Speaker 1: Cool Media. Welcome to it could happen here a show
Speaker 1: about things falling apart. This week, the thing falling apart
Speaker 1: is the US healthcare system science in general, but specifically
Speaker 1: the healthcare system. I'm Garrison Davis and today I'm joined
Speaker 1: by a very special returning guest, doctor Kappajode. Hello.
Speaker 2: Hey, Yes, the thing falling apart is you, the listener.
Speaker 2: So it's very important that you listen up. You were
Speaker 2: going to do anyways, but in particular you should be
Speaker 2: paying attention here because this is important stuff.
Speaker 1: So in mid May we got we got some news
Speaker 1: in the FDA, CDC Human Health and Services front, as
Speaker 1: there's been there's been a lot of news in the
Speaker 1: health front, but specifically, we're going to be talking about
Speaker 1: the new guidelines for COVID vaccines that the FDA is
Speaker 1: trying to push through in the United States. So the
Speaker 1: new f Commissioner, Marty mccaray and the top vaccine regulator
Speaker 1: of an Aprocad have published a quote unquote study you
Speaker 1: pushed back on the use of the word study in
Speaker 1: the New England Journal of Medicine about the COVID vaccine
Speaker 1: booster shots. Yeah, and are going to be changing the
Speaker 1: guidelines for how these are going to be administered and
Speaker 1: who has access to them, particularly those under the age
Speaker 1: of sixty five, might have a harder time getting the
Speaker 1: COVID booster that they have like the past few years,
Speaker 1: requiring certain pre existing conditions to qualify. And they have
Speaker 1: a whole bunch of arguments for this. They say they're
Speaker 1: trying to make this more in line with the vaccine
Speaker 1: guidelines and other countries. They're proposing further studies on the
Speaker 1: necessity of COVID vaccines for those under sixty five and
Speaker 1: for someone like me who tries to keep up with
Speaker 1: COVID boosters and you know, doesn't like it getting infected
Speaker 1: with COVID. Some of this can see a little bit
Speaker 1: both confusing and worrying and considering, like the anti vaccine
Speaker 1: takeover of the FDA and like the Federal Health Services
Speaker 1: in general, it's a frightening move.
Speaker 2: I guess yeah, I think you're right to feel concerned.
Speaker 2: It is something I am a little concerned about for
Speaker 2: a couple of reasons. One, I mean, I just don't
Speaker 2: flatly agree with limiting the use of the vaccines the
Speaker 2: people they're planning to limit it to. I mean this
Speaker 2: is coming from the medical freedom crowd. I feel like
Speaker 2: people should at least have the bodily autonomy to have
Speaker 2: the vaccine if they want it. That's a part of it.
Speaker 2: But I'm actually even more concerned about the bigger sense
Speaker 2: of what this represents. You know, on the surface, making
Speaker 2: some changes is not totally unreasonable to our vaccine policy,
Speaker 2: and we generally reassess our COVID vaccine policy annually, so
Speaker 2: that's not too abnormal. But the thing is, we have
Speaker 2: this whole system set in place to do it in
Speaker 2: a efficient, smart way that is public, and there's a
Speaker 2: process to it. If I can give you a little
Speaker 2: bit of a sense of how it normally runs and
Speaker 2: what's going to happen now, I think it'll explain why
Speaker 2: I might have my concerns.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that would be very useful to hear.
Speaker 2: So normally there are some clinical trials, there's some studies
Speaker 2: that happen, some real world data, some points that can
Speaker 2: be looked at, and then.
Speaker 3: The FDA uses this advisory committee.
Speaker 2: Again, these advisory committees are not career politicians. They're scientists,
Speaker 2: their public health officials, their doctors, people volunteering their time.
Speaker 2: I don't think they get paid other than maybe food
Speaker 2: and their expenses, but other than that, they're not paid
Speaker 2: for just this job. And what this group. The first
Speaker 2: group is called the VRBPAC and they determine if it's
Speaker 2: a safe and effective vaccine. If it is determined that way,
Speaker 2: then the FDA grants a license and approval. From there.
Speaker 2: There's another group, the ACIP, and that's an Advisory Committee
Speaker 2: on Immunization Practices, and it's the same sort of thing.
Speaker 2: It's a group made up of scientists, healthcare professionals, public
Speaker 2: health professionals, and people will come together, they'll determine who
Speaker 2: should get it, and then the CDC director signs off
Speaker 2: and then it gets out there to the world. Now,
Speaker 2: basically what we have is two political pointees, both of
Speaker 2: which have these massive axes to grind on the subject,
Speaker 2: have some severe chips on their shoulder about what's happened
Speaker 2: so far to them in this conversation and this dialogue.
Speaker 2: Who are going to bypass this whole scientific system, who
Speaker 2: aren't going to be looking at these questions like what
Speaker 2: is our growing immunity? Is annual booster still warranted? And
Speaker 2: they're going to take this outside of that and basically
Speaker 2: make the decision, and I find that to be very concerning,
Speaker 2: even past like this basic premise of like, you know,
Speaker 2: does this mean that my friends or myself I won't
Speaker 2: be able to get the vaccine that I want to get.
Speaker 2: So I find it to be very concerning. And you
Speaker 2: alluded to that article in the New England Journal of Medicine.
Speaker 2: It did not alleviate my concerns.
Speaker 1: One of the guys here, the guy who's heading up
Speaker 1: the vaccine regulations, has compared the US COVID response to
Speaker 1: Nazi Germany. He has boosted anti VAXX claims from Robert F.
Speaker 1: Kennedy Junior.
Speaker 3: And he's blocked me on Twitter.
Speaker 1: Come on, and truly his most heinous offense.
Speaker 3: How could you block me? I'm lovable? No.
Speaker 1: Me and this guy, Robert Evans were joking yesterday never
Speaker 1: heard of it, about about how some of your personal
Speaker 1: nemeses have have been put into positions of like government power,
Speaker 1: and how you're upset about that, and I remarked, oh,
Speaker 1: first time, because this has unfortunately been the trend of
Speaker 1: our work the past few years, These these weird online
Speaker 1: figures who we've developed personal agrievances against for being bad people.
Speaker 1: Suddenly now are like in the for echelons of power
Speaker 1: in the US government.
Speaker 3: Hey, I like them, they just don't like me.
Speaker 1: I don't know if that's true. But regardless, do you
Speaker 1: have any other notes on mccari andad like specifically?
Speaker 3: Uh, you know what I'll say.
Speaker 2: So A big thing about this article that they put
Speaker 2: in there, and what they talk about a lot, is
Speaker 2: trying to get more farm companies to do large studies,
Speaker 2: which you know, on the surface, totally reasonable. But the
Speaker 2: thing about it is not every problem can be solved
Speaker 2: with what's considered the quote unquote golden standard of studies,
Speaker 2: the double blind randomized control study.
Speaker 3: Some studies just can't.
Speaker 2: They want to see that these companies are doing these
Speaker 2: studies to say that it's good and safe and beneficial
Speaker 2: for younger people.
Speaker 3: But there's a couple of problems with this.
Speaker 2: Okay, One, I'm not entirely sure that's ethical, Like, if
Speaker 2: we have we have something that works, if we know
Speaker 2: this vaccine helps, and we do CDC studies have shown
Speaker 2: that these boosters helped for at least four.
Speaker 1: To six months, possibly life saving medication.
Speaker 2: Exactly is it ethical to deny somebody that, Like, would
Speaker 2: I want to be a part of that study. I
Speaker 2: wouldn't I wouldn't want to get potentially the placebo. So
Speaker 2: that's part of it. But even beyond that, to do
Speaker 2: these studies, it's lengthy. They are long studies. If you
Speaker 2: want to do it, and you want to do it right,
Speaker 2: it takes a while. So by the time they do this,
Speaker 2: by the time they do the study, even if I'm
Speaker 2: being very generous in how long it takes them, by
Speaker 2: the time we get the results, we'll be onto a
Speaker 2: different mutation. We know that this thing mutates, we know
Speaker 2: it's going to change into a different virus, and we
Speaker 2: won't even know if that study that we just spent
Speaker 2: all the time doing works on it. So we have
Speaker 2: other options for studying these things. They're not double blind,
Speaker 2: randomized controlled studies. But we have other studies at work,
Speaker 2: and there are plenty the epidemiologists out there, vaccineologists, people
Speaker 2: who know way more about this than me, and to
Speaker 2: be fair, know more about this than Prasad and Macary.
Speaker 2: They're the ones saying this is not a good idea.
Speaker 2: So I'm like saying, let's listen to them. Let's listen.
Speaker 3: They know what they're talking about. They're smart people. I've
Speaker 3: met some of them.
Speaker 2: They're great, and it doesn't make sense to me on
Speaker 2: an ethical or practical level to do it that way.
Speaker 1: Do you know what doesn't make sense to me?
Speaker 3: I know, I do, I do? I do? I can
Speaker 3: I say?
Speaker 2: Kind I guess you can guess. I'm guessing that commercials
Speaker 2: don't make sense to you. But really, at this point
Speaker 2: in your career, they should make sense.
Speaker 1: I should know by now, but still the concept is
Speaker 1: a little bizarre. Here they are Okay, we are back.
Speaker 1: I guess let's get into more how this will affect
Speaker 1: the average listener, like what these things could mean like
Speaker 1: both in I guess the short term and then like
Speaker 1: the long term. If you're trying to plan out your
Speaker 1: you know, your health a journey, what kind of like
Speaker 1: risks you have if you're you know, compromise, what that
Speaker 1: means for you versus if you're magical, perfectly healthy you know,
Speaker 1: twenty five year olds yeah, uh, prancing around with with
Speaker 1: no issues France and as the kids do. Kids love
Speaker 1: to prance.
Speaker 2: So in the short term, it's not clear in a
Speaker 2: month that advisory committee I mentioned the ACIP is going
Speaker 2: to meet or they're supposed to meet. I don't know
Speaker 2: if it's all going to happen, And they're supposed to
Speaker 2: determine who should get this so first, since first they
Speaker 2: could they could disagree. It would be the first time
Speaker 2: I've seen it. I've never seen the FDA and the
Speaker 2: ACIP not be in lockstep in this regard. And maybe
Speaker 2: it's happened, but I can't think of it in like,
Speaker 2: I don't know. I don't know what will happen. That'll
Speaker 2: be a little bit of chaos, and it'll be interesting
Speaker 2: to see what happens to that point. But if it
Speaker 2: goes as the FDA now plans, it will limit who
Speaker 2: can potentially get these vaccines. If you're not over sixty five,
Speaker 2: if you don't have a what's considered a risk for
Speaker 2: serious disease like asthma, cancer, kidney disease, certain types of
Speaker 2: liver lung disease, diabetes. If you don't have any of
Speaker 2: these things, then it's not clear to me. Will the
Speaker 2: pharmacist not give it to you? Will the pharmacist check
Speaker 2: if you tell them you have one of these things?
Speaker 2: Will insurance cover it? I don't know, and that's really concerning.
Speaker 2: I think the price is going to go up, and
Speaker 2: that does relate to the bigger concern, the long term
Speaker 2: problem in this, which is, I mean, Kennedy has said
Speaker 2: he's not taking away vaccines. Great, he doesn't actually need
Speaker 2: to take away vaccines. He just needs to do things
Speaker 2: like this so that nobody wants to pay for it.
Speaker 2: Nobody wants to go through the process of studying it,
Speaker 2: nobody's going to make them. Insurance companies aren't going to
Speaker 2: pay for it. People aren't going to end up being
Speaker 2: able to afford it. They're going to be lesser and
Speaker 2: fewer of them, and they will go away naturally on
Speaker 2: their own because of this. That's really the long term
Speaker 2: concern that I have. This the short term concern, I mean,
Speaker 2: I don't know. It's going to be interesting, you know,
Speaker 2: like there's certain things on this list that the CDC has,
Speaker 2: Like for example, physical inactivity is.
Speaker 3: On this list. I mean, how who could argue with
Speaker 3: you on that?
Speaker 2: Like, you know, if you tell the pharmacist you're having
Speaker 2: physical inactivity, will they I don't know will they check that?
Speaker 3: How will they check that?
Speaker 2: So I don't know what will happen in the short
Speaker 2: term and the long term definitely big concerns.
Speaker 1: It seems like part of their strategy here is just
Speaker 1: putting as many roadblocks in between you and vaccines that
Speaker 1: could save your life as possible, to further whatever like
Speaker 1: conspiracy driven worldview that the people at the top have
Speaker 1: and just like the inhumane side effects that's going to
Speaker 1: have across the entire population.
Speaker 2: Absolutely, I mean to also put this into context, COVID.
Speaker 2: We're in a better situation than we were years ago,
Speaker 2: that's certainly true. But at least from the CDC records alone,
Speaker 2: forty sive thousand Americans died from COVID related diseases last year.
Speaker 2: At least two thirds of that number were directly due
Speaker 2: to COVID. And amongst that, there are about two hundred
Speaker 2: and thirty deaths from kids. That is a significant number,
Speaker 2: And at least you can say at least one hundred
Speaker 2: and thirty of those kids were directly related to COVID
Speaker 2: and not from some other problems. So this is significant
Speaker 2: stuff that we're still dealing with. And long COVID can
Speaker 2: affect people. Long COVID can affect all groups. It can
Speaker 2: affect young and old, So it is concerning and it
Speaker 2: bothers me in particular, that the group doing this, as
Speaker 2: I said in the beginning, is the medical freedom group,
Speaker 2: And this is sort of the exact opposite of this.
Speaker 1: I think this demonstrates how much medical freedom has actually
Speaker 1: just been a dog whistle for like this conspiracy theory
Speaker 1: driven belief this entire time. Like people clamoring for medical
Speaker 1: freedom don't have to believe in it. They're against trans healthcare,
Speaker 1: they're against vaccines in general. They want to put autistic
Speaker 1: kids into like behavioral like therapy programs to try to
Speaker 1: make them not not autistic. Like it's it's it's not
Speaker 1: actually about medical freedom. It's about it's about advancing a
Speaker 1: very specific conservative and conspiratorial worldview that actually controls what
Speaker 1: other people are allowed to do with their bodies. This
Speaker 1: is like a massive, a massive part of their project. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and like I don't know how else you can like
Speaker 1: interpret moves like this, which are just going to jeopardize
Speaker 1: people and put them even in more danger.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and it's going to get worse. We can see
Speaker 2: the effects already. Just today, Moderna withdrew their application for
Speaker 2: a COVID flu combo vaccine, a one shot vaccine that
Speaker 2: would have both and the studies on that so far
Speaker 2: were really good. Actually they showed they looked really promising,
Speaker 2: and they're just doing this because you know, okay, now
Speaker 2: do we have to have these double blind control studies
Speaker 2: for this? And they know it's going to be a
Speaker 2: hostile environment. And now it's withdrawn and there's going to
Speaker 2: be more and more of that way. Way before your
Speaker 2: time or my time, there used to be more pharmaceutical
Speaker 2: companies making vaccines. There used to be a lot more
Speaker 2: than there are now. There's only a handful now, but
Speaker 2: there used to be a lot. And then there was
Speaker 2: like this CBS show about the protessis vaccine and it
Speaker 2: was called like Russian roulette, this could give you, like
Speaker 2: this could end your life. And there's like one like
Speaker 2: made for TV like show about it. It wasn't a movie,
Speaker 2: but it was like a special they did and it
Speaker 2: raised such concerns that letters started pouring in to the network,
Speaker 2: and they then started pouring into Congress and there was
Speaker 2: a whole hearing and after that we had a significant
Speaker 2: drop off in regards to the companies that make these vaccines,
Speaker 2: and we have a few now, and I am worried
Speaker 2: that this could be another sort of inflection point in
Speaker 2: that in that history, in that arc of vaccines, and
Speaker 2: we're going to get even fewer now.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's been devastated watching the like advancement of
Speaker 1: the HIV vaccine, which seemed like it was nearing completion,
Speaker 1: gets tolled for a number of reasons, including like DEI
Speaker 1: policies getting pushed across these health departments because the HIV
Speaker 1: vaccine research uses you know, terms like gay and and
Speaker 1: trans and it mentions. Yeah, you know, all all all
Speaker 1: that kind of stuff, which is which people focused on
Speaker 1: in the first few months. I'm super nervous about the
Speaker 1: COVID nasal vaccine getting basically shelved, and every every like
Speaker 1: new thing we see come under the FDA just makes
Speaker 1: those fears heightened. Yeah, it's it's pretty rad not to
Speaker 1: be too depressing, but that is kind of the that
Speaker 1: is that is the mood of this show in some
Speaker 1: in some ways, like people people can still you know,
Speaker 1: wash hands, mask up at this point, people can still
Speaker 1: get the vaccine, but like the way that the way
Speaker 1: that we've been like treating like the widespread health of
Speaker 1: this country has already been pretty bad the past few years. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and this is like trying to intentionally make it worse. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it does feel like that sometimes. Yeah, I am concerned
Speaker 1: about it all, but you're all right. We still have
Speaker 1: as of now. I mean, there's still some options going
Speaker 1: forward in terms of vaccines, and hopefully we'll continue to
Speaker 1: have them totally and we'll see how this plays out.
Speaker 1: I'm really curious the next month will.
Speaker 2: Be very telling when we have that ACIP Advisory Committee again.
Speaker 2: If it's allowed to happen, and they allow people like
Speaker 2: Paul Offit, people who are real vaccinologists, people who know
Speaker 2: about vaccines, not just appointed political people, but people who
Speaker 2: actually study this know it. If they come on and
Speaker 2: they can provide enough pressure, if people can support them,
Speaker 2: then I do think that there is there is some
Speaker 2: hope that the pushback will will.
Speaker 3: Help us alleviate some of this restriction. I hope.
Speaker 1: Would the people on the like a ACIP panel be
Speaker 1: like political appointees, Do they have the same like risk
Speaker 1: of all these other people put in under RFK Junior
Speaker 1: where they're very clearly politically there versus like careerists who
Speaker 1: are actually actual experts in the field.
Speaker 2: Well, unless they change it. The ACIP is not set
Speaker 2: up like that. The ACIP is just you know, these
Speaker 2: really great group of independent doctors and scientists, public health
Speaker 2: experts that are using real world data. They're looking at
Speaker 2: how the immunity shifts over time. They're looking at the
Speaker 2: virus and seeing if it's changing. Really volunteers that come
Speaker 2: from the world of science to do so. So as
Speaker 2: of now, they're not. That's not how the group works.
Speaker 2: I don't know if that'll hold. I mean, I don't
Speaker 2: see any reason why they couldn't if they wanted to
Speaker 2: scrap the ACIP get rid of the people on it.
Speaker 3: You know, people who.
Speaker 2: Are vaccinologists who are of great significance to the community,
Speaker 2: like you know, Peter Hotez or your Paul Offits, these
Speaker 2: scientists who really study and look at these things and
Speaker 2: put in just people who are already in line. I mean,
Speaker 2: unless I'm missing something about it, I don't see why
Speaker 2: they couldn't do that. I hope they don't. I think
Speaker 2: there's enough scientific background in Prasad and McCary that they
Speaker 2: would recognize the importance of an independent council.
Speaker 3: But yeah, I'm not sure.
Speaker 1: Well, that's good to know. We don't need to be
Speaker 1: fully doom or pilled on that. But it's a good
Speaker 1: thing to watch out for. Do you know what I'm
Speaker 1: gonna be watching out for, Kava, I do.
Speaker 3: I certainly do.
Speaker 2: You're gonna be listening more than watching, but you're going
Speaker 2: to be listening for some really great ads.
Speaker 1: OKT kave I guess I'd also like to touch on
Speaker 1: this actual piece in the in the New England Journal
Speaker 1: of Medicine. Yeah, they're quote unquote to evidence based approach
Speaker 1: to COVID nineteen vaccination, which is more of a blog post, right,
Speaker 1: it is not a study, It is a blog post.
Speaker 1: And specifically they talk about how the United States has
Speaker 1: a much more like severe vaccine strategy than other countries
Speaker 1: in Europe, and they try to use this to justify
Speaker 1: their own beliefs, saying that they're trying to bring things
Speaker 1: in line with the vaccine policies in other countries. Is
Speaker 1: this real? Is this true? I don't live in Europe.
Speaker 1: I'm not super familiar with the European vaccine guidelines. I
Speaker 1: don't expect you to be an expert either.
Speaker 2: No, it's really funny though that you mentioned it, because
Speaker 2: it's so funny what they decide to endorse about European
Speaker 2: policy will socialized medicine. Most of these European countries have
Speaker 2: socialized medicine. They will have nothing to do with that,
Speaker 2: and then they'll nitpick certain things. So there is some
Speaker 2: truth to the fact that we are doing things differently.
Speaker 2: And again I'm not opposed to looking at that and
Speaker 2: being like, Okay, what are other countries doing, does it work?
Speaker 2: And could we do that? So there is a difference
Speaker 2: are currently until now in the US it was generally
Speaker 2: recommended for anyone over six months. People weren't being made
Speaker 2: to have this. By the way, again, medical freedom.
Speaker 1: You know, no, I was pretty sure that Joe Biden
Speaker 1: will send a swat team to your house and shoot
Speaker 1: you unless you get the COVID vaccine. That's what I
Speaker 1: was told on the RFKQ and your podcast.
Speaker 2: I mean, he is somehow, simultaneously a decrepit old man
Speaker 2: who's certainly confused, but somehow able to orchestrate an incredible
Speaker 2: from the depths, darkness, deep state espionage. So I guess
Speaker 2: it's possible, and that's how we do it. It's how
Speaker 2: Canada does it. The UK they do do to little friendly.
Speaker 2: They do it for people greater than sixty five. They
Speaker 2: do it for residents and care homes. They do it
Speaker 2: for people greater than six months and high risk, and
Speaker 2: people who are greater than twelve years of age but
Speaker 2: are in a house where someone's a meal compromised. They
Speaker 2: do it for anyone who's over sixteen who helps care
Speaker 2: for someone who's vulnerable, and they do it for all
Speaker 2: social and healthcare workers. I mean they have a different
Speaker 2: system in place. They have, as I mentioned, socialized healthcare.
Speaker 2: In general, they're very good about their vaccines, so it's
Speaker 2: hard to tell. It's a little bit of apples and oranges.
Speaker 2: But it's funny what they decided to pick and not
Speaker 2: pick about that. And it's also fundy why some groups
Speaker 2: are missing under our care, Like a lot of places
Speaker 2: will vaccinate anyone who's overweight. Here they don't consider being
Speaker 2: overweight a risk for COVID, So that it is funny
Speaker 2: how they're choosing their nitpicking certain things that are recommendations
Speaker 2: common recommendations in other countries and not using them here.
Speaker 2: So they do it a little differently in Europe.
Speaker 3: That is true.
Speaker 2: And again this is the kind of stuff that they're
Speaker 2: going to evaluate every year. The ACIP will evaluate the
Speaker 2: look at the emerging data to look at the other
Speaker 2: countries to look at what's being done and they'll discuss it.
Speaker 3: So it is true, and.
Speaker 2: It does seem reasonable on the surface when they say
Speaker 2: it like that, hey, we're just trying to get and
Speaker 2: they mentioned this in the New England Journal of Medicine article,
Speaker 2: we're just trying to get more in line with the
Speaker 2: rest of the world. And that's not really true. It's
Speaker 2: like they're just picking certain things that they want to
Speaker 2: agree with and ignoring all the other stuff about their
Speaker 2: healthcare system that we could benefit from.
Speaker 1: One of the more wild aspects of this again Glorified
Speaker 1: blog post is talking about how the COVID vaccine booster
Speaker 1: program has actually undermined public trust in vaccinations, which is like, again,
Speaker 1: this is like we're all looking for the guy who
Speaker 1: did this moment wearing the hot dog constitu quote. Even
Speaker 1: healthcare workers remain hesitant, with less than one participating in
Speaker 1: twenty twenty three to twenty twenty four fall booster program.
Speaker 1: There may even be a ripple effect. Public trust and
Speaker 1: vaccination in general has declined, resulting in reluctance to vaccinate
Speaker 1: that is affecting even vital immunization programs such as that
Speaker 1: for me Zills, mumps and rebella.
Speaker 3: Oh so weird.
Speaker 2: I wonder if it's the people that have been talking
Speaker 2: about how corrupt and terrible the FDA and CDC are
Speaker 2: for like the last five six years.
Speaker 1: It's insane that they're that they're like able to like
Speaker 1: do this like it's yeah, I don't.
Speaker 2: I mean, it is an ongoing inside joke amongst people
Speaker 2: in the medical community.
Speaker 3: The hot dog meme guy.
Speaker 2: That's a very common like attribute to these to these
Speaker 2: characters who talk about, you know, how how they're clearly
Speaker 2: sowing the seeds of mistrust and then capitalizing off of it.
Speaker 3: I don't know if they even mean to or not.
Speaker 2: And people ask me a lot, they're like, you know,
Speaker 2: why why are they why why do they do this?
Speaker 2: And I that's a tough one for me. That's your
Speaker 2: friend Robert Evans. I ask him that every time I'm
Speaker 2: on his podcast, as there's a point in the podcast
Speaker 2: where I earnestly I don't do this on purpose, where
Speaker 2: I just don't understand and I need to understand why
Speaker 2: it's being done. And in these cases it's hard, you know. Previously,
Speaker 2: if VNE Persod had a podcast that people really liked
Speaker 2: called the Plenary podcast in the medical community. I never
Speaker 2: listened to it because I don't listen to medical podcasts.
Speaker 3: Why would I.
Speaker 2: And what it did basically was it would break down
Speaker 2: like studies and go over them in a very sort
Speaker 2: of skeptical way. And I think it's good as a
Speaker 2: doctor to be skeptical. I think that's a good attribute
Speaker 2: for us to have, and it was useful in many ways.
Speaker 2: But then I don't know if it's audience capture. I
Speaker 2: don't know if it's true belief. I don't know what shifted,
Speaker 2: but it does seem that it was a steady growth
Speaker 2: into this contrarian perspective from the medical community that doesn't
Speaker 2: totally make sense to me, Like they all kind of
Speaker 2: feel like they're galile or samulwise, that they had this
Speaker 2: rare contrarian opinion that made them special and they were
Speaker 2: attacked for. But in my mind, it's not so much
Speaker 2: of that as it is you know, there is a
Speaker 2: scientific process that we have. Galileo followed a scientific process
Speaker 2: and that's how he came to those conclusions. These people,
Speaker 2: I don't feel are following that and they are strict
Speaker 2: to their method. Idolatry to what they feel needs to
Speaker 2: be done, and I don't feel like they're listening to
Speaker 2: the experts in the field explained to them why that's
Speaker 2: not the case. That's how every hero probably feels in
Speaker 2: every situation. But they have somehow become the victims in
Speaker 2: this story. And I am very curious to see now
Speaker 2: that they're in power, how that shifts and if they
Speaker 2: maintained this sort of victim mentality.
Speaker 1: Well, how can you be a victim when we have
Speaker 1: beef tallow back at stake and shake everyone. We did it,
Speaker 1: beef tell we did it, Joe, We're bad.
Speaker 3: We sure did. Maga coated coconut oil.
Speaker 1: Now I'll be completely healthy again.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, that is so funny to me. I mean, like,
Speaker 2: we could talk about seed oils, we could talk about
Speaker 2: the quote unquote Hateful eight, we could talk about all
Speaker 2: that stuff. But it's it's pretty clear that oils are
Speaker 2: better than tallow for your health, and beef tallow there's
Speaker 2: very little, like there's a little proof to prove that
Speaker 2: it's good for you, and a lot of proof to
Speaker 2: say that animal products are bad for your heart. Yeah,
Speaker 2: so it's absurd that that's an argument that we're still
Speaker 2: having this in twenty twenty.
Speaker 1: Five now instead of frying in beef tablet oil instead,
Speaker 1: I had just drink a full eight ounces of grape
Speaker 1: seed oil every morning to wake up. It does wonders
Speaker 1: for me. It just gets the whole body up and run.
Speaker 3: In lubricates the whole system.
Speaker 1: That's right. I know you can't give medical advice, but
Speaker 1: do you have any advice to give listeners before we close?
Speaker 1: At least people who are like you, afraid of what
Speaker 1: these changes from rfk's FDA will mean for like them
Speaker 1: in their community.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think it's okay to be concerned about it,
Speaker 2: but I do think there is some time to go.
Speaker 3: There's going to be a lot.
Speaker 2: Of people from the medical community fighting to try and
Speaker 2: fight these restrictions on the vaccine. So we'll see how
Speaker 2: that goes. You will probably be able to find ways
Speaker 2: to do it. You should talk to your doctor about it,
Speaker 2: be as your doctor probably can see a risk factor
Speaker 2: that you don't. If you don't see one that automatically
Speaker 2: fits that list from the CDC, your doctor might be
Speaker 2: able to find one that that is. And I'm not
Speaker 2: talking about fraud, I'm talking about like real things. Your
Speaker 2: doctor may be able to look through your chart, look
Speaker 2: through your history, talk to you and find a risk
Speaker 2: factor that you didn't think was a risk factor, like,
Speaker 2: for example, physical inactivity or you know, smoking. So there
Speaker 2: are things that we can look for, and as they
Speaker 2: shift those goalposts, which I'm sure they will, we'll also.
Speaker 3: Be trying to find around that as well.
Speaker 2: And you know, when the ACIP comes out, there's going
Speaker 2: to be a lot of pressure on them, and I
Speaker 2: think we can pressure our Congress and we can pressure
Speaker 2: our representatives to support them, at least nominally to discuss it,
Speaker 2: if nothing else, because I don't think this is getting
Speaker 2: talked about that much. So I think if we can
Speaker 2: bring it to the public attention, I think we can
Speaker 2: shift the narrative on vaccines. I do believe that the
Speaker 2: narrative has shifted on COVID and vaccines in this terrible way,
Speaker 2: this revisionist way where everyone pretends it's not it wasn't
Speaker 2: a big deal and that we didn't lose millions of people.
Speaker 2: And I think if we can keep that in the
Speaker 2: public discourse, I think that alone will help.
Speaker 3: I think that's important for us to do.
Speaker 2: And that's what people you know on Reddit and people
Speaker 2: on the Internet and Facebook, and all that stuff can
Speaker 2: do is they can help keep this in the public
Speaker 2: eye and fight that incipient I don't know if that's
Speaker 2: the right word. Insidious is probably the right word. It's
Speaker 2: this really subtle sort of reconstructing of the narrative of
Speaker 2: what COVID was and how important these vaccines are. So
Speaker 2: that's how people can help in the immediate future. And
Speaker 2: then you know, stay tuned, talk to your doctor about
Speaker 2: vaccines and when you can get them, and get them
Speaker 2: as soon as you can. I do think that's a
Speaker 2: good idea for both flu and for COVID boosters when available.
Speaker 1: Cave lovely talking with you as always. Where can people
Speaker 1: hear you talk more on the internet?
Speaker 2: I am on a podcast called The House of Pod
Speaker 2: and it is a humor adjacent, fun ish medical podcast.
Speaker 1: I would say it's not adjacent to humor. I would
Speaker 1: say it is on target.
Speaker 3: What we're next door to humor.
Speaker 2: We next door to humor. We speak a little humor,
Speaker 2: not a ton. But you will like the show. If
Speaker 2: you like this, I think you're gonna recognize a lot
Speaker 2: of the same people. Gear, for example, has just recently
Speaker 2: been on an episode, and you know, you'll we'll get
Speaker 2: gear on again, I hope, and you'll you'll find people
Speaker 2: that you like. There are a lot of the same
Speaker 2: sorts of people. We take a skeptical look at medical
Speaker 2: grifters and the wellness community, so a lot of the
Speaker 2: same stuff you love from these shows. In the extended
Speaker 2: Behind the Bastard universe, you'll also get into I think
Speaker 2: our podcast, the House of Pod and finding it anywhere,
Speaker 2: The House of Pod, the House of Pod.
Speaker 1: The first time I met you online, I was invited
Speaker 1: onto this show, and you know, it was a pretty
Speaker 1: busy year twenty twenty. There was a lot going on
Speaker 1: for me with the you know, riots and such and
Speaker 1: the you know, whatever damage was done to my brain
Speaker 1: via all that tear gas, and for some reason, and
Speaker 1: I don't quite know why, I wonder if I was
Speaker 1: just conflating two messages, but I thought I agreed to
Speaker 1: go onto a medieval history podcast, not a medical podcast.
Speaker 1: So as things just started, I was a little bit confused,
Speaker 1: And then I went back to reread the message of like,
Speaker 1: oh no, it definitely says medical, and I still don't
Speaker 1: quite know how I did that. Like I said, a
Speaker 1: lot going on that you.
Speaker 3: Did great whatever it was. Whenever you thought you were
Speaker 3: doing you did it well.
Speaker 1: But whenever I think of your podcast, I now also
Speaker 1: think about medieval history. So there you go.
Speaker 3: Yeah, hey, okay, that's cool. I'll take it.
Speaker 2: I'll think we did do an episode. I mean not
Speaker 2: every episode is strictly like medical stuff. Like I did
Speaker 2: an episode with these guys who wrote this book on
Speaker 2: Sparta and the battle with the Persians and how the
Speaker 2: story has been sort of turned into something grossly that's
Speaker 2: not partially because of three hundred and partially because of
Speaker 2: other reasons. Yeah, and so there is a little bit
Speaker 2: of that. Yeah, yeah, yeah, it makes sense. Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 2: you liked that episode.
Speaker 1: How often do you think about their Roman Empire?
Speaker 3: I don't.
Speaker 2: I think about how the Persians killed a lot of
Speaker 2: them over them thermophylly.
Speaker 3: That brings me a little spark of joy.
Speaker 1: Okay, good to know, just kidding listening, I don't.
Speaker 3: I don't approve of people being murdered. I don't. I
Speaker 3: don't even if they're jerks.
Speaker 1: Good to say this day at age.
Speaker 3: Yeah, thank you.
Speaker 1: So much, Kathe, thank you, thank you for having me.
Speaker 2: It could happen Here is a production of cool Zone
Speaker 2: Media for more podcasts from cool Zone Media.
Speaker 1: Visit our website coolzonmedia dot com, or check us out
Speaker 1: on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen
Speaker 1: to podcasts. You can now find sources for it could
Speaker 1: happen here, listed directly in episode descriptions. Thanks for listening.