Latest / Beyond Labels Premium / Episode 7: The TRUTH About the FDA (In Their Own Words) with Joel & Sina

Transcript

Episode 7: The TRUTH About the FDA (In Their Own Words) with Joel & Sina · Beyond Labels Premium

• 0:00
  SPEAKER_01: Hey Joel, I am so excited to talk to you this week.
• 0:03
  SPEAKER_01: How you doing?
• 0:05
  SPEAKER_00: I'm doing well.
• 0:07
  SPEAKER_00: I hear that you've been uh doing some doing some uh uh typical research work and I'm excited to hear what you're what you're learning.
• 0:16
  SPEAKER_00: I I I've I've I've been I've been cutting wood, moving cows, and uh uh you know doing some other things.
• 0:23
  SPEAKER_00: So I'm excited to hear what your uh what your research is finding.
• 0:28
  SPEAKER_01: Great.
• 0:28
  SPEAKER_01: Well I'm excited to talk to you.
• 0:30
  SPEAKER_01: So since our last episodes on medical liberty, uh we've had many things happen.
• 0:37
  SPEAKER_01: Uh we've had um Biden come out and issue that um OSHA order for the for a mandate of the uh V A C C I N E or what we're calling the pharma solution.
• 0:51
  SPEAKER_01: Um and we're seeing these mandates roll out.
• 0:53
  SPEAKER_01: So what I decided to do, since this is affecting every single person across the globe, I decided, you know how we took a deep dive into the FDA's involvement with the food supply?
• 1:08
  SPEAKER_01: I decided to look at the other part of the FDA, the part of the FDA that's approving drugs and that's approving these pharma solutions.
• 1:19
  SPEAKER_00: So so just so yes, so so just so everybody understands, FDA is food and drug administration.
• 1:28
  SPEAKER_00: And in our book, Beyond Labels, that we wrote together, uh, we concentrated on the food part, not the drug part.
• 1:36
  SPEAKER_00: So, so what you're saying is right now you're diving into the drug part, kind of leaving the food alone.
• 1:43
  SPEAKER_00: Let's dive into the drug part and see and see what you found.
• 1:47
  SPEAKER_01: Exactly, because I, you know, I'm not on any prescription medications.
• 1:51
  SPEAKER_01: I just instinctively um clamor towards natural remedies.
• 1:56
  SPEAKER_01: So I have never actually dove in into it like headfirst.
• 2:00
  SPEAKER_01: I'd only know some things superficially, and now we're hearing all people talk about certain things, you know, like the two two FDA top officials um resigned um, you know, over um controversial issue over the booster pharma solution.
• 2:16
  SPEAKER_01: Um, and and we're hearing some other things and people being called um conspiracy theorists.
• 2:22
  SPEAKER_01: So I wanted to dig in deep and find the information for myself.
• 2:25
  SPEAKER_01: I wanted to find it in the FDA's own words, right?
• 2:29
  SPEAKER_01: Because that's what you and I like to do, go to original sources.
• 2:32
  SPEAKER_01: So I want to start with this question for you.
• 2:35
  SPEAKER_01: Who funds the FDA?
• 2:40
  SPEAKER_00: Who funds the FDA?
• 2:42
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah.
• 2:44
  SPEAKER_00: Uh well, the obvious answer is the taxpayer, but uh something tells me that's not the right answer.
• 2:53
  SPEAKER_00: There's got to be something else here, or you wouldn't have asked such a simple question.
• 2:57
  SPEAKER_00: So I'll I'll bite, I'll bite on your trap.
• 3:00
  SPEAKER_00: You can go ahead and smack me uh and say the taxpayer, but I would be wrong.
• 3:06
  SPEAKER_01: Okay, so you are partially right.
• 3:08
  SPEAKER_01: And I tell you, before a few days ago, my answer was the taxpayer too.
• 3:13
  SPEAKER_01: And you and I have talked about this, right?
• 3:15
  SPEAKER_01: We we've talked about, oh, you know, the FDA is um supported by our tax dollars, they work for us.
• 3:21
  SPEAKER_01: But here's what I found.
• 3:23
  SPEAKER_01: Now, this is, and I'm gonna, by the way, I'm gonna post all of the links to all the sources in the show description so everybody can look at these for themselves.
• 3:34
  SPEAKER_01: And Joel and I are both big fans of that.
• 3:36
  SPEAKER_01: We encourage everyone not to take our word for it.
• 3:39
  SPEAKER_01: Do your original, your own homework, look at the data for yourself.
• 3:43
  SPEAKER_01: So I'm looking at this document from the FDA.
• 3:47
  SPEAKER_01: It's called Fact Sheet, FDA at a glance.
• 3:50
  SPEAKER_01: This is what it says.
• 3:52
  SPEAKER_01: The FDA budget, this was for 2019.
• 3:55
  SPEAKER_01: The budget was$5.9 billion.
• 4:00
  SPEAKER_01: About 55% of that FDA's budget was provided by um federal budget authorization, right?
• 4:07
  SPEAKER_01: So this is tax dollars.
• 4:09
  SPEAKER_01: The remaining 45%, which is$2.7 billion, is paid for by industry user fees.
• 4:20
  SPEAKER_01: So almost half of the budget for the FDA is paid for by industry user fees.
• 4:26
  SPEAKER_01: Then they break it down and they go, they this is what they say, biologics regulatory activities.
• 4:34
  SPEAKER_01: So biologics are pharma solution, right?
• 4:37
  SPEAKER_01: The pharma solution are is um categorized as a biologic.
• 4:42
  SPEAKER_01: So biologic by biologics regulatory activities are 40% of those activities are paid for by these industry user fees.
• 4:53
  SPEAKER_01: Um, so then you ask, okay, so what are these industry user fees?
• 5:00
  SPEAKER_01: In 1992, there was intense pressure on Congress.
• 5:06
  SPEAKER_01: And this is because of the AIDS epidemic.
• 5:09
  SPEAKER_01: All right.
• 5:10
  SPEAKER_01: People didn't think that drugs were being approved fast enough to help with the AIDS epidemic.
• 5:15
  SPEAKER_01: So in 1992, in response to that intense pressure, Congress passed what's called the Prescription Drug User Fee Act.
• 5:25
  SPEAKER_01: Okay, now Congress at the time was controlled by Democrats, but this act was signed into law by the Republican president George H.W.
• 5:35
  SPEAKER_01: Bush, right?
• 5:36
  SPEAKER_01: So this was a bipartisan effort.
• 5:39
  SPEAKER_01: So with that act, the FDA moved from the fully taxpayer-funded entity to one that was funded through both tax dollars and new prescription drug user fees.
• 5:50
  SPEAKER_01: So what that means is the manufacturers that are making these drugs and these pharma solutions, they actually pay these fees when they're submitting applications to the FDA for the FDA to review that drug or that pharma solution.
• 6:05
  SPEAKER_01: And then they pay annual user fees based on the number of drugs or pharma solutions that the FDA has approved for them.
• 6:14
  SPEAKER_01: So in total, about 65% of the funding for human drug regulatory activities actually comes from these user fees.
• 6:22
  SPEAKER_01: So over half of the funding comes from these user fees.
• 6:28
  SPEAKER_01: So my next question was: what are these user fees used for?
• 6:34
  SPEAKER_01: Right?
• 6:35
  SPEAKER_01: These fees that the industry pays are used to hire medical officers that which are physicians.
• 6:46
  SPEAKER_01: And the reason they hire these more medical officers is because they're the ones that coordinate the review of the drugs or the pharma solutions at the FDA.
• 6:56
  SPEAKER_01: So you have the manufacturer that pays money to the FDA for the FDA to hire more medical officers in order to speed up the review of their own drugs and pharma solutions.
• 7:20
  SPEAKER_01: A little?
• 7:41
  SPEAKER_01: And it's not a free market either.
• 7:44
  SPEAKER_01: Like if Congress passed this thinking, oh, this was gonna be a free market, well, that's not, because it in essence, it's like those medical officers are indirect employees of these um pharma, you know, these industry, um, the industry that's producing the drugs and the all the pharma solutions that they now are gonna decide if they're gonna hit the market.
• 8:07
  SPEAKER_00: So it yeah, you you know, it it it it strikes me, um, you know what's so fascinating about this is in in Beyond Labels, you know, when what one of the biggest uh whatever tensions you and I had in Beyond Labels was regarding our kind of how we were gonna treat organic certification.
• 8:26
  SPEAKER_00: And and I'm you know, I'm pretty libertarian and all that.
• 8:29
  SPEAKER_00: And and I I made the point in the book that whenever that in any time when the the licensee is paying for the licensor, the the incentive is for the licensor to uh to compromise uh because the licensor's salary is being paid by the licensee, you know, and and so so it doesn't take a it doesn't take you don't have to be a conservative or a liberal or a or you don't have to be anything to appreciate that if I'm if I'm paying you, I mean imagine um I I can't even think of a I can't even think of a a good uh concrete example, but but if I'm paying you, if you're depending on me for your paycheck to tell me that I'm doing okay, you're probably gonna tell me I'm doing okay.
• 9:32
  SPEAKER_01: Oh yeah.
• 9:33
  SPEAKER_01: Oh yeah.
• 9:34
  SPEAKER_01: And that's exactly what they found.
• 9:36
  SPEAKER_01: That's exactly what they found.
• 9:38
  SPEAKER_01: So I'll give you a couple of of statistics.
• 9:41
  SPEAKER_01: Okay, these come from peer review published studies.
• 9:45
  SPEAKER_01: They found that before this user fee act was approved, about 21% of all the medications that the FDA approved, 21% of them were removed from the market or had a new black box warning added to them.
• 10:00
  SPEAKER_01: Now, black box warning is like the most serious warning label that you can put on a drug, right?
• 10:05
  SPEAKER_01: This is serious adverse effects.
• 10:07
  SPEAKER_01: So before this user fee was enacted, on average, 21% of medications were removed from the market or had a black box warning.
• 10:16
  SPEAKER_01: After the user fee was enacted, that jumped up to 27%.
• 10:21
  SPEAKER_01: So there's a 25% increase in the rate of these safety actions they had to take, either removing drugs from the market or adding up these, uh adding these black boxes to them.
• 10:34
  SPEAKER_01: Um, and I will say another consequence, and this goes to your point, another consequence of this act that they passed, right?
• 10:46
  SPEAKER_01: Congress allowing industry to fund the FDA is that um every five years, that act is up for um renewal by Congress.
• 10:57
  SPEAKER_01: So every five years, Congress has to reapprove it.
• 10:59
  SPEAKER_01: So they've had many opportunities to change this law and they haven't.
• 11:03
  SPEAKER_00: So five years in le in legalese, that's called a sunset clause.
• 11:10
  SPEAKER_00: That's called a sunset.
• 11:11
  SPEAKER_00: In other words, the act, the law automatically um automatically goes away at at the sunset date, you know, unless it's re unless it's re-upped.
• 11:23
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah.
• 11:23
  SPEAKER_01: Yeah, so they re-up it five years, uh-huh.
• 11:27
  SPEAKER_01: Every five years, and then get this.
• 11:29
  SPEAKER_01: Uh, so at the first five-year increment, this is what happened.
• 11:32
  SPEAKER_01: This at the end of 1997, Congress not only reauthorized that act, they passed passed a second act.
• 11:38
  SPEAKER_01: It was called Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act.
• 11:42
  SPEAKER_01: That act allowed the drug approvals to be based on one single clinical trial instead of two clinical trials.
• 11:52
  SPEAKER_01: So they just made it easier to get these drugs approved, you know, making it easier for the approval process to take place.
• 12:01
  SPEAKER_01: And one reason I think this might be happening is check this out.
• 12:06
  SPEAKER_01: Part of this user uh fee act is that the FDA and the drug company, they have to negotiate the user fees, all right?
• 12:17
  SPEAKER_01: So how much the manufacturer is actually going to pay the FDA.
• 12:21
  SPEAKER_01: They also negotiate performance measures that the FDA has to meet in order to collect those user fees.
• 12:31
  SPEAKER_01: And they negotiate proposed changes in the FDA's approval process, including how long it takes for submission of a new drug application until the FDA either approves it or refuses to approve the drug.
• 12:45
  SPEAKER_01: I mean, come on.
• 12:47
  SPEAKER_01: Are they not co-opted?
• 12:49
  SPEAKER_01: I mean, I I don't want to be a pessimist, I want to give them the benefit of the doubt, but come on.
• 12:54
  SPEAKER_01: That how much more involved could they be in the approval process?
• 12:58
  SPEAKER_01: They're paying for it and they're dictating the process itself, you know.
• 13:03
  SPEAKER_00: So so all so all these people that that assume that there's some sort of uh a third party disinvolved um uh you know non-incentivized entity out there being a watchdog, it it just it just isn't true.
• 13:27
  SPEAKER_00: It just it just isn't true at all.
• 13:29
  SPEAKER_01: It it isn't true.
• 13:31
  SPEAKER_01: And in fact, um, you know how I am, inquisitive and uh often referred to as the bulldog, right?
• 13:38
  SPEAKER_01: Because I don't let something go until I've gone down the whole rabbit hole.
• 13:42
  SPEAKER_01: So what I did was I said, okay, this really can't be true, right?
• 13:46
  SPEAKER_01: Even though it's in Congress's words, right?
• 13:49
  SPEAKER_01: These this is this is law, and this is in the FDA's own words on their website.
• 13:54
  SPEAKER_01: So I dug a little bit deeper and I decided, well, let's see what these medical officers themselves are saying, right?
• 14:01
  SPEAKER_01: These are the physicians that basically walk these new drug approvals through the whole process at the FDA.
• 14:07
  SPEAKER_01: So if anybody knows what's happening at the FDA, it is these medical officers.
• 14:13
  SPEAKER_01: Um, they are employed by the FDA.
• 14:15
  SPEAKER_01: So a survey came out where they asked these medical officers, you know, everything was anonymous.
• 14:22
  SPEAKER_01: They asked them certain questions about how has the application process changed, how has the FDA itself changed, you know, pre and post this law with the user fees.
• 14:35
  SPEAKER_01: And I just wanted to share some of their actual statements from this study.
• 14:41
  SPEAKER_01: One medical officer stated, My feeling after more than 20 years at FDA is that unless a drug doesn't kill a patient outright, they will be approved with revised labeling and box warnings.
• 14:58
  SPEAKER_01: I mean, that's pretty amazing to say that.
• 15:01
  SPEAKER_01: As long as it doesn't kill somebody, they're just going to put it up there and put a label on it and a box warning.
• 15:06
  SPEAKER_01: And this, these are this is what I was talking about, those black box warnings.
• 15:10
  SPEAKER_01: So they're not actually fixing problems, they're just putting these labels on them that most people don't even pay attention to.
• 15:16
  SPEAKER_01: Um, this is another medical officer said this we're in the midst now to approve everything, but to describe drug weaknesses in the label.
• 15:25
  SPEAKER_01: As one high-ranking official said, everything is approvable.
• 15:30
  SPEAKER_01: We we can use the labeling creatively to lower the problems.
• 15:36
  SPEAKER_01: Another medical officer said, In the last two years, I recommended that two drugs not be approved.
• 15:42
  SPEAKER_01: They were both approved without consulting me.
• 15:45
  SPEAKER_01: This has never happened before.
• 15:47
  SPEAKER_01: In one case, the drug did not meet the standards set up by the division, so they nullified the standards.
• 15:56
  SPEAKER_01: So this is exactly what we saw when we took a deep dive together in the food supply, right?
• 16:02
  SPEAKER_01: The same pattern of changing regulations, changing standards to accommodate the product exists both on the food supply of the FGA and on the drug side, the drug and pharma solution side of the FGA.
• 16:19
  SPEAKER_01: I mean, for example, we saw this with recombinant bovine growth hormone, right?
• 16:24
  SPEAKER_01: That was the first genetically engineered hormone that was allowed in our food supply.
• 16:28
  SPEAKER_01: So you think we take extreme caution.
• 16:31
  SPEAKER_01: It increased the incidence of mastitis, which caused them to give them more antibiotics.
• 16:36
  SPEAKER_01: The residues ended up in the milk.
• 16:38
  SPEAKER_01: It the residue level was so high it exceeded the allowable level.
• 16:42
  SPEAKER_01: And so what did the FDA do?
• 16:45
  SPEAKER_01: They didn't change the, you know, they didn't, they didn't ban RBGH, did they put a moratorium on RBGH?
• 16:52
  SPEAKER_01: Instead, they changed the regulations to accommodate the product.
• 16:56
  SPEAKER_01: And so that's what we're now hearing from medical officers in the FDA itself that they're doing that same thing on the drug side.
• 17:05
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah, so uh so the the you know, so the question is, well, all right, we let's agree that this is correct.
• 17:17
  SPEAKER_00: What you found is absolutely correct.
• 17:20
  SPEAKER_00: Um you know people people laugh at my libertarian mindedness.
• 17:29
  SPEAKER_00: Well, saying that if we don't have these regulations, you know, uh these uh big companies are just gonna do bad things and you know we're not gonna have the protection and all that.
• 17:40
  SPEAKER_00: But if there's anything worse than not having any protection, it's having faith in a protection that doesn't exist.
• 17:48
  SPEAKER_00: I mean, that's it it would it would be better, it would be better to just say forget the protection.
• 17:54
  SPEAKER_00: Everybody's on your own.
• 17:56
  SPEAKER_00: Snake oil salesman can sell snake, you know, buyer beware, uh, you know, uh uh find it out for yourself.
• 18:03
  SPEAKER_00: And and you know, we have independent independent outfits like um like triple A or Underwriters Laboratory or Michelin Ratings or you know, we can we can join um you know we can join truly independent groups, you know, that that are paid for by the consumer to check out the safety.
• 18:25
  SPEAKER_00: I mean, you know, there are lots of ways around this, but to goodness, to to just continue to um put our faith in an agency that's that uh that uh uh uh compromised and adulterated seems uh seems like the height of of uh foolishness.
• 18:44
  SPEAKER_01: I completely agree.
• 18:46
  SPEAKER_01: And you know, this is when I was going back through the FDA's history in terms of our food supply, you could see that it was palpable in in reading through the literature um in the original source documents because what they did was as as soon as you know, the like Roosevelt passed the acts and and the FDA you know officially became the FDA, people rejoiced.
• 19:13
  SPEAKER_01: It was published in newspapers that like, you know, we're finally protected.
• 19:17
  SPEAKER_01: Um, and to me, that was the moment when we stopped being watchdogs over our own food, right?
• 19:24
  SPEAKER_01: We got this false sense of security that now this government agency um was looking out for our best interests and they were pure, right?
• 19:34
  SPEAKER_01: And they had our best interests at heart, and they were using our tax dollars to make sure that what we were eating was safe, right?
• 19:42
  SPEAKER_01: Well, as you and I have talked about time and time again, that's actually not the case in terms of our food supply.
• 19:49
  SPEAKER_01: Um, and and so but this was um, I wasn't quite, I wasn't really shocked that there was this uh industry involvement with the government agency.
• 20:02
  SPEAKER_01: I had expected it after researching the food supply.
• 20:06
  SPEAKER_01: What I did not expect, Joel, is how much um how much these agencies have been kind of taken over by industry.
• 20:21
  SPEAKER_01: Like I don't want to say co-opted, that's a strong word, but you know how much they're actually working together and just how much um, in some cases, corruption there is, there's revolving door again, like we saw on the food supply, um, and just the outward outright deception.
• 20:39
  SPEAKER_01: And I have just began begun researching this subject this week.
• 20:44
  SPEAKER_01: I'm only at the tip of the iceberg, right?
• 20:47
  SPEAKER_01: There is so much more to go.
• 20:49
  SPEAKER_01: Um, and I I want to share a little bit of what I found because this emphasizes what you were saying, that you know, some of a lot of us have been waking up to the food supply, right?
• 21:00
  SPEAKER_01: And and we've been taking charge and we're doing things about it.
• 21:03
  SPEAKER_01: We're growing our own food, we're we're choosing the regeneratively grown foods and whatnot.
• 21:07
  SPEAKER_01: Um, I think it's a little bit slower in waking up to the drug side and the pharma solution side of the FDA, um, because many of us assume that, for instance, the FDA actually tests the drugs for safety, right?
• 21:22
  SPEAKER_01: We assume there's more rigor involved because these are actual drugs, right?
• 21:27
  SPEAKER_01: And um they don't.
• 21:29
  SPEAKER_01: They don't actually test them for safety, right?
• 21:32
  SPEAKER_01: A lot of times it's either the company itself that's submitting data for the FDA to review, or the company hires somebody, um, like a professor or a medical doctor, and and then they're biased because the company pays those researchers to do the research.
• 21:50
  SPEAKER_01: So there's bias everywhere.
• 21:52
  SPEAKER_01: Okay, so yeah, there is this.
• 21:54
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah, the the real the the real the real world, the real the real words uh Cena.
• 22:00
  SPEAKER_01: is uh is collusion i mean yeah uh th think think think of all the publicity that uh you know that that trump got over the russian collusion uh conspiracy and and and uh i mean the the word collusion um has what i'm saying is it's really come into vogue in usage in in the last couple of years you know with with all you know with everything that's going around around with with all that and so uh so here here is collusion uh to the tenth degree if you will um you know within the within the actual uh regulatory uh uh business community i mean it's uh yeah it it it it's collusion of the worst sort yeah go ahead and and um and i'm gonna give you the example in just a moment but you're exactly right and for people to put this in perspective this is not a small problem right this is not a minimal issue to have we're not making a big to-do about something that's small these um these studies for instance that come out that are published in the scientific literature these are used by medical doctors for instance to support the usage of prescribing medications prescribing not only prescription medications but supporting the use of pharma solutions so you have these studies that come out and they get published by you know universities or you know medical doctors and they're used to back up the efficacy and the safety of prescription drugs and pharma solutions and what I'm about to share with you is that there's massive fraud massive fraud involved in these studies that are published in peer review high impact scientific and medical journals there's no way else to say it but that it's fraud.
• 23:52
  SPEAKER_01: So let me um give you some examples and again I'm gonna post this link so people can look at it for themselves here is an article published April 2015 in the journal of the American Medical Association Internal Medicine.
• 24:09
  SPEAKER_01: This is a high impact factor journal it's rated usually between 18 to 21 high impact journal published this article is reputable.
• 24:18
  SPEAKER_01: The title is Research Misconduct identified by the U.S.
• 24:23
  SPEAKER_01: Food and drug administration out of sight, out of mind out of the peer-reviewed literature so this was a fascinating study there is a teacher at New York University who he teaches an investigative reporting class.
• 24:39
  SPEAKER_01: So he decided to have his students help him figure out is there any evidence of fraud in medical trials that have been used to approve drugs by the FDA right what they did was they went through about 600 clinical trials.
• 24:59
  SPEAKER_01: Anybody can access these and this is one thing I want people to know all the information I'm going over with today these is this is all backed up by the FDA's own words and I'll post the links for you to find it yourself.
• 25:14
  SPEAKER_01: Everything I'm talking about anybody can find this it's in the public domain it's just like with the food supply for so many years I didn't pay attention right now I'm paying attention and it's like a floodgate has opened.
• 25:26
  SPEAKER_01: So they looked at about 600 clinical trials okay this is what they found fake x-ray reports forged retinal scans phony lab tests secretly amputated limbs all of this was done by these researchers that are trying to get drugs approved and this is the shocking part when FDA found out about the scientific fraud and other misconduct in all these instances they never notified the public they never notified the medical establishment or even the scientific community that the results of these experiment experiments could not be trusted.
• 26:08
  SPEAKER_01: So what what that means is that there's studies that have been published that are falsified fraud fraudulent studies and they're actually not redacted right they're not taken out of the medical literature even once the FDA knows that there's been fraud.
• 26:32
  SPEAKER_01: So what I did was instead of taking this guy's word for it and there's links all throughout this article it's original documents I pulled up one of the FDA's notices so when they so the FDA will go out and they will audit these different studies all right make sure everything's on the up and up if it's not they basically start a paperwork trail right uh this one is from um the Department of Health and Human Services which is where the FDA is under it's called Notice of Initiation of Disqualification Proceedings and Opportunity to Explain.
• 27:09
  SPEAKER_01: So this was a letter that was sent to one of these researchers that was referenced in that study that I'm talking about.
• 27:17
  SPEAKER_01: And um this one it's several pages itemizing all the problems with the study and things like they um they didn't collect samples when they said they were supposed to they collected samples and they destroyed the paperwork for 18 subjects so that basically they destroyed the data they got rid of the data right I wonder why at the end of it this is what the FDA says on the basis of the above listed violations FDA asserts you have failed to protect the rights safety and welfare of subjects under your care you have repeatedly or deliberately submitted false information to the sponsor you've repeatedly or deliberately failed to comply with regulations which place unnecessary risks to human subjects and has jeopardized the integrity of the data.
• 28:11
  SPEAKER_01: The FDA proposes you be disqualified as a clinical investigator.
• 28:16
  SPEAKER_01: Then the person gets to respond to it and you know defend themselves and the problem is in these in many of these instances like I said the the data is out there right the data still gets published.
• 28:30
  SPEAKER_01: So you you have all these researchers and these medical doctors relying on this data to prescribe various medications and pharma solutions to their patients and they're using this falsified data.
• 28:42
  SPEAKER_00: Man I mean that's it almost uh blows your mind.
• 28:47
  SPEAKER_01: So my question is so here you go to your doctor and your doctor writes out a prescription well the doctor's writing a prescription based on what he's read in the in the literature and if the doctor is writing a prescription if the doctor only knows what he is reading in the literature and that literature is is fraudulent then that mean that means you you can't trust your doctor yes so I will add one thing to that so when the the doc in my experience a lot of doctors don't actually read the medical literature they base their assessment of a pharmaceutical or a pharma solution on information that the um that the industry gives to them so that drug company is going to give them industry information it's gonna give them that drug company is going to give them information about that drug from their trial whether that company conducted the trial themselves or they paid a researcher or medical doctor to conduct the research now some medical doctors will go into literature right to to look at it.
• 30:05
  SPEAKER_01: And yes so the corruption is there and and the corruption still exists though even in the um literature that the industry is giving those medical doctors um and they are making these life and death decisions in some cases based on this um literature that has massive corruption in it um and I want to give you I know um before we knock off I want to give you just a couple examples um it and these are all documented so there was a a study called it was a record force study this was an anti-blood clotting agent that there was the FDA found falsified data at one testing site they also found at another site where they discarded medical records they didn't even couldn't even tell if the drug was actually given to the patients in some cases at half the sites FDA found out this eight out of 16 sites the FDA found out there was fraud misconduct and fishy behavior the FDA declared the entire study on this drug to be unreliable but you can find the publications um the you can find the data from this study it was published and it sits still in the Lancet it's still there and there's no indication that there is falsification or misconduct of any kind in those clinical trials.
• 31:31
  SPEAKER_01: So the physicians like you said they are basing these decisions on these studies that sit there in the medical literature in some cases.
• 31:40
  SPEAKER_01: And in fact I found this quote from the editor in chief of The Lancet he says the case against science is straightforward.
• 31:51
  SPEAKER_01: Much of the scientific literature perhaps half may simply be untrue so um one more example and then I'm gonna let you wrap this up and I like I said this is the tip of the iceberg I can talk to you about what I found for like three hours here.
• 32:10
  SPEAKER_01: And this is just this week.
• 32:12
  SPEAKER_01: So there was a massive case of scientific misconduct it was a research firm um they were caught faking data for over 1400 drug trials okay that meant they were testing the effectiveness of roughly 100 drugs that were being sold in the United States.
• 32:33
  SPEAKER_01: So the FDA found out about it but they didn't do anything about it.
• 32:38
  SPEAKER_01: And so when these researchers asked them well why didn't you pull these products or why aren't you at least indicating which products had the problem right or indicating which studies are associated with these drug products so people know don't take those um don't take those subjects those studies at face value right this is what the FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research said she said that the matter quote did not raise to the level where the public should be notified we felt it would result in misunderstanding and inappropriate actions so basically we're too stupid to you know to accept and that's the big point of this right like well one of the big points is that's literally how they treat us that we're just too stupid to to be able to suss through this information on our own or like you said we're too stupid to be able to figure out read through the literature and find out do take responsibility do I want to take this drug or not give me the list of side effects let me see the studies to this drug they literally treat us like that that we're we're stupid right and and and not just yes I agree that we're stupid but also that there's no one among us smart enough to suss it out look Cena I'm not gonna read those studies I've got I've got cows to move and wood to cut and you know water lines to bury okay I'm not gonna do it but but I am thrilled and grateful that there's someone like you who can understand it and who has a passion and a desire and to do that so so it it it's not it's not that that I can't understand it.
• 34:28
  SPEAKER_00: It's also that I can't even find someone someone uh that's that's that's impartial that's smarter than I am to find it.
• 34:40
  SPEAKER_00: You know I mean it goes beyond that it's like it's like uh in in in the gubernatorial uh debate last night between in in Virginia's gubernatorial race got this big race coming up between uh youncan and um and Terry mcculliff and in the debate um mccalph said uh that that parents should not be allowed to say what their children are taught and it it's the same it's the same elitist i and I'm not trying to be partisan here I'm just but but this this is this is this this uh this technocracy elitism and and and uh those of us that aren't in it I don't think we can comprehend the the collusion of it the corruption of it the the the the we we just want to believe our country's better than that and and I think what we're finding is that it's not it's I mean it it it might as well be you know Bolsheviks it might as well be uh you know Mao's the tongue I mean you know uh uh our um wow it makes you want to cry it makes you want to anyway what it does is it it it makes you uh realize that the the um you know the the orthodox narrative the mainstream narrative is not to be trusted and if if we can just get that much to where people don't just assume that if it's a if it's a pretty credentialed face on TV and if it's uh and if it's a if it's a guy with a bunch of microphones in front of him at a press conference that just because those things are there does not mean it's truth.
• 36:30
  SPEAKER_00: I mean that's the beginning that's the beginning of the solution is to understand that aspect and so I think uh I think you've blown the cover today.
• 36:41
  SPEAKER_00: I I think you've blown the cover and I hope that people will share this and will appreciate the work that you've done and and and will appreciate we we have to um you know at some point we have to pick up our we have to roll up our pants and and be take some responsibility um you know I I always thought it was interesting um studying the old testament in the Bible that that you know there israel had all these bad kings you know and and it's it's really funny to me that half the kings it says the king made the people worse than it ever been before and half of them it says the people made the king worse than it ever been before.
• 37:23
  SPEAKER_00: And so so you know we're responsible for the leaders for the for the people that we listen to.
• 37:28
  SPEAKER_00: You might not know everything but you're responsible for finding someone who can lead you to the truth even if you can't find it yourself.
• 37:37
  SPEAKER_01: And so um so if if that's as much as we can get to today I think that's as much as we can get to today and we're gonna dig into this more uh in a in a future uh podcast I would love to do that there's so much more here with the FDA and I haven't even told you what I found with the CDC and the current pharma solution so if you're interested in that then I'll start researching that you know go down that rabbit hole and report back to you.
• 38:06
  SPEAKER_00: I mean is that something that you're interested in of course I'm interested in that that's a rhetorical question of course of course we are well we're all interested in that and uh yeah let's let's um let's do that in a future one okay that sounds fantastic um I'll start digging into that and because um and I'll close with this um and turn it over to you I have a new um a a new motivation to dig in even deeper now because um one of our representatives and I'm not gonna call him out uh one of our elected officials contacted me and said he's getting extreme pressure from the inside about caving and and basically going along with the mandate and so he's wanting me to provide him with evidence as to why the mandate is not a one size fits all solution for everybody um you know any any kind of data solid hard data that he can get his hands on to help defend his position so I'm gonna be diving into that too yeah that's that's really important because you know uh choice choice is a big thing but if if I think that your choice is is going to murder me um then suddenly uh the the choice choice is not acceptable um I mean it if you if you come if you come after me if you choose to come after me with a loaded gun suddenly um uh I'm gonna say my retaliation beats your choice and and uh and so you know that that's where this debate that's where this issue has has gotten to now in our culture is that that the the um the ones of us who are not towing the the orthodox narrative um it's not just choice it's that we're we're murderers and um and that's a I mean I don't want to be a murderer but I don't believe I am but that's a really hard yeah it's a really hard uh argument and so yeah we definitely need to dive in that close this out Cena and um and we'll we'll look forward to people next time.
• 40:30
  SPEAKER_01: Yeah I think that's fantastic.
• 40:32
  SPEAKER_01: I've enjoyed talking about this with you we've just touched the tip of the iceberg there's gonna be more to come and we're gonna give you um hard data and evidence to help um support your decision um so you can stay strong too.
• 40:44
  SPEAKER_01: All right thanks everybody for joining us