Latest / Cultural Wars | America Out Loud News / Medical research is captured across all sides

Transcript

Medical research is captured across all sides · Cultural Wars | America Out Loud News

• 0:47
  Hello everyone and welcome to another episode of Unity Without Compromise.
• 0:52
  This is Dr.
• 0:53
  Steve Letulp, and as you probably have figured out, I like to speak the truth plainly, and I don't shy away from the controversial issues.
• 1:07
  And today I'll just be honest, I've got a very controversial issue to discuss with you.
• 1:12
  I want to share it because I think it has huge repercussions.
• 1:17
  And that is that the right, not just the left wing nut jobs, but the right is also guilty of captured medical research and publication.
• 1:30
  Now, let's get into it.
• 1:32
  Distortion of truth is almost never an accident.
• 1:38
  You know, think about everything that happened through the COVID-19 so-called pandemic, the man-made plandemic.
• 1:45
  Well, it takes a lot of intelligence and devotion and intensive planning, and uh sometimes decades, absolutely decades of indoctrination to deftly execute a deceptive plan.
• 2:02
  And in medicine, such a plan was implemented so skillfully that few even raised an eyebrow.
• 2:12
  And I want to expose this today in no uncertain terms.
• 2:17
  Many who have bought into the capture, many unwitting perpetrators of this scheme do not even recognize how they are participating in committing a crime against humanity, all in the name of science.
• 2:37
  And it's got to change.
• 2:39
  It includes both the right and the left.
• 2:43
  The scheme is a mere illusion of science.
• 2:47
  It's a powerful ploy that serves something other than public health and the good of humanity.
• 2:56
  Which is what I believe medicine is all about, isn't it?
• 3:00
  Meanwhile, meaningful and useful science is censored, it is canceled, or it is simply ignored.
• 3:11
  And this defines capture.
• 3:14
  It always leads to unnecessary human suffering.
• 3:19
  And that is exactly why it is worth fighting to change.
• 3:25
  But change never comes easily.
• 3:28
  I'll admit that.
• 3:30
  Especially when the capture of medicine extends from one end of the spectrum to the other, from the most liberal to the most conservative, conservative medical doctors, medical professionals, researchers.
• 3:48
  Now, I didn't fully appreciate this fact until I recently tested it by submitting an op-ed to two medical journals.
• 3:59
  Number one, the New England Journal of Medicine, which of course is on the very liberal end of the spectrum, but I also submitted an article or to the Journal of the American Physicians and Surgeons, which is on the opposite, conservative end of the spectrum.
• 4:20
  The title of my article was evaluating the implications of captured medical research and publication.
• 4:30
  Now, most of the colleagues that I rub elbows with would agree without any hesitation that the New England Journal of Medicine is woke and captured by big pharma.
• 4:43
  No doubt about that.
• 4:45
  No doubt whatsoever.
• 4:48
  But most of those people that I associate and affiliate with would also agree that the association of American physicians and surgeons is not guilty of capture.
• 5:04
  Myself included, until this submission.
• 5:14
  It just means op-ed just means opposite to the editorial page.
• 5:20
  In other words, it is an independent opinion piece that does not necessarily align with the official position of the journal.
• 5:31
  So that's why they call it op-ed.
• 5:33
  It is not a defense of research data.
• 5:36
  It is not a research paper, if you will.
• 5:39
  It's not a defense of a scientific, you know, doctoral dissertation, but rather it's just a topic discussed that is relevant to the target audience, to those who are likely to read the journals.
• 5:55
  So I want you to keep that in mind as I proceed, because it has significance.
• 6:01
  Now, it came to me as no surprise that the New England Journal of Medicine rejected my query.
• 6:16
  Well, guess what?
• 6:17
  New England Journal is captured.
• 6:19
  They are fully implicated, they know that they are guilty.
• 6:22
  There's no way they're going to allow an op-ed for the uh to be published in their journal on that topic.
• 6:28
  And you know what?
• 6:29
  I expected that fully.
• 6:31
  No surprise whatsoever.
• 6:34
  The chief editor for the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, Dr.
• 6:39
  Lawrence Huntoon, accepted my query and said that he was looking forward to reading the article.
• 6:46
  And you know, that that got me excited.
• 6:48
  So I actually wrote the article and I submitted it for publication.
• 6:53
  Well, he rejected it without explanation.
• 6:57
  And so I kind of, you know, stewed on this for a couple of weeks, I think it was, and I thought, well, I wonder.
• 7:04
  He never gave me any answer whatsoever about why he rejected it.
• 7:08
  And frankly, I was a little surprised, but there was something gnawing in the back of my mind that said, you know, they just might reject this.
• 7:19
  Well, after about two weeks, I decided I was going to do a radio show, this radio show on that topic.
• 7:28
  And I thought, you know, I don't want to just discuss this in the blind and talk about my encounter with the Journal of the American physicians and surgeons.
• 7:39
  And so I asked Dr.
• 7:40
  Huntoon for some feedback.
• 7:42
  I said, hey, you know, I don't want to be speculating on the reasons why you rejected my paper.
• 7:49
  And so I actually invited him to be a guest on my radio show, and he did not accept that, but he did offer feedback, and I greatly appreciated it because it shed a whole lot of light on the very problem that I was trying to convey in my 3800-word article.
• 8:11
  So let me just share with you the content of that article.
• 8:16
  In the introduction, I said, you know, maybe we need to be reminded of the most basic definition of science, which I'll define it as the art and skill of gaining knowledge by observing the way things are in our natural world, and then harnessing it.
• 8:36
  Pseudoscience, in contrast, is the misrepresentation of the data we investigate.
• 8:44
  For example, take the topic of evolution versus creation.
• 8:47
  Now, here we have all the same data.
• 8:50
  We have the same world, the same universe, the same evidence for what has transpired throughout man-made history since the earth came into existence.
• 9:00
  However, you want to believe it.
• 9:02
  These are two theories, the theory of evolution, the theory of creation.
• 9:09
  But one theory is taught as fact, as if it were a law of science and not a theory.
• 9:17
  The other theory is taught as naive sophistry, foolishness.
• 9:25
  They ridicule the creation scientists.
• 9:27
  And that is absolute proof that bias ultimately rules the day in scientific research.
• 9:35
  Because it's supposed to be neutral.
• 9:38
  It's supposed to be open-minded, it's supposed to be forever questioned.
• 9:44
  Well, if you go back through history, you'll find that we have actually been affronted with a long history of capture in medical research, even before it was formalized officially.
• 10:00
  Many people whose right theories were ignored or ridiculed by peers and colleagues has been the norm for hundreds and thousands of years.
• 10:15
  And guess what?
• 10:17
  To this day, science is still betrayed in modern research and publication.
• 10:25
  And I'll explain what I mean by that.
• 10:28
  In fact, I discussed in my article what constitutes valid medical research.
• 10:35
  I discussed how the hierarchy of medical evidence, also known as the evidence pyramid, is considered sacred in evidence-based medicine, which sounds so good.
• 10:49
  And I also showed how evidence-based medicine has grossly failed us at both ends of the spectrum, liberal and conservative.
• 11:02
  For example, e-clinical medicine is a Lancet medical journal subsidiary.
• 11:09
  And Lancer is, you know, considered a highly reputable one of the best medical journals out there.
• 11:15
  Well, the e-clinical medicine reported in an article, a quote, moderate to very low certainty evidence in a systematic review, which is the top of the hierarchy of evidence pyramid, their findings that suggest gender affirming care may improve quality of life, stigma, utilization of health services, and mental health.
• 11:47
  Now that is just absolutely ridiculous, but that was a systematic review, which is supposedly the absolutely best evidence to defend someone's thesis, someone's idea or proposal of a new theory or whatever.
• 12:03
  So the Lancet is saying, hey, you know, we really go for this gender affirming care, and it's nothing, you know, related to medical care.
• 12:13
  It is pure mutilated or mutilation and abuse of uh of children of people who have been confused and controlled by this very system that is leading them to want to think that a male can become a female.
• 12:32
  And the Lancet buys into this fully.
• 12:35
  And so they present a systematic review.
• 12:38
  Oh, best evidence, best evidence, and yet they say they reported a moderate to very low certainty evidence, and they still affirm the lies of improved quality of life and mental health.
• 12:52
  You know, transgenders uh have something like a 26-fold increased risk of suicide.
• 13:00
  That is not mental health, but they claim it.
• 13:03
  Well, how do you explain that?
• 13:05
  Well, think money, because they are completely captured by big pharma.
• 13:10
  But they are one of the top rated medical journals.
• 13:15
  Okay, on the other end of the spectrum, and a while ago in the mid-1800s, there was a physician named Igna Semelweiss, and he observed that hand washing with chlorinated lime had a good effect.
• 13:34
  It significantly reduced puerperal or childbed fever.
• 13:39
  And he was noticing that uh, you know, if we could get the doctors who were working on the dead bodies and gross anatomy, uh, if they just wash their hands before going from the anatomy lab to a delivery of a child, then the children and the mothers died a whole lot less often.
• 14:02
  But according to the evidence hierarchy, Sema Weiss's anecdotal evidence, which is what they call it, ranks at the bottom of the pyramid, meaning that it's almost almost worthless.
• 14:17
  It is totally biased.
• 14:19
  Well, Semra Weiss was literally factually ridiculed to death by his peers for his observation.
• 14:32
  Well, decades later, Joseph Lister, who died in 1912, and who was dubbed the father of modern antisepsis, had a whole lot of praise for Samuel Weiss's contribution that actually changed the entire practice of medicine.
• 14:54
  So I pointed that out just to show the contrast.
• 14:58
  Here's someone who presents data from the bottom of the pyramid.
• 15:03
  Hey, you know, I just noticed that the doctors with contaminated hands from the dead bodies that were infected with all kinds of stuff that were decomposing, um, they go right to a delivery, and the moms and the babies seem to get infected a whole lot more than the nurse midwives who were delivering babies but not dissecting dead humans, uh, they didn't have the same amount of problems with infection.
• 15:35
  So he said, hey, maybe they ought to wash their hands.
• 15:38
  Now that's just anecdotal evidence, and so he suggested, okay, let's test it.
• 15:43
  And this is just by, you know, this is called clinical observation, and um, and so he started saying, let's put this to the test and see if my theory is right.
• 15:54
  If you wash the hands, um, do people get the women in childbirth get less infected?
• 16:01
  And he said, you know what?
• 16:04
  I see all kinds of evidence for this.
• 16:06
  Well, his peers and colleagues absolutely mocked him, and as I said, he died a ridiculed man who actually died from a uh sepsis, an infection, and after he was placed in an institution, because it literally drove him crazy that they wouldn't listen to him.
• 16:24
  And you know what?
• 16:25
  I kind of can identify with that.
• 16:28
  But um, from there, in the paper, I just made a case in point, which was my central pain theory.
• 16:36
  I said, you know what?
• 16:37
  My theory of limbic inflammation, which is a mechanism that I proposed that seemed to explain central pain theory, which current medical dogma calls incurable, by the way.
• 16:52
  So since this was an op-ed, an opinion piece, right?
• 16:57
  I only briefly summarized my hypothesis of the central pain pathway because that was not the purpose of my article.
• 17:06
  And op-ed, as I said, is not a defense of a doctoral dissertation.
• 17:11
  It's just a discussion on something.
• 17:14
  But it was based on my clinical data, which supported my theory very strongly.
• 17:23
  Now, what was I supposed to do?
• 17:27
  Uh, because if I follow the rules, the guidelines of medical research, then I had to give placebos to some of my ailing patients.
• 17:35
  Now, of course, that is unethical, and I would have been sued.
• 17:40
  I would have had to somehow set up a study.
• 17:42
  I would have, they would expect me to drop my medical practice to pursue a PhD in neuroscience so that I could write and defend my thesis on limbic inflammation.
• 17:53
  Now, that is impossible, impractical in a busy medical practice.
• 17:59
  So, what should a clinician do?
• 18:02
  Well, it should be unnecessary that I need to give up my practice and pursue a doctorate because I discovered something.
• 18:11
  So, what I did is I cited my attempts to get my theory published in any form that I possibly could.
• 18:20
  And I gave a specific example of correspondence with the chief editor of practical pain management journal, which has now been archived in Med Central since 2023.
• 18:32
  So if you want to find it, you'd have to go to that med-central uh journal.
• 18:37
  Now, I could not even get the easiest kind of thing published called case studies.
• 18:44
  I couldn't get a case study published, which is the first step in introducing and promoting a new idea, oftentimes.
• 18:52
  See, medical publications are captured.
• 18:57
  All of them are captured.
• 19:00
  And this exposes the problem that all medical pioneers face in the crucial step of introducing new theories that may profoundly enhance people's physical and mental health.
• 19:16
  What I'm saying is I was unable to publish even compelling clinical case studies that substantiated my theory.
• 19:28
  Now, why is that?
• 19:30
  Well, for one thing, the case studies, their value is way underestimated.
• 19:37
  But here's the real kicker.
• 19:40
  When I talked to other researchers about this problem, hey, how do I get published?
• 19:44
  How do I get this information disseminated?
• 19:48
  Because I think I've come upon something really big here.
• 19:52
  Well, multiple prominent medical researchers advise me that the only way around this brick wall barrier.
• 20:00
  Of medical journal publication was to self-publish.
• 20:04
  And so I did that.
• 20:06
  But do you think I could ever get editor in chief Lawrence Huntoon to read my book?
• 20:14
  Not a chance.
• 20:16
  Nor likely any editor from any other medical journal.
• 20:21
  And so the problem of medical capture remains.
• 20:27
  The current system of research guidelines and publications has become tainted.
• 20:36
  When editors and peer reviewers pretend to defend sound medical research, but intellectually capture it, then they aren't the devil's advocate, but they are the devil's accomplice.
• 20:55
  Scientific progress is crippled by these well-intentioned dragons.
• 21:02
  And this system needs to change.
• 21:05
  And I stated my point in the article that I submitted very clearly.
• 21:09
  I said the fact that institutional capture leads to psychological capture, and it has plagued us for millennia, argues against a resolution.
• 21:21
  In other words, you know, what's my chances of fixing this problem?
• 21:26
  But I said, let me try anyways.
• 21:28
  And so I proposed a model for liberating captives of medical research and publication.
• 21:36
  So here's an idea that I throw out, and this is the very purpose of an op-ed.
• 21:41
  Say, hey, look, I got an idea here.
• 21:43
  I see a problem.
• 21:45
  I have actually experienced the brunt of this problem.
• 21:50
  How do we get around that?
• 21:51
  Let me suggest something to you.
• 21:53
  Would you think about this?
• 21:54
  Let me toss this out there for your readers, right?
• 21:57
  That's what an op-ed is.
• 21:59
  And so I had a three-step plan, and I said, number one, let's strengthen the concept of anecdotal evidence.
• 22:09
  When that evidence is multiplied in the spirit of SEMOWISE.
• 22:14
  In other words, how many affirming similar case studies do I need to present, you know, before a new theory is deemed worthy of further investigation and getting a hearing?
• 22:30
  Is it still just considered all personal bias, you know, selfish gain or whatever?
• 22:37
  Or, you know, at what point, how many case studies do I need before all of a sudden they become impactful?
• 22:45
  Meaning, if I heal patient after patient after patient based on my proposed mechanism of a central pain, and I have complete success, you know, at what point?
• 23:00
  How many case studies do I need to say, hey, I think I'm on to something here?
• 23:07
  So, you know, I'm trying to get a way around the system.
• 23:12
  Number two, I suggested, hey, let's introduce a triple blind approach.
• 23:18
  Now, there's been the word triple blind approach is already in the medical literature, uh, but it can mean something else.
• 23:25
  But let's introduce a triple blind approach to a merit-based publication.
• 23:31
  Well, Dr.
• 23:32
  Huntoon had a real problem with this one, and I get it, I really understand it.
• 23:38
  But let's let's put it into perspective.
• 23:42
  Few people question the double blinding of peers and authors, although both peer and author quality are dependent upon adherence to their own personal moral and ethical guidelines, and that's a well-known and widespread problem.
• 24:04
  I mean, who trusts the CDC authors and editors and peers?
• 24:10
  I don't.
• 24:12
  So my intent of also initiating blinding the investigative method, just at the introduction, initially, to throw it out there.
• 24:24
  I was just throwing it out there for consideration, was to give a voice to those busy physicians like myself, who may have discovered something of value, but have not the time, resources, or opportunity to be given a platform to be heard.
• 24:47
  In the case of central pain theory, this could impact millions of people around the planet who are needlessly suffering because the current party line that they seem hell-bent on protecting, and that party line is that fibromyalgia, irritable bowel syndrome, and other central pain syndromes are incurable.
• 25:15
  Well, how do I get around that if they just keep turning me away, saying, no, no, no?
• 25:20
  No, no, no.
• 25:21
  You have no proof of that.
• 25:23
  Well, yes, I do have proof for that, but you won't let me expose my proof, which I did in my book.
• 25:30
  But what's the real issue here?
• 25:32
  Well, the real issue is suffering people.
• 25:38
  People are suffering.
• 25:41
  And if I treated in my busy clinical practice, I actually said, you know what?
• 25:47
  I think I got this figured out, and based on my theory, which I tested by treating patients, they were healed.
• 26:02
  Their pain went away.
• 26:06
  They eventually stopped all their medications and their pain stayed away.
• 26:15
  And it corroborated my understanding of the mechanism for central pain, then maybe just maybe I'm on to something.
• 26:30
  We have thousands less, thousands fewer people who have central pain now because I treated them and they have had no relapses.
• 26:41
  They are healed, they are cured of their central pain.
• 26:46
  So let's keep in mind the real issue is suffering people.
• 26:53
  And that is my motive for putting forth an idea just to get us thinking, saying, hey, what are we doing here?
• 27:04
  How many more decades are we going to go on saying that central pain is incurable?
• 27:10
  If you have bladder pain syndrome, female pelvic pain, and any of these other terrible pain syndromes, phantom limb pain syndrome, complex regional pain syndrome.
• 27:27
  How many more decades are you going to have to suffer because they're telling you it's incurable when there's a doctor who's saying no, no, it's not incurable.
• 27:35
  I have cured it.
• 27:37
  See, the whole issue is suffering people.
• 27:41
  Now that in my mind should be an incentive to say, you know, something is wrong with the system here.
• 27:48
  Let's figure it out.
• 27:50
  Let's try to overcome it so that we can have fewer suffering people.
• 27:57
  Life is hard enough.
• 28:00
  And that was my motive for putting forth an idea just to get us thinking.
• 28:07
  Am I bemoaning the fact that busy clinicians have no hope of a chance to reveal their own conclusions based on reproducible clinical observations and data that is erroneously pre-labeled as riddled with bias and self-serving?
• 28:32
  Well, Dr.
• 28:33
  Hantoon, editor-in-chief of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons says, yes, that's right.
• 28:43
  And he told me in so many words, stop whining, stop your whining, get over it, do things the right way.
• 28:54
  Well, does anyone see the problem here?
• 28:58
  Or should I just shut my trap and go fishing?
• 29:01
  Yeah, maybe just go fishing, right?
• 29:04
  But isn't presenting alternative thinking the very purpose of an op-ed?
• 29:13
  Well, not in a captured world, it's not, apparently.
• 29:20
  Well, my third step in this new model to overcome the obstacles of publication and research was to establish a symposium for new medical theories and ideas.
• 29:37
  And that's why I suggested the triple blind, saying let's blind the method of research, let's blind, you know, the uh triple minded, blind everybody so that we are just presenting an idea in an open forum model so that people could evaluate.
• 30:00
  It's merit on its own.
• 30:03
  And I'm going to discuss that in further length and detail after a short pause.
• 30:10
  Hi, this is Colonel Mike from the National Security Hour, calling all patriots to join me in Nashville on July 2nd, 3rd, and 4th for America Out Loud News 250 10th anniversary in Nashville.
• 30:21
  Go get them, cowboys.
• 30:23
  Along with CLEAR, the wellness company.
• 30:26
  We're celebrating two big milestones.
• 30:28
  250 years of America and 10 years of America Outloud.
• 30:32
  News.
• 30:32
  That's where you come to hear military and intel experts on the National Security Hour, and where you get freedom of speech with liberty and justice for all.
• 30:40
  Not like anywhere else.
• 30:42
  This is a once-in-a-lifetime celebration.
• 30:44
  We will have inspiring entertainment, incredible fireworks, nationally recognized speakers who proudly stand for freedom, just like you and us.
• 30:52
  Let's unite to salute and celebrate the history of our great nation and collaborate to protect the future.
• 30:58
  Join us and register now at AmericaOut Loud.news Nashville.
• 31:03
  Oral hygiene hasn't changed in 50 years, but our diet and the way we eat has creating an environment in your mouth for bacteria to wreck havoc on your teeth and gums.
• 31:13
  For better oral health, get spray dental defense, an oral care line designed to combat acid creating bacteria.
• 31:21
  The toothpaste, mouthwash, mints, and gum all contain xylitol, and natural ingredients shown to dramatically improve oral health.
• 31:29
  Sprite can be found online and at all fine natural retailers.
• 31:33
  In just two minutes per day, you could reclaim your health and cut your grocery bill in half with one simple convenient product.
• 31:40
  Our doctor formulated Green 85 juice formula's powerful dose of ultra-concentrated essential nutrients, stops hunger in its tracks and supplies your cells with what's missing in the grocery store food.
• 31:52
  Go to ChemicalfreeBody.com forward slash out loud today, get nature's super multivitamin Green 85, empower your immune system, cut down on your grocery bill, and save 20% on your first order.
• 32:05
  Successful weight loss is about changing the gut brain relationship with food.
• 32:09
  I'm Dr.
• 32:09
  Kelly Victory with the wellness company.
• 32:11
  If you don't like needles, you'll love oral dissolving terzepatide RX.
• 32:16
  Works by targeting the GLP1 and GIP receptors that influence appetite and metabolism.
• 32:22
  And unlike injections, these are fast absorbing sublingual tablets placed under the tongue, paired with an energy boost of B6 and B12.
• 32:31
  Visit TWC.
• 32:52
  You are listening to Unity Without Compromise.
• 32:55
  Thank you so much for joining me today, and I hope you will grow from what you hear.
• 33:00
  You're going to be informed, you are going to have the issues at hand discussed in a really excellent way if you go to AmericaOutloud.news, that is our website where you can get the best of some great authors, great speakers who are stating the facts plainly about the state of the Union in the great United States of America.
• 33:30
  And I hope that you will consider joining us in Nashville, Tennessee, for the America Out Loud 25010 Nashville celebration of our semi-quincentennial.
• 33:44
  Now I'll tell you this, a lot of people are going who may find it just a little bit of a burden for one reason or another to get there to fly on the airplanes and so forth.
• 33:58
  Well, I think a lot of the nonsense will be sorted out, but let me tell you that every one of us on the America Out Loud team are actually paying our own way because we are doing all we can to keep the cost down for this event.
• 34:13
  And yet, even for those of us who find it a bit of a financial burden, are deeming it so important to celebrate 250 years of liberty.
• 34:28
  Think of the price that so many former Americans have paid for the sake of your liberty and mine so that we can speak freely as I've been doing today and every time I come on this radio show.
• 34:43
  Think of the great life we have had in America.
• 34:48
  This is a time for us to get together and say, hey, we are the Brotherhood of Fellow Americans.
• 34:55
  So I really hope you'll consider joining us.
• 34:58
  It is something you won't want to miss.
• 35:01
  It is going to be a phenomenal celebration.
• 35:05
  You'll get to hear and see a lot of your favorite uh speakers and radio show hosts on America out loud.
• 35:14
  And we just look forward to an awesome time.
• 35:18
  Well, today I am practicing my First Amendment right, and I am boldly telling you that the right, not just the left, but the right also is guilty of captured medical research and publications.
• 35:34
  And that has huge consequences for us.
• 35:38
  It affects our mental health and our physical health.
• 35:43
  It sometimes determines whether or not you will live in a life of pain or not.
• 35:50
  Now, I submitted an article for publication to a liberal medical journal and to a conservative medical journal.
• 36:00
  And my submission in op-ed was rejected by both.
• 36:11
  And so I decided to do this radio show on the topic because I said, you know what?
• 36:16
  We got to get this information out.
• 36:19
  And so my stated point in the article was that this institutional capture, which leads to psychological capture, and uh has plagued us for millennia, and it is still a problem in the present day and age.
• 36:36
  And being one who just refuses to accept defeat, I say, look, let's try to change this.
• 36:42
  Let's do something good for the sake of all people for the sake of suffering.
• 36:48
  This is the very purpose, the very ministry of medical doctors, or at least it should be.
• 38:44
  You're gonna tell me that you're not going to even expose how you did it.
• 38:49
  Well, initially, because I want to do it in a different setting, and that is step three.
• 38:55
  Establish a symposium for new medical theories and ideas.
• 39:01
  And this is a crucial uh solution to overcoming capture.
• 39:10
  I want the world to know that calling central pain syndromes like fibromalgia incurable is utter nonsense.
• 39:20
  It is a myth based on faulty pseudoscience.
• 39:24
  It has to be because I cured thousands of central pain patients.
• 39:29
  They are pain free, drug free, and without relapses.
• 39:34
  Now, doesn't that at least suggest the possibility that my central pain pathway and theory of limbic inflammation could have merit?
• 39:47
  What is the establishment of so afraid of?
• 39:52
  Presenters of new theories and ideas should be afforded the opportunity to make their case in an open forum.
• 40:00
  That's what I'm suggesting.
• 40:01
  That's what I was trying to get across in the article.
• 40:05
  If an idea is deemed to have merit on its own, and the stakes are high, like offering healing to millions of pain sufferers, then a supposium styled presentation may immediately generate a springboard for further discussion and focused research.
• 40:26
  Now, isn't that the whole basis for sharing scientific information?
• 40:31
  Which tells us that a form of capture exists that we do not recognize.
• 40:39
  But don't take it from me, hear it from someone else.
• 40:42
  Dr.
• 40:42
  Randall Bach, who is a physician on the America Out Loud team actually recently wrote an article, and I will post this in the article with this radio show.
• 40:53
  And his article defines this type of capture really nicely, and he recognizes it as a restore as a recurring historical pattern.
• 41:02
  He quotes a hospitalist clinician named Anil Mockham, who regarded himself as quote, a healthy services outcome epidemiology researcher, quote, end quote.
• 41:15
  Meaning that he first observes something that happens in the clinic, and then he tests it against the literature.
• 41:23
  So he says, I'm not going to have any blind faith.
• 41:26
  And so Dr.
• 41:27
  Mockham states, quote, it's really my clinical intuition that drives all my impulses in my career.
• 41:34
  Now that instinct here, Search, does not replace evidence, but it shapes how the evidence is weighed and when it should be questioned, because there's a lot of so-called evidence out there that is utter nonsense.
• 41:48
  Such decision making isn't easy in modern medicine, he claims, because it's experts who wear the cloak of science of the science.
• 41:59
  It's equating published with reliable and peer-reviewed with settled.
• 42:06
  The issue is settled.
• 42:08
  He recognizes that the science does not exist.
• 42:12
  Science is never settled, it is never complete.
• 42:15
  It is ongoing.
• 42:16
  It is additive in knowledge, and it is modified as new observations are detailed and explained.
• 42:23
  That's science.
• 42:25
  He then goes on to explain intellectual conflicts of interest.
• 42:30
  I love the term, that are identity-based, meaning evidence that fits their dogma is amplified.
• 42:40
  Evidence that does not is managed or ignored.
• 42:44
  He then lays bare the architecture of even the most subtle forms of capture.
• 42:50
  Academic systems protect themselves, he says.
• 42:55
  Funding, reputation, and catch this one, internal cohesion depend on continuity.
• 43:03
  So when a challenge arises, it is often easier to exclude it than absorb it.
• 43:10
  That dynamic is not unique to medicine, but its consequences are more immediate, and I would add much more costly to patients.
• 43:21
  So then Dr.
• 43:22
  Bach just nails it when he says evidence-based medicine has been reduced in practice to guideline adherence.
• 43:33
  That simplification raises a baseline, but it narrows judgment.
• 43:40
  Mockham rejects that narrowing, says Dr.
• 43:44
  Bach.
• 43:44
  And you know what?
• 43:45
  So do I.
• 43:46
  I reject that narrowing by guideline adherence.
• 43:51
  So to overcome this friction against the flow, we have to find new ways around them.
• 43:57
  And to some extent, that's already happening.
• 44:00
  I mean, just as legacy media is absolutely losing its grip on the masses, right?
• 44:06
  Well, so it is with medical journals and publishing committees.
• 44:10
  They are losing their influence on clinicians who have not lost sight of their primary role as healers.
• 44:20
  Our purpose is to alleviate human suffering.
• 44:25
  As we have become increasingly guideline and trapped, the free expression of new ideas, beliefs, conjectures, and theories has diminished proportionally.
• 44:41
  We are being blocked from hearing new ideas in this scenario.
• 44:49
  And such constraints become paternalistic imposition, opposition, and they are counterproductive to fulfilling our highest calling, which is to heal the human mind and body.
• 45:08
  And this makes a compelling case, in my opinion, for my quest for an open symposium.
• 45:17
  How else can anyone support with evidence a new thesis derived from clinical accumulating?
• 45:28
  Meaning I see patients all day long and I see trends and patterns.
• 45:34
  I make observations, I test them, and then I try to heal them.
• 45:40
  Oh, if the healing works, I do it again, I repeat it.
• 45:44
  You know what that is called?
• 45:45
  It's called the scientific method.
• 45:49
  See, if a clinical outcome is repeatable, and if it fits a proposed model like my theory of limbic inflammation, and if it is clearly and repetitively favorable, the outcome, and backed by proof of healing, then why would it be rejected as quote, bad science, end quote?
• 46:20
  Why would the establishment gatekeepers accuse such clinicians of having no respect for the scientific method?
• 46:31
  This doesn't make sense to me.
• 46:33
  These accusations are nothing more than a circular argument to defend the failing status quo.
• 46:42
  And these accusers are guilty of playing identity politics in medicine.
• 46:53
  But they don't recognize it.
• 46:56
  I've said time and again on this show, deception is so dangerous because by definition, we just don't recognize when we are self-deceived.
• 47:09
  And because of that, I'm always questioning myself.
• 47:14
  Because of that, I asked Dr.
• 47:17
  Huntoon for feedback.
• 47:19
  I want to understand where he's coming from.
• 47:22
  I want to know how he thinks I'm out of line or errant in my thinking.
• 47:30
  Because I am a scientist.
• 47:32
  I was in a doctoral program in microbiology back when, before I became a medical doctor.
• 47:39
  I understand how medical research works, and I understand how research data is manipulated and twisted, distorted to secure a desired outcome.
• 47:55
  I saw it firsthand in my doctoral program in microbiology.
• 48:01
  It was one of the reasons that I got out of that medical research environment.
• 48:09
  You see, our accusers who are guilty of this form of identity politics and medicine, what are they saying?
• 48:18
  Well, in effect, they are saying, oh, you did not follow our recipe.
• 48:25
  Therefore, your assertions cannot possibly be true.
• 48:31
  They must be rejected or ignored.
• 48:35
  Damned to be all clinical acumen, all clinically retrieved data is worthless.
• 48:45
  However redundant and validating it might be of a theory.
• 48:51
  To the laboratory, you villain, no publishing for you.
• 48:56
  And that's what they are saying on the left and on the right.
• 49:02
  And this is wrong.
• 49:04
  This needs to be changed.
• 49:11
  Well, if I had played by their rules and followed their guidance, then the thousands of patients I healed of debilitating central pain, which are functional disorders, by the way, that have no positive diagnostic findings, they would still be enduring pain, hopelessly, and in complete despair.
• 49:39
  Some who were suicidal when they came to me because they'd been to every specialist in the area.
• 49:48
  Well, some of them would likely be dead.
• 49:52
  And that raises the question: how important are clinical outcomes?
• 50:00
  Compared to contriving laboratory rodent apparatus to prove a point or to validate a thesis.
• 50:11
  We need to rethink this.
• 50:14
  Well, I've yet to see if my self-publishing of the book on central pain will accomplish my stated goal of disseminating a hidden truth and springboarding more research, you can read that in my introduction.
• 50:31
  The book is pain free and living again how to heal fibromyalgia, IBS, migraines, and other mystery pain syndromes.
• 50:45
  I supported my data strongly in that book.
• 50:50
  I gave examples.
• 50:53
  And I believe I validated my thesis quite strongly.
• 50:58
  But will a self-published book take off?
• 51:03
  Will it change the myth that central pain is incurable?
• 51:08
  I don't know.
• 51:12
  I don't know.
• 51:13
  But I do know that meanwhile, I think it's very important to challenge every health care worker to never lose sight of the ministry of medicine to which we are called as healers.
• 51:37
  You know, think about it.
• 51:40
  Think about it from a God perspective.
• 51:44
  Because ultimately, that's what it all comes to.
• 51:47
  Because every medical healer fails.
• 51:50
  Every doctor ultimately fails because every patient ultimately dies.
• 51:58
  But in the end, what's in our heart will determine our eternal destiny.
• 52:06
  Eternal destiny.
• 52:09
  Now I'd like to think that what's in our heart could also shape the world in which we live.
• 52:18
  Make it a better place.
• 52:20
  Be it in medicine, education, economics, the labor force, foreign policy, even politics and government.
• 52:30
  Wouldn't that be nice?
• 52:32
  You know what?
• 52:33
  I'd like to have faith in medicine again.
• 52:37
  Because I don't, and I'm a physician, a medical doctor, an allopathic physician who was in the system previously, until I was canceled for speaking the truth and doing my job.
• 52:55
  But I would like to have faith in medicine again.
• 52:59
  I'd like to be able to trust the centers for disease control, right?
• 53:06
  And health and human services.
• 53:09
  But I don't trust them.
• 53:11
  I don't trust anything they publish.
• 53:14
  Not yet.
• 53:15
  We have not gotten rid of the deep state.
• 53:20
  And because I've exposed this problem of capture in medical research and publication, even by the so-called right-wing conservative, the good guys in medicine.
• 53:36
  You know, I don't regard them as enemies at all.
• 53:42
  But I just want to have faith in medicine again.
• 53:46
  And I do wish to thank Dr.
• 53:48
  Lawrence Huntoon for his feedback.
• 53:52
  Because in this day and age, you know, I think it takes courage to commit to say, here's where I stand, and I respect him for that.
• 54:01
  I believe Dr.
• 54:02
  Huntoon was very sincere, and I truly do appreciate his boldness in actually speaking his mind.
• 54:11
  That was refreshing.
• 54:14
  And the time that he took to participate in meaningful discussion was very valuable to me.
• 54:22
  It upped my respect for him.
• 54:24
  Now we obviously don't agree, but I believe he's a very good man.
• 54:29
  And the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons has been a great organization that has contended for always putting patients first.
• 54:42
  And I only wish that I had known about them much earlier in my medical career, because I was never introduced to them before.
• 54:51
  But their affiliates are good physicians, and I respect them greatly.
• 54:56
  So I want you to understand my position there.
• 55:02
  But human nature is what it is.
• 55:05
  People's sincerity, integrity, and authenticity usually go only so far.
• 55:12
  That's human nature.
• 55:14
  And that's why battles are lost.
• 55:16
  That's why medical progress is so slow.
• 55:20
  That's why people suffer unnecessarily.
• 55:24
  Now I am truly praying for an age of authenticity to follow the age of deception in which we currently live.
• 55:32
  But let's always remember that even the most sincere among us can be sincerely wrong.
• 55:41
  And if that includes me, then the best I can do is cry mercy.
• 55:46
  If we cannot break down the barrier of captured research and publication, then we must find a way to circumvent it.
• 55:55
  Meanwhile, the masses will suffer needlessly.
• 56:02
  As clinicians and healers, that understanding must forever be our chief motivator for change.
• 56:14
  Thank you so much for listening to me on Unity Without Compromise Today.
• 56:20
  Adieu.