All Episodes
Previous Next
April 17, 2020 - Rudy Giuliani
49:35
Democrats POLITICIZATION of Virus & COVID-19 CURE | Special Guests Patrick Soon-Shiong & Jenna Ellis
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
It's our purpose to bring to bear the principle of common sense and rational discussion to the issues of our day.
America was created at a time of great turmoil, tremendous disagreements, anger, hatred.
There was a book written in 1776 that guided much of the discipline of thinking that brought us to the discovery of our freedoms, of our God-given freedoms.
It was Thomas Paine's Common Sense, written in 1776, one of the first American bestsellers in which Thomas Paine explained by rational principles the reason why these small colonies felt the necessity to separate from the powerful Kingdom of England and the King of England.
He explained their inherent desire for liberty, freedom, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and he explained it in ways that were understandable to the people, to all of the people.
A great deal of the reason for America's constant ability to self-improve is because we are able to reason, we're able to talk to each other, we're able to listen to each other, and we're able to analyze.
We are able to apply our God-given common sense.
So let's do it.
♪♪ Hello, this is Rudy Giuliani
with Rudy Giuliani's Common Sense.
Thanks.
Today, we are going to talk to two very interesting people.
One is a special counsel to the president and to the Trump campaign, Jenna Ellis.
And she is knowledgeable on all of the legal issues that are facing the president, of which there are many, in what is probably historically one of the most interesting times for a lawyer to be involved in situations like this.
And you'll find Janet to be extremely knowledgeable and easy to understand.
And then we will speak to Patrick Soon-Shiong, who is a doctor, a research scientist, Inventor of, already, a medicine, a vaccine that has been enormously effective in curing certain cancers and helping to reduce the impact of certain cancers, and is working on a vaccine that has real promise.
Patrick also happens to be the owner of the LA Times and quite a renaissance man, so I think you're going to enjoy both of these interviews.
Hi, this is Rudy Giuliani with Rudy Giuliani's Common Sense.
Through Common Sense, we'll uncover the truth and we'll get to a solution, because we need some solutions badly.
Today, I have with me Jenna Ellis, who is the Senior Legal Advisor to the President of the United States.
And also, she's a legal advisor to the Trump campaign, which is a fascinating book, two fascinating jobs, and she couldn't possibly hold it at a more interesting and more difficult time.
She's a lawyer, a very, very good constitutional lawyer.
She's written a book called The Legal Basis for a Moral Constitution, and she's been very often a speaker, been on television, Very, very articulate, very, very good lawyer, and the President is very fortunate to have her during these difficult times.
So, Jana, thank you very much for joining us.
Thank you so much, and it's my pleasure to be here, and you're right, we need a lot of common sense during these perilous times.
So tell me, what we were talking about before seems to be the most pressing legal question now, which is How far can a governor of a state go in taking away our constitutional rights?
I mean, they are taking away our constitutional rights.
The question is whether their police powers allow them to do that.
So how do you balance that?
Exactly.
And, you know, as we were talking about, these are the very same questions that our founding fathers argued so passionately in 1787 at the original Constitutional Convention.
How can they abide by the declaration's mandate to preserve and protect our fundamental inalienable rights that come from God, our creator, not our government, but also give our government enough limited power in order to protect and preserve those rights?
That's always been the critical tension.
And so we're seeing that played out in a way that I think no one anticipated for 2020 and that America would be at this precipice.
of really questioning how far can the state police power go.
So we recognize, of course, throughout constitutional law and throughout American history, that
government can advance a compelling state interest like a public health crisis, but
they have to do so narrowly tailored by the least restrictive means.
So what does that mean?
It means that they can't arbitrarily determine to open grocery stores but close churches.
Say that you can have a drive-up takeout restaurant but you can't get communion out of your window.
And to determine arbitrarily that this is an essential product but that's a non-essential one.
Really, the question is going to boil down to where does a state get the authority to determine what is and isn't an essential business, service, or product for the consumer?
And the answer to that must be a resounding, they do not have that power.
We live in America where the government is obligated to minimize our risk, to protect public health and safety. However, we the American people
have a right to advance liberty, to make choices in our own best interest, to calculate the risk.
And if we can abide by the restrictions that should be uniform across the board, our businesses and
services and churches must be able to stay open. You can't discriminate like that. Well,
Janet, also the factual basis is going to be different in different states.
So you look at a state like New York, which has about 40%, roughly 45% of both the cases and the deaths.
Then you look at another state like Arizona or Montana, where the numbers are far less.
It would seem to me that in New York, at least there'd be a reasonable basis for going further than in a place where the threat is much, much less.
And so there really probably isn't going to be one uniform standard.
Has anyone challenged yet any of the governors on deprivation of constitutional rights?
Yes, there have been.
So First Liberty, Alliance Defending Freedom, some of these other organizations that exist to protect liberty, not just religious freedom, but also First Amendment challenges across the board.
They have had some success in appealing directly to governors, and some of these governors are genuinely saying, we didn't really actually consider this.
Of course, we'll make an exception, which shows you maybe their mindset.
Like the governor of New Jersey was on Tucker Carlson's show yesterday saying they didn't even consider the Bill of Rights.
And I'm thinking, how are you remotely competent to hold that office if you swore an oath to defend the very thing you didn't even consider?
Didn't he say it was above his pay grade?
That's exactly what the state of New Jersey is paying you for.
It's ridiculous.
So we're seeing some challenges that have been successful, as well as out of the state of Kentucky as well.
Justin Judge Walker, who was recently also appointed, or nominated rather, by President Trump to the D.C.
Circuit, wrote this wonderful opinion talking about how the state can't discriminate against religious freedom.
So we're seeing these challenges, but I think you're correct.
that it depends on how far the state is going.
And most of these states haven't really given any of the lawyers any articulable basis
or what their criteria actually is.
So in these challenges, I think it's gonna be very interesting
as this continues to be fleshed out in the courts, what the governor's defenses are
and what their rationale is for some of these orders.
Well, if I was a governor, it was Governor Murphy who said that,
If I were his lawyer, I'd be kind of annoyed at that statement.
He kind of indicated he had no basis, because he didn't even think about it, right?
He didn't even give any thought to the fact that he was interfering with constitutional rights, so he couldn't have done a balance.
It's really extraordinary that they've gone as far as they've gone, and I'm hoping that they're going to scale back now.
And what's the role of the president in all of this?
Because initially it's the individual against a state, but the president has a role in protecting the constitutional rights of Americans.
It kind of reminds me a bit of, like, desegregation.
when states wouldn't obey the desegregation laws.
And eventually, the president had to step in and make sure that they were enforced.
Absolutely, and I think that Attorney General Bill Barr has been very clear, especially in his statement last week on religious liberty, that the DOJ has an interest.
And so they filed a statement of interest, at least in one case that I'm aware of, and he also gave a great interview last week on Laura Ingraham talking about some of these concerns.
And so the federal government does play a very large role in making sure that the civil rights of all Americans are protected.
And if these governors are overstepping, likely a lot of these challenges will end up in federal court.
And that's yet another reason why we as Americans need to vote for Donald Trump for reelection because he has put over 200 originalist judges on the federal bench as well as two excellent originalist judges on the U.S.
Supreme Court.
We're going to need them.
We sure are.
I mean, we're going to have to be reminded of the rights that have been granted to us.
Well, I mean, if you're an originalist, the rights have been granted by God, not by government.
And these are sacred rights that we have.
And yes, they can be tailored to very, very difficult situations.
But as you say, they have to be very narrow and very, very justified.
So in addition to that issue that you're facing, you're also being threatened with more investigations.
This has to be the most investigated president in the history of the United States, with no result.
Every investigation, going back to the original one that was done during the campaign, Has resulted in a finding of no wrongdoing or not enough evidence or clearly it didn't happen or—and now they—Nancy Pelosi wants to impanel some kind of a committee to investigate the president's handling of the pandemic, and she wants to put Adam Schiff in charge.
Is that a reality, or is that just her rantings?
I think it's going to become a reality because Democrats don't live in the common sense world and they've, throughout this entire presidency, that they are just the party of opposition.
They hate Donald Trump so much that they are willing to use their offices simply to investigate nothing.
And they're willing to manipulate every single rule, every single constitutional principle just to get what they want, which is to get him out of office.
And so because the American people see through that, because Donald Trump will get reelected, they are already lining up their cards to try to investigate and hopefully, in their view, advance another impeachment hoax.
And so again, let's remember that the Constitution says That a president can only be impeached for treason, bribery, or other
high crimes and misdemeanors.
Nothing that Donald Trump has done well in office remotely qualifies at all under the original intent
of that clause, but the Democrats don't care.
So they're already lining things up for well past November.
And of course, you and I and others who support the president are gonna challenge all of these
crazy rantings of Nancy Pelosi, and we'll get through that.
But I hope that the American people understand this is why we need to vote for people in those offices
who are actually concerned.
about protecting our rights and liberties, not just hating Donald Trump.
That's not what we elected them to do in Congress.
Well, you know, I think you make a very, very good point.
I mean, the only thing that's going to stop this is a very, very solid defeat at the polls.
In some ways, it's similar to when the American public thought that the Republicans overdid it
in the impeachment of Clinton, and they voted against the Republicans
and taught us a lesson.
But it seems like it's a lesson the Democrats didn't learn.
And the only way we're going to protect another president against this kind of thing is if there's a very decisive turnout and Democrats learn the practical lesson.
If you go too far, With playing politics with everything, you really get burned.
So I think the political result here is very important to maintaining a proper balance between the executive and the legislative branch.
So in addition to that, what are the other challenges?
I feel almost very strange asking you that.
I mean, we just talked about two of the most difficult issues that a president will ever face.
But what are some of the other challenges that the president faces from a legal point of view?
Right.
You know, he said in his press conference just yesterday about how the Senate has not voted on a lot of his nominations and appointments.
And this has been going on for over two years.
And this is just ridiculous.
and no president should have to face that level of obstruction,
because the Constitution provides the power through Article II for the president
to make these certain appointments.
There's no reason why they should be held up.
And so he absolutely does have the authority, if the Senate agrees to adjourn, which they should,
right now they're just gaveling in, but they're all at home,
they're not really conducting business.
So if the Senate agrees to actually adjourn and the House disagrees and wants to play politics,
he can exercise his Article II Section 3 authority, and he can actually say, no, I'm gonna adjourn you,
and then he can make recess appointments.
And that's absolutely constitutional, of course, mainstream media is taking that
completely out of context, but it is well within the scope of his Article II authority.
So roughly what are the numbers that we're talking about, Jenna, in terms of people that haven't been appointed?
You know, it's into the hundreds.
There are some, of course, that he views more, compelling and more necessary and critical right now than
others.
But, you know, some of the holdups, I mean, the left wants to claim that he's not putting
people in these offices and they've written tons of pieces saying, look at all these vacancies,
but then they're not recognizing the fact that he has to go through that appointment
process.
And so for all of these being held up, that's really, really difficult to run the country
when you have to rely on your co-equal branches to provide that support.
But I mean, actually, there's, I think, a method to their madness.
You could call it the deep state, or you could call it the Democrats embedded in the Trump administration.
But they want to keep those people there.
I mean, I'm familiar with it, obviously, in Ukraine.
There was a real effort to keep that ambassador on, who was very, very anti-Trump, had announced it, and they kept her on for two, two and a half years.
And she was the cause of many, many of the problems and the miscommunications.
A president can't function if you have an ambassador that's not following what you're asking the ambassador to do, or a U.S.
attorney who's going off on his own on some kind of a policy.
I mean, it's really very, very disruptive not to get these people appointed.
And knowing the president, I think he will take decisive action to get it done if they don't do something about it.
Well, he should.
And frankly, I mean, this is why that provision in Article 2 allows for adjournment if the two houses disagree, so that if one house or one chamber is held by the majority of the opposition party and they want to play these types of politics and not allow the Senate to recess for more than three days so that the president can make those recess appointments, Then that's exactly why this power exists.
And so our founders, again, they understood that politics is unfortunately going to happen and they put in these safeguards within the limited scope of the Constitution to be able to have the government run efficiently and effectively and override those political partisan interests.
And so President Trump, I'm very grateful and thankful that he's such an exceptional, strong leader and he's pushing back and he's saying enough is enough.
Well, Janet, this has to have been already a job of a lifetime at a critical time.
How did you gain such knowledge of the Constitution?
I mean, you're quite knowledgeable.
You're extremely articulate.
You really understand it well and argue it well?
Tell me a little about your background.
Thank you so much for that.
You know, I grew up as a very sincere Christian.
I was homeschooled all the way through.
My parents are wonderful.
And, you know, I grew up with a very, very solid faith.
And then I went to law school expecting to understand the original intent of the U.S.
Constitution.
And what I was confronted with in law school was, frankly, No wonder you're so smart.
Thank you.
my faith in the context of the liberty and freedom that we cherish.
And so throughout the course of law school and then the next few years into practice,
I was originally a prosecutor.
That's what I thought I was gonna do with my life.
And I went- No wonder you're so smart.
Thank you.
You wanted to be a prosecutor.
So I went through and actually read the declaration, the constitution, the Federalist Papers,
all of these things for myself.
And that became the inception of my book because I wanted to share with the American people
the fact that this isn't really that complicated.
And if we understand that the constitution isn't this-
Bye.
It has resounding principles of liberty that don't change because our rights come from
God our creator.
That truth doesn't change.
And our declaration unanimously acknowledged that.
And so that provided the mandate to the Constitution that says all that are limited powers that
we the people under our consent give to government is to protect and preserve those rights and
liberties that never change.
Now the fact pattern, like we've discussed, that might change how we apply them.
But the principles of freedom, truth, and liberty, based on the inalienable truth and word of God, absolutely doesn't change.
And so I now have dedicated my life to studying the Constitution, to protecting rights and freedoms, and so I take full interest, frankly.
And I'm really excited that I get to do that now for the President of the United States.
Well, as one of the president's close friends for many, many years, and someone who has seen him really already become a great president, I'm so thankful that he has someone like you there.
And I urge people to—can they still get your book?
Yes, it's on Amazon, Barnes & Noble, anywhere.
Yeah, the left wing is trying to rip it apart, right?
Every little thing they can try to find in it, right?
The Legal Basis for a Moral Constitution.
Good title, and I urge you to read it, and you'll get an idea of the thinking of a woman who is going to play a very critical role in the president being able to carry out the functions he was elected to perform.
So I thank you very, very much for joining us.
Janna, and again, congratulate you on doing such a good job for a great president.
Thank you.
I'm following in your footsteps, and so your encouragement means a lot to me, so thank you so much.
Very impressive.
Thank you.
Thank you.
And now we'll take a short break.
Hello, this is Rudy Giuliani, and this is Rudy Giuliani's Common Sense.
We are going to interview today an exceptional scientist, Doctor, entrepreneur, publisher, and I don't know what else.
I mean, Patrick Sunshin is a good friend of mine for many years, and I'm always amazed at the things he's able to accomplish.
He has a long history as a practicing doctor, He's already developed medicines that have been enormously impactful, like a vaccine, and he's been working for some time on what he's going to describe to you, really was focused toward cancer, and he was immediately able to make a shift a few months ago in order to have it deal with this new COVID-19 challenge that we're facing.
He's also the owner of the Los Angeles Times.
He's a man of all seasons, he really is.
It's a great pleasure to have Patrick Soon-Shiong on this broadcast.
Patrick, how are you?
Thank you for having me, Mr. Mayor.
It's good to see you and talk to you again.
It is very good to see you, and I can't think of a more appropriate time to have this interview.
Can you explain to us the research you were doing And then how it shifted, it has to be a few months ago, to encompass COVID-19.
You know, this is the struggle that I've been trying to explain not only to my colleagues, but even to the public.
That for 30, maybe now 40 years of my life, I've been pursuing a concept, a singular concept, that our body, the immune system, has the ability to protect us from cancer and has the ability to protect us from infections.
It is the same universal system.
And that system I call the memory T-cell or the memory natural killer cell.
These cells in your body are what I call nature's first respondent.
Think about that.
That when you get an infection, whether it be a cold, a flu, COVID, HIV or cancer, it is the same cell system that's in your body already that says, I'm going to attack this and kill it.
So you recover from flu, And the question is, could you recover using that same system from cancer?
So I have adopted that system and spent 30 to 40 years of my life trying to understand how I can activate that system in your body to kill cancer, to kill HIV, to kill H1N1, to kill Zika, and now to kill COVID.
So that is what is difficult for people to conceive, that I have seen for the last 40 years, that we need to activate your immune system.
So my first drug, called Abraxane, which people thought was a chemotherapy, was actually a Trojan horse.
It was a protein nanoparticle that I wanted to give and inject so it goes into the tumor.
The tumor feeds on it and like rat poison we bring in the immune system and it gets killed.
That got approved, that got sold to Celgene.
That's when we met and where I said, I've got to go away now because nobody's going to believe what we're doing.
And I spent the last 10 years in skunkworks in Los Angeles, and I'm excited to say those 10 years will bear fruit today.
Well, just for a second, tell us what a Braxine does.
What Abraxane does is now approved for breast cancer, lung cancer, and pancreatic cancer.
We take a chemotherapy called Taxol.
We put it in a nanoparticle of human protein that's in your blood called albumin.
We inject it.
The tumor feeds on this albumin, sucks it in, and it kills itself.
So that's again this universal concept is this will work for all tumors because imagine this when you get cancer regardless of the cancer type you lose weight and the reason you lose weight is because the cancer is sucking albumin from your blood it's hijacked your system so when you think of cancer Cancer is when the sequence in your body goes a little crazy, the cancer cell comes, it hides, it goes into the cell, it infects and it spreads.
Guess what?
That's a virus.
A virus and a cancer act the same.
They go in, and this virus, which is unusual, is acting more like cancer than it is acting like any other virus.
And why is that, Patrick?
Why does this act more like cancer than the usual virus?
So this virus that's unusual, and the only other virus that I know that acts like this is measles, is it goes in, it uses the body itself, it uses the receptor of the lung, called ACE2 receptor. It locks onto that. It gets into the
cell and it uses the machinery the cell to grow just like cancer. As it grows it actually splits up.
It grows within the cell? It grows within the cell.
And then it pops the cell.
It kills that cell to grow to the next cell.
And it pops that cell to grow to the next cell.
And that's why you get this inflammation in the lung.
And that's why you can't breathe.
And that's why you have these patients going to ICU.
The reason we're scared of this virus, it causes death in a very rapid way.
It actually strangulates you from inside out.
It's a scary thought.
And does it attack the lung in particular?
It detects the lung in the deep alveolus.
In your lung you have these sacs tied to where you bring in the air the oxygen and the blood vessels are right alongside it and the oxygen transfers in.
That's how we live.
That's life.
What this virus does, it goes onto those cells right next to the blood vessel.
It invades those cells.
It grows.
It pops.
It invades the next cell.
It pops.
It invades the next cell and pops like cancer.
Now you have this debris that prevents transfer of oxygen from the air to your blood vessels.
What's even scarier, this virus even invades those blood vessels, because it has the same receptor on those blood vessels.
Does it operate somewhat like lung cancer?
Yes, but different, with inflammation and with scarring.
Right, and faster.
It seems to me faster also.
And it's rapid, it grows fast.
But worse, it wipes out your NK cells and your T cells, the memory cells.
So what scares me is that this virus will create what we call immune amnesia.
So the next time, perhaps, if you get this virus again, your cells will not recognize it because it's wiped out those memory cells.
So, just getting antibodies may not be enough, which means, very much like my pursuit in cancer, where I'm trying to pursue what I call the memory T-cell, I need to give your body the memory so that your own body has the ability to kill the cancer, or your own body has the memory to kill COVID when it comes back.
How many, is there a number of T-cells or killer cells in the body?
Yes, they, interestingly enough, there are few.
And the reason there are few is because they go into hiding and they go into sort of a sedentary state in your memory banks.
And they come out and proliferate only when they see this attack.
So that is why, first of all, you need to generate them, and then they will go and hide either in the bone marrow, the spleen, the liver, and wait.
And then, when an attack arrives, your natural killer cells come out first, your first responders, go after this factory, because the natural killer cell will try and kill the cell that's infected, i.e.
the factory, and now your memory T-cells come.
out and help.
Now you have killers that can attack.
The three killers, macrophage, natural killer cell and memory T cell.
I call that the triangle offense.
I'm a basketball player.
And that's the way I try to describe it to the lay public.
Your body is endowed.
God has given us the natural killer cell, the macrophage, and it's our job to teach your T-cells the memory.
The way we teach T-cells the memory is through a vaccine.
I recall very clearly when I had a conversation with the President that vaccines are really important for this nation.
Vaccines is the only thing that's going to protect us.
There was this one question before as well, was vaccines, were they more dangerous?
Do they cause autism?
You're discussing some other vaccine?
Yeah, I'm talking about all vaccines.
Measles vaccines, flu vaccines.
But this is more important than anything else because this is almost existential for us.
This is our way of life.
In order for the countries of the world to go back to normal life, we need to get insurance that we actually have a vaccine that's giving us memory to the COVID.
Meaning giving us a memory T-cell to the COVID.
If this is correct, Patrick, we could make a terrible mistake because if we found the antibodies, the mere fact that there were antibodies would not mean that they had a memory that would allow them to fight off COVID-19 if it comes back again.
That's exactly my fear.
What we don't know... Is that the point that you're making?
What we don't know about the antibodies is, when we measure the antibodies, what does it mean?
Does it mean it's strong enough?
Does it mean it will actually prevent the infection?
Or how long would it prevent infection?
And one more scarier thing, the virus could actually use the antibody to increase its infection.
It's called antibody dependent enhancement.
Antibody, again?
Antibody?
ADE, Antibody Dependent Enhancement, where the virus uses the antibody to go into other cells and infect even further.
We've got to get to the memory T-cell, and that's called cell-mediated immunity, where it's long-term memory.
The only way I believe you need to get to long-term memory is to use a system that teaches your T-cells And that's what I've been spending the last 10 years of my life building the systems for cancer, building the systems for HIV.
We actually in 2009 built the same system in six weeks for H1N1.
We literally had this vaccine in our hands, but we didn't have the resource to build manufacturing capacity and happily Novartis came out with a vaccine, but that vaccine or Novartis even to this day for H1N1, all it does is increases the antibody.
It does not increase the T cell memory.
Our vaccine did, but happily H1N1 subsided.
We are now, 2020, in the exact same position.
So, in January, we jumped into action.
So, this is very interesting, Patrick.
You were working on it for a different purpose.
All of a sudden, in December, January, like everyone else, you find out about this new virus.
How did you make the shift so quickly?
Well, it turns out I wasn't actually making the shift.
Remember, as I said in the beginning, I believe the treatment we're creating for cancer is the same treatment we're creating for infectious diseases like COVID.
So, three years ago, four years ago, I went to a college station, because that college station was developed by BOD, our country, the Department of Defense, for preparedness against biological warfare.
And I said to the powers that be, please give me the station manufacturing facility so I can create a stock for you.
I can't afford to do that while I'm working on cancer, but I will do that.
And we have already developed a vaccine for Zika, Lassa fever, Chikungunya, H1N1.
This nation needs to create this, what I call, viral cell bank.
You've already created the earlier ones that you just mentioned.
I recreated that, yeah.
Published it, 2009, 2010.
Are those vaccines available?
Yes, if we manufacture them.
Are they available?
We made them.
We developed them, we showed them in animals, we published them in very big peer-reviewed journals, and we worked with NIH and NCI and NIAID on these.
So that's exciting.
So the science has been well proven.
So because I didn't have all those resources, I sold, as you know, all my companies to go a little into a 10-year skunkworks.
What do you call that?
10-year?
Skunkworks.
What does that mean?
So I'm revealing this literally for the first time on your show now.
So how quickly can you have this vaccine focused on COVID?
And basically what you're doing is you're going to put in the memory of the T-cells, COVID.
Yes.
So it recognizes COVID when COVID comes back.
Yes.
So, I know it's hard to believe we've not received one dollar from either state or federal.
This is all our personal finances.
Wow.
100% me.
So, and I'm not the United States government, but we have no resources other than my own.
So, we jumped into action.
I took my team in January.
I was really scared about this in January.
The Chinese published the gene sequence of COVID.
We took those sequences of COVID.
We put it into my vector called the adenovirus.
And that vector, this adenovirus, is what I use for cancer.
We actually made the adenovirus.
We actually made the vaccine.
I called around and begging now for manufacturing capability.
You made the vaccine?
Which means you made the virus?
Yes.
So you made COVID?
I made the virus.
I made the vaccine.
My flu shot that has COVID in it.
My adenovirus, the common cold virus, I'm using a virus to kill a virus, right?
I'm using another virus to train your T-cells so it can kill this virus.
This is called the adenovirus or Ad5 platform.
A well-established platform is used for gene therapy.
But we have developed a second generation adenovirus.
So the first question is, would I be able to grow my adenovirus?
And it grew.
It grew by February.
By February I had this.
Then I said, what do I do now?
Because there's no animal models to go test this in yet, because nobody's seen COVID before.
So we started building, just growing it.
And now I needed to go build enough for this nation.
So I called around and I reached out.
I reached out to Keith Kellogg.
I reached out to members of the White House, and I said, please help me.
And then what I did was said, look, we can't wait.
And I put this on my private jet, flew these precious cells to Colorado, and we have a video of that, on April the 9th.
And April the 10th, 12th, 11th, 13th, they are growing.
So I'm growing them now.
Within 30 to 60 days, I'll have a thousand doses.
You're growing COVID?
I'm growing the vaccine.
Which means you're growing COVID?
I'm growing COVID inside my common cold virus.
I'm using the common cold virus as the vector to inject like a flu shot.
That common cold virus will go into your body, find A cell that'll teach your T-cell that, hey, I'm COVID, but I'm really not COVID.
I'm just giving him the sequence of COVID, like cancer.
Your T-cell says, okay, I recognize you now.
I'm the killer T-cell to that sequence.
And that T-cell now goes into hiding.
One day COVID comes through.
Gotcha.
The T-cell, it wakes up, kills the virus.
That's the vaccine.
I did this series, by the way, if you go on The Science Behind COVID Virus on LA Times.
I saw it.
I read that.
But ellytimes.com, I mean, if you look for the science behind COVID, coronavirus, it did very well on YouTube.
It got about 2 million views.
Yes, yes.
And I should tell people it's pretty understandable for a very complex subject.
You made it accessible for people who don't have a scientific background.
It is so important for the public to understand the difference between antibodies and T-cell memory, because it's life-threatening, what we're talking about here.
So, when your first question, when did I switch from cancer to infectious diseases, actually it was the same.
And that's the irony.
This looks like my entire life.
You've always seen them as the same thing because you were dealing with HIV as well.
Correct.
Which is a virus.
And I was dealing with transplant.
Right.
So if you remember when I first met you, we did the world's first islet cell transplant for diabetes, where I was taking an islet cell, a little cell that makes insulin, putting it in the membrane, putting it in the abdomen, and trying to protect the body from killing it.
Right.
So I'm all about the immune system.
I was trying to understand the immune system.
So I think For me, as a Chinese American coming from South Africa to this country, I've lived the American dream.
I've been given the Truly privileged of coming to UCLA, having the ability to dream the dream of the science, and it executed through the company Braxis, sold the Braxane for billions of dollars, and now quietly for 10 years have built the equivalent of an NIH NCI campus in Los Angeles to deal with what I call life-threatening diseases.
Cancer on the one hand, and COVID now on the other.
So how How long would it take you to go from where you are to having this available for millions of people?
So we filed what I call the IND with the FDA.
I'm pleased to say the FDA called me on the weekend, two weekends ago.
I've had deep conversations with Dr. Robert Kadlik and his team at BARDA, at TechWatch, deep conversations with Keith Kellogg, and General Wesley Clark has also tried to help me get access to the Army and the Navy, and you know, unfortunately, what's happened with the Navid Guam.
So the answer is there is a complete urgency.
So at risk using my own funding, 100% my own funding, we are now building GMP scale adenovirus.
If, and this is the if, I can get clearance immediately and rapidly from the FDA, we could be in trials with our patients in the next 45 days.
The results, 45 to 60 days, the results from that will give us insight, one way or the other, whether we're generating these memory T-cells.
The reason I'm confident that we will, we've already generated these memory T-cells in cancer.
And the paper has been published, just published, and with the National Cancer Institute, Dr. Jeffrey Sloan.
So, we've done this for CA macular bracteure meaning for colon cancer, different cancers in patients.
Colon cancer?
Pancreatic cancer also?
Pancreatic cancer, triple negative breast cancer, head and neck cancer.
We now have complete responses meaning the tumors disappeared in patients who failed triple negative breast cancer or treatment.
We have now complete remission in patients with Pancreatic cancer, metastatic pancreatic cancer.
So I am convinced that our hypothesis that your body has the God-given ability to protect yourself only if we figure out a way to educate that body and to use this molecular genomic knowledge that we now have.
We didn't have that 10 years ago.
Now, Patrick, can I ask you to do one thing?
Because we just have a little bit of time left.
In the period of time that now will exist to develop the vaccine.
What is the best way to treat this?
What should a doctor who's faced with a person who seems to have a pretty serious case of COVID-19, what should they do for them?
If you go to the series two, you'll see I've categorized this into three patients.
I know, I read it, I just want you to tell everybody.
So, what I'd like to say, the patient that is mild, I think, one, you clearly self-isolate.
There is now beginning evidence that hydroxychloroquine has effect, has some effect.
We still have to wait for the clinical trials.
There are still arrhythmia toxicities, but there is some evidence that it has effect.
But I would suggest that those patients, if you're really sick, I think the way to go about it is to actually now treat one with a convalescent serum, with a natural killer cell, and a thing called a mesenchymal stem cell that is actually grown either from the cord blood placenta or bone marrow, which will tamp down the inflammation.
So we have these stopgap measures.
These are stopgap measures.
This is not the ultimate.
The ultimate is this vaccine.
But doctors, practitioners, are going to need that between now and... Correct.
And can you get compassionate use exceptions for each one of these things?
Like for T-cells?
Correct, and it's available today.
So you can get Compassionate Use for it.
In Los Angeles, we just launched our hospital called, the hospital together with Governor Newsom, called LASH, Los Angeles Surge Hospital, which is St.
Vincent's Medical Center.
Today it just opened.
We funded it again from ourselves financially.
And this hospital is now together with Kaizen Dignity.
So the idea is for me to actually have this place where you can now have centers of excellence, where doctors can learn how to understand this disease, and how to treat them today, in the short term, either with these stem cells, either with this natural killer cells, either with this convalescent serum, or even with chloroquine, or remdesivir.
All under control settings, so we learn from it, right?
Well, I think this has been really extraordinary, Patrick.
We could go on forever and ever.
But I think also the good thing about this is you explained it in a way that I think people can understand it who are not, you know, who aren't scientists.
And very often, very often these things are explained in such a way that it just misses.
But I think people now understand what you're talking about.
This is like a battle.
It's a battle within the body between these invaders and these T-cells that have to be capable of fighting off the invader.
I call it cytopathic storm.
It's the calamitous conversions of the virus, your body's receptor, its growth, and the killing of the natural killer cell.
And because we understand in that way, let me tell you the stress that's now on me, because we're growing this vaccine, I hope I can convince the authorities that may be, Mr. Mayor, and you have access to authorities that may be, to let us put this into clinical trials quickly and for somebody to help us create the manufacturing facility that can, we as America, Could be the source of vaccines for the entire world.
Well, I hope this helps.
And you know, I will do anything I can to help you.
I have all the confidence in the world in you.
I would always bet on Patrick Soon-Shiong, never against him.
He's come through every time.
Thank you.
And what you say makes common sense.
It's common sense, what you just described to us.
So I think maybe a lot of people will be impressed by it.
But we'll keep in close touch, and we'll come back and check with you, okay?
Okay.
And you give my love to your wonderful family.
I will, thank you.
And you stay healthy, because we need you.
I will.
We need you, Mr. Soonsho.
You be safe.
Thank you.
Thank you very, very much for listening, and I hope this was informative.
It sure was for me.
I hope it was for you, and we'll be back.
Very shortly, with more in-depth discussion and hopefully valuable information about how to fight and defeat COVID-19, because we are going to defeat it.
America is going to defeat it.
▲
Export Selection