Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Feb. 17, 2023 - Viva & Barnes

01:41:30

Interview with Dr. Venu Julapalli M.D. - from Vaccines to Lawsuits! Viva Frei Live

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	What was that?
	Hey, man.
	How you doing?
	I want you to see.
	How you doing?
	What's going on?
	Why is it the audio not playing?
	What?
	What?
	Okay, let's try this again.
	Okay.
	Okay.
	You let that ring in your ears.
	You shame fuck.
	Let's just wait for it My yes There's some intense stuff right over there.
	Well, they're wearing names on there.
	We love you!
	We love you!
	What the hell is that?
	So the audio is off.
	I don't know what's going on.
	All right.
	Well, that's a fail.
	Good afternoon, everybody.
	I told Dr. Vinu backstage that...
	I'm going to be in a bad mood today, and I'll have to explain why when he comes on, but he's watching now, and he'll see.
	So for those of you who don't know, the commissioner, Rouleau, after the six-week public order emergency commission, issued his final report today.
	And I said at the end of the protest, when Trudeau violently suppressed the most peaceful, beautiful protest I've ever seen in my life, and I think, The world has ever seen.
	I said that was the black pill of black pills for me.
	Because we didn't know.
	At the time, not everybody understood the Emergencies Act.
	There was going to be a commission to look into this and see whether or not Justin Trudeau acted properly, invoked the law appropriately.
	When he brought in a militarized police and stomped elderly indigenous women with RCMP horses, assaulted.
	Canadian veterans cuffed them, hauled them outside of the city and left them in the snow.
	I said, that was the biggest black pill of my life.
	Having seen the way Trudeau, over the course of three and a half weeks, didn't take one damn minute to talk with the protesters, violently suppressed the protest.
	And I said, okay, well, we'll have the hearing and he'll get his just desserts, his comeuppance politically when that happens.
	Well, the commissioner issued his report today after the six-week hearing.
	And concluded that Justin Trudeau had met the threshold to invoking the Emergencies Act.
	It's the darkest day for Canada in my lifetime without qualification, without exception.
	People don't understand the hell that they have just ushered in.
	There's people on Twitter very happy about this.
	Happy about putting on their own handcuffs and tightening them.
	We're not talking about this today, but I can't hide my dismay.
	So I'll try to get perky when Dr. Veen is here, because we're going to talk about something else.
	And tomorrow, I'm going to talk about this with Keith Wilson, who's going to come on.
	We're trying to find a time to do this.
	So tomorrow, Keith Wilson will come on and we'll talk about it.
	Before I get started, I saw two chats that I want to bring.
	I'm Not Your Buddy Guy says Canada has embraced authoritarianism.
	Wartime measures being declared lawful towards a peaceful protest.
	Please, Viva, I'll do anything to help me escape.
	And we got a $33.
	So, we'll talk about it tomorrow.
	And I'm not going to let this ruin what is the subject matter of today, which is a doctor who is suing...
	Call it the hospital, but there's more dynamics to the entity that he's suing.
	For vaccine mandates.
	The whole situation makes absolutely no sense.
	I've been listening to a podcast with Dr. Vinu with a woman named Tessa Lena, which it's been a fascinating podcast to listen to.
	Let me just make sure I can give credit, the proper credit, because it's on Spotify.
	And the interviewer's name is Tessa Lena, T-E-S-S-A-L-E-N-A.
	I think she sounds like she has a German accent, but I'm not sure.
	And it was a fascinating podcast.
	I'm almost done, but it's allowed me to gain some insights into Dr. Vinu.
	So I'm going to try to smile, but now the doctor knows why I'm going to be very, very upset for the duration of this stream.
	All right.
	So with that said, we're on Rumble.
	We're on YouTube, and I want to make sure that we're good on Rumble.
	We are.
	And I'll go set up a live chat.
	In locals.
	So, with that said, Debbie Downer, intro.
	Wah, wah, wah.
	Let's welcome Dr. Vinu.
	Dr. Vinu Julapali.
	And I don't know why I've been calling him Dr. Vinu.
	Okay, I'm bringing you in, Dr. Vinu.
	Here we go.
	How's it going?
	Viva!
	It's going well, thank you.
	Okay, so other than the fall of Canada that we've just witnessed today, Dr. Vinu, how was the hockey game?
	Okay, so sorry about that.
	I'll get over it in a bit.
	And I won't talk about it again for the rest of this stream, because this stream, scheduled kind of last minute, we spoke for the first time yesterday, so I could hear your story.
	And it's an outrageous story.
	The world is going to hell in a handbasket, Dr. Vino.
	Tell the world who you are, 30,000 foot overview, 30,000 foot overview before we get into this.
	Sure, so...
	My parents are from India.
	They immigrated, I think, 1970.
	I was born in Brooklyn.
	I was only there for a year.
	And I grew up all over the South.
	I'm a Southern boy.
	I grew up in Alabama, spent four years in New Orleans, different parts of Texas.
	And, you know, most Indian parents of my generation, they want you to be a doctor or an engineer.
	And so I chose medicine.
	I went to undergrad at Stanford.
	I came back to Houston and did all my medical training here at Baylor College of Medicine.
	Which, just to give a little context, Baylor College of Medicine is in the heart of what's called the Texas Medical Center, which is the world's largest medical center complex.
	There's two medical schools right there across the street from each other.
	There's six or seven huge institutions, county hospital, VA hospital, private hospitals, including Houston Methodist, which is at the heart of this story.
	So I'm a product of those institutions.
	Okay.
	Now, and I realize I did a bad job.
	I'm setting this one up because we set the stream up so last minute yesterday.
	I didn't even give people the heads up as to what it's about, but we'll get there in a second.
	Born and raised, you said, in America.
	Where were you born?
	Born in Brooklyn.
	Brooklyn, okay.
	And then you lived in the South.
	How many siblings do you have in your family?
	I have two brothers and a sister.
	And what did your parents do growing up?
	So my dad's an interventional cardiologist.
	And really, he came during that LBJ era where they opened it up to engineers and physicians.
	So a lot of Indian parents of my parents' generation came either as engineers or as physicians.
	And everybody came through New York, pretty much.
	My mom was a homemaker, took care of us rugrats.
	Fantastic.
	All right.
	We're not going to...
	Ordinarily, I do childhood and schooling and all this stuff, but it's the lawsuit and it's what happened during COVID that is particularly fascinating.
	We need to know your credentials.
	You're a gastroenterologist.
	Your brother is...
	My brother is also an interventional cardiologist, like my father.
	So you have the credentials.
	Oh, if you're a gastroenterologist, I'm going to ask you a bunch of questions after we...
	You won't be the first.
	I know.
	I'm joking.
	I'm not going to.
	How long have you been practicing for?
	I've been in practice on my own for almost 20 years.
	May I ask how old you are?
	I have to think about this.
	I am 47 going on 48. Tabarnouche.
	You look young.
	You don't look a day over 40. Thank you.
	So you've been practicing gastroenterology for 20 years.
	And you studied at Baylor.
	Yes.
	I don't think...
	Well, look, no one's going to deny your credentials.
	So let's see here.
	Explain the practice of medicine as a whole before we get down to COVID.
	You know, I'm from Canada.
	We have different government...
	As far as the healthcare system goes, but I think we probably have the same problems in terms of generalized health.
	What has been your experience as being a GI over the last two decades?
	Sure.
	So it's four years of medical school.
	And then there's a fork point for many people.
	You can go into surgery or you can go into internal medicine.
	And of course, there's other fields like psychiatry and OB gynecology.
	Gastroenterology is a subspecialty of internal medicine.
	So you do three years of internal medicine and then anywhere from three to four years of a fellowship, which in my case was gastroenterology.
	So it's, let's see, four plus three plus three, it's 10 years of training.
	So it's a long training.
	And then you get out and you have a choice in terms of what you want to do.
	You can go into academia, you can go into private practice, you can go to the VA, which is a government job.
	I was fortunate in that my dad was an interventional cardiologist here in Houston.
	He had a network.
	So I went on my own, which is quite rare these days.
	And it probably plays into what happens in the rest of the story.
	But I was on my own.
	As soon as I finished fellowship, I went into solo practice.
	I set up my own practice.
	I didn't have any bosses.
	I set it up exactly how I wanted to set it up.
	And I used the networking of my father to start building the practice.
	And that's how it really began.
	One of the first things that I realized...
	When I got out of training is that the healthcare system is a matrix.
	It's just, it's crazy in many ways.
	It was crazy even before COVID.
	COVID just took it to, you know, a 10x level.
	But the things that I was witnessing, and, you know, I'm kind of like maybe a Gen X middle zone kind of person because I could see the old schoolers, that's who taught me.
	But then I could also see the newer generation coming up.
	And what I started to see, I was taught to be a critical thinker.
	Independent-minded, use evidence, be informed by it, but not be enslaved by it, and then apply that evidence to the individual, unique patient in front of you, and that's how you took care of people.
	As I got into practice and as the system, as I was seeing it, evolved, I didn't like what I was seeing.
	It was less independent critical thinking, more just rote protocols.
	I think the whole idea of the electronic medical record system, And I'm as wired as it gets.
	I've never had paper charts.
	I have my own EMR.
	But it really changed many things because it really started to enslave the physician.
	Oftentimes the computer would be sitting right in front of the physician and get in the way of the patient.
	And there were a lot of rules and regulations in terms of checking boxes.
	Nurses know this well too.
	So all of that, in my mind, was making the mind and heart of the physician more regimented, more commoditized.
	More really kind of like the Borg.
	That's what I was experiencing.
	The Borg?
	It's a Star Trek reference.
	Resistance is futile.
	I thought it was Star Wars, but I also was never into Star Trek.
	I can go both ways.
	Explain this to people.
	People tend to think of medicine as something that can be replaced by AI.
	And this is an interesting thing that I got from your podcast with Tessa's.
	When you explain medicine as a practice, like law, as an art, something that AI can't fill in for, I mean, explain that and how you saw this sort of evolution of the practice of medicine going from an art to something robotic.
	Well, I mean, that's what, to me, makes medicine...
	I mean, it's quite a sacred profession to me.
	I mean, it really is a calling.
	I mean, I don't know if everybody would see it that way in terms of how I see it, but I think many of us still do that, still do see it that way.
	It is the intersection of art and science.
	There's certainly a lot of science involved.
	I mean, it is a discipline that involves biology and chemistry and whatnot.
	But when you're sitting in front of a human being, I mean, at its core, when you're sitting there in the office or in the hospital environment, You are communing with a fellow person, a sacred human being.
	And so to me, and I teach this to students that rotate through me, the most important thing in medicine by far is to connect, is to commune, is to actually have a connection in that sacred patient-doctor relationship.
	And then you bring in the science, you bring in the technology, and ultimately that serves that relationship.
	And that relationship is fundamentally built on trust.
	I mean, that's at the heart of the whole thing.
	As a GI, do you do colonoscopies?
	I do.
	Okay, well, let me just ask you that.
	Sorry, this is my own total tangent.
	How do you do colonoscopies?
	Like, do you not, you have to see people of all shapes and sizes and of all, um, levels of, of, of hygiene.
	I mean, and I know that, you know, the process, sorry, I don't even know I'm asking this, but, When you do these things, do you dissociate yourself from the human on which you're performing the procedure in order to do it properly?
	Well, no.
	I would say no.
	I mean, you want to be technical, of course.
	You are taught that in training in terms of the technical aspects of it.
	But you must never dissociate yourself from the human being in front of you.
	You wouldn't be doing your job if you did that.
	I mean, it's not merely like playing a video game, although you have a scope in your hands and you're using your hand-eye coordination.
	I mean, every surgeon I know who's excellent, every internal medicine doctor I know, I think they would all agree with me that not only do you have to have the technical proficiency, let's say you're doing a procedure, but you can never forget that you have a real life Breathing human being in front of you.
	So no, you don't dissociate.
	You do the job that you're trained to do while recognizing that you have a real life in front of you.
	And one of my mentors, as a lawyer, said, you know, at some point in time, some lawyers, most lawyers tend to end up having disdain for their clients because they don't do what they say.
	They only come to see them when they have problems.
	They're always complaining and whiny.
	Is this as pervasive in the practice of medicine as it is in the practice of law, that doctors at some point just get fed up with their patients as a whole, which might explain some of the dehumanizing treatment of doctors towards their patients?
	Yeah, I mean, considering now I'm in law school as well, it's an interesting question.
	That's a different story.
	But yeah, I mean, one of the things that I think has really...
	Pressured physicians is the system, the system itself.
	So I think that might be a theme here in the sense that the constraints of the system have unfortunately pushed physicians to perhaps become more inhuman.
	It's not something that physicians want to do, you know, of their own accord.
	But when you have the gravitational pull of a system, it is commoditizing the whole thing.
	It is making everything into, you know, bean counting.
	Then, yes, that is what starts to happen.
	In fact, that's what I experienced when I would, let's say, take consultations in the hospital.
	I was being seen more as a technician, more of a, you know, sort of a, you know, check the box versus what I was trained to do, which is to communicate with people, to figure out how to take care of a person who's a patient, a human being.
	So there was a breakdown, as I saw it, in communication, interaction, communication among physicians in a way that was human.
	So yes, it has happened.
	I think that it can still be preserved and it can still be renewed.
	But unfortunately, in the area of COVID, I mean, it's just gotten worse, I would say.
	Now, someone's gotten wise to us, Dr. Vino.
	We've got Dr. Paul Alexander wrote an article in his substack recently on Dr. Julapali's finding that a high-ranking official at Methodist Hospital offered his colleague the opportunity to fake getting the vaccine with an interesting spelling.
	Nom-nom, you're 100% right, and that's going to be the good segue into getting this story started.
	But before we get this story started, we're going to wind this down on YouTube.
	And go exclusive to Rumble.
	This doesn't change anything on our end, Vinu.
	I'm just going to end the YouTube stream.
	The link is there, everybody.
	So mosey on over and I'll publish the entire stream in its entirety to YouTube tomorrow.
	But let's go over to Rumble, exclusively everyone.
	And we're there.
	All right.
	Someone has gotten to the punchline.
	We're not getting there yet.
	Let's start this story.
	First of all, before we get there, you've been a doctor for over 20 years.
	Almost 20 years.
	Almost 20 years.
	Impeccable, impeccable reputation, untarnished reputation.
	You haven't had any, what's the word I'm looking for, like reprimands, sanctions, complaints with your place of employment just before we get into where things went?
	I'm self-employed, but the answer to your question is no, sir.
	I'm clean.
	Clean, good, competent, well-spoken, and clearly intelligent.
	COVID hits, and this is where the story starts.
	What happens at the...
	What is it called?
	It's called the Houston Methodist...
	Houston Methodist.
	That's correct.
	Okay.
	Explain the institution for those who don't know.
	I mean, I'm from Canada.
	I had no idea how massive the institution is, but explain how it works.
	Explain the infrastructure before getting into the actual story of COVID, its impact, and how you ended up suing your identity.
	Because of the COVID vaccine policy.
	Sorry, go ahead.
	Houston Methodist is a major, powerful hospital system in Houston, really in the country.
	It's one of several private, non-profit institutions in Houston, and they're competing with one another in many different substantive ways.
	It is a major part of the Texas Medical Center.
	It is the house that Michael E. DeBakey, who's You know, one of the most famous cardiovascular surgeons.
	It's the house that he built.
	So Houston Methodist is his product.
	And Houston Methodist has a central campus that's in the Texas Medical Center.
	It now also has several branches.
	I think there's seven or so now.
	All throughout the greater Houston area.
	I was on staff at one of those campuses.
	A very lucrative, prominent one up in the north side of town called the Woodlands.
	So Houston Methodist, the Woodlands, is where I was on staff and had what we call privileges to see patients at that hospital.
	Explain the privileges.
	I mean, I now know what it means, but privileges means you're independent, you're not employed by the hospital, and I presume that there's a number of reasons for that, one of which is, I don't know, I presume liability has something to do with it, but also the freedom of the practice where...
	From the doctor's perspective, you don't want to have a formal employer set aside tax reasons?
	Right.
	So Texas is one of a number of states that forbids what's called the corporate practice of medicine.
	In other words, you can't have an entity employ physicians per se.
	Now, the reason is very, hopefully very obvious.
	You don't want to have conflicts of interest.
	You want the physician to be doing things as a fiduciary in the best interest of the patient.
	A business organization cannot employ a physician in the state of Texas.
	Now, there are employed physicians.
	They become part of what they call a physician organization, which has a board of directors composed of physicians.
	So it's still physician in name, at least.
	And then they can affiliate, they can contract, they can associate with a hospital.
	So that's one aspect of it.
	Now, I'm not part of any physician organization, so I'll explain my relationship.
	Which is still some physicians.
	You can get privileges at a hospital.
	What that means is you are given the grant to see patients, consult on patients, use the facility.
	So that's what getting privileged at a hospital means, such as Houston Methodist or other hospitals.
	Now, ultimately, the hospital is what gives you the privileges through their board of directors.
	The way that is recommended in terms of who gets those privileges is the medical staff.
	So every hospital has a medical staff, which has its own governance structure, which is supposed to be independent of the hospital, collaborates with the hospital administration, but ultimately has its own organization, governance, and again...
	That's for a good reason, because you want a medical staff to be independent of whatever decisions the executive administration at the hospital is making.
	So that, in general, that's how many hospitals around the country are structured.
	What is the structure of the medical staff?
	Is it a not-for-profit?
	Is it a corporation?
	Is it a partnership?
	Yeah, it's usually a non-profit association.
	That is what it was at Houston Methodist Woodlands.
	So it's an unincorporated non-profit association.
	And that's for the physicians.
	For the nurses and other staff, they are directly employed by the hospital, paid by the hospital.
	You guys, through the association, I presume, gather the funds and pay salary or pay them out like a partnership of a law firm?
	There's no funds.
	Most associations, if not all of them, don't really accept.
	There's no dues or anything.
	The purpose of the association is to have a policy structure, Create bylaws which govern our rules and regulations, professional conduct, proceedings if somebody's becoming rogue, recommendations in terms of credentialing.
	So you have a credentials committee which reports to a medical executive committee.
	And so there's committee structures within the medical staff that governs who gets privileges, who gets written up, peer review process.
	It's a very...
	Organized formal process.
	There's federal laws that govern peer review through the medical staff.
	And you're right to say that nursing is different.
	So the nurses are employed by a hospital such as Houston Methodist.
	So they are different in terms of their relationship to the hospital.
	Okay.
	And so people are just going to need to understand this dynamic when it comes to who you have filed suit against.
	When it comes to who's imposing the mandates and who's enforcing the mandates.
	So you have the hospital, which is its own entity.
	You have the staff, which are employed by the hospital.
	Then you have the physicians who are...
	Now I forgot the name of what they're a part of.
	We'll call it the...
	Can we call it the association or is that going to be called it?
	Medical staff.
	Medical staff.
	So you have the medical staff who are not employed by the hospital and who govern their own conduct.
	All right.
	So now we've got the entities.
	Explain what happens in the context of COVID, and that leads up to the lawsuit.
	So, of course, pre-vaccine, doctors were still seeing patients in the hospital.
	There was the whole issue of PPE, and so PPE was used, patients were seen.
	And I'll just lead up into the vaccine mandate.
	So, December 2020...
	Houston Methodist was the first hospital in the country, if not the world, I think, to mandate the vaccine and to mandate it and tie that mandatory vaccine to employment.
	So let's just focus on employment for right now.
	Employment meaning nursing staff, social workers, all the staff that makes up.
	The Houston Methodist, that's not the medical staff.
	So they decided in December 2020 to mandate the vaccine on penalty of termination of employment for their workers.
	But before mandating it, they offered a financial bonus to get it?
	They did.
	It was part of their rollout.
	They offered $500 to get the vaccine.
	This lasted up until, I believe, March or April of 2021, when they mandated it and said, if you don't do it, you're fired.
	Not just shocking, but in retrospect, I should have known, everyone should have known that when they were offering a carrot to do something, eventually would come the stick.
	It seems so obvious now.
	I think that's actually how they described it.
	With the carrot will later come the stick.
	I never applied it in reality.
	Here's lotteries.
	You can win a million bucks if you get a vaccine.
	Here's a burger.
	Here's french fries.
	Here's a drink.
	Here's 500 bucks.
	And you know damn well that when they say that's going to go away and it's going to be required anyhow, in your entire life, have you ever seen such compulsion or coercion, I should say, for a vaccine, for a shot for anything in the medical community?
	I'm actually glad you brought that up because we actually have a, let's say, kind of a precedent for this, for flu vaccine.
	So flu vaccine is...
	Quote, required.
	But the way that was handled was, if you didn't want to get the flu vaccine for various reasons, you submit either a medical or religious exemption.
	There was no committee structure to determine if it was legitimate or whatnot.
	It was accepted.
	And for the season of the flu, if you didn't want to get vaccinated for flu vaccine, you just wore a mask when you're walking around the hospital.
	And that was it.
	That was the extent of it.
	And so there's Medicare guidelines that relates to that.
	They have to have certain percentages in terms of them getting Medicare dollars with regard to the flu vaccine.
	But that's how the flu vaccine was handled prior to COVID.
	What was the worst year for the flu in the States that you know offhand?
	I don't know the worst year.
	I mean, I think a few years ago, it goes in peaks and valleys.
	So I think late 2010s, maybe, it was particularly up.
	Okay, so they offer $500 to staff and say, go get the Jibby Jab.
	And then they say, by the way, that's going to be gone soon and you're going to have to get it anyhow.
	And sorry, carry on with the story.
	So we as medical staff are wondering, well, okay, what are they going to do to us?
	When's that coming?
	We kind of knew it was coming, but we didn't quite know how.
	So this is how it happened at Houston Methodist.
	They knew that they couldn't exactly do it in the same way they were going to do it for their employees, because we have a medical staff that has its own structure and governance.
	We could, in concept, say, no, we're not going to do that.
	So they did it through our bylaws.
	So what happens is that we have bylaws, as I said before.
	That's basically our constitution.
	And they felt...
	Or at least somebody there felt, I'm sure it was legal, felt that the enforcement authority for this wasn't there in the bylaws, at least in the bylaws at Houston Methodist, the Woodlands.
	So at the very last minute, total 11th hour, they attempted to ramrod a few clauses into our bylaws as amendments so that the Medical Executive Committee, which is kind of the executive enforcement authority, so that they would have the enforcement authority.
	To do this to the medical staff.
	Do this, meaning if you don't take the COVID vaccine and you don't have a valid medical or religious exemption, you will automatically be terminated of your privileges from the medical staff.
	Okay, so this is where I need to stop you because I didn't get this from the other interview.
	You have your bylaws that govern the medical staff, which is totally independent from the hospital.
	Presumably nothing in the bylaws provided for this because this had never occurred before.
	That's right.
	So the attempt is being made to amend the bylaws at large and not specifically referencing a COVID jab, but to implement a mechanism that would allow for automatic termination in the event of refusing a shot, a vaccine, not COVID specific, but it's specifically for this, but broader impact.
	Who brings in that last minute amendment?
	Who proposes it?
	Is it the hospital?
	And their executives?
	Who makes the request for that amendment if it doesn't come from the medical staff members themselves?
	I don't know this for a fact, but I was told by somebody who is very much in the know that it was legal.
	It was actually nobody in terms of the medical staff.
	It was the Methodist lawyer that wrote it up.
	Okay.
	That's very interesting.
	So it's Methodist legal who's proposing an amendment to be adopted at one of your meetings for the medical staff.
	To someone at medical staff says, hey, pass this bylaw or pass this amendment, which will provide for X, Y, and Z. Do you know where legal for the hospital came up with the idea?
	Well, I know what they said, which was, well, you know, we're just trying to standardize this across all of the institutions.
	As I said, there's about seven or eight branches.
	So that was the rationale.
	We're just, you know, not a big deal.
	We're just going to...
	It's just to get everything standardized.
	Now, mind you, there is a policy in terms of amending these bylaws.
	It's outlined in the bylaws.
	You have to have a 14-day notice.
	You have to have a quorum.
	You have to have written ballots.
	None of this stuff was followed.
	Okay.
	So, yeah.
	So, it was just an attempt, as you said.
	And you're right.
	It wasn't specifically just for COVID.
	If you looked at the amendments, I mean, they had...
	The included but not limited to clause, which basically said if you don't follow any of these things in the way that we think is appropriate, then you're going to be automatically terminated with no hearing, no notice, no due process.
	It's going to be like we have to sign our notes, our progress notes, and that's part of the medical record.
	So they put this in the same category.
	As, you know, not signing your notes.
	You're going to be automatically terminated if you don't fix that.
	Fixing that means here, take the vaccine.
	Who's on the board of the medical staff?
	The physicians of the medical staff.
	And so they get this and they don't care from whom it came and they don't care that it's last minute, that it doesn't respect the procedural requirements for an amendment of this nature and they just go ahead and send it to everybody and say, vote on it?
	Well, I mean...
	Physicians, maybe unlike lawyers, have their heads to the ground, mostly don't pay attention to what's going on at staff meetings, medical staff bylaws.
	I mean, I would say for the most part, physicians barely look at the medical staff bylaws.
	So there's that backdrop.
	Most physicians weren't even aware that this was ultimately going on.
	But we do have quarterly staff meetings where things like this get brought up.
	You know, the night before this vote was to go down, this gets slipped in there.
	My brother, who's on staff as well at the same hospital, Houston Methodist and Woodlands, this was all on Zoom at the time.
	It was May 2021.
	At a time, by the way, when COVID was at almost its lowest in Houston.
	But they were still doing stuff by Zoom.
	So at the time, my brother raised his virtual hand and said, hey, has anybody actually read these amendments?
	Because they're pretty draconian.
	And if we pass these amendments, then we're...
	We're basically consigning our entire autonomy away to the whims and fancies of people making these decisions.
	Nobody else responded.
	Nobody else said anything about it.
	The response that he got was really not from a physician member.
	I think it was from somebody at medical staff services who's one of the employees of Houston Methodist.
	So that was really the response that night.
	I'm just trying to figure out who...
	Which one of the medical staff proposes this?
	I don't want the name of the name, but is there one individual who's being the messenger for what you think is counsel for the hospital?
	Yeah, so there's a medical executive committee who is the body that officially adopted the motion.
	To take Houston Methodist policy for the employees and apply it to the medical staff.
	So they had a meeting behind closed doors.
	I think there's like 10 of them.
	And they're all controlled by Houston Methodist, right?
	There's no independent person on that medical executive committee.
	Again, that was happening before COVID.
	One of the things that was happening at Houston Methodist, and I would say at hospital systems, many hospital systems all across the country, is Hospital administration taking more and more control of the medical executive committees, basically having yes men and women on those medical executive committees.
	So it was a foregone conclusion that that medical executive committee was going to adopt a motion like this to apply this to the medical staff.
	So that's how it comes in.
	But of course, you still need some authority in the bylaws themselves, and that's where the amendments come in.
	All right.
	And I had to look it up.
	It's Parkinson's Law of Triviality.
	I'm not sure if you're familiar with it, Dr. Vino.
	They'll slip in these most draconian, complex amendments that are so complicated, people don't understand them, won't understand them, and therefore don't have any interest in questioning it.
	But ask where the water cooler goes, and you'll talk about that for 15 minutes on Zoom.
	So they submit these proposed amendments.
	What's the reaction from...
	How many people are okay with it?
	How many people oppose it?
	How many people recognize they never even read it?
	Well, this is part of the problem.
	I mean, nobody knows because nobody's talking to each other, especially in the era of COVID.
	I mean, everybody's locked down.
	There's no more discussion in the physician lounges.
	Nobody's physically communicating with one another.
	So it's not really clear.
	So because of that, and when my brother and I saw these amendments, we couldn't just sit there and do nothing.
	Why did you get wise to it?
	Well, as I said, I've been in solo practice for, you know, many years at that point.
	And so I just, I continued to see this consolidation, commoditization, vertical integration, and takeover of the medical staff.
	And I just, you know, I had enough.
	We're supposed to be independent.
	We're supposed to critically think.
	And so you actually read it, and you say, what the hell?
	Are you guys okay with this?
	Yeah, that's what I said.
	And so, I mean, I think they rue this to this day, but they inadvertently had given the email addresses of all the members of the medical staff, which is something that I suspect they did not really want to do.
	And so I had all these emails.
	So that night, until like one in the morning, I put a bunch of these emails, I put all together in a spreadsheet, and I emailed out just a simple email saying, I don't know if you guys have looked at these amendments, but I'm going to attach them right here.
	All of you should read these amendments.
	I've spoken to a person on the legal side just to get an informal take on it, and he said, my gosh, if you guys are signing off on these amendments, you guys are really dumb, is basically what he told me.
	So I said, you know, I think we really need to look at these and really think carefully about how we want to vote on this.
	I did not actually have a vote myself because I'm what they call a provisional member.
	I have all other privileges in every other way.
	But I still have the authority and right to bring up the topic.
	And my brother is an active member, and so he can vote.
	So that's what I did.
	I did that that night.
	And I sent it out to over, you know, I think a thousand physicians.
	I'm sorry, when you say they accidentally disclosed the emails, I presume typically it's BCC.
	That's right.
	Yeah, so they did CC.
	So you just copied and pasted?
	I just copied and pasted.
	That's happened a few times in my practice where it's not supposed to happen.
	You get people's emails that you're not supposed to have.
	So you then take the initiative to email everybody who's on medical staff and say, do you understand the import of this proposed amendment?
	And do you raise the procedural deficiencies at the same time?
	Well, yeah, I said, listen, I mean, if you read these amendments as they're written, they're basically saying that, you know, if you don't follow the electronic medical record in a certain way, if you don't follow infection control in a certain way, and it says including but not limited to, which means that it's not just these, it's anything else that's not on this list, you will automatically have your privileges potentially terminated by somebody that, who knows how they're making these decisions?
	And privilege is terminated.
	It doesn't mean you're not kicked out of the medical staff, but you just can't come to the Methodist.
	No, you are kicked out of the medical staff.
	You don't lose your license to practice medicine.
	That's given by the state, right?
	But you can no longer practice at that hospital.
	Okay.
	Well, I guess, do we fast forward?
	Does it pass?
	Does this amendment get passed?
	Well, so we didn't know for a time.
	So I send these emails out.
	And overnight, I'm getting emails back saying, oh, thank you so much.
	I didn't realize this is what's going on.
	I see the vote is coming up.
	And so I started getting those emails.
	And I said, whoa, what's going on here?
	There was a lot of chicanery that went on between the time I sent those emails and the time the vote was actually supposed to go down.
	I mean, there were texts.
	What was the period of time that you get?
	A little over 24 hours.
	Okay.
	Oh, wow.
	Okay.
	I mean, I can't remember the exact time of the staff meeting, but it wasn't long.
	Not two weeks.
	No, it's definitely not two weeks.
	No.
	This is what we call a fundamental or a major amendment to bylaws.
	Yes!
	This is not a day-to-day operation type decision.
	Okay, so 24 hours.
	How's the vote supposed to occur?
	So, the vote is supposed to occur on written ballots.
	First of all, there's supposed to be a quorum.
	We didn't even have a quorum.
	There was not even a meeting where this was deliberated upon.
	I mean, the staff meeting, I mean, there is no quorum at that meeting.
	So, there's no quorum.
	The vote's supposed to be on written ballots.
	They did it on a Google Sheet.
	The same Google Sheet that I might, you know, pull up at a farmer's market if I want to get people together.
	That kind of Google Sheet.
	We don't know who owns the Google Sheet.
	We know nothing.
	Unbelievable.
	And ultimately, but for the number of the doctor, you don't know who's signing that Google Sheet.
	Well, it's not even anonymous.
	So some people were actually emailing me overnight saying, listen, I want to vote against this, but it's not anonymous.
	So, I mean, I can't...
	That's when I started to realize that there's actually a fear of retaliation if they put their name down and said, I don't agree with these amendments.
	Amazing.
	Okay.
	And so what happens?
	So...
	I mean, the vote happens, but we're not hearing anything.
	Now, I decided to kind of make this more organized because I was copying and pasting on some random email client.
	So I did a little research, and I came up with what's called the listserv, which is basically a mailing list that allows you to email to one email address, and then everybody gets it, and then that person can reply to the same email address, and everybody gets it back.
	It's like kind of old-school email with threads, and I said this before, it's like how Usenet used to work.
	So I came up with that system, and so I opened up this listserv, and the first email that I put out there, because I was already getting this feedback of, nobody wants to talk because they're afraid.
	So I said, this listserv is to have free and open exchange for all matters that are relevant to the medical staff.
	Item number one.
	Do we think these amendments should pass or not?
	Or what do we think about these amendments?
	Right now, this is after the vote, but I still wanted to know how people felt about this.
	So that's how it started.
	I had over 1,000 physicians on this listserv.
	And I still feel to this day that nobody else had done this in the country.
	To have local physicians at least attempt to talk about something.
	That is totally in our domain.
	We're talking about something not foreign to us.
	We're talking about vaccines.
	We're talking about mandatory vaccines.
	We're talking about infection control.
	This is not foreign knowledge to us.
	So I felt like we ought to be able to talk about this.
	Whether you agree to the vaccine or not agree to the vaccine, that's one level.
	Another level is, do you read to mandatory vaccine, tying determination of privileges and employment, that's another level.
	So I wanted to create this exchange where we could start to talk about this while we figured out what the heck happened with the amendments.
	So what happened with the amendments?
	Well, I think about a week and a half passed where nobody was saying anything.
	It was hard to even get that information out as to how the amendments passed.
	I mean, like I said, there was chicanery that happened in that small time in between.
	There was reports of text messages going out saying, you need to vote yes for these amendments.
	I mean, I don't know where they came from, but...
	I'm pretty convinced that it probably came from administration.
	That's my opinion.
	I mean, nobody else could have that kind of ability to text in that way.
	So finally, the chief of the medical staff sent out an email saying, hey, we heard there's a lot of commotion going on.
	We know that there was some disagreement about how this all happened, and we know it could have happened maybe better, but just want to let you know we've heard your concerns.
	We're going to take out the including but not limited to.
	By the way, it did pass.
	And they gave the percentages, which then later on somebody followed up on.
	It passed by three votes.
	So it was a three-vote difference.
	And so they claim, allegedly, that it passed.
	This is all just, you know, we don't see any of the vote.
	We don't see the count.
	We see nothing.
	Passed by three votes sounds like they went by, well, not absolute majority, by simple majority.
	It was a simple majority, that's correct.
	Yes.
	On a Google Sheet.
	Typically, to amend the bylaws, I mean, to the extent that that's the scope of the amendment, it's by what they call sometimes an absolute majority, like a 66% or a 75% threshold, or even 80%, not a majority plus one.
	Well, to be fair, in our bylaws, it is a simple majority.
	I don't know if the votes were actually...
	Legit in the first place.
	We have no way to verify this.
	Wow.
	So it passes by three votes, allegedly, and becomes bylaw and becomes enforced.
	Oh, yeah.
	It starts to become enforced.
	Okay.
	So what's your next step after this?
	I mean, how do they enforce it?
	And then how do you come to refuse the enforcement?
	Well, meanwhile, we're starting to have discussions on the listserv.
	People are going back and forth.
	Now, there's a few of us that are actually being very vocal.
	We're talking about all kinds of things with relationship to the vaccine, mandatory vaccines.
	There were a lot of people that threw various ad hominems at us.
	We were trying to argue the rationality of this whole thing.
	We had the president of the Texas Medical Board on the listserv because he's on staff, actually, at these institutions, Houston Methodist.
	I know him.
	So he was chiming in, speaking for his own self, not necessarily for the board.
	So we had these kinds of conversations.
	We had people going at it.
	Orthopedic doctors, ophthalmologists, the infection disease doctors never chimed in.
	But one of the things that emerged from those conversations, because I would get people privately contacting me, people did not want to speak.
	Physicians did not want to speak on the listserv, even though that was our own thing.
	It wasn't going out into the public.
	It was just us talking internally.
	They didn't want to put what they were really thinking on the record on that listserv.
	They were really in fear that they would be retaliated against by the institution.
	That's amazing.
	So that was the culture.
	That's the culture of what was going on through May, June, July of 2021.
	And so the ones who don't want to speak out, they're contacting you privately.
	They're saying, look, I just don't want to engage.
	Are there other people who are...
	Are there people who are critical, speaking out vocally, and does anything happen to those that do?
	Or does it just become an echo chamber run by the only side that feels comfortable to publicly engage?
	Well, at that time, we were very much in the minority.
	We meaning those of us who felt that mandatory vaccination was a bad policy, you know, that ties to termination of privileges.
	We were in the minority.
	Most physicians, at least the ones who were speaking, We're very adamant of putting their voice in there and saying, you guys are crazy.
	Suck it up and do it.
	This is what will take us out of the pandemic.
	So there was that mentality that this is the only way out.
	There's no other way to get out of this.
	Why are you guys getting in the way of this?
	You guys are looney tunes for thinking to obstruct this process.
	Dr. Vino, I know from my practice of law that doctors are among the hardest people to work with, and they tend to be type A personalities, people on earth, generalizing.
	But I did tend to think that they were smart, critical thinkers, and my experience over the last three years has led me to believe that they operate on a faith-based adherence more than I would have ever thought.
	Are you shocked or surprised that so many of your brethren are buying into these mantras, these mottos, it's our only way to get out of it, yada yada, without having done the slightest bit of legwork to even look into those questions?
	I can't say I'm shocked because, as I said, I had already been experiencing this for the years up to the lead-up of COVID.
	So I can't say I'm shocked.
	Now, what I can say is I'm ashamed.
	I mean, I am so disappointed and upset at our medical profession as a whole and our local scene in our area that people were not willing to speak what they felt, whether they were for it or against it.
	And the reason that they didn't feel they could speak was either A, they felt powerless, which I think is not true.
	I mean, as much power as these powerful...
	Healthcare institutions have.
	Their ability to make money comes from us.
	It comes from the orders that we write when the patients are in the hospital or in their clinics, right?
	So we still have that power.
	And we are the ones who are actually connected to the patients.
	The entity itself is not directly connected to the patients.
	They're connected to the patients through us.
	That's how they're connected to the patients.
	So we get power from the patients.
	And ultimately, that is our power.
	So what upset me and disappointed me so much, even to this day, I mean, you can probably hear it in my voice, is if we as a medical profession spoke our minds from the very beginning, this whole thing would not have gone down the way that it did.
	But people were too afraid to speak up.
	Now, a second point, and maybe this goes to your question, how do doctors think?
	I'm sorry to say that Many doctors are no longer critical thinkers.
	I'm sorry to have to say that about the profession.
	They are following guidelines.
	They're following authority, institutional authorities like the CDC and the NIH.
	I mean, I had these arguments in my own family, many of which are in the medical field.
	So you're not really discerning the data yourself.
	I know a lot of us don't have time to do it.
	But for something as important as this, especially if there's some level of controversy or debate or disagreement, I mean, I think it behooves you as a physician to try to use your own critical thinking to figure things out.
	But that's very rare, I would say.
	Well, it's one thing to not engage in the critical thinking and just doing something for yourself, but then to make these recommendations without having done...
	Any sort of critical analysis, it's a far different thing.
	My wife...
	Yeah, that's when it gets worse, because not only are you not critically thinking, now you're actually going into the mode of command and control about it.
	Oh, and dictating policy.
	My wife is a neuroscientist, so she's a smart cookie when it comes to these things.
	And we had a pediatrician, and early on, the question is, is this thing safe for kids?
	And the pediatrician says, yeah, of course.
	I feel fine with it.
	And then my wife says, well, how can you say that?
	It hasn't been around long enough to even know that.
	And the answer was, well, you know, deference to the system, much like many of the other, you know, some other doctors just defer to the system.
	And that's when someone started raising some questions in their own spirit.
	So these doctors, some don't want to question, some don't want to get into the thick of it, and others just say, well, it went like Dr. whatever, Neil deGrasse Tyson, I don't know if he's a doctor.
	It went through the system, so it has to be good.
	They had clinical trials.
	What ends up happening?
	Someone in our locals coming I filed for a religious exemption, the same religious exemption that I filed for the flu vaccine, that was granted for two straight years at Houston Methodist, the Woodlands.
	With no questions asked.
	Let's highlight this, because I think you took for granted.
	I don't know if you mentioned this yet today, but we talked about this yesterday.
	You applied for previously and got a religious exemption for the flu vaccine.
	Okay.
	Well, and again, now that I know some of the legal side of this, I have a sincere religious belief that I can back up with my own religious journey.
	I mean, I write about this.
	I'm a senior scholar at a nonprofit where we talk about spirituality and religious concerns in various domains.
	This is a sincere belief.
	I'm not just pulling this out of a hat.
	And I had Dr. Eugene Gu on yesterday who confirmed that most people don't know how much fetal tissue is involved in so many things.
	And I said, some people do know that, which is their...
	A justification for some as to their sincere religious belief not to take in the byproducts of research or medicine that is made from aborted fetuses.
	And I'm not here to question anybody.
	I wouldn't question anyone's sincere religious belief.
	I think you can be an atheist and still have a sincere religious objection to the vaccine.
	Legally you can.
	So you get it granted for the previous flu vaccines, but rejected for COVID.
	Had you been rejected for COVID?
	In the same year while you're simultaneously recognized for the flu?
	That's a good question.
	Well, so the flu vaccine requests come out in the fall.
	So now we're in the summer of 2021.
	So they hadn't asked me yet in terms of the flu vaccine.
	But I got it in the fall of 2020 for the flu vaccine, yes.
	And they reject your request for religious exemption for the COVID shot after that, and do they give you any reason?
	Well, I asked, because apparently the person or persons in charge, there's a committee.
	I believe it's called the COVID Religious Exemption Committee.
	Unbelievable.
	Which I think is a division of the Human Resources Department, which again, I'm not an employee.
	So, I mean, the Human Resources Department has taken over this process.
	I'm pretty sure there are lawyers on that committee, on the Religious Exemption Committee.
	So I asked a very simple question.
	To the listserv.
	May I know who's on the Religious Exemption Committee?
	And may I know what the criteria, what criteria are being used to determine whether something is legitimate religious exemption?
	I got no response.
	I talked to the chief of the medical staff.
	I talked to various...
	I sent an email to the CEO himself, Dr. Boom.
	I sent a letter to the chief medical officer of the entire system.
	You know, it's like the Spider-Man meme.
	Go talk to this person.
	Go talk to that person.
	We're not in charge.
	Outerrageous.
	Okay.
	And then religious exemption denied.
	And then what happens?
	So I get suspended.
	I get suspended.
	And then, you know, the protocol was you're suspended and in 30 days you're terminated.
	All right.
	So, I mean, I wasn't getting any answers from anybody.
	But in private, like, for example, the chief of the medical staff would say, listen, I don't disagree with anything that you're saying, but I don't have any control.
	You don't have any control.
	You're the chief of the medical staff.
	You are a cardiovascular surgeon.
	You have lots of power in that institution.
	If you said one word, something would happen.
	Forget about me.
	It wasn't really just about me.
	It was about the whole system and the whole process.
	You have the ability to actually put a stop to this nonsense.
	But he did nothing.
	Said nothing.
	So that's when I sued.
	Okay.
	And you sued the medical staff, not the hospital, because of the structure of the organization?
	Correct.
	So I decided to sue...
	I'm suing the medical staff, because the medical staff is what has the enforcement authority to do all this through these improperly amended bylaws.
	I mean, I know what happened with the lawsuit, but...
	Let us know how well it ended.
	Well, I'll make the story short.
	I mean, for a while, I couldn't find a legal team or a set of lawyers to take the case.
	Why not?
	I asked you that.
	Because there's huge conflicts of interest, apparently, in terms of Houston Methodist and legal departments all across the town and the state.
	There is, in the practice of law, if you get there, if you're cursed and you get your wish, you'll find out.
	But there's an old, you know, there are guys who know.
	They go to all the big law firms.
	They have one mandate with a lawyer at all the big firms so that if they ever get sued, another big firm, reputable quality firm, cannot act against them.
	And it's a way they can exclude the ability of many counsels to act against them.
	It's very strategic.
	Diabolical, some might say.
	So, conflict of interest.
	Did you meet any lawyers who were not conflicted?
	They just didn't want to get involved in this mess?
	Every single person was like, I can't take the case.
	I've got a conflict.
	And it's not that you're asking for pro bono.
	You had money to pay.
	No, no, yeah.
	I mean, I was ready to put up, pony up on principle, which is what I ended up doing.
	So, okay, so a number of lawyers turned down, conflict, don't want to get involved.
	Not which, I don't care about the name, but you end up getting a lawyer.
	I end up getting a set of lawyers.
	You know, we start filing the suits.
	This was in July 2021.
	At that time, I didn't even know if I was terminated.
	I knew I was suspended, but they never actually even sent me the official letter that I was terminated until well into the case, like the next year.
	I had no idea what was going on.
	I think that was my design, but anyway.
	So they filed a suit.
	At some point, Methodist files, well, the medical staff, which is the defending party, files a counterclaim on me, stating in its counterclaim that I have violated certain elements of the bylaws.
	Which have to do with basically professionality.
	There's a set of values called ICARE, which Mitch just loves to push.
	I stands for integrity, C, compassion, A, accountability, R, respect, E is excellence.
	So they said in their counterclaim that I had violated the ICARE values.
	In effect, they were saying I was unprofessional, unethical for having this stance.
	Now, again, their rationale, which is Houston Methodist rationale, which they pushed everywhere, CNN, MSNBC, we are leading medicine.
	We are leading the charge.
	Remember, this is the first hospital in the country.
	We are setting the standard for patient safety to protect our patients, to protect our community, to protect our colleagues.
	You must do this.
	And if you don't do this, you're a loser, basically.
	And these are town hall slides that would go out by the CEO.
	We're basically painting anybody that had a different opinion as that sort of person.
	So it was that atmosphere, it was that ethos by which they filed a counterclaim on me.
	Now, I put the counterclaim up on the listserv because now I have a broadcast channel.
	And I said, listen, you're the defending party, medical staff.
	Is anybody here, you guys know me, we all know each other.
	Is anybody here ready to actually say that you endorse what's in your own counterclaim?
	Not a word.
	Nobody said anything.
	Did they end up dropping the counterclaim, or did it get dismissed?
	It got quietly dropped.
	After I put that up on the list, sir.
	Look, if anybody was reluctant to come up before, they're going to be more so now having seen the ringer that you've been put through.
	So they quietly dropped their counterclaim.
	Ultimately, this lawsuit is dismissed.
	Yes.
	So meanwhile, there's a CMS mandate, right?
	So that comes down.
	That was November 2021, and then the Supreme Court rules on it.
	What's that?
	Oh, CMS, Center for Medicare Services.
	Okay.
	So remember, there were two mandates.
	One was through OSHA.
	So that was for the employer-employee relationship.
	They put that down.
	Now, that was rejected by the Supreme Court.
	But the CMS mandate, which was all healthcare workers must be vaccinated in order for healthcare facilities to continue to receive Medicare dollars.
	That was the condition.
	If you want to keep receiving Medicare dollars, well, you have to mandate the vaccine unless there is a valid religious or medical exemption.
	That's important.
	Even the CMS mandate allows for religious and medical exemptions.
	So that thing comes in, that gave them a tailwind, and then that got endorsed 5-4 by the Supreme Court in January 2022.
	And then ultimately, their rationale was that, and then the fact that, listen, we're a private institution, we do this stuff internally, courts should not intervene.
	Those were their two arguments to say, you guys should dismiss this.
	There's no jurisdiction.
	No subject matter jurisdiction.
	That was actually the same rationale that was used in Canada.
	I don't want to make a mistake on the institution.
	I think it was Western University.
	It was a university mandate where they said, look, it's internal policy.
	It's not for the courts to adjudicate on.
	But I just want everyone to also understand the catch to this story is that your brother gets his religious exemption recognized.
	And we're going to get there because I guess we get there after this lawsuit.
	Yeah.
	So ultimately dismissed, basically called, I don't know if it was lack of standing, but don't get involved, court.
	It's administrative stuff.
	Yeah, lack of subject matter jurisdiction is basically the official motion to dismiss.
	All right.
	And now the ultimate kicker in all of this is that somehow, miraculously, your brother from the same mother, it's not like you have a brother from another mother.
	Your brother got a religious exemption for the COVID vaccine, whereas you didn't.
	And there's a very interesting reason as to why that happened.
	But we're going to put that on the back burner for a second because I want people to have something to look forward to.
	So that's the lawsuit.
	You're appealing it on your own.
	You filed the brief.
	And we'll see if there's any news if you succeed on appeal.
	So I had to decide, am I going to file an appeals on this?
	So this is in state court.
	I mean...
	The idea was to get more physicians as parties to the case.
	Everybody was too scared to become a party to the case.
	It was just me.
	I was putting up all my resources to fight this in the legal realm.
	By then, I had finished my first year of law school.
	The money was adding up.
	I just decided, listen, I know this topic as well as anyone better than the lawyers do.
	I'll take what I've learned and I'll finally Brief myself.
	I'll continue the appeals process myself.
	So now I filed the appeals briefs pro se.
	Okay, it's fascinating.
	And we'll follow up on that if and when, but I'm not holding my breath, especially since it'll be moot by the time it gets to the, hey, well, we've lifted the mandate anyhow.
	But I'm curious now about the decision of Houston Methodists to implement these policies in the first place.
	How do they come to make that decision?
	Who are they meeting with?
	Who are the players involved in asking or coercing or manipulating Houston Methodists to do this so early on into the pandemic?
	Well, we don't know.
	I mean, that is one of the huge questions.
	I mean, this is just my opinion, but I don't know that this is all happening from Houston Methodists itself.
	There may be federal connections involved.
	I mean, Houston Methodist is an exemplar.
	It likes to think of itself as an exemplar.
	It likes to see itself as an example of hospital institutions all across the country.
	And so, you know, they're the vanguard.
	They were the canary in the coal mine.
	I actually said this to the legal team, because this was before...
	Any business mandated.
	I said, if this happens at Houston Methodist, everybody's going to look at Houston Methodist and say, well, that's a healthcare institution.
	Every other healthcare institution is going to follow suit in the US, which is exactly what happened.
	And then everybody's going to say, I mean, even Kavanaugh said that it's in oral arguments.
	Well, if the healthcare people are doing it, I mean, I guess it's okay.
	And of course, that's what happened with the businesses before there was a little pushback in terms of the OSHA thing.
	But I mean, I don't know that Houston Methodist is necessarily doing this on its own.
	Now, you know, there are people who are investigating this very question, and I can't speak to what they're learning, but we gave them some information that we know, and they're taking the lead on it.
	Okay.
	And now, in terms of the actual, I'm going to get to the, you know, potential adverse effects, vaccine injuries that might have been sustained by the, if there's a thousand people on the listserv, statistically, there should be at least 1.2 people that have suffered an adverse event of special interest.
	The pandemic itself, I'll ask questions, you let me know if you know the answers to this.
	First of all, what was it like at the hospital?
	Because I presume in the early stages of the hospital, before the doctors were doing their TikTok dances to further the pandemic, I presume the ER was in fact overloaded at some point in time with COVID patients.
	Well, to be clear, I would not be the best person to speak to this because by this time I was not...
	I'm actively seeing patients like I used to in the acute, intense hospital environment.
	I mean, I had done that for years and years and years, so it's not like I don't know how it works.
	But my interests had gone more toward the outpatient side.
	Now, I have spoken with my colleagues who were in that environment, and some of them have said, listen, and this is in Houston, maybe we can't speak to the rest of the country, but in Houston, it wasn't as overrun and, you know, Everything going to hell in a handbasket in terms of COVID as one might think.
	And another thing to realize in terms of hospitals getting overrun, hospitals are routinely at almost near capacity.
	This is even well before COVID.
	That's just the way the hospitals operate as a business model.
	Especially during flu season, especially sickly.
	Yeah, they're always talking about being, you know...
	And ICUs being full and having to, ERs getting backed up.
	That's not a new phenomenon.
	Because that's the way their hospital systems are economically run.
	Okay.
	I spoke, I asked Dr., I don't know if I asked Dr. Gu yesterday.
	I know I asked another doctor, but once upon a time, or the word on the street was that early on in the pandemic, doctors were intubating patients.
	Not to treat them, but because they thought it would prevent the circulation of their contaminated breath particles.
	Do you have any ability to confirm if that's false or true?
	I think that's plausible.
	I mean, you've got to think back to March 2020, right?
	We're seeing those scenes from Italy.
	We're not exactly sure what's going on there.
	There was definitely more intubation going on early on than there was before.
	And people were afraid in the healthcare environment of getting it because it was felt to be an Ebola-like thing.
	So it's plausible to me that in order to create protection, that maybe that was a decision that was made at the time.
	I mean, we later realized that intubating patients that early was not a good thing to do.
	Yeah, it was actually during a Twitter space where...
	One doctor specifically confirmed it, but said, look, we thought it would be useful, and.
	And it's when the doctor said the and that, you know, one can safely presume or conclude that the and was actually the principle and the rest was the justification, or the rationalization, I should say.
	All right, so now, let me think, make sure I haven't forgotten anything there.
	They implement this policy.
	Do the doctors, as far as you know, or do the medical staff, as far as you know, I can't remember.
	Someone in the channel get it.
	Exactly, yeah.
	Do the staff get it?
	And does anybody complain about adverse events?
	Mm-hmm.
	Well, If they have adverse events, I mean, you're talking about a medical profession that's gone all in, right?
	So already there's bias there.
	If they have an event, they're not going to tell you.
	Now, we have anecdotes in terms of our own patient population.
	My brother took care of somebody who's in the medical field, a surgeon.
	He was consulted on him, had a reaction, had actually his kidneys fail on him from getting not only the shot once, but more than once.
	Even in the face of the kidneys failing.
	No, but Dr. Vito, his kidneys are failing.
	He's at higher risk.
	He better go get more Jibby Jabs.
	I mean, the rationale...
	That's the rationale, right?
	You can always circular reasoning this way through.
	Like, well, we got to protect you even more now.
	Meanwhile, nobody's making the connection.
	A connection we've always made.
	We've always...
	Like, I'm a consultant, right?
	I'm a gastroenterologist.
	This is a common scenario.
	I get called in the hospital for a consult for elevated liver function tests.
	Okay, that's one of the things that I do.
	Nobody's going to question me if I look at the chart and I see, okay, what new medications have been added?
	Oh, this is a new medicine over here.
	Well, perhaps there's a correlation between the time that medication was added and these liver enzymes going up.
	Nobody would question me if I said that as a possibility, what we call a differential diagnosis in the chart.
	Nobody could question that.
	What's changed about this?
	What's the calculus that's different now?
	If I said, oh, somebody got vaccinated at point X. And now they have this.
	Okay, I'm not going to say causation yet, but there's a correlation.
	Let's put that in the differential diagnosis.
	That's like saying the name of Voldemort now.
	You can't say that in the chart.
	You say that in the chart, you are sticking out like a sore thumb.
	Voldemort is Lord of the Rings, correct?
	Voldemort is Harry Potter.
	Damn it!
	I was going to say, I'm cool, I'm with the Lord of the Rings too.
	I had another question there.
	No, but the idea, it's religious type...
	Adherence.
	It is.
	But not in, like, religion has value.
	This has no value.
	They say, it's good.
	Take it.
	Oh my goodness, but now it seems that it's caused myocarditis.
	Well, then you definitely need even more of it because if you have myocarditis, you need more protection.
	It is, and I'm glad you put that qualifier.
	It is fundamentalist religious type of thinking.
	That's what's going on.
	It's not science.
	This is not science anymore.
	This is a dogma.
	No, I said it because I don't want to be...
	It's not that I don't want to be disrespectful to religion.
	Religion has value.
	Yes, absolutely.
	This has destruction.
	This is blind.
	It's cultism.
	I mean, it's the difference between a cult and a religion, I'll have to say.
	Yeah, let's not even use the word religion.
	So you knew of one incident of a guy who had kidney issues, others...
	I've had patients come to my office because they know that I don't...
	I'm honest and I just tell people what I feel.
	So patients have come to me because they trust me, telling me their stories of adverse events after getting vaccinated.
	So it's not like physicians haven't heard this.
	I mean, I would venture to say that the vast majority of physicians in this country have heard these stories from their patients, but they're not going to go on the record to tell you.
	Okay, I can attest to that only insofar as people who've come to speak with me that themselves don't want to go public.
	Before I ask you how it is that your brother got a religious exemption, but you didn't, despite the fact that you have the same religion and the same parents, came out of the same womb, someone in our locals chat, Vijay Kapp, should I be concerned that I'm getting IV infusions that are made from pooled, donated blood?
	Inasmuch as you can answer this question, I know it's a New Zealand Yeah.
	New Zealand.
	Do you have any input if you're able to?
	Well, I mean, I can't speak to his particular individual medical condition, right?
	So I got to disclaim that.
	It has been brought up.
	I mean, Dr. McCullough has brought this up in various venues.
	I mean, my answer to it is, I don't know.
	I mean, in order for you to even answer this question, you have to study it.
	Who's ready to actually be honest and study this question?
	Until you get to that point, this is a methodology issue, right?
	You have to be honest about all of this.
	You have to honestly ask the question, and then you have to honestly study it.
	Do we exist in that climate right now?
	I don't think so.
	Hell no.
	It's not an I don't think so.
	All right, Vino, tell us, because there's a story behind this.
	How does it come to be that your brother gets a medical exemption, sorry, a religious exemption, and you don't, in your humble opinion?
	If you can answer the question.
	Sure.
	Everything you say here can and will be used against you by bad faith players out there.
	Well, so as I said, people would occasionally come to me privately, message me on various things, just because we were out there.
	So one particular person who was on staff at Houston Methodist Woodlands came to us.
	Me first, I think.
	That person had taken the original series.
	So Methodists mandated the booster.
	It was the first hospital in the country to mandate the booster.
	This is February 2022.
	This is, by the way, just talking religion, cultism.
	This is after we know.
	This is after Omicron.
	Well, this is after we know definitively it doesn't prevent you from carrying...
	That's correct.
	That's correct.
	This is after we all know it's not preventing transmission.
	We all know this.
	Everybody in the medical profession knows it.
	And so while they are allowing staffers who may be symptomatic or may not know it but vaccinated to come and work, That's yet another absurdity.
	This is pre-mandating of boosters.
	You have a vaccinated person, a physician, coming into the hospital.
	They're not getting tested anymore because they're vaccinated.
	They're legit now.
	They come in.
	Maybe they have a little sore throat.
	They start to see some patients.
	Maybe 24, 48 hours pass.
	Oh, they're now COVID positive.
	Meanwhile, the unvaccinated physician, who's not even allowed to go into the hospital and see patients, is a threat.
	And just so people understand, this is not a hypothetical, correct?
	No, this is not a hypothetical.
	This is what's happening.
	And by the way, the unvaccinated who have some sort of exception, one of the few that have gotten the golden ticket, they're getting their nasal swabbed every week.
	The vaccinated are fine, but the unvaccinated, every week, nasal swabbed.
	I've heard that people have had allergic reactions to the deep nasal swab.
	Is that accurate?
	I mean, I wouldn't know.
	I mean, it goes in pretty deep, but I don't know what allergic reactions.
	Oh, no, no.
	Not like anaphylaxis or anything, but irritation in the sinuses because...
	Oh, well, if you go deep enough, sure, it's possible.
	Oh, God.
	I had that test once or twice, the first and the last time.
	Okay, so sorry, how did your brother, so what's the rumoring as to how your bro got the treatment?
	Right, so one person privately came to us, having been originally vaccinated, and then she didn't want to take the booster.
	So she applied for a religious exemption, and she was denied.
	Well, that makes more sense, because she got the first two.
	Born again, maybe, but...
	Well, I mean, again, let's give her the benefit of the doubt.
	She had a religious idea.
	I'm being tongue-in-cheek.
	Right, and then she had a different way of looking at it, and then she applied for religious exemption.
	It was denied.
	But do you know why?
	Because, I mean, I could think the religious exemption is the way to get out of it.
	Is the reason for which she didn't want to have the booster because potentially, or whether or not, you know, she had an adverse reaction from one of the first two doses?
	I'm not aware of that.
	Or she knew of anybody who did.
	I mean, that would be the only explanation.
	She was concerned enough to have said, that's it, I'm not taking the booster anymore.
	I mean, there's no even scientific rationale to take the booster, right?
	As you just said.
	So she foster religious exemption.
	She's denied.
	Again, they don't tell you why you're denied.
	They just say you're denied.
	So in that context, she comes to us, me and my brother, and says, I got to tell you something.
	And so we met her for coffee.
	And she says, so she's well-respected, by the way.
	And she does a great job.
	People want to keep her.
	But right now, she's in the position where she's going to get terminated.
	So she goes to her boss, who is the chief medical officer of Houston Methodist, the Woodlands.
	The chief medical officer is not the chief of the medical staff, but the chief medical officer is an executive who is employed by a Methodist to serve as the liaison between the administration, Houston Methodist, and the medical staff.
	That's what a chief medical officer's position is.
	That person, she sits down and talks to.
	She's telling us this story now.
	She says that the chief medical officer at Houston Methodist, the Woodlands, said, listen, we want to keep you.
	We don't want to lose you.
	There's another way.
	And that other way was that she was offered the opportunity to fake taking the vaccine.
	There's a lot of thoughts going around in my head, but the first one is absolute rage.
	In fairness, let's steal man this so nobody says Viva's spreading disinformation.
	This is hearsay.
	It's not you.
	It's someone else who came to you.
	And that person, I presume, doesn't want to come forward with this.
	And even if they did, would not have any evidence, no recording.
	And even if they did, people would say, well, how do I know that that recording is legitimate?
	But this person says, I was offered by the executives of the hospital who are implementing and
	imposing She was taken aback, naturally.
	I would say.
	She said she asked a follow-up question, which is, am I the first person this is being offered to, or is this something that's, you know, been going on?
	And the chief medical officer responded, I can neither confirm nor deny that.
	Sounds very FBI-ish.
	We can neither confirm nor deny the existence of the investigation, nor can we confirm or deny falsifying evidence that we submit to a secret FISA court.
	But she, this person, tells you in, what's the word, in confidence.
	She's telling us this in confidence.
	She's coming to us out of desperation.
	She's desperate.
	She's like, I don't know what to do.
	I got offered the way.
	I don't, I mean, she's a, you know, she's a religious person.
	She doesn't want to take the way.
	She doesn't take the way.
	But she's, you know, she's now, she's going to lose her job.
	So she's wondering what is she supposed to do.
	Now, shortly thereafter, there is no appeals process to, you know, your religious exemption.
	There's no formal process to any of this.
	She goes back and submits a second request, and that gets granted.
	So she gets her religious exemption.
	After the way has been offered to her.
	Okay.
	Interesting.
	And how does this tie into your, well, sorry, I know the punchline, but carry on.
	Well, so my brother, you know, my brother knows several of the executives, and one of them is a colleague of his, is in the same cardiology department, honest guy.
	So, you know, he goes and has a meeting with them, them meaning that person, friend of his, colleague, and the chief medical officer.
	of Houston Methodist Woodlands.
	You know, and he's asking him, you know, my brother is telling me this, he's looking him straight in the eye and he's saying, like, listen, I hear there's, you know, there may be some fake stuff that people might do.
	I mean, how do we, you know, how is this even, what's the policy here?
	Because, by the way, my brother had applied for a religious exemption.
	He's denied.
	And he's telling them, he's basically saying what he's been saying on the listserv the entire time.
	He's like, look, You guys know my position.
	I'm not pulling any punches.
	You know exactly where I'm coming from.
	This policy is ridiculous.
	It's absurd.
	It's not based in science.
	It's not based in anything.
	You guys know this as executives.
	So I'm not asking for any favors.
	I'm not asking you to pull any punches or do anything for me.
	I'm just telling you that this whole thing stinks to high heaven.
	And by the way, I've heard stuff like this might be going on.
	And the chief medical officer says nothing.
	He's not acknowledging any of it.
	Of course, he's been in a position where he's going to reveal himself like Darth the Emperor.
	I don't think so.
	But he says nothing.
	Now, shortly thereafter, my brother gets his second request.
	My brother gets his acceptance.
	My brother has the same religion I do, by the way.
	I was saying, at best, This shows capricious arbitrariness.
	Yes!
	And at worst, it shows insidious corruption.
	Those are legal terms of art that I now understand.
	This is as, I put this in my brief, this is as arbitrary and capricious as it gets.
	And you asked for an appeal.
	Hey guys, appeal.
	Yep, we made the right decision the first time.
	Bugger off and take your jab.
	Shocking.
	And outrageous.
	Have you heard from anybody else or any other sources?
	Look, there's the rumor on the internet, the saline jab.
	I had asked you privately, but I've been asking publicly, what would be the rationale about even going through such a complicated procedure?
	Why not just fill out a piece of paper?
	There is a good reason for why this has to be as complicated as it is.
	Yeah, because I would say it's because it's a federal felony, and you have to have the lot number on the card.
	So you just, you know, you can't just have a card or even counter for the card.
	You actually have to have the lot number of the infusion.
	So that's why I think you have to go through this more protracted process.
	Now, you know, once you have the vial and you've got the lot number, I mean, you just squirt it into the sky.
	And that's it.
	You chuck it.
	And you know, Robert Barnes, my co-streamer, we were talking about this from a while back where they had busted someone for issuing fake vaccine passports or vaccine certifications.
	And the question was how?
	They've been tracking everybody from day one.
	They've been tracking everybody from day one, which is why you have to have an elaborate scheme to bypass the mandatory vaccination.
	Do they refer to it as ghost vaccines?
	I guess.
	Fake vaccines, ghost vaccines.
	Did you take it or fake it?
	You can call it any number of things.
	Ultimately, we were trying to be very tactful about this.
	Everybody's living in fear.
	You have an entire culture where people are being forced to do compromised things.
	The poor guy, the chief medical officer, is being put in this position where he's trying to help some colleague through an underground railroad that's being arranged.
	My problem, fundamentally, is why are we being put in these compromised positions?
	What is the face of this system and this culture that has people doing these kinds of things?
	For the longest time, we were trying to make this very intactful and respect people's privacy.
	Ultimately, we felt morally obligated to go out in public.
	Tell this to people because people's lives have been ruined as a result of people not saying stuff.
	So we went public with this to a national reporter.
	That was...
	Cheryl Lackison.
	I'm always nervous.
	On full measure.
	Saying something that's not yet public because I happen to know it.
	So Cheryl Lackison, that was published, that went public, and that started gaining some traction.
	The story...
	The fake vaccine stuff and the lawsuit are primarily the fake vaccine?
	It was really about what was going on in the hospitals, the arbitrary and capricious nature of it.
	Really, the lawsuit wasn't even discussed, and it was definitely the fake vaccine was made public.
	That aired on January 29th.
	Amazing.
	Because I live on the interwebs, and there's always been the joke, just get the saline.
	These people are not injecting themselves.
	And then when something bad happens, can you imagine?
	Just taking the Justin Bieber and his wife Haley, I forget her last name, as an example.
	Both of them, young adults within a three-month period.
	One has, I think it was a brain clot, a stroke.
	The other one gets Ramsey-Hunt syndrome.
	Oh, that's right, yeah.
	Contemporaneous with the jibby jab.
	And we're not, just, these things happen.
	And by the way, we haven't heard a word.
	I mean, it's been, I guess, three weeks now.
	Not a peep.
	From administration, from the executive, from our medical executive committees, nothing.
	Let me ask you this.
	Do you not have a fear?
	This is the Houston Methodist.
	You, at some point, might end up needing services.
	Do you have a fear that you get into one of these institutions and they say, I know who you are and I know what you did and I don't like you?
	And do you have to worry about the medical care that you're going to get?
	Or people based on politics?
	Does that...
	Do you think that that impacts treatment potentially, or do you fear that it will?
	Well, I guess there's two parts to your question.
	I mean, what do I worry about personally, and what do I worry about systemically?
	I don't care personally.
	I mean, this is a choiceless choice for me, all this stuff that we're doing.
	I just decided nobody else is going to do it.
	I'm in a position where...
	You know, maybe I can make a difference.
	So, I mean, I just made that choice.
	On a more systemic level, this is probably the biggest thing that bothers me.
	I mean, when you have a situation like this, where there's no more institutional trust, you don't know who's doing anything.
	I mean, how do we know how many people have actually faked it or not faked it?
	How do we know?
	Nobody's done any verification of any of this stuff.
	So, we don't know anything.
	We don't know who's faked it.
	We don't know who's taken it.
	We don't know how pervasive this is.
	We don't know how high up this goes.
	All I know right now is nobody's saying anything.
	We'll see what happens with that.
	When you have that kind of climate in the field of something as sacred as medicine, and you have to go to the hospital, unfortunately, which many people have to intersect with the healthcare system, whether it's themselves or their loved ones.
	If you're going into a hospital and you don't know and you can't trust whether the institution and all of the players in that institution Are acting in your best interest?
	They're your fiduciary?
	You don't know that deep down in your gut level?
	That's a dangerous situation.
	That is a complete break of trust in medicine.
	And when you don't have trust in medicine, you've got nothing.
	It's over.
	It all flows from trust.
	You don't have trust.
	You don't have medicine and healing.
	My wife wants me to ask you.
	How it is that your parents raised someone with such critical thinking and also someone with uncompromising morals.
	Now we're going to get back to your childhood.
	Were you a bit of a rebellious kid?
	No.
	I was by the book.
	I'm sure Indian parents are like Jewish parents in many ways.
	They put a premium on education.
	They said, study, study, study.
	Get a secure job.
	That's the path that I walked for the most part.
	I was actually going to make that joke early on, but I don't want to say something that'll get me canceled.
	I mean, it's one thing to see, you know, come out of...
	No, the joke is, you know, every...
	What do you call a Jewish kid who's scared of blood?
	A doctor.
	So someone told me...
	Not a doctor, a lawyer.
	I screwed up the joke.
	A lawyer, right.
	And then I made as a smart-ass response when I was a kid, well, I thought lawyers love blood, but anyway.
	And so you maintain this throughout the pandemic, but...
	And you're maintaining it now.
	I mean, to answer your question, I mean, listen, when I grew up, I had one foot firmly planted in good old American values, and I had one foot firmly planted in the traditional Indian values that my parents taught us.
	Those values go all the way back to the source.
	They're divine to me.
	I mean, we have a rich tradition of this, and I mean, that's where it all flows from.
	And when I see injustice, I mean, this is just not just.
	This is just wrong.
	I don't care where you are ideologically, right, left, up, down, whatever.
	This is not just.
	I'm as much for public health as anyone else.
	This is not conducive to public health at all.
	Some people, Vinu, think that that is part of the plan.
	And I don't, look.
	I don't call things conspiracy theory anymore.
	I'll just call things bad ideas.
	But there are, you know, there's a lot of people out there who say that, you know, if there is a bona fide, and not to say that this wasn't a real pandemic, but if there's one, like, you know, contagion level, no one's going to believe anything.
	Even in the absence of another pandemic, which Klaus Schwab, a Black Swan event, people now are going to go back and say, holy crap, if the CDC authorizes this jab.
	As a vaccine for the recommended list for kids, what the hell else is on that list?
	Like, yeah, I mean, like, the fact that the CDC is putting this on for kids, I mean, we in the medical profession, again, the tide has turned.
	We know deep down, I'm going to speak for the medical profession now.
	I'm going to go out on a limb.
	We know in the medical profession that there is fundamentally something wrong with that decision.
	But yet, it happens.
	So now, we, who are wearing the white coat, have a decision to make.
	Right?
	We can either stand up and say, okay, that's enough.
	Or we can continue to cower and say, well, you know, I got a mortgage, I got kids.
	I mean, we all have that issue.
	I have that issue too.
	But at some point, you just have to say something.
	You say the tide is turning now.
	So once upon a time, back in the day of the listserv, the support for the mandate was definitely in the majority.
	What is the sentiment now?
	Do you still have the listserv going on?
	Oh yeah, still going on.
	Okay, and now are the doctors themselves feeling empowered, emboldened to be a little more vocal in their opposition to continued mandates or the jab itself?
	Well, yes and no.
	So I ran a survey when the booster mandate was coming out, so early 2022, saying, hey, y 'all, what do you feel about this booster mandate?
	Now, background, I would say maybe 80 to 90% of physicians were for the original vaccine.
	When it came time to the booster mandate, 80% of people did not approve of the mandatory booster mandate at Houston Methodist in terms of our population survey, right?
	Informal survey.
	There was a decision that Methodist had to make in terms of the next booster, right?
	The bivalent booster.
	That did not go down.
	The reason it didn't go down is because if they put that thing down, that would have been the last straw.
	I mean, I have it on good faith that many physicians would have been like, that's it.
	That's over the line.
	We're not doing that.
	So they didn't do it.
	Not to get you to go beyond your expertise, but I think you probably understand it better.
	What does bivalent mean in the bivalent booster?
	Well, if I remember correctly, I don't keep track of these things anymore because the whole thing is nonsense, especially when it's not preventing transmission.
	It has the latest generation, well, not the latest generation, actually, maybe a generation before that of Omicron.
	Plus, I think it still had the original strain.
	That's what made it bivalent.
	All right.
	Logically speaking, I'm just the lawyer.
	You're going to be both the lawyer and the doctor one day.
	Why would you need...
	What would be the practical benefit from receiving any form of a shot that contains the original strain which is no longer in circulation?
	Is the idea that it would trigger some form of immunological response for your benefit protection?
	Your guess as a lawyer is as good as mine as a doctor.
	What's the practical benefit of somebody getting vaccinated as an Amazon Prime series for somebody that has natural immunity?
	We learned that from first year medical school in terms of immunology.
	We've never done this.
	We've never had people get vaccinated over and over again when they have natural immunity to something.
	I had asked Dr. Malhotra about getting vaccinated over and over again and whether or not that in and of itself can have a negative impact on one's immune system, but I won't ask you the same question unless you have an opinion on it.
	I've heard plausible concerns about it.
	I mean, when you're vaccinating somebody, you are manipulating the immune system.
	I think that's, you know, a fair statement.
	And when you're vaccinating someone with technology that doesn't have a track record, and you're asked to do it over and over again, right?
	This was like the foregone conclusion, right?
	Once you realize that it wasn't going to last, well, the only thing you can do then is you have to keep getting it.
	And if you keep getting it, and you keep doing that to your immune system, What are the ramifications of that?
	I don't know.
	And when you don't know something, you pause.
	Most people do.
	Now, Dr. Vinu, did I not ask you anything that you want?
	I think I've got to everything.
	I think I did pretty good.
	Have I forgotten to cover anything that I should have covered?
	Why am I going to law school?
	I guess that's the last question.
	Oh, gosh.
	So you want to actually go from...
	I was going to say one butthole to the next.
	Maybe two buttholes become something more than a butthole.
	I don't know.
	So you actually want to practice law?
	Well, look, I had reasons as to why I did this.
	One of them was patient advocacy.
	I have seen too many things, even before COVID, I have seen too many bad things happen in the...
	Especially in the acute inpatient hospital setting.
	And unfortunately, we had some family events that happened that put this into stark relief.
	There's nothing that happens that's more intense than when you, as a physician, get thrown to the other side and have to deal with this crazy healthcare system.
	So we had that happen to us.
	And I saw that even as total insiders in this healthcare game, we were overwhelmed.
	And there were decisions being made that, you know, were we not to intervene in some way, it would have been a complete disaster.
	But many people in the inpatient system don't have that protection.
	They don't have that advocacy.
	So I said, listen, I ought to do something about that in terms of how can we protect patients better in the hospital.
	The second reason is more of a systemic reason, which is that I just have great concerns about where this is all going in terms of privacy, surveillance.
	I mean, I think biology is going to be the weapon of the 21st century like physics was of the 20th century.
	And I have a big problem with that.
	And I looked around to see if there was anybody in the legal space that was pushing back in that specific respect.
	And I didn't see really anybody to the degree that I thought maybe I could make a difference.
	So that's why I pulled the trigger.
	And you're still practicing privately now as a doctor, as a GI?
	Yeah, I still do it full time.
	It's amazing.
	Do you have social media platforms?
	I'm too busy to have social media platforms.
	You don't sit around live streaming all day?
	Come on, doctor.
	Have you thought about starting that?
	I have.
	One of the cool things I've enjoyed about law school, even unlike medical school, it's always interesting to compare these journeys.
	As you've demonstrated, you can do a lot with the law degree.
	You don't necessarily even have to go through the standard track.
	I have no desire to go into big law.
	Some sort of advocacy position where I can put my thoughts out there from a medical and a legal standpoint, yeah, it's something I would definitely be considering.
	That's fantastic.
	I'm going to go to our Locals live chat just to make sure that I didn't forget anything.
	Locals, if I've missed anything, get your questions in there.
	And in Rumble, I've invited the same thing.
	NatureLoverFreedom says, you could do well with the channel.
	Are you on Twitter?
	I got out of Twitter when Twitter was going nuts.
	But, you know, I may head back.
	Okay.
	What was your handle if you still have it?
	It's gone.
	It has to be renewed if I go back.
	And let me see.
	I don't know if we're going to end on a blacker of black pills or maybe a white pill.
	Where do you see this all going within the medical community now?
	Are people acknowledging?
	I would say not like...
	Are they open to?
	Are they acknowledging the adverse events?
	Is there going to be a day of reckoning for those who might be responsible for what some might consider to be crimes against humanity?
	And I say it.
	Not you.
	I'm not putting words in your mouth.
	I think at this point, I didn't start off using this term, and I thought it was a little over the top in the beginning.
	I am now thoroughly convinced this is an actual, in real time, crime against humanity.
	Do you think there'll be a day of reckoning for those responsible?
	The short answer is yes.
	I mean, I'm the eternal optimist.
	I wouldn't be doing anything that I'm doing if I weren't that.
	So I think deep down at our core, because again, we see this from the perspective of the people who are our colleagues, who are on the ground.
	We've had personal, professional discussions for years and years and years.
	I think deep down, people know.
	They just need courage.
	And so if I get out there in front and I bust a hole through that line, I mean, I'm waiting for people to come in right behind me.
	And I believe that as a conviction, that that's what's going to happen.
	Let's actually leave it on something that's going to make others feel encouraged.
	Because if I have the last word, it's going to be Debbie Downer on steroids.
	Snowy Owl in Local says, Viva, please tell the doctor I have total respect for him.
	Others saying, Viva, have him on again.
	Let's see.
	We'll do an update when there's a follow-up on the lawsuit, or just your life as you...
	Study law while being a full-time practicing gastroenterologist.
	Dr. Vinu, thank you very much.
	Thank you, Viva.
	This has been phenomenal.
	I'm sorry if I was distracted in the beginning.
	I am very much mourning what I think is an actual loss of a homeland because what happened in Canada is just terrible.
	And it's the new model for the fall of the West.
	This has been fantastic and ended on an optimistic note.
	So I'm going to end it here.
	You and I will say our proper goodbyes off air.
	Everybody, I'm going to put in the link, Eric Hunley and Mark Robert are live with Freeform Friday.
	So if you go over there and show some love, put in a little good good in the chat so they know from where you came.
	Dr. Vinu, thank you very much.
	This was amazing.
	Thank you.
	Everyone out there, enjoy the weekend.
	I'll be live tomorrow with Keith Wilson to talk about the fall of Canada.
	Don't know what time, but in the morning.
	And other than that, see you all Sunday.

▲