Episode 317: Science vs Scientism

0:00Hey everyone, welcome to this week's conversation with Dr. Steven Ned about the body and how to fix, protect, or maintain it using outside the box's alternative solutions. If you're a big fan of the pharmaceutical or surgical approach, you are so in the wrong place because on this podcast, we're not going to be pushing the conventional medicine methods or a way of thinking about health. If you're looking for a way to live longer and healthier, join me, Ron Ned, and my brother Dr. Steven Ned for this week's Body Chat about, Scientism vs. Science. Me? I'm a retired Twin Cities chiropractor currently helping people buy and sell homes in the Tampa Bay in Los Angeles areas. My brother has a thriving chiropractic practice in the Clearwater area of Tampa Bay, Florida. In this podcast, we're going to chat about all sorts of topics related to health, nutrition,

1:04exercise, just about everything having to do with the body. You're invited to listen in to our Body Chat, but don't forget that neither of us is giving you health advice, so don't rush off to do something without either checking with your doctor first or seeing Dr. Steven Ned as a patient in his office. Good evening, Steve. Hi there, Ron. Now, we're going to talk about a topic today that most people probably haven't heard about and came up because of an article that you got from the Midwestern doctor. So let's start off by clarifying what these two terms are and one of them is science and the other is scientism. So can you explain the difference between science as a process and scientism as described in his article? Sure. I mean, it's pretty simple. Real science, which involves the scientific process and scientific inquiry invites open debate, critical thinking, justified change and innovation, which have led to many remarkable

2:06societal advancements. And most importantly, when done, honestly, it can effectively separate fact from fiction. Some on the other hand is basically a pseudo religion that's become the state religion in which you cannot question and must blindly trust whatever the anointed scientific experts put forth. Otherwise, you could be branded as dangerous and a spreader of misinformation or disinformation or malinformation and end up being shamed, canceled, fired or even prosecuted for not following the science. I mean, it's comparable to what heretics experienced in the ocurses in the past. So you know, before we go any further, I'd like to acknowledge our trusted source, the Midwestern doctor for his great data on this topic, especially the outstanding article that he wrote called the deadly rise of scientism, which a good portion of the material in this podcast comes

3:07from and will definitely leave a link for this in our podcast notes. Great. All right. So the Midwestern doctor did mention that complicated language has been used to hide simple ideas. Can you give us any examples of how this happens in medicine and health? Yeah. You know, this is basically a psychological technique used to market something and get people to act a certain way and to basically make something seem more impressive than it actually is. In medicine and health, for example, diagnoses that are used to describe symptoms or medical conditions are simply the symptoms translated into impressive sounding Latin words. So for example, Lombalgia is used instead of low back pain. Servicalgia is used in place of neck pain and cephalgia is the diagnostic name for headaches. In the psychiatric DSM or diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, a couple

4:11real whoppers include verminophobia, which is fear of germs, distitia phobia, which is fear of accidents, somnophobia, which is fear of sleep, and my all time favorite rhino telexomania, which is another name for compulsive nose picking. So you know, experts use big words to create an aura of prestige and this also includes knowledge that is hidden from the public, especially when the experts claim that the public is in qualified to analyze and assess data, you know, when most of the time the data is in fact pretty clear and straightforward. They often use the excuse that only experts are fit to analyze and discuss scientific data because untrained people couldn't understand it without specialized medical training. So I've noticed this the same phenomenon in the past when I used to read the critiques of movie critics who would use impressive adjectives and other words that the average

5:11person has never heard of before, you know, giving you the impression that this person was super smart and must know what they're talking about. But the problem is that before you got to the end of their review, you had no idea what they were talking about and whether they liked the movie or not, unless you took the time to stop and look up every complex word they used in a dictionary, you know, in order to make heads or tails of what the hell they were saying. You know, another tactic the media uses that goes to the opposite extreme is to use short buzzword phrases in order to propagandize and control the public through emotional manipulation. I'll elaborate on that tactic in just a bit. Okay. So you mentioned the media and unfortunately there's only six companies that own most of America's media. How has that changed the way that scientific information gets out to the public? Well, you know, before I answer that question, I thought it would be interesting

6:12to name these six companies and which TV and print companies they own, starting with national amusements, which owns many TV companies, including CBS and its affiliates. Then there's Disney, which owns ABC and ESPN and all of their affiliates, Time Warner, which owns CNN as well as Time and Life magazines, Comcast, which owns NBC and all of its affiliates, including CNBC and MSNBC, Newscore, which includes Fox and all of its affiliates along with the New York Post and the Wall Street Journal and Sony, which from what I can see doesn't own any news channels or print companies. Now, continuing with what I went over, you know, just a few minutes ago about using short buzzword phrases to control and manipulate the public, a good example of that occurred during the pandemic where the short buzzword phrase, safe and effective, was repeated over and over again

7:14on every single news network. I'm going to leave a link to a montage that illustrates this beautifully where not only does it show multiple news outlets using the same phrases, but also the exact same full scripts. I mean, sentence after sentence saying the exact same thing. I'd play it for everyone here, but that just doesn't have the same impact and create the same effect is actually watching it. So, you know, again, we'll leave a link to this in the podcast notes for anyone who hasn't seen this to witness at first hand. And believe it or not, it's actually the second video down on the page on the sub-stack article from a Midwestern doctor. Again, the deadly rise of scientism, you know, that will leave a link to and it shows local news channels throughout the United States parroting the same messages. Mm-hmm. Be wild. A Midwestern doctor also compares this tactic to how various powerful people, including politicians, officials, and CEOs, are able to

8:17continually avoid whatever question they're asked by continually repeating the scripted phrases that their PR firms have prepared for them. You know, it's a shame that this type of manipulation is allowed, but it wasn't always this way. Back in 1948, the Smith Moont Act was passed, which banned the use of domestic propaganda. You know, this was a standard, the government and media followed fairly well other than when they were, you know, they were called out for the infamous Operation Mockingbird Program, which was a large-scale program of the USCIA that started in early years of the Cold War in the 1950s to infiltrate and manipulate the American news media to spread propaganda. You know, this was finally revealed to the American public by the historic Senate Select Committee called the Church Committee back in 1975, 1976, which exposed how intelligence agencies manipulated news, monitored journalists, and violated civil liberties leading to major oversight

9:22reforms. So, you know, this appeared to improve until a new law was passed by Congress and signed into law on December 29, 2012 called the National Defense Authorization Act, or HR 4310, which included in Section 1078, the authorization of propaganda to be used on U.S. citizens, and this essentially banned the Smith Moont Act of 1948. And it's not a wonder over the last 13 years, the news has really changed from primarily focusing on reporting the news to pushing agendas, being extremely politically slanted one way or the other, and creating controversy, division, and confusion. We're all very true. Now, what does a Midwestern doctor mean when he says Peter Hotez uses the term anti-science as a weapon, and why won't he define what he means by it?

10:25All right, so a little background first on Peter Hotez, you know, over the last 10 to 15 years, he's appeared on, you know, very frequently on various TV news channels as the public advocate for the pro-vaccine movement. And the Midwestern doctor believes he did this to position himself to secure over $100 million in funding to develop some suspect vaccines, including a human hookworm vaccine, which never amounted to anything. It's amazing how Hotez has gotten so much air time, especially when you look back at how often he has contradicted himself and made clearly false statements. And it hasn't helped that the media has fond over him as a legitimate expert with news host, never once asking him any critical question that would expose how much hot air he was full of. And he's been very crafty about avoiding any public venue where he could be questioned or debated, plus when he has responded to any criticisms, he only does so in safe spaces

11:30where he can respond and say whatever the hell he wants to say, you know, without being challenged. And that includes him immediately blocking anyone who criticizes his tweets. So, you know, that's enough background information on Hotez for now. I'll add a little more to that his shenanigans a little later on when we cover how debates have changed from the past to today and how he ducked a much publicized challenge back in the summer of 2023. Now, let's look at how Hotez used the relatively new term anti-science to his advantage. The article from a Midwestern doctor that we've referenced earlier, the Deadly Rise of Scientism, goes into some detail about this and then his follow-up article to it called dissecting a modern vaccine propaganda piece takes a deeper dive into it because a Midwestern doctor took the time to read Peter Hotez's book called The Deadly Rise of

12:32Anti-Science, which he advises not to read because of the degree of gaslighting that it contains, including him arguing that not trusting the science will bring catastrophic death and destruction while, you know, the World Health Organization in tandem is pushing for a treaty called the Pandemic Preparedest Plan that will give them the ability to outlaw any dissent against their next pandemic response. Fortunately, the US has rejected being a part of this. So basically, after reading Hotez's book, a Midwestern doctor concluded that Hotez basically defines anti-science as anyone who disagrees with him or his narrative, and so anything against that is bad. And he again points out that if Hotez were to ever publicly debate anyone who was not on his side, as soon as he started spewing anti-science slanders in order to support his position, he would immediately be asked to explain precisely what he meant, which would end up torpedoing his

13:36argument. All right, now in that article, the Midwestern doctor describes how vaccine safety data is kept from the public. Why should ordinary people have access to this data? Well, you know, this actually goes back 40 years to the 1986 Vaccine Injury Act passed by Congress, which unfortunately, since that time has allowed vaccine companies to have zero liability for their unavoidably unsafe products. And it also included a provision mandating a database, which the public could directly report vaccine injuries to, and it must be made available for the public to see since up until that time, there was no way that parents were able to report severe vaccine injuries because doctors, vaccine manufacturers, and the government refused to document them. And so a big problem with this was that in the past that made it possible to successfully argue against vaccine adverse events since there was no data showing that those injuries occurred,

14:38and parents were routinely dismissed whenever they shared any injuries that their children had experienced. So that database came to be known as VAERS or the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, which at first appeared to be very promising and a positive for the activists who fought for it, including parents and vaccine safety advocates, since those aware of it could file reports to help identify various injuries that were linked to different vaccines. Unfortunately, since the government and the medical establishment never wanted a public database like this to ever exist since it could expose the harms of vaccines, they'd done everything they could to undermine and discredit VAERS ever since it was created. This includes not educating the public about it or teaching doctors how to use it or that it even exists for that matter, also by not having enough staff running it

15:39to process the reports received, and also brushing off data that VAERS reports received where, you know, basically junk only a moron would gain anything from. As a result of this, up until the COVID pandemic, very few people were even aware of VAERS or its function, and that's one of the biggest reasons why approximately only 1% of vaccine injuries end up being reported to it, as confirmed by a 2010 study funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and conducted by Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare. Even Peter Hotez asserted that there are much better vaccine monitoring systems and that we should trust those instead of any of the junk that comes out of VAERS. But at the same time, he failed to say that the public is never given access to those databases. But instead, the citizens should just trust what the experts conclude from them, which is the same answer every single time. Vaccines are safe and effective.

16:46Now one of those databases is the V-safe data created by the CDC, which was deliberately concealed from the public due to the alarming data it contained. But in October of 2022, after suing the CDC twice and following months of legal wrangling, attorney Aaron Ciri was able to obtain a court order requiring the CDC to give up the V-safe data, which was tabulated from a smartphone-based CDC program that attracted over 10 million users who registered after getting a COVID-19 and provided health check-ins. Now I'm not going to go into detail right now about all the results, but what I can say is that the database showed conclusively that the vaccines were very damaging and that the so-called expert report, which came out earlier, which the public could see, was very deceitful in concealing the obvious red flags which should have been shared with the public.

17:46I mean, there's so much data on the VAERS and V-safe debacle that we could easily dedicate an entire podcast to this, and I recommend we do so sometime in the not-too-distant future. Good idea. That's talking about the vaccine safety data. Now what about public debates about scientific topics? Why would preventing those debates be harmful? And what are some examples that stand out for you? Well, first of all, for most things, debate is healthy, thought provoking, and when it's done fairly, it can even uncover truth, which may be hidden, or not as obvious as they should be. For example, pretty much every day I listen to sports talk radio shows while driving, and the debates that occur over current hot topics aren't just entertaining, but also at times enlightening enough to allow me to look at things differently and to change my viewpoints on things that I a bit convinced about with the limited information I had previous to that.

18:50So the problem with preventing public debates about scientific topics is that it's comparable to not having informed consent at a doctor's office when trying to make a decision about getting a procedure done or taking a medication. In other words, instead of being fully informed about risks, side effects, other options, etc., you're just trusting the authority that this is what's best for you without any questions asked. So if people aren't taking the time to do independent research and investigations or using critical thinking when it comes to their health, they will most certainly just follow the advice of without questioning. The so-called authorities in the government, media, and medical establishment, which not only includes them recommending something that aligns with their interest even if it's harmful or doesn't work, but also at the same time attacking anyone or

19:51anything that challenges their narrative without giving the other side the opportunity to defend themselves and debate whatever needs to be hammered out. Now, as far as giving examples of this, well, you know, this went on all throughout the COVID pandemic and I'll answer that a little later on in the podcast with some real clear examples. Good. All right. So the Midwestern doctor wrote in the article about past vaccine debates on television where audience could see experts were wrong. What changed to stop these debates from happening today? Well, you know, this was actually highlighted in another article written by a Midwestern doctor called, why does the government cover up vaccine injuries? And one of the bullet points says, in previous decades, the press was much less corrupt than it is now and occasionally would air real investigations into what happened. Another bullet point that sets up that article states,

20:52since those TV programs made many who were suffering from the vaccine injuries realize they were not alone, this created a massive PR problem for those officials, which was eventually solved by preventing any future segments from airing. Now, that particular article shows how the media has completely censored anything negative about the COVID-19 vaccines, but was willing to cover previous vaccines in the past, even though the COVID-19 vaccines have been significantly more harmful and devastating than any of those previous disastrous vaccines, including the notorious swine flu vaccine from 1976. Now, what's interesting is that in a variety of past news clips from the 70s and 80s, journalists would directly question the vaccine promoters and every single time it was very obvious that there was something wrong since the experts weren't being forthright

21:54or just flat outlying. At the same time, those who voiced their skepticism of the vaccines were actually allowed to engage with and debate the vaccine supporting experts. One of the best examples of this occurred on the Phil Donahue show back in 1985, in which two doctors faced off in front of a live audience with one in support of vaccination and the other critical of it. And it was very obvious watching the reaction of the audience who sided with the doctor who effectively critiqued the vaccine advocate who had an indefensible position with his obvious lies that were pointed by his opponent and easily recognized by the audience. So back then, news anchors presented things in a fair manner and allowed both sides to be heard and were neutral instead of hostile towards vaccines, even though the facts tipped the scale in favor of the vaccine critics. But the fallout from these televised debates was that the public was losing confidence in the

22:58vaccines and were developing vaccine hesitancy despite the pro-vaccine experts telling them to get them. In addition to the industry saving legislation in 1986, the pro-vaccine camp had three options to restore confidence in vaccines again. And they were one to promote a more reasonable position which included spacing vaccines out, not mandating them, supporting those with vaccine injuries, or taking the most unjustified vaccines off the market. Number two, to find individuals that were actually good at debating defending vaccines since most of the so-called experts who had tried before weren't, or three, to decide to never debate again. Well, unfortunately, they chose option number three and they've been able to pull this off ever since with the help of complicit media that has created safe spaces for the so-called experts

24:03where they can just read and repeat their nonsensical scripts without ever being challenged since they are considered to be the true experts and thou shalt not question the science. And, of course, a very obvious underlying reason for this is the fact that the U.S. government in 1997 legalized direct to consumer pharmaceutical drug advertising which is illegal in every other country in the world except New Zealand. And this essentially created the obvious conflict of interest in which Big Pharma became the largest television advertiser, giving them the power to financially blackmail the networks into giving them favorable coverage of their drugs, which has made it more obvious why you don't see any real debate or negative coverage of pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines since that would hurt the network's bottom line. Very true. That was a dark day. How was it that Dr. Anthony Fauci's statement that he represents science affect the ability of

25:09people to question his decisions during COVID? Well, I mean it basically elevated him to a god-like authoritarian status who couldn't be questioned or criticized. He was treated like a rock star by the media who did a nice job of covering up the skeletons in his closet from how he handled the AIDS epidemic in the 80s and the many questionable things he did during the COVID pandemic. I'll hear a few excerpts from a Midwestern doctor's article The Deadly Rise of Scientism which highlights this. So he says, science has more and more become the practice of trusting scientific experts and not being allowed to question their interpretations of the data or even see it. This is very different from what science was originally intended to be. The collective endeavor of scientists around the world to put forth ideas and have the ones that stand up to scrutiny become the generally accepted standard. In turn, we continually see experts put forth ideas which are clever

26:12which are clearly wrong and hurt a great number of people but help the corporate sponsor who paid the expert off. In the past, this behavior would be called out but since those same corporate sponsors also own the media, these experts are shielded from scrutiny and science has simply become every public voice echoing the expert's pronouncements. So this was best illustrated by it Fauci's infamous defense against a congressional inquiry for his complicity in creating COVID-19. The disastrous policies he had inflicted upon America throughout the pandemic and the fact that he continually lied about his conduct, frequently doing so in an audacious manner that's self-evident to anyone who looked at the publicly available footage of Fauci. To defend himself, Fauci argued that he was the science so criticizing anything he had done was unacceptable as it equated to an

27:16attack on science itself. So I invite all of you listening now who haven't heard our previous podcasts covering RFK Jr's book called The Real Anthony Fauci to take the time and listen to those. They were episodes number 236 and 237. So I read that whole book so you wouldn't have to. It took me a whole year to read it because of the incredible amount of evil that I had to stomach while reading it that he was responsible for. RFK Jr did an incredible job with that project making sure that it was backed up with legitimate accurate references. I mean, the first chapter alone had over 500 references. So if anything in that book wasn't true, Fauci definitely would have tried to sue RFK by now. I'm sure he would have. Now what do you think would happen if

28:17experts like Hotez and Fauci were required to publicly debate their critics in front of regular audiences without being protected by some of the media figures that are obviously in the pockets of the pharmaceutical companies? Well, I'd imagine it would be like the scene in the Wizard of Oz in which you get to see the man behind the curtain. You know, instead of the all-knowing trusted heroes that the media has created and fond over, they would have to be put on the spot to publicly defend their merits and beliefs and would likely not go very well for them if they had to go up against very competent experts who would be armed with plenty of evidence to back them up. Individuals that can handle this include Health and Human Services Secretary RFK Jr., Attorney Aaron Seary, Attorney Jeff Childers, Silicon Valley Entrepreneur, and actual philanthropist, Steve Kirch, and any number of frontline doctors such as Peter McCullough, Robert Malone,

29:22Sherry Tenpenny, Pierre Corrie, Paul Merrick, Ryan Cole, or Mary Talley Bowden. To be honest, if it was, you know, an even playing field where each debater was given equal treatment with no softball questions and no hints ahead of time and no help during the debate, I believe it wouldn't even be close. And that's likely the reason why Fauci or Hotez have not and never will agree to this occurring. Now, I mentioned earlier that back in the summer of 2023, Hotez was challenged to a highly publicized debate. So here's how all that went down. Hotez opened a can of worms by posting a nasty tweet on June 17, 2023 about a Joe Rogan podcast featuring Robert F. Kennedy Jr. criticizing Spotify, which is, you know, the platform that the Joe Rogan experienced podcast is on. And he criticized them for not stopping what he

30:25considered to be misinformation and that since so many people were attacking him, Hotez, after this podcast, that he concluded that there were many people that believed this information which he considers nonsense. So later that same day, Joe Rogan posted the following, quote, Peter, if you claim what RFK Jr. is saying is misinformation, I am offering you $100,000 to the charity of your choice if you're willing to debate him on my show with no time limit. So, less than an hour later, Hotez posted, quote, Joe, you have myself, my email, I'm always willing to speak to you. Unquote. Then less than an hour later, Joe Rogan responded, this is a non-answer. I challenged you publicly because you publicly, quote, tweeted and agreed with that dog shit vice article. If you're really serious about what you stand for,

31:31you now have a massive opportunity for a debate that will reach the largest audience a discussion like this has ever had. If you think someone else is better qualified, suggest that person. Well, this really lit a fire and a lot of people who wanted to see this happen. And by the end of the following day, $2.62 million was raised for this debate, and it made national headlines. But as expected, Hotez weaseled out of doing it. A Midwestern doctor emphasized that Hotez was so afraid of exposing himself to criticism, no amount of money could change that. Plus, even though Hotez constantly brings up in the media, his moral superiority due to his devotion to charitable endeavors, when he actually had a real opportunity to do something to help people in real need, he wasn't willing to do so and turned it down, which led to a fitting tweet from Elon Musk at that time, which said, quote, maybe Peter

32:34Hotez just hates charity. Unquote. So in an interview about six months after that debate challenge, Hotez was asked about it and hears his excuse about turning it down. Quote. Yeah, that was never in the cards. I've known Bobby Kennedy for a number of years and I've had a number of conversations with him over the years. They didn't get anywhere. He's just too dug in. Doesn't want to listen to the science. So I knew it wouldn't be productive, but I also thought it could harm the field because it would give people the wrong message about how science works. I mean, science is not something that's achieved through public debate. He's admitting it. Wow. Science has achieved through writing scientific papers by serious scientists that submit articles for peer review and then they get modified or rejected and grants that get modified, rejected, or you know, you present in front of scientific conferences in front of your peers for critical feedback. And it's a very successful

33:34approach. You don't debate science like you debate enlightenment, philosophy, or politics. Unquote. So there you have it. Hotez is excuses for not debating. But as a midwestern doctor points out, the biggest problem with Hotez's argument is that the scientific system today is suffering from a systemic failure of erroneous or fraudulent research, flooding the scientific literature, which we've pointed out many examples of in our past podcasts, as well as a total inability to reject erroneous scientific dogma, which was highlighted through, that was highlighted through the COVID-19 pandemic. And with debate shutting, you know, being shut down in science, that has led to us spending more and more time and money just simply revalidating the existing scientific narratives. And I'd still pay money myself to see that debate. Yeah, me too. All right. So is there anything that gives you hope that the situation with scientism and censored debate can be turned around in the future? Yes. And first and foremost,

34:41more and more people are waking up, you know, especially after what happened during the COVID pandemic since out of all the confusion that occurred during that time, many hidden and less obvious things came to light. And people have started to question things a lot more and use critical thinking instead of, you know, just totally trusting and blindly following the so-called experts or the science. The way things were handled by the medical profession, hospitals, the media, and government officials that woke many people up included. And I'm not just, you know, I'm just scratching the surface here because I can go for hours on a rant that would be on the level of John Belushi's character in Animal House, but with actual truths to back it up. So I'll start with the medical establishment, not recommending workable early treatments and having people wait until they became very ill and unable to breathe to then, you know, having to go to the hospital and be put on respirators, which were basically a death sentence.

35:43Diagnosing people who happened to test positive for COVID, but were afflicted primarily with serious injuries or other conditions, but had COVID put as their main diagnosis, or if they died, they were built as having died because of COVID instead of dying with COVID to inflate their insurance reimbursements as well as the stats on COVID deaths. Also, to recommending the extremely toxic and deadly drug remdesivir, which was nicknamed by nurses, run death is near because of how many people ended up with kidney failure and other life threatening conditions or ended up dying because of it, not allowing people to be anywhere near their loved ones on their death beds, the constant changing of mask mandates with at times ridiculous recommendations of wearing two masks at a time, and also seeing people driving alone in their cars with masks on.

36:44The vaccine study data showing adverse events that were kept from the public and were attempted to be concealed for 75 years, which was obviously intended to protect those responsible for the tainted studies, and the fact that all caused hospitalization and all caused mortality were higher in the vaccinated group than the placebo group in the original Pfizer clinical trial, and of course, the lies push forward that the vaccines were not only safe, but also 95% effective and necessary to mandate to prevent the spread of COVID and soon and the pandemic. So, here's some damning quotes of those claiming afterward that, well, you know, nobody said you wouldn't get COVID if you're vaccinated, and here they are. Anthony Fauci said, quote, when people are vaccinated, they're not going to get infected.

37:46President Joe Biden said, you're not going to get COVID if you have these vaccinations. Rochelle Wollensky, the CDC director said, vaccinated people do not carry the virus and don't get sick. Rochelle Maddowell from MSNBC News said, now we know the vaccines work well enough that the virus stops. Bill Gates, our resident expert, said, everyone who takes the vaccine is reducing their transmission. And then finally, the CEO of Pfizer, Albert Borla, said, there is no variant that escapes the protection of our vaccines. Yeah, right. So, you know, as far as my take on future hope concerning scientism and censorship, well, there's plenty of reasons to be hopeful. More and more people are noticing that busy medical professionals are relying too much on

38:46drive-by medicine, which, you know, there's less thinking and taking the time to actually troubleshoot and problem-solve. But instead, there's too much focus on only treating symptoms instead of underlying causes and, you know, them using more and more dependence on computer models and algorithms that are followed religiously as if they're the gospel, where if you think outside the box or if God forbid you question any of it or recommend something that's not approved by the so-called experts, then you can be branded as anti-science and labeled shamed or even lose your job or license if you're dissenting health professional. So, more than ever, people including health professionals are questioning the validity and truthfulness of things like medical studies, asking questions like, who funded the studies? Did the researchers have any financial ties to the products they were testing? How was the study performed? Was anything altered or left out that influenced the results? And is the science really settled?

39:52And more individuals besides health professionals are speaking out about the medical orthodoxy and why debate isn't being allowed and more importantly, drawing attention to it. A great example of this is the work of Steve Kirsch, who, as I mentioned earlier, is a Silicon Valley entrepreneur and philanthropist, and he is the founder of the Vaccine Safety Research Foundation, which conducts rigorous independent research of vaccines and pharmaceutical products. It protects the freedom of people who make informed medical decisions and gives vital support to those who are vaccine injured. They are committed to truth, transparent city, and ensuring that informed consent remains a fundamental right for all. So, during the pandemic, Kirsch was relentless in contacting anyone in the media, as well as the medical profession or the government, who was willing to debate and defend the COVID vaccines, but not one of them would come forward. So, he changed his strategy and offered them

40:57increasing sums of money to debate him. And he then smartly publicized their continued unwillingness to debate, making it, you know, obviously clear that the excuses they gave, including, you know, hey, it's not worth their time to debate misinformation. These excuses were full of hot air and that the real reason they refused was due to the fact that it represented an existential risk to them. So, basically, what Kirsch did was to raise the awareness of the public about the climate, the medical orthodoxy, and media created over decades, in which they could lie and propagandize with no pushback or impunity, and then to have articles written justifying their refusal to debate, including their stance that it's not appropriate for science to engage in a debate with unorthodox or alternative viewpoints and what they considered to be misinformation. Now, specific changes that give hope include the current health and human

42:01services group pursuing gold standard medical studies, which have not been performed before, to look at things that actually protect the consumer more than they protect the drug and medical product manufacturers and marketers. You know, I know this one's obvious, but it's also important to point out the fact that we have a relatively free and open internet that's uncontrollable, allowing excellent data to be shared freely throughout society, and that also includes various social media apps and platforms. And recently, cracks in the blatant greed of the ruling class and globalists have also been a welcome site. Audits showing obvious waste fraud and abuse of NGOs or non-government organizations, either US-based or foreign, which have been receiving billions of dollars directly from the US government and funded by taxpayer money, for very questionable reasons. Started coming to light last year, thanks to some excellent work from not only the

43:05Department of Government Efficiency, but also brave whistleblowers and brilliant researchers, like the one on X that goes by the moniker, Data Republican Small R. The World Economic Forum, which was hell-bent on making sure that by 2030, everyone would own nothing and be happy, along with getting used to eating bugs, has lost a lot of its power over the masses and has not taken as seriously as it used to be. Along with the World Health Organization, which did a horrible job during the pandemic, and as of two weeks ago, on January 26th, the US formally withdrew from this unelected body that has been given far too much power overriding the sovereignty of countries and individuals' rights regarding pandemic policies and the forced administration of vaccines. Well, that's great information and there's definitely some hope on the horizon. All right, now, is there anything else you'd like to say about this

44:08topic before we end? Oh, yeah. I pretty much go on nuclear this podcast, but I want to share something else that is a little snippet from Attorney Jeff Childers Daily Substack article from his coffee and COVID site since it aligns with today's podcast. So this one comes from yesterday's article and since he does a brilliant job of mixing in humor, I thought it would be best to read it word for word. So here goes. And even more hilarious news of media hysteria, political Iran and overrought and completely illogical story whose headline could have fronted the Babylon B. Now, for those of you who don't know who the Babylon B is, they put out all these satirical titles of different things that are just hilarious. You have to have a good sense of humor to understand and laugh about it, but they're quite brilliant. So the headline that political put out said,

45:11efficacy will be secondary. RFK juniors vaccine advisors have a new mission. You can't make this stuff up. Politico is now complaining that Kennedy and HHS are putting safety first. Beneath Politico's pancakes of panic, the actual news was that yesterday, the CDC's vaccine advisory committee ASIP announced that it will now prioritize safety over efficacy. ASIP chair Kirk Millhorn said Americans should view the panel more as a safety committee. efficacy will be secondary. That's it. That was the whole story. Politico then squirted out 1200 words of furious outrage. The article sneeringly described Dr. Millhorn as an evangelical pastor from Hawaii, pediatric cardiologist and COVID vaccine skeptic. Ha ha, they sneakily buried

46:18pediatric cardiologist in between the two slams. Dr. Millhorn said, if you're not looking for safety signals, you won't necessarily find them. Politico quoted former disgruntled CDC official and leather bound monkey pox coordinator Demetri Daskalakis, of course, who responded, quote, it sounds like an excuse to find reasons to discourage vaccination. Quote unquote, read that again, the public health establishment thinks looking for problems is a bad thing. No wonder people stop trusting them. But Dr. Millhorn explained that if the committee is even considering a vaccine, it should already work. Otherwise, it shouldn't be before the committee. Duh. The government's vaccine advisors will focus on safety and somehow that panics public health

47:19experts. And that tells you everything about why public trust has collapsed. The committee's pivot against decades of best practices. Politico warned. Ha, without evidence. On decades of best practices gave us vaccines that didn't stop transmission, boosters that kept the multiplying and mandates for shots that healthy kids didn't need. Those decades produced the credibility crisis. The best practices failed. Asking why is not dangerous, it's long overdue. Forgive us for wanting a second opinion. Bondage fetishist and corporate media's favorite public health expert, Daskalakis warned, quote, they're going to be the mechanism to sow discord and confusion by presenting weird stuff. Unquote, I'm not making that up. Political

48:19actually printed that imbacillic nonsense. Presumably by weird stuff, Daskalakis meant data and not alien autopsies or blurry chupacabra photos. And I'm only saying, but Demetri probably shouldn't be throwing around the phrase weird stuff. The fact that a former CDC official is preemptively labeling inconvenient data as weird stuff gives away the whole ballgame. They're not even pretending to be scientific anymore. He doesn't even need to see the future data. They're already trying to discredit findings before the findings exist. Great points. Yes. All right. So now we're going to let people think about all of that and how it affects them and people that they care about. And one of the things that you've brought up is the virus and the V-safed databases. So you mentioned we should do a deeper dive on that

49:22whole topic. Well, that is going to be our next episode. So anybody who is interested in that should join us in the next episode when we cover the virus and V-safed databases. All righty. Thanks for joining us this week on the Body Chat Podcast. We both really appreciate your time and your attention. We want to provide you with interesting and informative episodes each week. And if you have a topic you'd like us to cover or any questions you'd like us to answer, send an email to us at infoatbodychatpodcast.com. That's infoatbodychatpodcast.com. To make sure you don't miss any of our upcoming episodes, subscribe to the Body Chat Podcasts now on iTunes, Stitcher, Google Play, or Spotify. See you