PBD - Patrick Bet-David - FDA Commissioner Marty Makary: Tylenol, Vaccines & Autism + Fauci, NIH & COVID-19

Nov. 25, 2025 - PBD - Patrick Bet-David

01:52:39

FDA Commissioner Marty Makary: Tylenol, Vaccines & Autism + Fauci, NIH & COVID-19 | PBD 690

Patrick Bet-David sits down with FDA Commissioner Marty Makary for a deep-dive conversation on Tylenol’s risks, vaccine safety concerns, the autism debate, and Dr. Anthony Fauci’s handling of COVID-19. ------ 👞 GET THE NEW FLB 1'S: https://bit.ly/4mXV9gd 🎙️ FOLLOW THE PODCAST ON SPOTIFY: ⁠⁠https://bit.ly/4g57zR2 🎙️ FOLLOW THE PODCAST ON ITUNES: ⁠⁠https://bit.ly/4g1bXAh 🎙️ FOLLOW THE PODCAST ON ALL PLATFORMS: https://bit.ly/4eXQl6A Ⓜ️ CONNECT ON MINNECT: ⁠⁠https://bit.ly/4kSVkso Ⓜ️ PBD PODCAST CIRCLES: https://bit.ly/4mAWQAP 🥃 BOARDROOM CIGAR LOUNGE: https://bit.ly/4pzLEXj 🍋 ZEST IT FORWARD: https://bit.ly/4kJ71lc 📕 PBD'S BOOK "THE ACADEMY": https://bit.ly/41rtEV4 👔 BET-DAVID CONSULTING: https://bit.ly/4lzQph2 📺 JOIN THE CHANNEL: ⁠⁠⁠https://bit.ly/4g5C6Or 💬 TEXT US: Text “PODCAST” to 310-340-1132 to get the latest updates in real-time! TIME STAMPS: 00:00 - Podcast intro 02:27 - History of the FDA. 09:49 - Restoring public trust after COVID. 19:45 - Fauci & the autopen pardon scandal. 25:27 - Side effects of the COVID-19 vaccine. 38:16 - Is it profitable to find a cure for Cancer? 46:26 - Patent laws & the price of medicine. 52:31 - The benefit and harms of TRT. 1:02:10 - Why are young girls getting their periods earlier? 1:13:29 - The origins of HIV & AIDS. 1:26:47 - Tylenol, vaccines & Autism. 1:39:33 - The decline of healthy foods in America. 1:49:40 - 7-OH and the dangers of vaping SUBSCRIBE TO: @VALUETAINMENT @ValuetainmentComedy @theunusualsuspectspodcast @HerTakePod @bizdocpodcast ABOUT US: Patrick Bet-David is the founder and CEO of Valuetainment Media. He is the author of the #1 Wall Street Journal Bestseller “Your Next Five Moves” (Simon & Schuster) and a father of 2 boys and 2 girls. He currently resides in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida.

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Did you ever think you would make it?
	You want to bust it on something second chase sweet.
	Know this life meant for me.
	Adam, what you're doing.
	The future looks bright.
	My handshake is better than anything I ever saw.
	It's right here.
	You are a one-on-one for Sunday.
	I don't think I've ever said this before.
	How you doing?
	Good to see you.
	Good to see you at the head of the FDA, Dr. Marty McRae.
	Good.
	McCari.
	Great to be here.
	I'm in the belly of the beast.
	I must say, when I first heard of your podcast and my team said, I'm coming on, I said, finally, a podcast about pancreatic obiliary diseases.
	That's right.
	And that's all we're going to talk about today.
	I'm glad you brought that up.
	As an expert in that preview, you know, my background, I'm going to be able to ask you some technical questions in that.
	No, but it's great to have you here.
	And one of the things I love that we're doing is the fact that you're going on the road talking to anybody and everybody.
	And to me, that gives trust in me that you're willing to talk and share what's going on and also educate us.
	Because I think sometimes, you know, whether we can go to previous or even not even previous, historically, it's been, you don't go and talk to people because what if you get caught off guard and it's a little too risky?
	You shouldn't talk.
	We're just the expert.
	Let's just tell people what to do and they got to do it.
	So I respect you for coming out.
	Having said that, I just want to kind of open it up with what stories, what items I want to talk about so the audience is aware and then we'll go from there.
	One, I want to talk about what's going to happen with Fauci.
	I think a lot of people, when you hear the story of 20 million people that died during COVID, we want to know if there's going to be any level of accountability.
	Two, as a father of four, I got two girls.
	I'm curious when you study the history, my wife and I were talking about this last week, on girls who were having periods at 17, 18 and the 1900s, in the 1800s, and in the 1900s was 16, 17, then in the 50s, it went to 14, 15, then it goes to 13, and now today it's at 11 years old.
	What's causing that?
	Curious about that.
	Of course, we'll talk about autism as well.
	And then the food pyramid, how we went from food pyramid to my plate, and what is the next thing we're going to be, you know, introducing because for the longest time we're like, eat your grains, six to 11, and, you know, they're good, but to eat that much of it and the amount of lobbying that takes place with that, and a myocarditis and a few other topics that we'll get into.
	But I'm excited to have you here.
	So having said that, to the average person, tell us the history of FDA.
	How did it get started?
	Why did it get started?
	Yeah, so it's a fascinating history.
	It was a little over 100 years ago.
	There were some, essentially, some toxic chemicals that appeared and people were getting very sick and even dying.
	So a small group of people led an investigation to figure out where these chemicals were originating from.
	You know, they used to put mercury in some foods.
	There used to be heavy metals.
	Coca-Cola had cocaine in it.
	That's why it was called Coke initially.
	So the FDA began by sort of doing investigations.
	And people thought, hey, there's value in this.
	Now it regulates 20% of the U.S. economy.
	It should probably be 15% or something, far less.
	And we have offices in 50 countries and it oversees everything from mangoes coming across the border to cosmetics to MRI machines and microwave ovens to tobacco and vape products to wearables and devices and of course drugs.
	Got it.
	And for yourself, you know, obviously I watched you when you were coming up and when they were saying he could be the head of the FDA, he could be the head of the FDA and everybody was following kind of some of the things you were talking about.
	We've listened to you for many years when, especially during COVID, when you would come out and talk about certain things.
	But for you having the job now, one, how was the phone call made?
	Called you and offered you the job, and what's the experience been for you so far?
	Do you actually feel like you can make direct impact?
	Yeah, I.
	It's an awesome job.
	You can actually do stuff.
	You can actually get stuff done with a very high level of impact in society.
	I've been there about uh eight months.
	We've gotten a tremendous amount of stuff done, uh eliminating animal testing.
	That's unnecessary.
	Uh the removal of the petroleum-based food dyes.
	They've been talking about that for 35 years.
	They've been talking about getting rid of one dye for 35 years.
	Within weeks, we announced the removal of all nine artificial dyes from the U.S. food supply.
	We're making our decisions.
	If we reject a product, we're making those letters public so the public can see why.
	We've got AI in the agency.
	We're cutting red tape.
	We're focusing on cures and meaningful treatments.
	And that's just the first eight months.
	So I'm very grateful to President Trump when he called me and said, hey, this is something you'll consider.
	He's an amazing guy.
	He's a phenom, really.
	He has more energy than anybody and instincts better than some of the academic elites in America.
	So it's just a huge honor to work with him and Secretary Kennedy and Mehmed Oz and Jay Bhattacharya and the gang.
	It's great to see this team there, okay?
	It's very good to see the team there.
	And it's, you know, because these are the guys that were sometimes the most vocal during COVID.
	So the people are like, okay, great, you're in.
	Are you actually going to be able to do the things that we want?
	So one question for you.
	You know, when you get a job like this, I'm assuming if we were boys, if we're friends, and say we went to school together and you went to the, you know, medical route and I'll go into the finance route.
	And we're having dinner, we're at a game, we're watching football.
	You're a football guy.
	I'm a football guy.
	We're watching.
	We're like, hey, you know, Joe Burrows just said he's making a comeback and all this stuff.
	Ah, it's great.
	He's coming back.
	And I tell you, I say, so listen, between you and I, we've known each other for 40 years, okay, from seventh grade.
	These are three things I want to see you do, bro.
	You know, like friends are talking to friends, right?
	I want to see this, this, this, this, that.
	Now, you know, you probably only have three people that will talk to you like that, five people that will talk to you like that.
	But the people that are closest to you, now that they know that you're in, what are folks telling you, man, I hope you get to the bottom of this and this and this.
	What are the three things your friends, specifically friends, maybe not even from the medical space, but friends telling you they'd like to see you pursue?
	Man, that's a good question.
	Now I see why your podcast is one of the top rated in America.
	Look, we're unfiltered, all of us.
	The team, we are unfiltered.
	We are raw.
	We are honest.
	And what you see is what you get.
	We're not going to put something in political speak and massage and give you some boring speech.
	You know, they give me speeches.
	The team gives you speeches when you're in these jobs and you go into this association and you're supposed to read this speech.
	I can't do it.
	I can't read these speeches.
	They're so darn boring.
	I'd fall asleep.
	I fall asleep reading them.
	So we're going to give it to you like it is, and we're not going to be shy.
	My friends tell me they want to fix the food supply and they want to see cures for certain diseases.
	And I think we can deliver cures for certain diseases.
	I think in this administration, you're going to see a meaningful, powerful treatment through cutting the red tape and being proactive for neurodegenerative diseases, for type 1 diabetes, for certain types of cancer.
	We just gave a priority review voucher to a company that makes a drug that takes certain rectal cancers of certain gene subtypes.
	It's a small subset of 5% to 10% of rectal cancers.
	The drug literally melts the tumor away to zero.
	No chemo, no surgery, no radiation.
	That's the kind of stuff patients deserve.
	And that's the sort of stuff that's new in our healthcare system where we're throwing good money after bad into this broken system.
	We've got to innovate.
	We've got to promote innovation.
	So I would say the food is the biggest thing.
	And then cures for certain conditions.
	And we're going to deliver on both.
	We're rewriting the food pyramid right now.
	You're rewriting the food pyramid.
	Yeah.
	It was written by the companies based on what they wanted to buy.
	Yeah.
	And when should we be expecting the new food pyramid?
	I think in the next couple months.
	Okay.
	Because we're, and it's going to be short.
	It might be five pages, right?
	You put out this classic government disconnect from the American people.
	You put out a 200-page document.
	No one's going to read it.
	You put out something that's four or five pages.
	Now every single school board member in America, every parent can understand that we don't need to wage a war on natural saturated fat.
	Where did that come from?
	That was medical dogma.
	Medical establishment got that wrong for 50 years.
	Try to blame everything on saturated fat.
	Moved all these kids in school to low-fat things where they pounded them with refined carbohydrates.
	So we're going to be honest with people.
	We're going to talk about protein.
	We're going to talk about fiber and the types of grains you get, not just calories in equals calories out.
	And it didn't matter how processed the food is.
	So we're going to be honest with people.
	And I think you're going to see a meaningful change.
	If you want to give us any hints, anything that's majorly different because the original food pyramid we saw was from what, 92 to 2005, and then they changed it to, I believe, my plate.
	Is it called MyPlate?
	MyPlate.
	And then they had the Food Compass, which came out of an NIH study that said Lucky Charms was healthier than a steak.
	Lucky Charms was healthier than a steak.
	So when you hear stuff like this, I mean, you know, no wonder people don't trust you.
	It's going to be very hard.
	I mean, I'm actually curious as we go through this, how you're going to be working on regaining the trust, because after COVID, people haven't trusted this probably for the last five years.
	And that's going to be a lot of work for you guys.
	Well, I think that's one of our big goals to rebuild public trust.
	And we're doing it by trying to show some humility in our approach, being extremely honest, and by talking to the public.
	We're not living in a black box in an ivory tower.
	I'm here and I've been talking to people that want to have a serious conversation about what's wrong with our health care system.
	And we don't talk about, when we talk about health care and everyone's talking about how to finance our broken health care system, what's been missing are the two root causes.
	The price of goods and services is way too high and it could be much lower.
	You're seeing President Trump now announce lower drug prices at the price of pennies on the dollar of what these drugs used to be.
	And the other issue is the health of the population.
	No one talks about the fact that 40% of our nation's kids have a chronic disease.
	Many of them take regular medications.
	What's going on here?
	We're just medicating our nation's kids at scale and nobody is saying stop and look up and look around and see what we're doing.
	We take these kids and we rattle them in the middle of the night in their circadian rhythm.
	We put them on a school bus, not because it's good for their circadian rhythm, but because it's convenient for adults going to work.
	And then we pound them with ultra-processed foods and high glycemic loads.
	And we tell them to sit still at a desk and then we pound them again with an ultra-processed lunch.
	And then we tell them to sit still again and they can't do it.
	They got to sort of sugarcomb it.
	And then what do we do?
	We tell them you're a bad kid and we drug our nation's kids at scale.
	They have less natural light exposure than prisoners.
	What is going on?
	So we've got to talk about these root causes.
	So we're talking about all of this stuff and we're doing research and we're talking about the medicalization of ordinary life.
	So your friends, their top three things.
	One was food supply.
	Two was cure for diseases, which you just talked about, cancer, other things that we're talking about.
	Where was investigating Fauci on the list?
	A lot of people are angry in Fauci.
	A lot of people have a right to be angry.
	You were angry.
	You were very angry with him.
	You said a few things about him as well, right?
	A few years ago.
	You were very bold about it on what he was.
	You were probably one of the most vocal ones towards him.
	When we were all trying to figure out COVID at the very beginning, I was editor-in-chief of one of the largest trade publications that doctors read called MedPage Today.
	And I figured we were hearing stories about Wuhan, China.
	I got to figure out the real story.
	I don't want to hear political pundits opine and talk about American resilience.
	Remember that whole, we'll be fine and we'll be strong.
	What the heck are you talking about?
	We have to understand the transmissibility, the viral load, the treatments.
	And so I went deep dive on this.
	I called doctors in Wuhan during that whole outbreak.
	And I basically started to realize that Fauci was misleading the public.
	There's only three coronaviruses that cause severe illness in humans.
	SARS, MERS, and COVID-19.
	Well, the other two are airborne.
	Why did he think this suddenly took a turn and was just going to be different and telling teachers in the summer of 2020 to wear gloves and goggles and pour a gallon of alcohol solution on your mail?
	And what the heck was going on?
	So I realized when he was being introduced on the media as our nation's top, remember this, our nation's top infectious diseases doctor.
	I knew the guy had not done an infectious diseases fellowship training.
	And there was this sort of bandwagon thinking.
	We see it a lot in medicine.
	We see it with, you know, opioids are not addictive.
	How dare you disagree?
	We got that wrong for 15 years.
	It's an old story in medicine.
	And so now I realize as I was trying to figure things out and be independent from just reciting the catechism that Fauci put out, what he was doing with this time is leading a massive cover-up of the possibility that this came from the Wuhan lab, which any smart person will tell you it's obvious, right?
	The epicenter of the world was five miles from the lab.
	The lab had submitted, we just learned this about two years ago.
	And there's a great film called Thank You, Dr. Fauci.
	And it goes through all this.
	And that lab had submitted a grant proposal to the United States government two years before COVID in 2018, saying the proposal said we at the Wuhan lab would like to take a bat coronavirus and genetically modify it by inserting the furin cleavage sites to enable it to infect humans.
	Now, it was the cookbook for COVID-19.
	And then people are acting like, oh, we don't know where it came from.
	They were plotting to do it.
	They had the resources to do it.
	They filed for a patent for a COVID-19 vaccine in like February of 2020.
	How do you have a patent on a vaccine that early?
	People have a right to be angry.
	I'm angry.
	20 million people may have died globally, $25 trillion.
	And people in the United States got so polarized, this toxic polarization, they got spun up by affirming media where they're angry at everybody.
	They're angry at a college kid who's healthy, who has no risk of dying of COVID because he's not getting his second COVID booster shot.
	They're angry at somebody not wearing a mask outside, a cloth mask.
	And they're angry at everybody, but they're not angry at the scientists that brewed this up at the lab.
	They were mad scientists.
	So what should happen, though?
	I mean, if you think about, you know, here's a guy who said, you know, masks, yeah, you got to wear masks.
	And the cameras were off.
	He's taking the masks off.
	Here's a guy that said, I probably will never shake another person's hand ever again.
	It's probably a good idea to never shake someone's hand ever again.
	What are you talking about?
	I mean, you came in right now.
	We should can't.
	That's one way of greeting each other, right?
	He says, you should trust me.
	I think I'm somebody you should trust.
	Trust science.
	He kept saying this over and over and over again and making people feel guilty.
	So now people sit there and listen to him.
	You know, six foot roll.
	I never said that.
	You kind of did.
	And hey, you know, my grandma's dying.
	No, you can't go see her.
	Why?
	Because you may give her COVID or you may give you COVID.
	I never saw my grandma on her deathbed.
	There's a lot of people that went through this kind of stuff.
	What can you do?
	What can HHS do to make those people whole and say, you know what?
	I'm good.
	We got to the bottom of it.
	Now I can live my life and accountability has been held.
	What do you think can happen for those people to be comfortable moving forward?
	I don't know, but people want closure.
	They want a proper investigation.
	They want justice to be served.
	There was clearly a massive cover-up.
	I mean, 3 a.m. emails going on when Fauci was told that, hey, this, you know, the Wuhan lab is being implicated and we funded the Wuhan lab.
	They.
	3 a.m. email that he's.
	Yeah, to the head of the committee that's supposed to approve gain of function research.
	And Fauci and Collins had created a system.
	So, you know, the origin is that in Wisconsin, in conjunction with another lab, they did an experiment where they juiced up a flu virus to make it very deadly.
	And they showed that it infected these ferrets, which are known respiratory models used for research.
	And they published this article.
	And basically, the researchers said, hey, we juiced up, we Frankensteined a very deadly virus, and we show that it's contagious.
	And the world scientific community read this article and said, what the hell did you just do?
	No one should ever do this.
	Just because you can do something in science doesn't mean you should.
	This is a bunch of mad scientists.
	And they petitioned President Obama at the time to ban gain of function research.
	And he, to his credit, put a moratorium on it.
	Well, Fauci and Collins were known to oppose this moratorium.
	And they did their bureaucratic ways to make sure that they could continue to do this, including writing an op-ed called titled something like Dangerous Flu Research, gain of function research, a risk worth taking.
	And they changed the definition and they worked around the committee that was supposed to approve grants for gain of function research.
	And they continued to fund gain of function research.
	Now, President Trump, one of his first things when we all took our office was to ban gain of function research, any dangerous gain of function research.
	Fauci will still play, parse his words.
	He's kind of a master at it.
	Like when he said, I had never called for schools to be closed.
	Well, when DeSantis reopened the schools, he said, this is extremely dangerous, right?
	And people could die.
	And so, I mean, he's the master of sort of circumlocution, you know.
	I don't know what's going to happen, but people have a right to be angry.
	So, okay.
	So, currently, right now, he had his, what do you call it?
	He got his pardon, right?
	He got the stamp pardon.
	Hunter Biden got the signature pardon for Daddy, but he got the Autopen pardon, right?
	Let's just say the investigation comes out and it's been removed.
	He's not pardoned.
	He was at Dick Cheney's funeral the other day, sitting right next to Rachel Maddow, a funeral he probably he would have never been to if Trump was never the president, because these guys hated Dick Cheney.
	So, for them to go, the only reason they went to Dick Cheney's funeral is because their daughter hates Trump.
	So, it's kind of like a they have a mutual enemy, right?
	So, he's at a funeral.
	But let's just say the autopen comes back.
	He's been very low-key, very quiet.
	He's no longer the sexiest man on earth, according to Guardian.
	He's been kind of like the most hidden man on earth right now.
	You can't find him.
	But say if it's removed and then you can investigate him, would you support Fauci being investigated to find out his involvement in COVID with 20 million people dying around the world?
	Absolutely.
	You would support it.
	Now, he just so you know, he gave a grand rounds distinguished lecture at Johns Hopkins, where I was before I came to the FDA.
	I think a couple weeks before I took office, and he got a standing ovation, and they're praising him and fawning over him.
	What year was this?
	This was nine months ago.
	Oh, this is just before I took office at the FDA.
	In 25, yeah, and he's given distinguished lectures all over the place, and you know, the audiences are clapping like seals.
	And there's this groupthink in medicine, and you know, it's again affirming news out there and Trump derangement syndrome.
	And, you know, he made a bunch of mistakes.
	Okay, people are human, but then when Biden took office, he elevated him to be the chief medical advisor.
	And elevating a guy with that many errors, when you get that many things wrong in a short period of time, and then to me, that was a major turn of events.
	Yeah, so I guess it's going to be a two-step process.
	One, they have to get to the bottom of the auto pen.
	If they do, if they don't, nothing can happen.
	If they do, then it can be opened up.
	And, you know, some tells me RFK Jr., he would probably want to get to the bottom of it.
	I know Rand Paul.
	I know a lot of other people want to get to get to the bottom of it to see what would happen there.
	Because, you know, again, you sit here, you're like, well, you know, what's the big deal?
	Let's just move on.
	You know, that is the most annoying thing for people to hear.
	Let's just move on.
	You know, we investigated Watergate and nobody got killed.
	It was like the end of the world.
	Watergate.
	You know, we investigated 9-11, it was only 20 months.
	This kind of gives me the vibes of 9-11.
	Let's just kind of move quickly on and not look back.
	We investigated a lot of these things for a long time.
	You know, World War I killed 15 to 17 million people.
	This thing killed 20 million people.
	And there is not a trilateral, you know, investigation to see who was involved, who knew, who didn't know.
	Yeah.
	You know, I think the level of frustration with the American people specifically is that the government's just going to be like, trust me, the American people are going to forget.
	We're going to move on.
	I don't know if this is going to be that because the next time another pandemic comes up, they're like, I still don't trust you guys, got your stuff together.
	I still don't even know what we're going to be doing.
	Because typically, if you run a business, private corporation, you run it, there's a mistake.
	What do we do?
	We sit there, we go through, we're like, well, okay, great.
	All right.
	So what did he do?
	What did she do?
	What happened here?
	Can we see the emails?
	Can we see the exchange?
	He didn't do anything wrong.
	She's right.
	That one is a little bit strange on when he quit and when he put his letter of resignation in.
	Let's investigate it.
	Oh, so he started a business on the side and didn't tell us about it.
	And that was the one that he was selling us items.
	Let's investigate him.
	Have the lawyers go through it.
	They did.
	Oh, shit.
	He's guilty.
	Okay, great.
	Guess what?
	In a future, the next time somebody brings new companies for us to use, we have to see who the board of directors are that companies.
	We have to find that so this is never going to happen again.
	All right, this is the new protocol.
	Let's move forward.
	That's corporations.
	That's private corporations.
	We don't have that there.
	So, for us to, for the people to fully trust, I don't think it's going to happen unless we can, like the word you used, which was the perfect word, have closure.
	I don't think we've had it yet.
	No, not at all.
	And again, compare the rage of the left when a 25-year-old teacher did not want to get the COVID shot because they were trying to get pregnant with their husband and they had concerns.
	They had some questions.
	And these people insisted they be fired from their jobs.
	Almost a million Americans, they had to be fired from their jobs.
	The rage, the outrage, all fueled by this affirming media.
	And then a guy was implicated in a bunch of mad scientists brewing up a virus that killed 20 million people, a generation of children now with learning loss.
	And people say, oh, well, you know what?
	He tried his best and let's just move on.
	And what?
	What?
	I mean, we've got to rebuild trust.
	And I think, I hope everybody watches the film, Thank You, Dr. Fauci.
	You know, Google suppressed it, so it's hard to find.
	But it's an incredible independent documentary that goes through what is an overwhelming accumulation of circumstantial evidence.
	You know, if they watch it, they're going to come back and say, okay, Doc, what are we going to do about it?
	Because it's going to go back to let's do something about it, right?
	Because that's the closure part.
	I have friends who will say things like this.
	They're like, man, I just, I have guys here.
	They'll say, I feel like crap, man, I had to take it because at my job, if I didn't take it, they were going to fire me.
	And, you know, I feel certain symptoms in my body.
	And they'll say things like that.
	If my body's acting different.
	How can do we get to the bottom of people who took it?
	Is there anything they can do to get any of it out of their system or no?
	That's part of the risk you take by taking it.
	It was an unexpected finding.
	They were downplaying it as the vaccine was being rolled out.
	And look, when it was a good match for the circulating virus at the time at the end of Operation Warp Speed, when it was produced, it was saving lives.
	You saw a reduction in the severity of illness right in front of your eyes.
	But then young healthy people, it turns out, have essentially no risk of dying of COVID.
	And nobody was honest enough to admit that.
	Fauci came from the HIV community where the message was: everybody is at risk, right?
	No one should think they're not at risk of HIV.
	Everybody is at risk.
	It was the same dogma that was put out there.
	And now we learned the virus particles were showing up in the breast milk of lactating mothers.
	We hear stories of long-term complications that were attributed to long COVID, and they were not.
	They were vaccine injuries.
	We've been looking into some of the vaccine injuries.
	We found that they were sitting on myocarditis data at the FDA.
	It was far worse at the CDC.
	They were designing scientific studies as research propaganda, as political propaganda.
	The studies were so flawed in their design.
	It was jerry-rigged to give you a result that the party, the political party, literally wanted.
	At the FDA, they fired the two top vaccine experts because they disagreed on the approval of the COVID booster in young healthy kids.
	It got no media attention, but they literally put political interference at its highest peak.
	So is there anything people can do to get it out of their system today or no?
	Not that I know of.
	Got it.
	Yeah, because I'll talk to friends and they'll say, I think I have long COVID.
	And one guy, good friend, he's known in the space.
	You'll always say he's got COVID.
	He's got long COVID.
	He's got long COVID.
	Is long COVID tied to vaccines or is long COVID tied to actually getting COVID?
	Do we know yet?
	We don't know.
	We know that there are long-term complications of the infection of the COVID infection itself.
	And there are some people who are vaccine injuried.
	And we all know people.
	It's not a case report.
	It's not one or two people in the country.
	We all know of people.
	I mean, I know of three people, not personally, but through one degree of separation who died from the COVID vaccine.
	Who died from the vaccine?
	Yeah.
	One of them was here in South Florida.
	Okay.
	I know of a cardiologist in South Florida here who will tell you he's seen scores of people who have come in with cardiac complications of the vaccine.
	Scores.
	Wow.
	But you've not been able to speak up on this.
	Facebook and the White House were literally censoring true stories of vaccine complications.
	So these are not ultra rare things that – and look, if somebody was ultra high risk of COVID, maybe it made sense when it was a good match.
	But now we have natural immunity.
	We have different circulating strains than were originally circulating.
	They're less dangerous.
	And these are nuanced topics.
	But the way that we kicked out kids from school, if they didn't have the COVID shot, the way that we gave people a false sense of protection that if they wore a cloth mask, they could go visit grandma and they didn't have to worry about the cloth mask did nothing.
	You're breathing right through it, right through the pores of the cloth.
	And so it was basically a pandemic of lunacy, pandemic of misinformation.
	And the real information was nuanced and got censored.
	Yeah, because when you think about the video clips that we all saw, you're a football guy, the Bills.
	You watch all these games.
	You're like, why are people passing out?
	Right?
	You've seen those clips, Rob.
	I don't know if you have it or not.
	There's clips.
	I mean, here's one of them.
	There's a list of these, right?
	Of people just passing out.
	We can't hear the audio, Rob.
	These began tracing small patterns, inflammation, platelets, microplots, weeks after certain shots.
	Most never notice, but for athletes, the immune system hits too hard.
	The same spike, 50% of the time.
	700 of them blood vessel walls.
	Blood thickens, flow slows.
	Boom.
	Ischemia.
	Doctors call it vaccine-induced immune thrombotic events.
	Rare, yes, imagined, no.
	It's in the lacid and NEGM.
	The question isn't if it happens, but why somebody's break the code?
	Genetics, guts, toxins, maybe all three.
	Because when the system builds to defend, starts to misfire, the result isn't protection.
	It's a stroke.
	They said stroke.
	I mean, this is tough to watch.
	This is not easy to watch when you see these.
	These are athletes.
	They're running all day.
	They're exercising all day.
	They're supposed to be the healthiest ones.
	And then this happens to them.
	Have we either investigated or started something to find out how many of these were tied to the vaccine?
	Or because even the Bills linebacker, I believe, who was interviewed afterwards, cornerback or linebacker, I don't know what he was, but he played defense.
	When they interviewed DeMar Hamlin and they said, what happened?
	He says, I know what it is, but I can't say it.
	I don't know if you've seen that interview.
	No, I haven't.
	Yeah, they interviewed him and they said, do you know what it is?
	He says, I do know what it is, but I just don't want to talk about it.
	I don't want to say anything.
	It was like this secret sauce.
	You can't say what happened here.
	Are we ever going to, or maybe we already have, have we found that if there was a link between the vaccine and folks passing out, specifically athletes passing out?
	So there's an NIH study that's looking at this, but here's the thing.
	These athletes were at a risk of dying of COVID of exactly zero.
	No athlete has ever died of COVID.
	Okay, no professional athlete.
	And so the ultimate failure of the medical establishment was failing to recognize a 10,000-fold risk difference between a young person and an older person.
	And so they did, again, this Fauci HIV mindset.
	Everybody is at risk, almost as if everybody is at equal risk.
	And as a result, you know, they had all this forced, all these forced vaccination requirements for young, healthy athletes.
	A lot of NFL players were angry about the COVID vaccine requirement.
	But you know how the NFL is with their tight control of that messaging.
	I mean, they even control the news coverage of the NFL, right?
	The NFL network is owned by the NFL, right?
	So it's, we're both NFL fans, but I mean, there is this side of the NFL that was ugly when you saw this vaccine requirement that the players did not want.
	I mean, the African-American community has been more suspicious of the medical establishment than the non-African American community for good reasons, because of the Tuskegee experiment, this cruel and barbaric experiment on black people that ran into the early 70s.
	And so there's this general skepticism.
	And you saw this hesitancy in that community.
	And, you know, when they're trying to blame Republicans for being the unvaccinated, and they're basically making it sound like it's Trump support.
	Number one, unvaccinated community by a percentage was African Americans.
	Yeah, and by the way, good for them for doing that.
	They were skeptical about it, but that was the interview.
	If you want to pull it up, Michael Strahan has interviewed DeMar Hamlin on ABC, and here's what he had to say.
	Go for it.
	You're 24, peak physical condition.
	Could run circles around me right now.
	How did doctors describe what happened to you?
	That's something I want to stay away from.
	I know from my experience, the NFL, they do more tests than anything.
	And in the course of you having a physical, did anybody ever come back with any, say you had a heart issue or anything that was abnormal?
	Honestly, no.
	I've always been a healthy, young, fit, energetic, you know, human being, let alone an athlete.
	So it was something that was just, that we're still processing, and I'm still talking through with my doctors just to see what everything was.
	You can tell he doesn't want to talk about it.
	Yeah, you can tell.
	He just, he went through it.
	He thought about it.
	He's like, I'm probably not going to get the contract.
	They're probably going to kick me out.
	Am I going to get sponsorship money?
	Nike's not going to give me a contract.
	Just keep it to yourself.
	I wonder literally in that 10-second pause that he had that ABC showed.
	What was he thinking about?
	Yeah, even doctors, when asked publicly and on television, do you think this could have been a vaccine-related complication?
	They were afraid because the censorship machine was alive and active, and they knew all heaven and earth could come down on them for even suggesting it as a possibility.
	And that is how draconian our medical establishment has become now, where you were not allowed.
	I mean, this is like Chinese Communist Party kind of stuff, right?
	If you disagree, you could just disappear, right?
	Yeah, well, look, I remember the movie, the concussion movie that Will Smith did.
	Was the movie called Concussion?
	Yeah, it could have been called Concussion.
	And they were not fans of that movie.
	And by the way, this movie was one of the reasons why my wife doesn't want one of our boys to play football.
	So this movie actually impacted, and they ran a survey, a number that said parents of kids who make over $150,000 a year have a higher likelihood of not allowing their kids to play football than parents who make less than $150,000.
	So there's a link between, yeah, we're not going to be touching that sport because it can have some brain damage on you and stepping away from it.
	So I just, when I see this kind of stuff, to be closure is important.
	And I think you guys got three years because honestly, we don't know who's going to be the next president of the United States.
	There's a lot of people that are overly confident.
	Oh, yeah, it's going to be JD Vance.
	It's done.
	It's going to be JD Vance, Rubio Ticket, and this is going to go 12 years and it's going to be fantastic.
	And then you go to Calci and you look at, you know, 2028 candidates and Newsom and JD are neck and neck.
	And it's not like it's a given.
	So the reason why I'm saying this, I think if in the next three years you guys don't get this, we may never come back and touch this ever again.
	I think this will be something that will be just wiped.
	You know, it'll be another one of those things that will be conspiracy, you know, John F. Kennedy assassination, MLK assassination, 9-11.
	They don't ever want to tell us.
	And the trust in the U.S. government will be low again.
	I think you guys can increase the level of trust in the U.S. government and get it skyrocketed in a ways if we've never had.
	If certain things just get boom, You know what?
	I trust the investigation FBI did.
	No, James Comey and Letitia James, case dropped.
	Oh, give me a flipping break.
	Yeah, you know, Fauci, boom.
	No, nothing's going to happen.
	Oh, yeah, boom, nothing's going to happen.
	The average day-to-day voter, I'm not talking about the one that follows everything closely.
	The average day-to-day voter is not thinking high, high-level stuff.
	COVID impacted them.
	They're just like, listen, can you just tell me what happened here so I can move on?
	Anyways, that's enough on COVID.
	Let's go to the next story I'm going to talk to you about because we can talk COVID all day long.
	We're talking about the primary bile duct now?
	Yeah, for sure.
	No, you said two things, right?
	You said food supply was one thing your friends wanted you to get to the bottom of.
	And cure for diseases.
	Let's talk about cancer.
	Is it profitable to find a cure to cancer?
	Isn't it more profitable to not find a cure for cancer?
	It's not profitable if you take an existing treatment and repurpose it because there's just not a lot of money in those generics drugs that have been out, and there's many companies that make them now.
	But if you make a drug de novo and you are curing a disease, the market exclusivity, the marketing rights, it does make it profitable and you're seeing huge profits.
	So the most, the fastest area of healthcare spending is drug spending.
	And the fastest area of drug spending are these drugs called biologics.
	They're complicated molecules and the complexity stems from them being derived from cells.
	You don't just make them in a chemistry lab.
	They are derived from a cell line.
	Well, there are generic versions of those expensive medications, but the FDA has set up so much red tape that companies are not pursuing those generic versions.
	So we cut that red tape.
	We cut the research and development cost in half.
	These drugs are amazing.
	We're also issuing these priority vouchers for a priority review.
	So if your company is making a product that's in line with our national priorities, that is domesticating manufacturing, meeting an unmet public health need, and the president's mission to make medications affordable by lowering drug prices, as you saw with the most favored nation status or MFN. pricing, which means we get the lowest price of the developed world in the United States.
	We're the largest purchasers of drugs.
	We deserve the best price.
	That's been the president's strong position.
	And that's why you're seeing certain medications come down now from $243 to $10.
	You just saw the GLP ones come down from $1,300 in the announcement to a $50 copay or $150 for the first couple months.
	Massive.
	We're not talking about 1% or 2% stuff.
	We're talking about massive reductions.
	Well, one of the vouchers we issued was for this medication for cancer that for certain types of rectal cancer shrinks the tumor into nothing, eliminates, melts away.
	If that technology is out there and people are candidates, what are we doing?
	What are we waiting for?
	I mean, obvious reason.
	Obvious reason.
	I mean, why would they release it?
	So think about, you don't think, you don't think some of these companies have the cure for cancer?
	Think about if how many smart researchers we have.
	So somebody all of a sudden comes up and says, guys, we got this cure for cancer.
	This can help.
	And let me show you.
	Here's what it looks like.
	Now, the guy is going to be sitting there saying, all right, we release this.
	Show us our charts.
	How much money do we make off cancer every year?
	38%.
	Which drugs, what chemo, what medicine is tied to this?
	38% of our top-line revenue.
	How much would this be?
	This would be 6% of our top-line revenue.
	So you want me to release a drug that's going to inject our top-line revenue by 6% by get rid of 38%?
	Yeah, guys, let's take our time with this one.
	Keep the research.
	Let's see what you're saying.
	You're saying the medical industrial complex is making so much money off the current way in which it functions that if you come up with something that's going to just eliminate diseases that they can't poke and prod you and over-medicate you for and operate on you for, that is such a threat to the business model that there's a machine that wants to stop it.
	So I understand why people are cynical because the medical industrial complex has no incentive really to move in the right direction.
	They're profiting from sickness.
	But I will say, I don't personally think it's that intentional.
	I think the pharmaceutical companies get a pot of gold if they can make a leap in advancing a treatment.
	So this medication, for example, that melts away certain rectal cancers and other GI cancers, we're giving it a priority review.
	If the review goes well, and I expect it probably will, it's going to be on the market and you're going to start seeing operations averted, people no longer sitting in the chemo chairs, not getting radiation therapy.
	Some of this stuff, by the way, doesn't work very well for certain cancers, depending on the type and the treatment.
	And so I do think you're going to, I do still think there's an incentive to create some powerful treatments.
	A type 1 diabetes treatment.
	I'd like to see a meaningful treatment or cure for type 1 diabetes in this administration.
	There's a potentially promising treatment that we are tracking so closely.
	And here's how we do it.
	I personally go to the front lines of the FDA and meet with the scientific reviewers one-on-one.
	It's got to be one-on-one or you're not getting the full story, right?
	And I ask them, are you seeing anything that looks amazing, something that gives you chills up your spine because it could be such a game changer?
	You're asking that question.
	I asked that question to reviewers.
	And, you know, most of the time they say, no, nothing really that much of a game changer.
	But then we'll find a diamond in the rough.
	And one of those was this treatment for diabetes, where I don't want to get too much into it, but it looks amazing.
	And there's another treatment for another condition.
	And we're going proactively.
	So if one of the reviewers says, you know, this early result, this data looks too good to be true.
	Then we'll call the company, send us more data.
	Forget about the application and the margins and the font and the, you know, all the dumb requirements government says.
	Just send us the data and we'll look at it and we'll issue these vouchers to get a decision out in weeks instead of a year or years.
	So there's a, for example, about a month ago, an article came out in our top journal, the New England Journal of Medicine, for a type of childhood deafness, a form of congenital deafness that's about maybe 1% to 3% of kids with congenital deafness.
	And they gave them a gene therapy delivered through a little device that restored normal hearing to kids with congenital deafness.
	They got normal hearing and three out of 12 kids and 7 out of 12 got improvement in hearing.
	What are we waiting for, right?
	When you see that, the kid is deaf.
	And it had an impeccable safety profile.
	So we contacted that company days from that data being published.
	We are not in a receive-only mode.
	We're not a stingy librarian anymore at the FDA.
	We're proactive.
	So we're going out there and you're seeing powerful treatments for some forms of blindness, deafness, pediatric conditions, rare diseases, cancers.
	And we're going to keep going.
	This is an entirely new approach.
	And I think we're going to deliver more cures and meaningful treatments for the American public in this administration.
	My predecessor in the Biden administration said his number one priority as head of the FDA was fighting misinformation.
	Well, our number one priority is not censoring Americans.
	It's delivering more cures and powerful treatments.
	Well, that number one priority is fighting disinformation matches up with what World Economic Forum, I believe, said Adavos, that number one was on that list.
	Rob, is that pretty accurate that they said the number one risk?
	So they're aligned.
	I'm not surprised that they're saying that.
	Talking about coming up with certain medicines and competing, one day three years ago, two years ago, we decided to go a little bit deeper on the patent laws when it comes down to medicine.
	And if I come out with a new, you know, this is specifically for pricing with drugs, how expensive it is, you would see patents in medicine is roughly 20 years.
	Of course, after the amount of time it takes to go through its testing and approval, it's a long, lengthy process.
	They generally have seven to 12 years where they have a monopoly on this product.
	But even then so, once the 20 years comes by, these great lawyers know how to add an additional 18 years of extension.
	So the number was roughly 38 years that they end up having give or take.
	That's a long time.
	And then you would see the price point charging $5,900.
	And then the day the patent's done with, two years later, it's $72 or $88 that drop off.
	You don't want to flirt with free market because that's competition.
	We have to have these guys have the incentive.
	If you remove the incentive, I think it's going to be catastrophic.
	But maybe we can change the patent laws.
	Maybe we can open up the patent laws to say, if you came up with it, you know, allow others to sell it as well.
	And anybody else that sells it for 10 years, they have to pay you 50% of the profits.
	Maybe we can get creative with the patent law.
	So the inventor, the creator of the patent, says, you know what?
	Doc, I think, Marty, you're being fair with me.
	I'm willing to entertain this.
	And you bring the lawyers and say, guys, we'll give you five years from the day it gets approved.
	Forget the 20-year number.
	You got five years ahead of the game.
	But after five years, no extension.
	Give it up to anybody else.
	Anything they sell for the next 10 years, 50% profit comes to you.
	So I'm going from my distribution of one company.
	And now all of a sudden this drug is being able to be sold by Johnson, you know, what do you call it?
	Pfizer, everybody else.
	They did 2.2 billion last year.
	Profit was $600 million.
	Here's a $300 million auto check.
	I'm happy with it.
	I'm using their, so their salespeople become nice.
	What can we do to creatively work on these patent laws that we have with medicine?
	We have to fix the patent laws.
	And it's even worse than how you're describing.
	What happens is a company that gets a patent and gets a drug approved then will have dozens or hundreds of patents filed around that drug.
	And you might say, how are you filing more than one patent for a drug?
	Well, they modify the patent just a tiny bit, or they add one little molecule on a complex chain of molecules.
	And now it's a different drug.
	And so they just try to bum rush, like blitz the patent office with so many applications so that when a company comes along after the patent expires and makes a generic, the branded company will sue that generic company saying, oh, you're violating our patent.
	Well, you got 100 of them.
	And so it creates legal obstacles for a generic to come to market because it just creates the opportunity for more lawsuits.
	Do you think there's something there?
	Like, do you think you guys can go in in three years, be able to change the patent laws and open it up for them?
	I wish we at the FDA could do that.
	It's really a congressional fix.
	Wow.
	That means, and what do you need on the congressional side?
	And how much money are these guys?
	Because Rob, can you pull up how much, I think the medicine, the medical sector of lobbying is a 800, it's one of the biggest ones, if not the biggest one, right?
	On how much they're lobbying their politicians.
	If you put them up there, they're up there in the top three, definitely top three.
	Rand Paul has a bill on patent reform, and there's a couple others.
	It's a bipartisan.
	I hope, I mean, it's desperately needed.
	2020, they spent $710 million, $13 million.
	2020, you're going up against these guys.
	are what is the likelihood of being if so for us to change so rand paul has a bill yeah have Have you seen this be something that the president or RFK Jr. has entertained, driving and pushing?
	Because I haven't heard a lot about this.
	Is this something that's at the top of mind or not really?
	You know, because it deals with patent law and it's outside of the jurisdiction of the FDA, the signals that we have given are that, hey, this needs to be fixed.
	But it's really something that involves members of Congress fixing.
	So I know there's support for patent reform, but I don't know where it stands from my vantage point at the FDA.
	Yeah, it's called $713 million.
	That's amazing.
	Amazing.
	And imagine how many these guys are getting funded for their reelection.
	How much money they're getting to say, look, you better not entertain this one.
	You better not touch this one.
	So, okay.
	Well, I asked that question because one, cost.
	You know, the average person can't afford, you know, certain things and there's cures for them or their kids.
	It goes back to the movie.
	I don't know if you've seen the movie John Q with Denzel Washington.
	If you've never seen it, that is a movie you must watch because it's about your business.
	John Q. John Q. Concussion.
	And thank you, Dr. Fauci.
	I'm going to do thank you, Dr. Fauci.
	But this is John Q with Denzel Washington.
	It is a very, very emotional movie that was shot 23 years ago.
	And there's a famous scene in the movie where he says, My son buries me.
	I don't bury my son.
	It is a chilling scene when he talks about it.
	But a lot of people are going through some of the stuff that they can't afford to, you know, to pay for.
	Okay, so next thing to talk about.
	When I was coming up, I wanted to be a bodybuilder.
	I wanted to be Mr. Olympia.
	I said, you know, one day I'm going to be Mr. Olympia.
	And the average height for Mr. Olympia is 5'8, 5'9, 5'10.
	I'm 6'3.5, 6'4.
	So for me, you know, I didn't want to be 400 pounds offseason.
	And there was this book that everybody had to read to learn about steroids.
	It's called the steroids Bible.
	And it was multiple, you know, first one, second one, third one, all of them you would go through.
	And everything about testosterone was bad that you would read about.
	And then today, for the first time ever, back in the days, nobody would talk about that.
	That guy's on steroids.
	No, he's natural.
	You know, and I think a couple of the first people that came out and talked about it, Arnold may have spoken about it.
	And a guy named Bill Phillips made it very open with this magazine called Muscle Media 2000, which was hands down the best magazine in bodybuilding.
	And he wrote a book called Body of Life.
	He had a company called EAS.
	But today, guys will openly say, Yeah, I'm on TRT.
	Yeah, I'm on HRT.
	What has happened where, what can you tell us from the perspective of steroids today?
	What does the average person not know about?
	Have we found?
	I read a book about 12 years ago called Ageless Man, where they were testing TRT and steroids with different things to say, if the testosterone level is higher, your heart is actually doing better.
	What have we learned about steroids?
	It's a fascinating subject.
	And I think you and I grew up around the same time, and steroids were seen as this way to get buffed up.
	And people do feel better on steroids.
	Steroids are a natural chemical.
	When you take exogenous steroids, there are some short-term benefits, but there's long-term harms.
	And that's why the medical community warned against people buffing up on steroids just to look better and feel better in the immediate short term.
	And then in the Olympics in the 1980s or so, people were taking testosterone as a performance enhancer.
	And all heaven and earth came down on those people.
	And that resulted in testosterone getting scheduled as a controlled substance.
	But the more that we've learned about the human body, the more we've realized now that there can be a role for testosterone replacement in men when they stop producing a high level of testosterone.
	And it provides some of the benefits of testosterone, including muscle mass.
	Now, this hasn't been proven yet as an outcome of taking testosterone replacement therapy.
	But do you know what the number one predictor of longevity is?
	Muscle mass.
	Now, it may be a function of the fact that those people are more active.
	But if you look at muscle mass, and we can measure it on a CAT scan, it is the number one predictor of longevity.
	So we are having, I think we're live here, right, when we're chatting.
	We're having, I think it's December 13th, we're having a forum at the FDA on testosterone replacement therapy in men's health because it has not gotten the attention it deserves.
	Some men are good candidates, but there's this stigma that it's maybe wrong or maybe has short-term benefit, but long-term harm.
	The more we learn about testosterone, the more we're learning that, say, low-dose testosterone can have long-term health benefits.
	So I'm not here to promote a product.
	I'm a regulator, but this has not gotten the attention it deserves.
	We have a guy, Brian Christine, who's a men's health expert, and he's going to be leading this.
	And, you know, we just did this big announcement on hormone replacement therapy for women.
	I don't know if you saw that.
	I did.
	We got great coverage on it, and I'm glad it did, because this represents the biggest screw-up of modern medicine, the demonization of hormone replacement therapy for postmenopausal women.
	And, you know, it came out of dogma.
	It came out of a Fauci-like figure at the NIH in the year 2002, about 23 years ago, who made this decree.
	And he had a study that he pointed to, even though the study was misinterpreted.
	And you actually looked at the details of the study when it first came out.
	It did not show an increase in breast cancer that was statistically significant, yet he said it causes breast cancer.
	No subsequent study has found that it increases breast cancer mortality, but women were scared out of this treatment.
	It's a life-changing, life-saving, life-extending treatment for many women.
	When their body stops making estrogen between 45 and 55 years of age, they replace it with estrogen replacement, plus or minus progesterone, and they feel better and live longer.
	It not only alleviates the short-term symptoms of menopause, that is, when I say short-term, it can last eight years on average.
	We were told in medical school, some women have symptoms of menopause, but they're usually mild and they just last a couple years.
	In other words, just tough it up.
	These women are complaining.
	That was basically the male-dominated medical establishment.
	Now we know symptoms last eight years on average.
	That 80-plus percent of women have symptoms.
	And for most, the symptoms are severe.
	Now they're more likely to get an antidepressant when they come in for their mood swings than they are estrogen, which can alleviate these symptoms of the hot flashes, night sweats, mood swings, weight gain.
	I mean, marriages have been saved by hormone replacement therapy in postmenopausal women.
	In what way?
	Well, for example, one patient described, we just did a podcast with some experts in this field, and they said, the patient came in and said, every time I had sex with my husband, it felt like razor blades in my vagina because there's dryness associated with the menopausal changes.
	And so it makes, it can make sexual activity painful.
	And these symptoms were alleviated with hormone replacement therapy.
	So not only are the short-term benefits remarkable, but there are massively underappreciated long-term health benefits that are profound.
	And let me just mention a couple.
	Lowering the risk of fatal heart attacks by 25 to 50%.
	That's the number one cause of death in women.
	I mean, on a, you know, on a population level.
	25 to 50%.
	Yeah.
	I mean, this is top studies in the journal Circulation, one of the top cardiology journals just two years ago.
	And it prevents osteoporosis, like 90% effective in reducing osteoporosis.
	It reduces the risk of a bone fracture later in life.
	A woman's, you know, if a woman makes it to 80, there's like a one in three chance she's going to have a hip fracture.
	And that can be the cause of death in many women because it leads to disability and surgery and then complications.
	Well, the root issue is the bones were weak because the estrogen level dropped off at menopause and it's preventable with hormone replacement therapy.
	It also reduces cognitive decline later in life for a woman.
	So the benefits are so profound that there, by the way, there may be no medication in the modern era with the exception of antibiotics and a few others that can improve the health of women on a population level more than hormone replacement therapy for postmenopausal women if it started within 10 years of menopause.
	It's a key feature.
	So that means 60, because the study had a number 60 in it, right?
	So starting 10 years before 60, so you're saying starting when you're 50 years old?
	Give or take?
	Women experience menopause generally between the ages of 45 and 55.
	And so your body really should not be going without estrogen for more than several years because the estrogen keeps the blood vessel wall healthy.
	So it's generally believed that if you start it more than 10 years after the onset of menopause or rule of thumb after age 60, that the benefit is not there and the risk-benefit ratio inverts.
	And so doctors generally don't recommend it after age 60.
	But most doctors haven't recommended it at all because of the dogma from the NIH 23 years ago that it increases your risk of dying of breast cancer, something that's never been found to be true in a clinical study.
	And is that the one that was released to the mainstream media first to kind of get some attention?
	And then that's what caused everybody to think that those two tied to each other?
	Yeah, it was very manipulative.
	They released it to the media without the data, and then they published the study a week later.
	And when we looked at it after it was published, we said, there's no statistically significant increase in risk.
	Who benefited from that?
	Who benefited from that article?
	Individual careers in medicine were made.
	Nobody financially.
	Like, it wasn't like a big pharma company that benefited from this.
	No, this was the ego of people who set out.
	I mean, the lead investigator of that study had said before, we have to stop the HRT bandwagon.
	I mean, he was on a mission.
	Yeah, so, and let's stay on this, you know, with women, you know, young girls.
	When you pull up data and you say, okay, I hear people will say, you know, speaking to a doctor, we're at a soccer match, and he says, yeah, you know, girls are having periods earlier than ever before.
	Why?
	Well, there's many different reasons.
	I said, you know, tell me the history about it.
	And then we pull up the history and it says, you know, in the late 1800s was 16, 17 years old.
	And in early 1900s, yeah, right there.
	So from 15 to 17 years old.
	And it went to 12 and a half to 13 years old.
	And then went even lower and lower.
	And then today it's 11 point something years old.
	Yeah, 11 years old.
	And some even, especially black and Hispanic girls, beginning puberty signs at eight or nine years old, with some early as six or seven years old.
	This is the earliest in recorded history.
	Why is that?
	I think it's because of the number of exposures of substances and chemicals in the modern world that have estrogen-like binding properties.
	I mean, you can go to the river and test the water, and you'll find that there are things in there with estrogen-like binding properties in the modern world, things that have never been formally studied, but we know it binds to the estrogen receptor partially, not entirely, partially.
	And this is a huge issue.
	I mean, you talk about existential threats to the human race.
	The age of puberty has been going down by a week and a half each year for roughly the last 30 years.
	Wow.
	Yeah.
	I mean, in Europe, where they may not have some of these exposures, you still have women, girls going into puberty at age 14, sometimes, 15.
	Something's going on, and we have not paid attention to this.
	It's in the Maha report that this is a priority for us to look at.
	But something's going on.
	And I remember in med school, we learned this.
	You know, they teach it in two seconds, you know, just a flashline in the textbooks.
	And I remember that the instructor mentioned this.
	They were talking about puberty and the precocious puberty and other conditions.
	And they said the age of puberty is going down.
	It's now years earlier than it was a century ago.
	And then they moved on to the next topic in one breath.
	And I remember like, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa.
	We're not talking.
	We're not going to pause and talk about this.
	And you have these issues in American medicine that live in these blind spots.
	And only intellectually curious people like yourself who ask about it prompts the medical establishment to look at these things.
	Because we have a medical system that's designed to play whack-a-mole with prescribing meds and operating on people.
	Prescribe, operate, prescribe, operate.
	And so you come in, and we've done this terrible thing to doctors in America, where you come in and you get on the hamster wheel and you're told, here are your tools, prescribe and operate, and you can only work within the confines of your clinic, and we're going to measure you by your throughput.
	And so these doctors become these busy beavers just billing, coding, writing notes, prescribing and operating, billing, coding, writing notes, prescribing and operating.
	And you wonder why the burnout rates are higher than any other profession, right?
	So we've got to stop and ask, what are we doing?
	Yeah.
	And so let's just say if I'm the establishment doctor representative, and I say, what's wrong with it starting earlier?
	How is that even a bad thing?
	Maybe it's a good thing that it's starting earlier.
	You know, maybe it's a, you know, they could make that argument to say, you know, if they start earlier, they get acclimated to it before they start the adult life and all this other stuff.
	What arguments have they made?
	Have you heard any arguments for saying that it's good that they're starting it earlier?
	I have not heard those arguments.
	I've not engaged in this debate.
	I mean, one thing that I've seen written about is women, girls becoming pregnant earlier than their body is prepared to be pregnant.
	I personally have my own personal views, and that is that we are messing with God's creation when you see women undergoing puberty earlier and earlier.
	What do you think about birth control pills?
	I mean, I don't have a view on it.
	Yeah, because I'm trying to see what's happened during that time that would change things.
	You know, the first smallpox vaccine, you know, was given.
	Can you check to see, Rob, when was the first small?
	1796.
	1799.
	Yeah, 1796 in Europe, and then it came to the United States.
	Dr. Benjamin Waterhouse was trying to recommend this to everybody.
	And President John Adams was not into it.
	But then Thomas Jefferson believed in these vaccines and started the national vaccination program.
	So could that have anything to do with it?
	Because again, patterns.
	What did we introduce that we didn't have before that all of a sudden changed things?
	I don't know when the first birth control was.
	Rob, can you pull up the?
	Because, you know, when you're a kid nowadays, they'll say, my girl has acne.
	Yeah, you know, let's give her some birth control pills.
	You know, my kid's going through this.
	Yeah, let's give her some birth control pills, but she's not sexually active.
	Let's just give her birth control pills.
	And then later on, you're seeing all these side effects.
	And that was what?
	Early 1900s, the idea began.
	Margaret Sanger opens the first birth control clinic in the U.S., quickly shut down.
	30s and 50s researchers on hormones ovulation make the idea of a birth control pill scientifically possible.
	5157, the development of the pill.
	Scientists Carl Gerasi synthesized a key hormone, enabling the creation of the pill.
	And then in the 50s funding and activism, Margaret Sanger and McCormick pushed the research towards forward with Dr. Gregory Pincus and John Rock.
	The FDA approves the pill for menstrual disorders, not contraception.
	Women use it off later, but that's 57.
	And then the first official contraceptive approval was May 9th, 1960.
	The FDA officially approves Innovid as the first oral contraceptive pill.
	And then birth control is legalized for married couples, 65, then legalized for unmarried women, 72.
	And then you have all these other things that come up, the IUDs, which are horrible, the female condoms, implants, emergency contraception.
	Yeah, I'm is there a study to look into?
	Is there somebody that's researching this even deeper that we can look into?
	Yeah, there are teams looking at why puberty is going down in age.
	It's interesting in that chronology that you went through, which is fascinating.
	The early use was part of the eugenics movement, which people don't realize was alive and well and dominant and state-sanctioned in many states in the United States in the early 1900s.
	And it wasn't sort of judicious population control.
	It was poor people and people that were deemed, you know, it used to be that if you were poor, it was assumed you were dumb.
	You were just not intelligent.
	And there was this sort of stereotyping.
	So there was an attempt to essentially reduce the population of minorities in the United States and people who were poor by giving them birth control, forced sterilization surgically and in other ways.
	And that was part of a massive campaign that even persisted in some states through, I think, the 50s.
	And it's a very dark chapter of the United States, but that was the initial part that you said when it was shut down after its initial you're talking about Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood and the history of her and what things you read about her.
	You think, you know, if you haven't read about it, you're like, oh, Planned Parenthood, what a sweetheart.
	She was probably a good.
	And then later on, you realize this woman was like not today's word of racism.
	She's actually right there, the adherent of the eugenics movement.
	She argued that birth control would reduce the number of unfit people.
	That's her words and improve the overall health of the human race.
	Right.
	This is the American eugenics movement.
	And this, we're not, we're like one living generation away.
	This is not like, you know, you know, the Battle of Babylon.
	No, she died in 66 at 86.
	So it's not she, and today folks defend Planned Parenthood as if it's the greatest thing for women.
	And what they don't realize is, I don't know what percentage of the abortions are black women, but a big percentage of them.
	High.
	High percentage of them.
	And, you know, one of our guys here, Tom, calls it the black genocide because imagine how many future presidents, entrepreneurs in the African-American community are no longer here because of what she did with Planned Parenthood.
	But God forbid you try to do anything with them.
	Any plans with these guys?
	Is there anything that anything we want to do, you guys want to do with Planned Parenthood?
	They are giving out a lot of puberty blockers.
	So, you know, that's not right.
	Some kid doesn't like going through puberty.
	I mean, puberty is stressful, right?
	I mean, let's be honest.
	Childhood is stressful.
	I mean, you know, the dynamics of kids interacting.
	And so a kid comes in, doesn't want to go through puberty, and we as a medical field say, oh, just take these pills and we'll just defer it, kick the can down the road, and you can decide later what your gender is.
	It's not right.
	It's not right.
	I mean, you look at some of the indicators of the morality of our society and it's scary.
	Thank God.
	Thank God for President Trump.
	I mean, can you imagine the alternative right now?
	Oh, my God.
	I mean, if Kamala was president today, do you know what that would look like?
	I saw a video today.
	Man wins women's strongest competition in Texas.
	I don't know if you saw this or not.
	And the second place who's a woman walks off, looks at the guy, shakes her head, and just minds her own business, right?
	Is that it, Rob?
	Yeah, can you play that clip?
	So male adult film actor Jasmine Booker just won the title for World's Strongest Woman in Arlington, Texas, denying female opponent Andrea Thompson her rightful place on the top of women's podium.
	These are the types of things.
	And by the way, this is in Texas, out of all places.
	Now, of course, Texas is not approving this.
	It just so happens where the competition was held in Texas.
	You know, with puberty blockers, with even the movement of transgender, back in the days, like basic question for you.
	If I were to ask you this simple question, because my boys one day come out and they start talking to me about someone in kid is gay.
	Okay.
	And what does that really mean?
	If I were to ask you right now, where did AIDS come from?
	What would you say?
	You know, speaking of the film, thank you, Dr. Fauci.
	They explore a non-traditional narrative which has not gotten the attention it deserves, and that is that it may very well have come from a lab in Africa.
	AIDS could have come from a lab in Africa.
	HIV.
	HIV.
	Okay.
	You know, in the state of New York a couple years ago, a virus is spreading.
	And I don't know if it was the governor that said this or whoever it was.
	It could have been the mayor, could have been the governor that came out and said, hey, specifically to gay men to maybe pump the brakes when it comes down to being, was it the, is that what it was?
	Empox.
	Empox is what it was.
	Maybe pump the brakes on being sexually active right now the next couple months.
	Okay.
	Why would he say that?
	Why would he suggest that?
	Because if AIDS, and I remember the whole Anthony Fauci, what was the pill that the AZT, ATZ, am I saying it correctly?
	AZT.
	ACT, yeah.
	And I think it gets to a point that some people don't want to talk about what really is going on and kind of want to give the direction at a different place on what's causing this.
	You know, where maybe it's even some people's lifestyle on how people live.
	Is it healthy?
	Is it not healthy?
	This is a sensitive topic.
	Most people don't want to go to it.
	That's right.
	It's extremely difficult because who are you going to lose?
	Who's going to be not happy?
	We're already past this.
	But if we don't openly talk about this stuff, then you lose the argument with puberty blockers.
	Then you lose the argument with all the other things that's happening to kids and they're confused because we're like, well, no, I don't want to touch that story.
	Dallas Buyers Club, you know, Matthew McConaughey, what was really going on.
	And no, let's not touch that story because that's a little too controversial.
	Let's just kind of say it came from a lab.
	Let's just say it came from here.
	And then you're supposed to sit there and say, really?
	Yeah.
	I don't know where HIV came from, but how many people have Lyme disease, including people we know?
	Where did Lyme disease come from?
	I can tell you with a high degree of probability, it came from lab 257 on Plum Island, just outside of Connecticut, 25 miles from Lyme, Connecticut, where the first case was described.
	How do we know that?
	First of all, you can read the book Bitten.
	It's a great book.
	When the Nazi war criminal doctors were executed in Nuremberg, at least one of them was spared and brought to the United States so that he could, you know, his mind could be used by the U.S. military for so-called biodefense.
	And they put him on Plum Island, and he had said very openly that he believed an incredible form of biowarfare was infecting ticks.
	And that's what Lyme disease is.
	And then it shows up 25 miles away.
	And by the way, that's not the only thing that showed up close by.
	They found half rat, half deer carcasses on, what's it called?
	In the Hamptons, the last town, Montauk.
	Yeah, it washed up in Montauk.
	This is like in the 90s.
	What the hell's going on there?
	Again, a bunch of mad scientists doing things.
	And all these people have Lyme disease.
	How many physicians know that it came from lab 257, that Lyme disease came from?
	Approximately 1%, right?
	Because these are things we are never honest with ourselves, that just because you can do something doesn't mean you should do it.
	And sometimes we can cause more harm than we can good by messing with Mother Nature.
	Yeah, I agree.
	I also think, you know, a part of this is, you know, pattern recognition.
	I'm from Iran.
	I'm Armenian.
	I'm Assyrian.
	You're Egyptian, right?
	I think you're, if I'm not mistaken, you're a Coptic Christian, right?
	Which, by the way, the story about the, you know, the 21 Coptic Christians of them being held up and saying, hey, you better, you know, denounce your belief in Jesus.
	And they didn't do it.
	And we know the story on how that story ended up for them.
	Yeah.
	My aunt knew some of those kids.
	She has a program for poor kids in the garbage slums in Cairo.
	And some of those kids came through her program, her school and training, and then went out and got jobs.
	They would get jobs in Libya because there was money to be made.
	There were jobs there for the poor.
	Then they would send the money back to their impoverished families.
	So I have a bit of a personal connection with that story.
	Yeah, and tragic, tragic story when you hear about this, right?
	But, you know, when it comes down to your faith, what you believe in, what you've gone through, but I come over here, I see some of the stuff that's going on with health.
	You're sitting there saying, this just doesn't make any sense.
	Why are you having a hard time explaining this?
	Like, they say, well, if we look at pattern recognition, all right, where did AIDS come from?
	Well, they came from monkeys.
	All right.
	So is AIDS predominantly with straight men and women, or is it more homosexuals?
	No, it's more on.
	So then can we go a little bit deeper on this study to find out really what's going on?
	And can we just say it instead of trying to make everybody happy?
	It's okay.
	Like we, we all have certain things that we do, but we need to be educated about it.
	And then instead of looking the other way, whether it's the Lyme disease, whether it's this, whether it's COVID, I simply, I think there are plenty of patterns, you know, politically, you know, what country you come from.
	If I want to get immigration to come in and I will look at and say, which country sends us the best and the smartest?
	All right, let's keep getting more from here that comes in.
	Which one sends us the most that become criminals and they cause havoc in America?
	Let's pump the break with this here.
	Why?
	It's racist.
	No, it's called data.
	It's pattern recognition.
	It's not racist.
	A company hires from certain schools because they feel those schools raise better people.
	When I talked to Billy Bean from Moneyball and the movie Moneyball, I don't know if you've seen the movie.
	At this point, we're promoting so many movies today.
	I hope you realize we're making people money today.
	This is like a, this has nothing to do with the FDA folks.
	Secretly, we work for a WME endeavor.
	We're promoting movies and actors.
	But in this movie, I interviewed this guy.
	I brought him three times, Billy Bean.
	And specifically, he came to three of my business conferences with one request.
	Please don't record.
	That's his only ask.
	And I said, great, fascinating guy to have at the event.
	I said, what do you recruit for?
	He said, we recruit for upbringing, how your parents raised you, because if the kid is coachable, we can have an easier time training them and building them.
	Of course, physical abilities, how fast you run, your arm, and then you have the how-to skill set.
	But they have these patterns they recruit for.
	Is that racist?
	No.
	Why do they bring these Dodger focusing on Japan right now?
	Dodgers probably has a headquarters in Japan.
	They're just like, who's the next shoe otanu?
	Because their training routines are better.
	I just think if we go back to pure logic patterns to educate the American people and stop worrying about offending who, we'll make better health choices.
	But if we play politics, the people are like, stop with these politics.
	Just let me make a decision for myself with the research.
	I think sometimes we're still playing a little bit of politics when it comes down to our health.
	What do you think about that?
	Yeah, it's funny.
	Empox, you mentioned empox, was called monkeypox, but there was a group of people at the CDC.
	I'm told it was Demetrius and those other guys that stormed out a few months ago.
	And they said, well, this, you know, this is an inappropriate term because this could create a stigma.
	They wouldn't say it was a sexually transmitted infection for weeks.
	They wouldn't say that.
	They wouldn't be honest with the American people that it was a sexually transmitted infection.
	After a while, people figured it out.
	And so they said they have to rename it Empox.
	And there was a big effort to rename it Empox from monkeypox.
	You know, this is the same CDC that has pregnant people and pregnant persons.
	It's out of control.
	It's like, just talk to me.
	Rob, can you pull up this article?
	This is the article.
	I mean, no one's going to know his name, but everyone's going to know the face.
	I just sent you a link, Rob, if you just want to put, yeah, there you go.
	I see what you're doing.
	So if you see this from PBS, PBS.org, this came out three years ago.
	Do you remember that face?
	Go up a little bit so the audience can see it.
	Oh, yeah.
	Everybody remembers his face.
	We're supposed to trust him.
	No, that's the guy that we were supposed to trust.
	Trust the science.
	He was part of the cover-up.
	Of course he was.
	For the Chinese.
	So the World Health Organization chief advises men to reduce the number of sexual partners to avoid monkeypox.
	So why'd you name it monkeypox?
	That's offensive.
	Are you saying that they had sex with a monkey and that's how it got started?
	No, like just tell us the full story, you know, so we can improve our lifestyle and how we live.
	And if you choose, like, for example, I have friends that know not using a condom increases your chance of getting sexual transmitted diseases, right?
	Having multiple sexual encounters with men who you don't know.
	Like they couldn't say that.
	They couldn't say that was bad for you.
	It's that it's risky to have sex with multiple male individuals that you don't know.
	What's wrong with saying that?
	They couldn't say that.
	The CDC couldn't say that.
	Why can't they say that though?
	Because it's what?
	It's offensive.
	I have a friend that will never use a condom.
	And he's like, and he has had so many, one too many partners.
	And he's paid a price for it.
	You know, he's had some things where, you know, in the military, nobody in the military wanted to get gonorrhea because they used to use this phrase dry rot.
	And I don't know if you know the story of what they do when you get gonorrhea in the army.
	That's good you don't know.
	But it's you would hear a guy screaming like you've never heard a guy scream because of what they had to do.
	And I won't get too visual.
	Please.
	I won't get too visual.
	But it's not a good situation when it would happen in the Army.
	And the doctor would tell him, here's how you got it.
	And guess what he would say?
	Still not going to use a condom doc.
	But guess what?
	At least he knows the risk because he's being told what it is.
	This is the actual vector of transmission, multiple sexual encounters with men who you don't know.
	That was actually what they traced the transmission to, and they couldn't say it.
	And you remember the laws they changed because at one point, if you were HIV positive and you had sex with somebody and you didn't tell them you're HIV positive, at one point it wasn't a crime.
	Then it became a felony.
	And then they lowered it, I believe, to misdemeanor.
	I think the state of California did this, Rob.
	If you want to look this up so we can correct what I'm saying on this, but you have to say, hey, just so you know, before we have sex with each other, I'm HIV.
	You know, you would tell the partner.
	And then great.
	So there's that risk that the individual knows.
	One of the states, yeah, one of the states had this.
	It could have been California.
	Yeah.
	So I think it's more about just talk to us like adults.
	Don't be politicians.
	Tell us what the issue is.
	Let us make a decision.
	Say it in a respectful way.
	Yeah, states that modernize the law.
	These states have reduced the HIV-related charges to misdemeanor.
	Now, unless intentional transmission is proven, California, Colorado, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Jersey, Virginia, Washington, Illinois, Arkansas, partial.
	Kansas, partial.
	What is partial?
	Knowingly exposing someone without disclosures, misdemeanor max six months.
	Intentionally, general felony assault laws apply.
	This kind of was brought up in the Charlie Shinn documentary, which we're promoting again because we're the executive producers.
	Charlie Shin documentary, if you haven't seen it, this is asked when did you have unprotected sex with people when you were HIV and not tell them about it?
	He says, no, I told people and all of a sudden they knew the risk.
	Anyways, has to do with health.
	So I have to put a quick plug in to that documentary.
	Got all the health topics covered today.
	Get all the health topics.
	What's left?
	Yeah.
	So the one thing I want to get to is with the recent story of Tylenol when he came out with the ties to autism.
	So are you and RFK Jr.
	The same page when it comes down to the potential ties, correlation with those who took vaccines, the amount of vaccines kids were taking, because he always talks about the data.
	You know, back in 1972, you only took three vaccines, and nowadays, you know, the numbers are you're taking 72 then before the age of three, and all these numbers that they talk about.
	It's a big number.
	You can fact-check me on this drop to give the audience the exact number.
	Do you agree that there is a correlation with the amount of vaccines kids take to autism?
	I don't know what causes autism.
	I have ideas, but the announcement on, and there's some incredible ongoing research.
	This is a massive priority.
	It's been blown off.
	Nobody really has been funding research in this space, even though it affects like one in 12 boys now in California.
	It was rare two generations ago.
	So this administration is trying to deliver for the parents who have kids with autism.
	And on the Tylenol piece, you know, part of the investigation was talking to a lot of people in this field.
	And one of the people that the folks on Secretary Kennedy's team and himself had spoken to was the dean of the Harvard School of Public Health.
	And he has said, and I'm going to give you a direct quote: there is a causal relationship between prenatal acetaminophen use and the neurodevelopmental disorders of ADHD and autism spectrum disorder.
	That's the dean of the Harvard School of Public Health.
	So they did this calculus where they thought, well, hey, Tylenol is sometimes overused.
	You just don't need it.
	Like, why do you need to treat a low-grade fever if you're not uncomfortable?
	And we know there's overuse.
	There's actually a study out of Johns Hopkins, my former institution, that if you take acetaminophen when a kid is sick, it prolongs the duration of the sickness because the fever may be the body's natural way of trying to rid the infection and fight the pathogen.
	So they decided, hey, there's studies suggesting an association.
	There's studies that suggest no association.
	But this was a very strong view by the dean of the Harvard School of Public Health.
	Why not play it safe and tell people to minimize the use of Tylenol during pregnancy?
	They made very important disclaimers that were not covered by the liberal media.
	They said, talk to your doctor.
	They said sometimes you do need to take it.
	You have to weigh the risks and benefits.
	Those were never picked up.
	But they said in the precautionary principle, we want people to know what the dean of the Harvard School of Public Health believes in strongly.
	And I believe the president and this administration have a right to an opinion to agree with the dean of the Harvard School of Public Health.
	Now, the media had a conniption.
	I mean, they went into a grand mall seizure.
	And the dean of the Harvard School of Public Health, who said he would be a part of the announcement, and then he said he couldn't make it and he would be willing to do media, when the announcement was broadcast, he went running for the hills.
	I mean, he was hiding behind a fig leaf because he's got donors who have Trump derangement syndrome.
	And you know, when you did that interview with Kupta and they asked, did you see the full interview that they put a statement from him afterwards, after the topic?
	Have you seen that?
	Yeah, look, I went back to Sanjay Gupta.
	I said, you got your fact check wrong.
	Here's the direct quote from the guy.
	What did he tell you?
	He said, oh, thanks for this information.
	But they didn't put it in the interview.
	They tried to say, when I pulled this quote from the dean at the Harvard School of Public Health, he said, no, he said that there is a possible association.
	Well, he said a lot of things, but he also said there is a causal relationship.
	That's a direct quote on the record.
	It was part of a legal proceeding.
	So it's not, he wasn't, you know.
	So, so he was afraid, because I specifically want the audience to, because what they did is while you guys are having a conversation, there it is, Rob.
	I'm going to send it to you.
	It's the interview with if you type in Gupta and Marty, if you just type that on YouTube and then go to 26 minutes and 40 seconds, okay?
	That interview right there on CNN.
	This is from a month ago.
	So the guy from Harvard first agrees, then he doesn't want to do it.
	Go back to 2630.
	Let's just go from 2630 if you can, just to kind of see the exchange.
	Go from right there, Rob.
	ADHD and autism spectrum disorder.
	What is a causal association?
	Because I always thought there's associations.
	Yeah.
	And then there's cause and effect.
	Cause and effect.
	He thinks the acetaminophen is causing those.
	No, he may not be right.
	I don't know.
	I don't think he said that, though.
	I think he said that.
	In the rest of that quote, he said there's a plausible causation.
	But from what I read, he said that there may be an association between Tylenol and autism.
	I'll get you the quote.
	He said a lot of things.
	To clarify, we went straight to the source, Dr. Andrea Bacarelli, the dean of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.
	And here is the statement that was sent to us.
	This is currently linked on the White House website as of this week.
	And Dr. Bacarelli says, in part, as we noted in a review, animal studies have independently suggested that prenatal exposure to acetaminophen can adversely affect the developing brain.
	This biological evidence lends support to the possibility of a causal relationship between prenatal acetaminophen exposure and neurodevelopmental disorders, including autism.
	So the possibility of a causal relationship in animals.
	To be clear, overall, experts say that there are multiple causes of autism, and the science showing a connection between autism and Tylenol is not at all settled.
	Back to the conversation.
	I think my job is a regulator.
	So why did he say?
	Yeah, he's trying to play fact-checker and say, well, he didn't say that.
	And so he pulls another statement that's recent because now, you know, since he went running for the Hills after, you know, Trump said, hey, women, when you're pregnant, you know, you may want to avoid acetaminophen given the data.
	The guy was, you know, running and he was in hiding.
	And so they put out a watered-down statement about, oh, there might be a causal relationship.
	And my point to Sanjay was, no, he said, quote unquote, there is a causal relationship.
	It is part of a legal proceeding, December 18th, 2023.
	And I sent it to him and I said, how could you fact-check that and mix it up?
	And I sent him the actual quote and he said, oh, thank you.
	That's it?
	Yeah.
	But did you reach out to the actual head of Harvard and Andrea?
	Is it his name, Andrea?
	Andrea Basawa.
	Did you reach out to him and say, why did you change it and make it more watered down?
	No, I don't, maybe Secretary Kennedy called him.
	I don't know.
	I don't know.
	So what did they fear?
	So they fear what happens, that the establishment's going to come out and be wrong.
	Is that what they fear?
	What is the real fear here?
	I think it's just reactionary.
	I mean, this was a healthy debate in the field.
	There were studies on both sides.
	There was a review done by Harvard and Mount Sinai.
	The review came out weeks before we were about to talk about leucovorin as a treatment for some kids with autism.
	We were announcing this autoimmune mechanism whereby something triggers antibodies in a child to block the leucovorin folate receptors in the blood-brain barrier.
	And that may be a cause of autism.
	There may be many causes.
	And there's a treatment that bypasses that blocked receptor.
	And that's what we were about to announce.
	And then the study comes out of Harvard weeks before, and they decided, hey, do we also mention this controversy in the field?
	And they decided to mention it, to include it.
	If I'm not even mistaken, Rob, if you want to pull this up, Tylenol did a, I think I retweeted this.
	Matter of fact, I know I retweet.
	I just can't find it.
	Didn't Tylenol tweet in the past in 2017 that says, we actually don't recommend using any of our products while pregnant.
	Thank you for taking the time to voice your concerns today.
	This is from that's the tweet right there.
	Yep, there you go.
	Yeah, we actually don't recommend this from 2017.
	So if the product says it, no one paid a price for this more than Tylenol.
	Tylenol probably felt the direct impact because people are like, well, babe, don't give the Tylenol to the kids.
	So I'm sure it's going to take a few months for them to see the impact because most people don't, most people have plenty of Tylenol in their house.
	Like you don't need to go over to Tylenol every single day, right?
	So they're probably going to pay the price probably now, maybe Q1 of next year.
	So what is his challenge if even Tylenol is saying that?
	We are working on approving a drug for Trump derangement syndrome, but unfortunately, it will not work for stage four terminal disease.
	You're joking about that, but that's actually a, you know, that's actually a thing now, that patients go to their doctors for Trump derangement syndrome.
	There's even a lady that there was a story.
	I was on Jesse last night.
	They sent me the research, a lady that went to the doctor and she said, if I go, I was on vacation the other day with my family and I was having panic attacks because if I went and even saw him on TV, I would start having panic attacks.
	And the doctor's trying to find a way to cure this woman.
	And, you know, it's a function of the, I mean, it's, it's, it's not just in politics.
	Society has just gotten this toxic polarization fueled by the echo chambers of short-form social media and cable news.
	And it's just, it's, it's dividing our country and it needs to stop.
	People need to realize, look, we are taking a data-driven approach here, but there's a segment of the population that just, whatever we say, will say the opposite.
	And it's very different for me.
	I was a cancer surgeon and researcher at Johns Hopkins for 23 years.
	Everybody wanted me to succeed in that job.
	The administration, my colleagues, my staff, the students, the patient families.
	I'd go into some random restaurant and somebody would recognize me.
	Oh, you're the guy at the hospital.
	Yeah, keep up the good work.
	Everybody in society wanted me to succeed.
	And I'm the same guy.
	And I walk over 90 miles to the FDA to run the agency.
	And because it's sort of a, you know, the politics of the context, a third of the country is cheering for you to fail.
	Wow.
	And it's a symptom of a larger problem in society.
	I don't think it's really about any one individual.
	It's the state of discourse in the United States.
	It doesn't look like it's getting any better anytime soon.
	It seems like they're, you know, you saw what happened this week with sedition last week with Mark Kelly coming out Making his comment, and I believe Hexett came out.
	Pete Hexett came out yesterday, Secretary of State, and announced that they're looking into it to the point where Mark Kelly had to send a tweet writing up his resume of what he's done in his time in service, right?
	And, you know, Mark was, yeah, this one right here.
	So, Captain Kelly, not only did your sedition video intentionally undercut good and order discipline, but you can't even display your uniform correctly.
	Your matters are out of order and rows reversed.
	When, if you are recalled to active duty, I'll start with a uniform inspection.
	That is so funny to be able to pick on something like that.
	But let's talk about food.
	Let's talk about food and wrap up with food because that was one of the first things you said your friends talked to you about with food supply.
	So, if we make a list of countries with healthiest foods, okay, we looked this up yesterday.
	Japan would be at the top, and it would say what they eat the most, fish and tea.
	And in the Mediterranean region, it was second, believe it or not.
	I can eat Greek, you know, food all day.
	It's phenomenal.
	It was number two with their olive oil, and then number three was South Korea, Iceland, and then the fifth one, a popular one here with Humberto and a couple of our guys, was Israel, okay, with high fruit.
	And then, when you type in countries with the least healthiest food, we're at the top.
	Okay, number one, most processed food per capita in the world, high sugar, and then it was UK, Australia, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait.
	We're worse than Kuwait when it comes onto our food.
	We're worse than UK, Australia, everybody else.
	How do we get here and why is that?
	It's a, so the field of nutrition science historically has been one of the most corrupted of all the scientific disciplines.
	It's first of all, it's very hard to do the studies.
	It's hard to monitor compliance.
	People don't even tell me their correct height when they come see me as a doctor.
	They're not telling me accurately what they ate the day before.
	So, these studies are flawed.
	The studies were really rigged and funded by the food industry.
	And there was a charlatan in the 1960s named Dr. Ansel Keys who set out to tell the world that the reason why we had heart disease and so many health problems was because of saturated fat.
	And he led the campaign to get saturated fat out of every carton of milk in school and make it part of the national food pyramid and nutrition guidance.
	And the problem was he picked the wrong thing because when you get saturated fat out, you have to put in refined carbohydrates to replace it to maintain the flavor.
	And so, he ushered in a 50-year era of refined ultra-processed foods in the U.S. diet.
	And these foods became addictive.
	They were chemically engineered to be addictive sometimes.
	We also had something called the grass rule, which meant if a company can deem a chemical as safe, or what we call G-R-A-S, generally recognized as safe, then they can put it in food.
	We didn't ask for any data or studies.
	They could just deem any chemical that they create safe.
	And it was called the grass rule.
	By the way, we're undoing the grass rule in this administration.
	We're in that process.
	But we had the wrong information, and we're pounding these kids with things that raise their insulin levels to spikes never seen before in human history all day long.
	I mean, now kids have snack lists in school, right?
	You see these snack lists.
	We didn't have snacks during class in between class.
	You had breakfast, lunch, and dinner, right?
	So we're pounding them with these high glycemic index things.
	Their insulin levels are going high, and that moves fat into storage into the liver.
	We have an epidemic of fatty liver.
	And so we have all these health problems stemming from glucose metabolism, high insulin, and what we call insulin resistance.
	That is, the cells can't handle all the sugar in the system, so they start trying to block it.
	And that is at the root of probably half our chronic diseases, if not more.
	We've got to talk about school lunch programs, not just putting every six-year-old on Ozempic.
	We are doing snap waivers so that we don't have to use tax.
	Yeah, that's the big push now by the American.
	Yeah, American Academy of Pediatrics.
	That's the push.
	They're trying to lower the age from 12 to 6.
	Putting six-year-olds on Ozempic?
	Big push.
	GLP wants to.
	Yes.
	Wow.
	Yeah.
	This is not their fault.
	We want to blame the kids, but this is not a willpower problem.
	This is something adults have done to children by manipulating the food supply that's in front of them.
	And so you put these vibrant colors with artificial petroleum-based food dyes in ultra-processed foods that have chemicals designed to be addictive, and then you blame the kid for wanting more.
	There's a weird thing that some food does where you consume it and you're full, but you're still hungry.
	Your appetite's still there.
	And so you want more.
	And studies have even shown the vibrant colors on these cereals play with the developing mind of a child and they want more.
	And so it's not rocket.
	This is not the riddle of the Sphinx.
	This is not rocket science.
	This is very obvious what's going on.
	So we took action to remove all petroleum-based food diets from the U.S. food supply.
	We're rewriting the food pyramid.
	We're ending the 50-year war on saturated fat.
	We're talking about the types of grains, the grains with fiber that come from good soil are healthier.
	Why do I have patients with chronic abdominal pain that we do everything we can in Western medicine?
	Nothing works.
	Then they go to Europe for a year for a study abroad program and they're cured.
	What did they do?
	They just ate the food in Europe.
	So we are.
	Such an easy fix to do.
	But again, going back to lobbyists, okay, just for the grain, the agricultural industry in the amount of money they spend on lobbying, I think in 2024, 2023 was $177 million.
	How do you fight that?
	It's back to the same thing.
	The same thing.
	It's a big force.
	Thankfully, President Trump has told me and Secretary Kennedy: you do what's right, you go big, you go bold, and don't worry about the corporations and the lobbyists.
	We've never had that freedom in government to talk so openly about this.
	If I were in a prior administration, I'd have 50 text messages after this interview saying, oh, how dare you offend this lobby and that lobby.
	No, the president has told us, go big, do what's right, and go bold, and don't worry about them.
	And so we're rewriting the food pyramid.
	It'll come out soon.
	It's going to be a game changer.
	The snap waivers now are, it's the first ever where we're allowing states to not use taxpayer dollars for the foods that we deem bad for kids.
	We're seeing a renaissance in school lunch programs.
	We are now talking about natural light exposure.
	We're talking about the quality of sleep and circadian rhythms in children.
	We're talking about why do kids have attention deficit disorder?
	Why do they are they on antidepressants, not just give them more and give them the next level.
	So we're doing a ton on food.
	It's exciting.
	We're also eliminating unnecessary animal testing.
	We're doing it in a humane way.
	We're doing a lot.
	The food program led by Kyle DiMontes is crushing it at the FDA.
	It's a big part of the FDA.
	It's been ignored.
	A lot of the doctors come in with drug backgrounds and they just kind of let it sit there.
	We've got a ton of reforms that are coming out.
	And we work closely with USDA and Brook Rollins.
	That's great.
	You know, yesterday we're having a conversation with a couple of our friends, and one of our guys says, it was harder to quit.
	He says, I was able to quit smoking cigarettes.
	He smoked cigarettes for 10 years.
	He was able to quit.
	He says, but he's having a very hard time quitting sugar and the addiction to sugar.
	And I've seen friends addicted to a lot of different drugs over the years.
	I've taken friends to rehabilitation facilities for them to stop using drugs.
	14 days, you know, you have to do all these things.
	But how are you handling or what can families learn more about the addiction we have to sugar?
	Most people don't even know this.
	There's sugar in ketchup.
	You're like, why do I like ketchup so much?
	There's a ton of sugar in ketchup.
	Ketchup has sugar?
	Yes.
	What else has you?
	You kind of go through these dressing you use when you're having salad.
	Why do I like this salad dressing so much?
	Because there's some sugar to it.
	So are you doing anything to also hold some people accountable to anything and everything they can see to put sugar in for people to get addicted to?
	They're doing it.
	What are we doing about that?
	So we're looking at putting front of package labeling on added sugar on food containers and packages.
	That's going to help educate folks.
	We put out something called a request for information from the industry.
	We want a unified definition of ultra-processed foods, something we never talked about with the old food pyramid and dietary guidance.
	Obesity is an addiction to sugar.
	That's what it is.
	It's a glycemic addiction, if we're being honest.
	And so you're right.
	You can go cold turkey from cigarettes, but it's hard.
	Like 3% of people who try it succeed going cold turkey with cigarettes.
	Many of them need some kind of aid to ramp off.
	But same with glycemic addiction.
	If you've got a significant glycemic addiction, so we're addicting kids to sugar, and then we're blaming them for the addiction that we created in them.
	I mean, it's insane.
	And so we have to educate people.
	We're trying to get the word out.
	We're talking about it.
	And we want people to know that sugar was ignored entirely in the dietary guidance because the industry liked having an addictive substance that you never talked about.
	We're talking about protein now.
	We need more protein than we thought.
	But obesity is in part a glycemic addiction.
	Yeah.
	I mean, we'll see what happened there.
	And last but not least, with this vaping thing that's out with 70H you're seeing in it, and as well as other places that they're selling it, if I'm saying it correctly, 70H.
	Am I saying it correctly?
	What is 70H?
	70H is an opioid sold in many vape stores in the United States.
	And you might think, how can you just sell an opioid in a vape store?
	But people don't recognize that 70H, which is a new synthetic concentrated chemical sold in gummies and food, drinks.
	Wow.
	It goes by several names.
	7-hydroxy, it's called gesthydroxy, hydroxy-metraginine, metraginine, MIT.
	You'll see this on packages of things sold in vape stores, and people should know it is an opioid.
	We're not talking about the trace amount of 70H in the kratom leaf.
	We're talking about synthetic concentrated 70H.
	Parents need to educate their kids that this is an opioid and you don't want to touch this stuff.
	Is it true that it is 13 times stronger than morphine in its effects?
	It binds to the opioid mu receptor 13 times more tightly than morphine.
	And so we don't have any research on this new opioid.
	And so we've got to tell kids, like, don't play with fire.
	And we have heard stories of kids found dead with 70H wrappers at their bedside.
	So we want the school districts, houses of worship.
	We want everyone to know about 70H and educate your kids.
	Do not mess with it.
	Yeah, this is not good when you're going through it.
	And I think the biggest thing at the end of the day is for parents to be educated to make good lifestyle changes.
	Every time I have someone on the podcast that's like, the last time I had Celsius, the drink, you know when's the last time I drank Celsius?
	Is the day we had Paul Saladino on?
	I don't know if you know Paul Saladino.
	He's with Maha.
	He works with Maha as well.
	He came in.
	He told me, that's it.
	That's the last time.
	January 27th is the last time I drank Celsius.
	And I would drink Celsius every day.
	It's the last time I had it because of what he showed me.
	So this is why we bring brains and experts like you to make us smarter.
	And I appreciate you for your time today.
	This was great.
	Really enjoyed the conversation.
	Is there anything you want to drive the audience to for them to go learn more?
	Is there a website?
	Is there anything you want them to go to?
	Well, first of all, thanks for having me on.
	And I'm disappointed we didn't talk about pancreatic obiliary diseases, which I thought we were maybe going to talk about.
	One of these days.
	One of these days.
	But no, our FDA website has a bunch of information.
	It's great to connect with you.
	Great to be here.
	Thanks for having me.
	Likewise.
	Great having you on as well.
	Appreciate your time.
	Appreciate you for coming out.
	Take care, everybody.
	We'll see you guys tomorrow.
	God bless.

▲