight logs and a rolled exit phone numbers, no smoking gun.
Still, Bondi promised to release the documents, so she prepared a binder of them.
Then last night, a whistleblower contacted Bondi and revealed that the SDNY was hiding potentially thousands of Epstein files, defying Bondi's order to give them all to her.
We're talking recordings, evidence, et cetera, the juicy stuff, names.
Yeah, that was.
These wrong creatures at SDNY deceive Bondi, cash, and you'll be outraged.
So that's what you're talking about.
Yeah.
So it's she's going to release these files.
It's Epstein files.
It's recordings, evidence, and names.
That's the thing that, you know, and she did say yes to client list.
She can say now all she wants.
She meant the Epstein file was on her desk.
John Roberts very clearly asked her client list.
That's what the entire question was about.
It was short.
It was easy to understand.
I'll play it just to remind folks, but it wasn't ambiguous.
And she's a lawyer.
And trust me, as lawyers, we know, we know how to answer direct questions and we know when we need to obfuscate.
And if you wanted to obfuscate about a client list, you would say, the file is on my desk right now.
But she didn't do that.
Here's what happened in SOT1 on February 21st.
DOJ may be releasing the list of Jeffrey Epstein's clients?
Will that really happen?
It's sitting on my desk right now to review.
That's been a directive by President Trump.
I'm reviewing that.
I'm reviewing JFK files, MLK files.
That's all in the process of being reviewed because that was done at the directive of the president from all of these agencies.
So have you seen anything that you said, oh my gosh?
Not yet.
And I would submit to you that adding on the MLK and the JFK files was a result of nerves in being dishonest.
I would submit to you, that's how it looks to me.
If you're giving a direct answer, you'd say, yeah, the client list is on my desk right now.
I just have to go through it and make sure that these are actual Jeffrey Epstein clients as opposed to just contacts and associates with him who don't deserve to have their name smeared.
That would sound like a truthful answer.
But to me, she wasn't telling the truth there.
She was dangling something.
She was enjoying dangling something.
Then she realized she got out ahead of her skis and started adding in other things that were likely on her desk.
And that's why one of the many reasons I think this was all Pam Bondi looking for some attention.
And I am not somebody who thinks she's got troves of real Jeffrey Epstein documents that she's hiding and that she's now lying about because we have to decide whether we believe the Pam Bondi before this past Sunday or believe the one after.
And I don't know what's true, but my instincts tell me the one before this past Sunday was the one who was messing with us.
And the jig was kind of up.
You know, it was time to either like put up or shut up.
And I think the FBI did do a review of its files and said, we don't have it.
We don't like, I don't think Dan and Cash have proof of a web of pedophiles that they're willingly protecting right now.
I just don't believe it.
No, I don't either.
I mean, this, I said this publicly and I also said this privately to them.
I, when I heard their definitive pronouncement, and I use that phrase definitive pronouncement on purpose, because that's what they gave.
This was not, this is what we think.
This is what the evidence shows.
They gave a definitive pronouncement that he killed himself.
And I wondered why they gave a definitive pronouncement instead of couching it like we don't have evidence to show homicide.
The evidence that is in the FBI files shows that it is suicide.
I wondered why they didn't phrase it like that, because the FBI prior to Kash Patel and Dan Bongino taking the hem, Helm, that's not a, they're not a reliable narrator.
The FBI is one of the most corrupt institutions in our federal government.
So any investigation that was done, any compilation of any evidence that was done before Kash Patel and Dan Bongino did it themselves, you should not believe.
You should not only refuse to extend the benefit of the doubt, you should assume that it's corrupted and untrue.
And I asked them, did you rely on anything that was compiled by the former corrupt FBI when you made this definitive pronouncement?
And if so, I think the phraseology was a mistake.
Well, we may never know.
They don't seem like they want to talk about it.
Of course, we've reached out for interviews with all three of them.
And, you know, everybody from the administration swings by this show at some point or another.
They don't want to do it now.
I think they meant what the president said on Tuesday or Monday, whatever the day the cabinet meeting was, which was we want to move on.
You know, are you still talking about Jeffrey Epstein?
Why are we still talking about that creep?
And I think you've done a good job here of spelling out why.
It is about Epstein in part.
Sure, we'd like to fully understand his legacy, but it's about a lot more than that for a lot of other people.
And I've seen people up and down my timeline, Liz, who are like, this is a before and after moment for them with the administration, you know, that they moved Trump and the administration from a category of trust to one of don't trust.
They're just like all the others as a result of what happened Sunday night.
That should be fixed.
I think it can be fixed with an honest tell-all, but I don't, I don't know.
What's your take on whether they'll sort of get away with the way they've handled it and the press will just move on and the people will just move on?
Well, I don't think that President Trump's base is going to move on from this because of what it represents to them.
I think I have tremendous faith in President Trump.
I think that he's he has the ability.
I mean, he's shown this multiple times that the few and far between times that he misreads the base, he generally course corrects.
And so I have full confidence that he can do that now.
I think it's possible.
I don't know this for sure.
I wasn't involved in the planning of this comment, but I think it's possible that President Trump's kind of grouchy comment, you know, snapping at that reporter, are you still talking about this?
Was somewhat of a test balloon to see like, oh, does a comment like this, you know, signal to the base time to move on?
And will they do it?
Because we have other things we want to do, or is this very important to the base?
And the fact that there was a lot of backlash to that comment, I mean, he's listening.
We know that he listens to the base.
We know that the White House is very in tune with conversations on X and in the right wing podcast world.
So President Trump can fix this.
He can fix this in a couple of ways.
He should ask for Attorney General Pam Bondi's resignation because she did not tell us the truth and that's unacceptable.
And it's one thing to allow something like that to be brushed under the rug when it has no implications, but this could very well impact President Trump's electoral chances, not his specifically, but the Republican parties in the midterm.
And if somebody in your administration is acting in a way that is discrediting your legacy and your chances in the midterms, then you should cut them loose.
It's not worth it.
Pam Bondi is not worth it.
It's time to move on.
So he should rectify that situation with transparency and honesty and accountability.
And then he should prove to the base that, and he can, he should prove to the base that he knows that we voted for him because we want justice.
And he should hold accountable some of these figures who committed these heinous crimes against us, whether it's January 6th, the pipe bomber, COVID, RussiaGate, the phony Ukraine impeachment, the vaccine mandate, any one of these things.
He put someone who committed those crimes in jail and the base is like, okay, he gets us.
He's fighting for us.
This is what.
Well, the person who would put them in jail is Pam Bondi.
Do you think she can, well, resurrect herself with the base?
I mean, I will be the first one to applaud her if she actually executes justice for any one of the cases that I just mentioned.
Time to Move On from Bondi00:04:16
I know.
I mean, I am, even though I was personally involved in this, I don't really care about that.
Obviously, I want to be transparent with people and communicate with them so that they don't have a misperception of my reputation.
But that's the least of the worries when it comes to this.
The biggest part of this is, yeah, we do need to start lighting a fire under Attorney General Pam Bondi to actually do her job at the Department of Justice and give us justice.
And so far, yeah, she's had some smaller wins and I appreciate those, but not on the big stuff yet.
She, they, you know, I don't know that Pam Bondi is going to survive this.
I feel like the president not tweeting out anything about her says a lot.
But I will say this, he's got a great alternative right there.
Harmeet Dylan is amazing and she's there already.
And that's somebody who could potentially take over if this falls apart.
I'm not saying I want it to happen.
I just think, I mean, I know the base too.
And I think they're really unhappy with her.
And I think we know why.
I mean, we've spelled out exactly why.
Liz, I'm so glad you landed at the Blaze.
I love the Blaze.
I love all the folks over there.
And I think it's a great match.
So I hope you're enjoying your new stint and all the best with the show.
Thank you so much.
I feel the same way about the Blaze.
I'm having a great time over there.
Thank you for having me on today.
Yeah, anytime.
Hope to see you again soon.
Liz Wheeler, everybody.
Wow.
I'd love to hear from you guys on this.
It's like, I don't know.
Do you think Pam Bondi will survive?
You think she'll be there in six months?
And do you think she should?
Should she survive?
Is this a survivable sin or not?
I don't know what to believe.
I'm being honest with you about that.
I really don't.
I am telling you what I suspect, but I just don't know.
This is very strange behavior from a cast of characters that's behaving in a way I don't recognize.
It's not normal.
I really want to funnel all these answers that we've gotten from her and others into Q, which is a special AI tool that my friend has developed that tells you whether somebody's lying.
Maybe we'll do that.
Stand by.
Did you know that up until the 1990s, all chips and fries were cooked in beef tallow?
Yes, not seed oils.
But then big food companies made the switch to cheap, highly processed, disgusting seed oils.
And now they make up 20% of the average American's daily calories.
This is why I'm so excited to tell you about MASA.
I love these chips.
There's nothing in them.
It's got three ingredients, organic corn, sea salt, and 100% grass-fed beef tallow.
When you order from MASA, you don't order the one bag.
You order like the variety pack.
I just got a huge.
They sent me one, like to try, and then of course I fell in love with these chips.
Legit, this is not spin.
I'm telling you, they're amazing.
And I just placed another order and I got three bags of the white corn, three bags of like the original corn, and three bags of the blue.
And they lasted about three days in my house with my family of five and my kids' friends.
They're the most popular item in my pantry, and you just feel less guilty giving these kins to these things to your kids.
I eat them too.
I'm not gonna lie, I'm not some you know, Gwyneth Paltrow with nothing but bone broth all day.
I like chips, it's just they're all chock full of disgusting stuff except Massa.
Masa.
I don't understand how to pronounce their name, I'm not gonna lie, but I love their chips.
You've gotta try them.
You're gonna taste the difference, all right?
Masa, it's Masa, like Maha.
They're beloved by thousands of customers for very, very good reasons.
They've been endorsed by tons of industry health and nutrition experts.
You gotta give it a try.
Trust me and give it a try.
Go to masa m-as-achips.com/slash mk.
And if you use that code MK, you get 25% off your first order.
It's real, man.
I'm telling you.
You see the number, you type in MK, boom, it takes off a lot of money.
These are really good discounts that our advertisers are giving you guys through the MK show.
And we are thrilled to be able to offer it because you would love these chips at full price, but they taste even better when you get that 25% slashy.
MasaChips.com/slash MK or just type in code MK when you are checking out and make sure you get that 25% off your first order.
Enjoy.
Let's be honest.
Try Burna for Free Today00:03:51
America can still be a dangerous place and you cannot afford to wait for help when you really need it.
You could use a firearm, but in today's America, defending yourself with deadly force can have legal consequences.
According to FBI data, 99.9% of altercations do not actually require lethal force.
And that's exactly why so many are turning to Burna.
Burna is proudly American, hand-assembled in Fort Wayne, Indiana.
These less lethal self-defense launchers are trusted by hundreds of government agencies, law enforcement departments, and private security companies.
Over 600,000 Burna pistols have been sold, most to private citizens who refuse to be victims.
Burna launchers fire rock-hard kinetic rounds and powerful tear gas and pepper projectiles capable of stopping a threat from up to 60 feet away.
No background checks, no waiting periods, and Burna can ship straight to your door.
Take responsibility.
Protect your future.
Visit Burna.com right now or your local sportsman warehouse.
That's Burna Byrna.com or your local sportsman warehouse.
Visit now and be prepared to defend.
Viaplay, film og serier og to ekstra streamingtjenester som du velger helt selv.
HBO Max, Prime Video, Sky Showtime, you name it.
The foreigner holds the family and the body.
Three months or streaming accurate.
Go away, totally post-technique for three months to the normal piece of technique.
I'm back, Nancy Grace, Dave Ramsey, and yours truly, Megan Kelly.
You can stream the Megan Kelly Show on SiriusXM at home or anywhere you are.
No car required.
I do it all the time.
I love the SiriusXM app.
It has ad-free music coverage of every major sport, comedy, talk, podcast, and more.
Subscribe now, get your first three months for free.
Go to seriousxm.com/slash MK Show to subscribe and get three months free.
That's seriousxm.com/slash MK Show and get three months free.
Offer details apply.
I'm super excited to talk to my next guest, a fascinating, brilliant surgeon, cancer specialist, billionaire, and also the owner of a media outlet you know and likely don't like, but we'll forgive him because he bought it late.
It's called the Los Angeles Times.
And my guest today is Dr. Patrick Soon Xiong.
Dr. Soon-Shung Joins the Show00:15:16
He's here today.
Welcome to the show.
Great to have you, Doc.
Well, thanks for having me, Megan.
Pleased to meet you again.
Yeah.
Now we forgive you because you bought it not until 2018 and you've been trying to inject some balance into this newspaper, though I'm sure it's been an uphill battle.
Well, not only trying, I think when we bought it, I really realized that ultimately the newspaper will become dinosaurs.
We need to change completely.
So we can talk a little bit about that.
And I'm excited to say we're on the verge of this change and we'll be announcing that next week sometime.
Oh, all right.
Yes, we'll definitely round back to that.
But let's talk about curing cancer first because that's a bigger one and it's a more important headline.
I listened to you on Tucker and I thought it was a fascinating discussion.
And all I could think was this amazing, magical thing that you've found that you've decided to study and actually come up with.
Everyone wants it.
Everyone's going to want it once they hear about it.
And my biggest question is, how can it be mass produced such that we can all shore up our T cells and fight cancer and COVID hangovers and spiked cells, whatever that were caused from the vaccine or weren't.
So let's just start with what is it exactly this thing?
Because you invented other cancer drugs that you literally sold your companies for $10 billion for.
You're the real deal.
You've been honored by everybody, a legit and world-renowned doctor.
So you made plenty of money, but you kept studying cancer and how to cure it.
And you've come up with this very special thing.
So, well, first of all, thank you for that.
That's very generous.
I did not invent this.
God invented this.
So this is what I want to explain.
You know, when I sold my companies in 2008, 2010, I realized, and this has been now a life's work, that we have in our body a cell that God created.
And it is 450 million years old called the natural killer cell.
And that cell was only discovered in the 1970s.
And I wrote my first paper in the 1990s.
And what this is, is the enlightenment of how do we activate the cell that God created in us?
And why does the cell exist?
And this cell exists because it is here to prevent us from having cancer.
This cell exists, is to prevent us from getting, from dying from an infection, from sepsis, from COVID, from bacteria, from fungus.
And what's happened now is an enlightenment.
after 30 years of work of how to activate that cell with a single jab.
And that's what we've discovered.
So what's exciting is we have within our body this immune system that's been around.
Everybody understands T cells.
Everybody understands, but nobody ever thought about the word natural killer cell.
And that's the name of the cell.
It's the natural kill cell.
It is the first responder in your body to recognize anything that's dangerous and kill it.
That's the only way that mammalians actually evolve to live today.
So when you said I invented it, what this is really is an enlightenment of going from toxic chemotherapy radiation to really using your body itself as the protector against cancer.
So what is it?
I mean, I know it's called bio shield, but what exactly is it and how does it work?
So now that we understand that you have a cell in your body, you and I have a cell in your body, what nobody has figured out is what's a receptor on that cell that if you put a protein into your body that your body is making right now, your body is making a protein called IL-15, interleukin-15.
That's what your body is generating.
But it's generating it and it lasts for maybe a minute so that it activates the cell when you need it.
If I could create that protein and inject it and it could last seven to 14 days and supercharge all these natural killer and T cells with a single jab, that is the bio shield.
So the bio shield is the key to unlocking the proliferation of these cells.
And what's exciting is that this has now been approved for bladder cancer.
And what's exciting is we've shown that patients with bladder cancer, when we give it in 2015, not only are still alive, have never lost their bladder and are free of disease, which means then this key of this IL-15, which is in the little vial and given subcutaneously, is the bio shield.
So you, is it something that you would take prophylactically, just, you know, just in case, just because you don't want to get cancer or you're just worried about the COVID vaccine or having had COVID?
Or is it something you would only take when you've been diagnosed with cancer and you don't know what to do?
So, you know, you ask such great questions because we just finished accruing, completely accruing a trial for patients who don't have cancer, patients with Lynch syndrome, which affects one in 280 Americans in the United States.
So we were chosen by the National Cancer Institute and just last week, 100% accrual across the nation, in which the patients get this jab to ensure that they don't, or to explore that they don't get cancer.
If you really get deep into what this bio shield is, is as you age, your natural killer cells and T cells begin to drop.
So the problem is as natural killer cells and T cells drop, that's when you actually lose the immune system that protects yourself.
And that's how you also get cancer.
So cancer is in fact a collapse of this immune system.
And if that's the case then, this is maybe the key, not to fountain of youth, but the key to longevity in the sense of prolonging life while to extend and protect the immune system.
What's remarkable, it's hidden in plain sight when you say, do we need this?
When we take a simple blood test called a CBC, which is done hundreds of thousands of times a day in the United States to measure hemoglobin, there is a count in that test called the absolute lymphocyte count, ALC, that sadly today, 99% of the doctors in the United States don't pay attention to that,
not because they're not smart, because there was no treatment until today in the history of medicine to unlock if you have a low ALC to improve that ALC count.
That's what has happened as of today.
And during this administration, I'm hopeful that the FDA would recognize that what we have is a paradigm change of how to look at patients, whether they have cancer, infection, sepsis in the ICU, or even aged.
So when you see this ALC count on anybody, whether it's a seemingly healthy individual or someone you know has cancer, you could see a number, and I'm sure there's just a range.
And if you fall, what, below the acceptable range, you're at risk, and that would be a potential candidate for this biostrike.
Incredibly correct.
In the sense that the range is if you go below 1,000, so the normal range is between 1,000 to 4,000.
If you go below the thousand, the statistical analysis that's been shown now remarkably in about 200 to 300 publications is that you have a statistical analysis opportunity to actually have a shortened lifespan.
So this lower ALC, or if you drop your thousand, the medical term for that is lymphopenia.
So if you were to Google lymphopenia, remarkably you'd see papers going all the way to 1990s that if you have lymphopenia for breast cancer, lymphopenia for pancreas cancer, lymphopenia for lung cancer, any cancers you want to choose, your survival rate is significantly and statistically shortened.
And that makes so much sense because what ALC is, actually is your lymphocytes and your T cells.
And the lymphocytes and T cells are the only cells that really matter to prevent infection, to prevent cancer, to treat the cancer, to prevent metastasis.
So it is so obvious from my perspective, it's simple and yet profound, that we've unlocked a paradigm change where we treat the host, i.e. the immune system, rather than the disease.
In fact, the disease of cancer is really the symptom.
The root cause of the disease is the collapse of the immune system.
So I heard you telling Tucker that you'd never had COVID and he said, you're lucky.
And you said, it's not luck.
It's this.
It's my T cells.
And that made me wonder whether, like I was saying, can anybody get this?
Like, did you have low ALC and therefore you did the injection on yourself?
Or did you just take it when COVID was circulating?
So there's two things about T cells.
And so the BioShield is a platform.
The one hand, what I talk about now is this IL-15 that actually proliferates and supercharges.
And that's approved.
IL-15.
That's what you call the drug.
It's called Anctiva.
Okay.
I'm trying not to give you a commercial name.
But that's what it's called, Angtiva.
It's the activated NK cell for T cell for life.
That's what Activa is.
And it's this IL-15 in a little vial, literally half a CC injected subcutaneously.
And it acts amazingly because that's what God's given us.
So again, coming full circle to, you know, did I invent this?
No, God invented this.
What we did was enlighten ourselves to figure out what key we needed to activate what's in your body.
But imagine if we could not only activate those T cells, but educate the T cells before we activate them, educate them to recognize a specific antigen.
And that's what we're doing in Lynn syndrome, patients with Lynn syndrome of an 80% increase of colon cancer.
So we pre-activate their T cells so they can recognize a T cell against the colon cancer.
So one of the things on COVID curd, and we can talk a little bit about that, and I spoke at great length to Peter Marks and to Fauci and to Collins, to the entire NIH and NID during the Biden administration as well, that we need a T cell vaccine.
And I think I sent you the YouTube where John Cohen from Science and myself and Peter Marx in 2022 did this interview begging the country to get the T cell vaccine.
So what I did is I built this T cell vaccine.
And by the way, as you remember, billions of dollars were made available.
And I'm proud to say it was difficult that we've never used one single penny of government money, partly because we never received one single penny of government money, so that I could have the freedom to actually build what I needed to build, what I think was right for the human race.
Because my concern was that the current vaccines, the antibody-based vaccines, would not stop transmission.
By that, I mean you'd get this vaccine.
It maybe would block a little bit, but the virus would get in.
It would grow.
It would use your body to grow.
And you would transmit it to another person.
And my greatest fear would be not only it would grow, it would persist.
And if it persists, now you have autoimmune disease, inflammatory disease, and even potentially turbo cancers.
So the solution to that, and the solution was facing us in 2021, 2022, was to develop a vaccine that would stimulate the T cells in NK cells.
But the T cells would be educated against the COVID vaccine, nuclear capsid.
So the COVID has two proteins inside it, one is spike, and one on the inner core of the COVID called the nuclear capsid.
And if you could create a T cell vaccine to the nuclear capsid, you may have a universal T cell vaccine to any COVID comes along because that nuclear capsid doesn't change.
That spike mutates all the time.
We had developed that vaccine and completed phase one.
And I injected myself to test that I would have T cells against that COVID antigen.
And I do.
Remarkably, the FDA put us on hold when I asked to use that as a booster.
So to this day, nobody could explain the reason during that timeframe.
And so it was never developed.
Wow.
Is there any chance it could be developed and used now?
Because people are still getting the COVID boosters.
We just saw in the news today that Moderna just received the full US FDA approval.
Like it had been on the emergency use authorization.
Now it's fully approved.
They're still pushing this thing on people.
But we have a new administration.
We have a new great head of FDA.
So is there a chance it still could come to life?
The answer is yes.
In fact, I was so desperate that I'm willing to give it away, literally give it away.
I actually, during COVID time, had another molecule called the ACE2 decoy that I approached, and I won't name him, a major CEO, and said, please take this.
Please grow this.
You know, this is not about money.
This is not about driving more revenue to the company, even though Moderna and BioNTech and Pfizer have really benefited largely from that.
The Path to a Cancer Cure00:14:39
This is almost from a virus versus man.
And this is for humanity, where really we need to find a way.
What scared me, and we can get into this, Megan, this ACE2 receptor.
This is not a respiratory virus.
This virus is like cancer.
This virus gets into every part of your body.
And when it gets there, it uses your body as a factory, whether it would be the virus or whether it be the spike protein of this mRNA vaccine.
And we'll talk a little bit about that.
And that's what scared me.
And sadly, I'm now seeing the fruits of what this virus is doing.
And this virus has really beaten us.
We have the opportunity to fix it still.
This administration has the opportunity to fix it still.
The science is complex.
And the question is, will the FDA even understand this science?
Is the current and old FDA equipped and modernized sufficiently?
And I see Marty McCarry trying to improve the modernization with AI, et cetera.
I think that's wonderful.
But the real modernization this FDA needs is to understand the science.
And I don't think this FDA has actually grown sufficiently fast enough with sufficient, I don't want to say the word intellect, with sufficient expertise to understand the evolution of the science at the molecular level, at the immunological level.
As a result of drugs.
I think of Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, who of course is running NIH.
And he too was screwed by Francis Collins, his predecessor, as I know you were.
Collins was afraid of you.
He perceived you as some sort of a threat.
And you discovered evidence that he intentionally meant to undermine you and freeze you out.
And that's exactly what happened to Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, who was running around during COVID, wisely saying we shouldn't be quarantining all healthy people.
We should be doing focused protection, protecting only the most vulnerable.
And Francis Collins and Fauci made it clear they wanted to smear him as some sort of an extremist, a fringe doctor.
So what about him?
Could he be of help?
I'm not saying Marty, I'm not saying Marty McCarry wouldn't be helpful to you, but you're suggesting maybe there isn't the manpower at the FDA to actually see this through.
How about Dr. Jay Bhattacharya and going bigger over at the NIH?
No, I completely am hopeful of that.
And that's why, you know, I was very, very supportive of Bobby Kennedy becoming HHS and bringing on the right people.
I've never not yet met Jay, and I look forward to meeting him.
And you're completely right.
And that's one of the few tweets I made, very sort of politically correct, that so few people could hurt so many.
And they did.
You know, the timeframe you're relating to is President Trump's first term when he was president-elect.
Apparently, I was considered and nominated to be the head of NIH.
Francis Collins heard about that.
and had a very active campaign trying to smear me.
It turned out anyway, I said to the president then, I really need to work on what is now the BioShield, thinking he would have two terms and in the second term, he'd be on the path to the cure of cancer.
And he didn't win the second term, but interestingly enough, serendipitously, it allowed me more time and we are now ready.
So while the previous administration, literally during the Biden years, we were cancelled, literally canceled, the opportunity now to take all the work and put us on the path in this administration.
I think only this administration can make this all work.
We could find the treatment to prevent this COVID from find a universal COVID vaccine.
We could actually treat patients with long COVID and we can actually be on the path literally to the cure of cancer.
So, and even the prevention of cancer.
It would require really a deep understanding of the science, but more importantly, require a deep understanding at the FDA level.
Megan, my fear is as follows.
I know I met the president in Riyadh and I met the president in Qatar, and I'm watching China really explode in terms of their science.
And my fear is as follows, is that America has a scientific and intellectual lead, but China's going to beat us.
And the reason they're going to beat us is because the regulatory process is completely related to actually advancing technology.
Our regulatory process is stuck in this old dogma and stuck in checking the box and stuck without recognizing the science.
So my fear is that we will not only lose jobs, we will lose the biotech industry and we'll lose the race, not because we don't have ingenuity, not because we don't have the best brains and the best scientists, and not because we don't have the will or the resources, as now President Trump has put forth, but because we'll have a regulatory obstruction.
When you, I heard you discussing this protocol and how many people it's helped already.
You mentioned, for example, Harry Reed, who had a very bad diagnosis, and he came to you and you gave him this, the biostrike, however we won't ever refer to it, and extended his life, we believe, by a couple of years.
I mean, it's not going to help anybody live forever.
But when you might otherwise be facing the end, this drug actually seems to have a proven record, you say, of extending one's life by years.
Well, so when Senator Reed came to see me, he already completed all his standard of care and had failed his standard of care and then came to see me.
So what we needed to do in 2015, I went to the FDA and said, listen, I have this hypothesis that what we're doing is completely wrong.
When we give chemotherapy, we wipe out all the natural killer cells in T cells.
When we give radiation, we wipe out all the natural killer cells in T cells.
And I would like to try this in patients before they get these horrible treatments, i.e. at the time of diagnosis.
And they said, no, and it's appropriate.
You need to try this first in patients who are at the end stage of their life.
So we did this in triple negative breast cancer patients, Merkel cell cancer patients, pancreatic cancer patients, glioblastoma patients, bladder cancer patients, all who had failed all standards of care.
But by the time they came to see us, their immune system was completely collapsed.
So we had to start from a deep hole, but able to get them out of the hole and then get them into positions of complete remission.
So let me give you some examples.
We got complete remissions on patients with Merkel cell carcinoma, fifth line, and he lived for six years and didn't die of his cancer.
Complete remission of patients with bladder cancer, and they're still alive now, 10, 11 years old.
Complete remissions on triple negative breast cancer.
We have metastatic pancreatic cancer, patients with free of disease after five years, and she's still alive.
We just published that six years out.
So the proof of principle has gone beyond the proof of principle.
We then got this approved despite, despite, and we'll talk about that, the problems that they put me through from 2021 to 2024.
And after 700,000 pages of response, we got it approved late 2024.
Now that this administration is here, we literally have the opportunity to really understand that we are on the precipice of treating sepsis.
I just saw the results yesterday of a patient that we treated just last month with this valley fever with an inflamed lung on the ventilator for a time month.
And with the last rites, we cleared up this lung completely.
We have then patients now that we have with bladder cancer and for pancreatic cancer ongoing and for lung cancer.
So my frustration is how do I get this insight out into both the scientific and medical community and most importantly, the regulatory committees so they can understand what's at hand and what's at our fingertips.
It's so discouraging that this didn't happen under the Biden administration when Biden had literally been tasked by then President Obama to take the cancer moonshot.
I mean, it was promised to us at the State of the Union that he was going to be the one to spearhead the effort to cure cancer, which sounded like a pipe dream, of course, but at least it was a goal that seemed like, all right, you know, maybe we'll see some real advancements in the fight.
And all this time later, he becomes the actual president and you came to them and said, I've got something, and you got nowhere.
And now we have President Trump in there.
And have you been stiff-armed already by the FDA?
Is that why you have doubts about, you know, the scientists there now?
Or have you just been not able to penetrate the wall?
I would say both.
Okay, let's go back a little bit in history here.
The cancer moonshot, it's very interesting history.
In 2015, when Bo Biden, unfortunately, had cleoblastoma, then Vice President Biden asked me to come to Washington to help him take care with Kevin Johnson Bo Biden at the Walter Reed.
And unfortunately, Bo Biden then passed away after having received treatment from a institution from Texas.
That time, he then asked me to convene a meeting in his residence in December 2015 of how I thought cancer should be treated.
And my naive way, which said, I will convene this meeting by bringing all the major pharmaceutical companies together, which I did, into that room.
I'll bring the FDA into that room.
It was the head of the FDA.
I'll bring the National Cancer Institute into that room.
And he hosted this massive meeting, which in his residence as vice president, and then asked me to chair the meeting.
At that meeting, everybody agreed that we're all going to be working together because there's no one company that had all the resources and the technology to fight this war and cancer.
And I purported my hypothesis that we're going to change from chemotherapy and radiation into the immune system.
He agreed that I can announce the cancer moonshot on January, I think, 15th, I forget what, 12th of the next year, which I then put out an article to the New York Times.
Francis Collins heard about that.
I announced the moonshot on Monday.
On Tuesday or that evening or Monday, Tuesday night, I forget the dates.
President Obama announced the second moonshot with Biden as the head and Francis Collins running that.
It didn't matter to me that there now were two moonshots because my goal was to actually find the cure.
So I think what happened thereafter, the big pharma companies pulled out for whatever motivation.
And thank God I had the resources just to pursue it myself.
To keep going.
Oh, I mean, I think we can safely assume it was pressure from Francis Collins.
That's my assumption, because he's a bully.
We saw that behind the scenes during COVID many, many times.
He got drunk on his own power.
He felt like he was a god.
He would make or break careers.
He would dictate what was happening in big pharma.
And there's no reason not to assume he did the same thing to you if you were on parallel paths toward the cancer moonshot.
This is my supposition.
But in my opinion, he's a villain.
Well, I actually, interesting, not because I did it, somebody sent me a Freedom Information Act email in which he, in his email, said the alarms bells going on at Patrick Soonsheng is going to be head of NIH.
You must find a way to stop him.
That's what he asked me.
Not surprised one bit.
Not surprised one bit.
And that's why I said, you get drunk with power.
I completely agree with you.
You get drunk with power.
And the idea of what happens in Washington, you have this power over so many.
But really, at the end of the day, I'm pursuing my life as a physician scientist.
And the greatest joy for me is to sort of see the impact as I'm really seeing.
You know, look, I'm still seeing patients.
I'm not sure if you realize, Megan, but we have a clinic and I still see patients.
And to me, the greatest joy and also the greatest fear, I'm now seeing younger and younger patients.
The last two weeks ago, I saw three women in my clinic simultaneously.
They're all in their 30s, 31, 30, 31, with severe cancers.
What kind of cancer?
So they had lung cancer, breast cancer, and brain tumor.
Young Patients with Severe Cancers00:09:09
Oh, my God.
Three different cancers.
Why?
Why is this?
I mean, I know that's a longer question, but why are so many young people developing such aggressive cancers nowadays?
I have a theory.
And right now, it's, I'm sort of 90% sure of the theory.
I'm not 100% sure, so I'm a scientist, so I'm calling it a theory.
I was always fearful that this virus and even this vaccine could actually be persistent in your body, like HPV.
You know, there are viruses that are oncogenic, like hepatitis, you would understand that.
There's HPV, you would understand that.
But this is a very different virus because it has a thing called ACE2 receptor, which means it's in places like your colon, your muscle, your blood vessel, your heart.
But more importantly, we now begin to discover that you have even more proteins in your body or enzymes in your body that cleaves the spike protein and allows even more entry into every part of your body, specifically the prostate, the colon, the pancreas, and we'll talk a little bit about that.
So is this, unfortunately, what I said to Tucker Coulson, the non-infectious pandemic that we begin to see?
This non-infectious pandemic of cancer, I believe sadly, is upon us.
The good news, thank God, we have a solution for these things.
Keep going.
No, I'm good.
I think it really bothers me, as you could sort of see, I'm frustrated, but also scared at the same time that, you know, cancer is a war against time.
We do not have time, but we have the insight.
I just hope that somehow, somewhere, and hopefully I'll have Secretary Kennedy host a scientific meeting.
I mean, we have to be driven by the science.
And the science is so complex because it's very fundamental basic immunology, fundamental basic immunology, crossed over with virology, crossed over with oncology.
And you're a lawyer, so you would understand that you have great specialties within their fields, and you have generalists.
But this is so deep, it's broad and deep, and has implications all the way through that is now, I wouldn't call it existential, but could affect tens of millions, billions of people on the planet.
Just to back up, because you're talking about the COVID virus, can this be happening, this problem that you outlined inside of our bodies, including young people's bodies, as a result of both COVID and the vaccine?
Will both of those do it?
Or do people who have had COVID, but not the vaccine, not need to worry?
It is fundamental, the spike protein.
So where does the spike protein come from, whether you have vaccination or whether you have the infection?
So this spike protein on the surface of this virus or given through a lipid nanoparticle in mRNA is the same issue.
So fundamentally, that's the issue.
The issue is the spike protein.
Now, the spike protein gets a little more complex.
There's a thing called S1 and S2, where the tip of the spear is S1.
And that tip of the spears are what actually binds to the receptor of the cell membrane of your body that has ACE2 and gets into the cell.
So whatever delivers that spike protein, whether it be infection or the vaccine to every part of your body, when you put it into a lipid nanoparticle, that can go all over the place, including across the brain.
So I do know that there's evidence that people have long COVID having never gotten an infection because you can measure the thing called the nuclear capsid antibody in their blood.
And the nuclear capsid only comes from the virus.
And if you just have long COVID with no nuclear capsid and all you had was the vaccine, then the lung COVID comes from the vaccine.
So there's a scientific way of differentiating two.
So the short answer is both, because both create a spike protein.
Then the question is.
Yes, keep going.
Then the question is, what's happening to that spike protein?
And that's another lengthy, basic, fundamental cellular.
Here's my question.
So if I wave my magic wand and I make you head of FDA, let's just go for health and human services.
You're in charge of all of it.
Tomorrow, would you say we're bringing this to market and anyone who's had COVID or the COVID vaccine should take this job, take my job, this biostrike thing?
The answer to that is already on the market crazy enough for bladder cancer.
It's already in the package insert that this is the only drug on the planet in the history of medicine.
It's in the package insert section 7.1 of the FDA of the 2024 proved that it's the only molecule on the planet that appregulates the natural killer cell T cell and memory T cell.
So that's what's frustrating to me.
And we got expanded access.
And after talking about...
Wait, I didn't hear you say yes.
Are you worried?
Is there a downside to taking this that you would say no, not yet?
I would not recommend that.
I'm not hesitating to say yes.
The answer is yes, but I'd only be perceived as you ask a question in a way that puts me in a difficult position because I am the founder and developer of that drug.
I'd want anybody to use anything, even whether it be mine or anybody else's.
The fact that ours is available, the answer is yes.
But if there's ACE2 decoy available, the answer is yes.
If there's another molecule.
Like this is something you give to your family, your children, like you would.
Well, is that something you would do?
I'm not talking about my family, but I am telling you that we have T cells against COVID.
So this T cell you're saying can solve the problem for people.
Like I've said openly that I started testing positive for an autoimmune issue following getting the COVID vaccine and then COVID within three weeks of each other.
And ever since I've had a positive test for autoimmune, though it's unspecified, they don't know exactly what it is.
So, I mean, I've been very interested in undoing that somehow, but I don't know how.
But I know others are suffering with this just from having had COVID.
So, I mean, I think there are a lot of people who like, can the damage that we did to ourselves either by getting a vaccine or by getting COVID, can it be undone?
Yes.
The answer is I believe so.
So let me explain that to you.
The fundamental problem with the current vaccines is it does not clear the virus.
By that, it means the vaccine will block something, but the virus will go into the cell.
The next fundamental problem, which has now been proven, and I funded that science at the University of California Center in Friscus, that this virus at the spike level persists in your body in the cells, even to the extent that now at Harvard, there's a researcher that discovered that the spike protein is in the blood.
And when you have this abnormal protein and with an abnormal RNA in your body, your body will find a way to create antibodies to try and block that.
And this is the onset of autoimmune disease.
The combination of persistence, inflammation, and one more thing, the loss of a thing called p53, which is in your body to protect you from having cancer.
That triple whammy is a prelude to cancer.
That triple whammy is a prelude to autoimmune disease.
That prelude is a prelude to brain fog.
So is the answer to find a system that upregulates your NK cells in T cells and clears your body, those cells, of this infected spike protein.
A Prelude to Autoimmune Disease00:08:11
So that is what we are embarking upon on the treatment of lung COVID.
And I'm pleased to say that within the next couple of weeks, our trial will be open where people with long COVID could come and get the jab.
Wow.
But the fundamental thing, Megan, is the world needs to recognize that we've gone down the wrong assumptions for 75 years.
We have thought that we could using tools of war, poisons like nitrogen gas, and that became the chemotherapy, poisons like radiation, that if we could nuke the tumor without killing the person, we would be able to win the war.
We're nuking the tumor and we're nuking your natural killer cells in T cells.
Now think of this vicious cycle.
We give chemotherapy, we give radiation, we do a CBC, we see that, oh my goodness, you have anemia because we created that.
Now there's a drug called epigen.
We give you the epigen so that you can get more chemotherapy so that we can wipe out more NK and T cells.
We then look at the patient's CBC again and says, oh my goodness, you've lost your neutrophils.
There's another drug called nupogen, which we give so that we can give you more chemotherapy so that you can wipe out more lymphocytes and NK cells.
Think of that madness that we've been doing.
If we said, why don't you go do leeching, you know, use leeches, I think 20 years from now, maybe less, we'll say, why were we doing that to the patient's body?
When you go to the FDA, guess how they ask you to develop the drug?
They use this term called MTD.
What is MTD?
Maximum tolerated dose.
Find the maximum tolerated dose.
That's the dose that we want you to give, just below the maximum tolerated dose.
That's the current thinking of the FDA.
It's not talking about any human being.
There are some people there that are still perpetuating that.
They're still there.
Then they say, okay, because this maximum tolerated dose is going to nuke it, we look at the response rate, meaning the shrinkage of the tumor.
Well, do you want to look at the overall survival?
Because the tumor will shrink, but the patient will die.
No, we're not really interested in overall survival as an endpoint.
Can you imagine that?
That is today's thinking.
I can't imagine it because that seems to be our choice, seems to be a willing choice because we've gone so long without making much progress on the cancer front.
And I naively believed with the COVID vaccine that if there were some negative consequence to it, and I realize you're telling me to COVID too, but I thought with the vaccine that was man-made, well, so is the COVID vaccine, COVID virus, that they, the pharmaceutical companies that had created it would be first in line to fix it.
that they would be the ones coming up with BioStrike because they'd say, oh no, look what we did.
We helped unleash this thing into people's blood and it's affecting the brain barrier and everything.
And they haven't.
They don't acknowledge that there's a problem whatsoever.
They're still just pushing 27 boosters on the same people they jabbed to begin with.
Well, what's so disappointing, very early on, they knew about the myocarditis.
That's really disappointing.
They knew about that.
Very early on, I wrote letters and emails to Fauci in 2020, 21, that we have lymphopenia, that we don't clear the virus.
Very early on, they knew they didn't clear the virus.
But, you know, you had the perception that it's 95% efficacious, which it wasn't.
So there's a lot of, you know, perverse incentives here.
And I think we just need to recognize, unfortunately, the consequences of it now.
But there's a chance of...
I think Fauci needed a pardon.
That's why he needed a pardon.
Do you have thoughts on, you treated Bo Biden or tried to help the family when he was suffering with gliobasblastoma?
What do you make of Joe Biden's statement that he had prostate cancer, that, you know, now it's aggressive bone cancer, metastatic?
You know, obviously I don't know the details.
And I don't know if you just saw, we are now seeing prostate cancer in 40 and 50 year old kids.
And there is, I'm coming back to the spike protein, there is a enzyme in the prostate called temprus.
There's a protein in your body, in the prostate and the colon in different parts of the body, that helps to actually cleave that spike protein and get it into those cells of your body faster.
So now you have a triple whammy of this turbo cancers and this aggressive cancers.
So I just spoke to Dr. Dan Petrulik, who's at Yale, a urologist, who's seeing very aggressive germline tumors, very aggressive prostate cancers in young people.
Did you say 40 or 50 or did you say 14 and 15?
In prostate cancer, 40 or 50.
In colon cancer, we're seeing colon cancer in 10 year old, 11 year old and 12 year olds.
That's horrifying.
And that's what's so scary, right?
Because we need to pull our heads out of the sand and try to understand what's going on and not get into this regulatory political issue or fight and say, listen, we got to pull together and really look at solutions now.
And time is not on our side.
All right.
Now we're up against the end of our time on Sirius XM.
But I have to say the following.
Number one, we'll talk about the LA Times another time.
This is too important.
This is far more important than media.
Number two, I know all those characters we just discussed.
I know Marty.
I know Jay and I know Bobby Kennedy, who I know you also know.
I'm going to personally contact all three of them and do what I can to help you get this in and get the government involved in helping you because this is the cancer moonshot and you've got it.
Like we're well on our way.
So that's what I'll do and I will do anything else I can to help you, Doc.
I'm in awe.
I'm in awe of what you've done and I'm also deeply saddened that you haven't had a red carpet rolled out for you.
Thank you for doing this.
Well, thank you.
Thank you very much.
And you've now gone from BioShield to BioStrike.
So Tucker called it BioShield and you're calling it BioStrike.
We call it both.
I kind of like BioStrike.
That might be better to combat the strike protein, among other things.
Thank you.
Thanks, Doc.
And I hope we talk again.
We'll do.
Thank you.
Wow.
Wow.
What an unbelievable story.
Unbelievable man.
We'll have Kelly's court tomorrow and we'll see you there.
Thanks for listening to the Megan Kelly Show.
No BS, no agenda, and no fear.
Are you numb to it yet?
This spastic economy we're living through, where AI is reshaping entire industries and tariffs and taxes are shifting under our feet, markets bouncing like a yo-yo up one day and down the next.
No One Can Save You00:00:51
If you're like most of us in our 30s, 40s, and 50s, you've probably realized no one can really come and save you.
You're out here, and I am too, building our safety nets on our own.
But there's one smart move that often gets overlooked, life insurance.
Consider your options with Select Quote, because life insurance is never cheaper than it is today.
And the younger and healthier you are, the more affordable it is.
Waiting even a few years could double your rate.
Select Quote has helped out over 2 million Americans in getting the right coverage, over $700 billion insured.
It's not an insurance company.
They're a broker that shops top-rated insurers on your behalf and their agents work for you for free.
They make it easy.
So get the right life insurance for you for less and save more than 50% at selectquote.com slash Megan.