1 Doctor vs 20 RFK Jr. Supporters (ft Dr. Mike) Surrounded

administrators have ballooned beyond any reasonable level. Pharmaceutical

reasonable level. Pharmaceutical companies have no transparency. And

instead of going after those issues, Secretary Kennedy's calling me a profit monger.

>> Aren't you mad at that?

>> Yes, I absolutely am.

>> The definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over again and expect different results.

>> Agreed.

>> It's wild.

>> Is it also insanity to say since this failed, better not do anything and cut it all together?

>> He's not saying better not do anything.

it in half. Hi, I'm Dr. Mike, board certified family medicine physician and one of the largest health educators on social media. And today I'm surrounded

social media. And today I'm surrounded by 15 RFK Jr. supporters.

My first rounded claim is that RFK Jr. is decimating public health and should step down as Secretary of Health and Human Services.

Hello there. Hello, Dr. Mike.

>> Nice to meet you.

>> Nice to meet you.

>> How do you feel about my claim?

>> I think your claim is absurd. Um because

we've got someone that is actually challenging, which is science. I mean,

science is about scrutiny, not Orwellian obedience. And if we want to find the

obedience. And if we want to find the truth, we should always have both sides of the story. and you know check out both sides and then find what the truth is.

>> That's interesting because uh in some ways I agree with your statement. We

should absolutely be skeptical and science is about proving our initial thoughts wrong. When we do research for

thoughts wrong. When we do research for example, we try and look at not just our hypothesis of what we think is going to happen. We actually try to prove the

happen. We actually try to prove the null hypothesis. We actually try to

null hypothesis. We actually try to design research that disagrees with us.

So, I'm curious why you think Secretary Kennedy right now is the correct pick versus what you claim to be the other side.

>> Let's put it this way. We had to live through the medical tyranny of COVID and his organization, Children's Health Defense, was on the front line of

pushing back against that tyranny. I was

part of that. I did protests and I I started a rally in Beverly Hills that was very popular. By the end of the year, we had four to 6 thousand people marching through the streets saying

enough is enough. You know, they first like Fouchy told us, "Oh, you know, the masks don't work." And then, "Oh, you need to wear mask." And then it was two

masks. So, again, the goalpost just kept

masks. So, again, the goalpost just kept moving and moving. And we knew it was just baloney. I mean, anybody can smell

just baloney. I mean, anybody can smell a rat.

>> And, you know, we just see a lot of the same pattern like during HIV, for instance. remember that Bactrum they

instance. remember that Bactrum they kind of the NIH and the government were demonizing this with doctors and then we find out that it actually does help HIV but they didn't want to cure because

they wanted to push ACT which made a lot of money for big pharma same thing happened during COVID and we had two doctors here in California that had a

99% success rate okay it was uh Brian Tyson and George Fared and they had 7,000 patients that they helped

99% which is better than the co 19 shot because once we saw people taking those shots we saw people dropping like flies.

>> I feel like we took a lot of uh topics there and we try to put them together so it's going to be difficult for me to reply to you. Let's start with the idea of moving the goalposts.

>> Okay.

>> So uh you know in science we're always learning right as a doctor the things that I recommend today will likely change in 10 years and 20 years because as knowledge evolves we're going to make new recommendations. Is that fair to

new recommendations. Is that fair to say? It's fair to say, but this is

say? It's fair to say, but this is months, okay? And we know that a virus

months, okay? And we know that a virus is.3 micron. We see the holes in the

is.3 micron. We see the holes in the mask. You really think that that's going

mask. You really think that that's going to hold a virus? I mean, we see what veriologists wear. It's like a space

veriologists wear. It's like a space suit.

>> Yeah. So, this is really interesting. I

love that you point out the the particle size. And you know there's actually a

size. And you know there's actually a unique principle uh with particle movements that the reason why N95 masks actually work quite well for the co uh

virus because even when something is smaller than the size of the mask, the pores within the mask, the way that those particles move actually makes them

more readily captured by that mask.

Isn't that interesting how sometimes what we perceive to be the logical answer sometimes can be disproven in science. And this goes to show in the

science. And this goes to show in the same way that we made mistakes in the past.

>> Well, the reason why I'm bringing this up is because they were putting masks on people. So there now bacteria is

people. So there now bacteria is gigantic compared to a virus. We know

that right?

>> Very large.

>> And my friend, by the way, was a biology research professor at UCLA. So I've

learned a lot from him. And you know, he went to a very established school, Cambridge University. And that's what he

Cambridge University. And that's what he dealt with. That's why he said this is

dealt with. That's why he said this is nonsense. So I'm going to listen to the

nonsense. So I'm going to listen to the experts, which is Dr. Elliot Hoff and look at you know people were getting sick and worse when they were wearing masks because they were forcing

themselves to breathe the very bacteria that was dangerous.

>> So when I'm in the hospital and I'm treating patients who have CO 19 for example I wear an N95 mask. You think

I'm wearing that mask to potentially make myself more sick instead of protecting myself from the patient who has >> I believe that you believe that it works. You know, I I believe that you

works. You know, I I believe that you believe that because the medical industry, I believe, has been corrupt for a long time.

>> What makes it corrupt?

>> Um, well, there's an interest. You know,

people have special interests. You know,

it's a revolving door. When you look at a lot of these NIH or NIDA, you know, these people have been funded by big pharma and then they go in the the medical industry. So, to me, that shows

medical industry. So, to me, that shows corruption.

>> So, if someone is funded by big pharma, does that automatically make them corrupt? Not necessarily because there

corrupt? Not necessarily because there are honest people. But the fact that they censored even Mark Zuckerberg was was asked in the Senate floor if he was being, you know, coerced by the

government to shut down free speech when it came to CO. We had a friend who her best friend died of COVID shots, two of them, and she had these huge boils all over her legs and they sent her home.

They did not report with VERS that that was that. They actually didn't want to

was that. They actually didn't want to even talk about it, which shows me corruption. Then I had a friend, Dr.

corruption. Then I had a friend, Dr. Simone Gold that was treating patients with early treatment and the Master of Business Association comes to her which doesn't have a medical license and

threatened to uh fire her which she did.

She got fired. That is called medical tyranny.

>> Okay. Pause. You can vote it out. Sorry.

>> Thank you.

>> Thank you. Appreciate you.

>> Okay. We appreciate you.

>> Hello.

>> Hello sir. How are you?

>> Brian.

>> Pleasure. Brian. Nice to meet you. Um,

so I have a few questions to start with just because I want to make sure that we're actually debating the topic that you would like to debate. Um, to say that he's decimating public health, are there specific measures that you would like to cover, to talk about that you

believe constitutes the decimation?

>> Yeah. So, um, where do we start? Uh, in

order to do good public health, in order for me to know what treatments are right for my patients, we need to do research.

And currently uh the NIH the CDC budgets for research have been absolutely decimated by billions of dollars. In

fact, I wrote down a few of them if you don't mind me sharing because I think it's valuable to talk about. So we're

not talking in abstracts.

>> Okay.

>> For research, we've terminated $3.8 billion into cancer, HIV, ALS, and maternal health. Important subjects.

maternal health. Important subjects.

>> The entire NIH CDC budgets have been cut in half. We've created um an issue where

in half. We've created um an issue where in the Environmental Protection Agency for the Office of Research, we fired over a thousand scientists who do that

research to figure out if there's toxic pollutants that cause negative health outcomes. We've cut the CDC branch for

outcomes. We've cut the CDC branch for environmental health tracking for lead and water safety. We've canled NIH diabetes prevention program that ran for

30 years. and we've eliminated the

30 years. and we've eliminated the federal newborn screening advisory committee. So that's just a few of them.

committee. So that's just a few of them.

>> Okay. So considering all of that before when we had all of that money, where did that get us? Look at the state of America of Americans health and you tell

me that the public is actually healthy.

What RFK is doing is he is saying enough is enough. Something has to change. And

is enough. Something has to change. And

I will say this very politely, but I think that you have to be insane to say more is somehow going to get us out of the current public health crisis we have right now. Americans are fat and they

right now. Americans are fat and they are sick and it is not getting better.

And taking more and more money and continuing to flush it down the toilet is not going to solve the problem. We

know what will stop cancer dead in its tracks. We know what will stop all

tracks. We know what will stop all chronic disease dead in its tracks. Do

you know what it is?

>> Lifestyle changes.

>> Lifestyle changes. The American Heart Association has known about this for years. The most important predictor of

years. The most important predictor of longevity, risk of chronic disease, all-c causeed mortality is V2 max. So

why aren't doctors, why isn't the government creating a public health system that says, you know what, we're going to focus on V2 max? Because even

if we stopped every dollar we had putting it into cancer research right now, and we took that money and we said, let's get people moving. Let's increase

their V2 max, cancer is stopped dead in its tracks. So the question is when is

its tracks. So the question is when is enough enough to admit that the system you are a part of has drastically failed Americans and RFK Jr. by the very fact

of how he looks in his 70s does more to encourage people to live a healthy lifestyle and truly make America healthy again.

>> Very passionate and I I mean that with all sincerity because >> I mean I'm not trying to be an ass like I I >> I don't think you are. I actually I know you might feel like it's coming off aggressive, but I actually think it's

passion and it's passion that I share. I

think lifestyle changes are incredibly important. So, in order to make these

important. So, in order to make these meaningful changes, in order to get people to eat healthier, uh to exercise more, that takes research dollars in order to figure out what programs work

like in New York in my uh home state.

>> Do you really think it takes research dollars?

>> Yeah, because it it's really simple.

It's sunlight. It's being active. It's

having a healthy home environment. It's

eating food that comes from regenerative agriculture. It's it's not rocket

agriculture. It's it's not rocket science. It is really really simple. But

science. It is really really simple. But

I think that the pharmaceutical industry tries to complicate it to make people question it so that they run to their doctor. And I'll be very frank with you.

doctor. And I'll be very frank with you.

I think that you have great intentions.

I really do. And I'm really glad that it's you sitting here because I think part of the reason why these discussions get so heated is because both parties start thinking that the other party has bad intentions. I just think that you

bad intentions. I just think that you are a bit confused about where we should be putting our emphasis and putting our money.

>> So the difficulty I know it sounds easy to say let's get people moving, let's get people eating healthy. So I work at a community health center.

>> Mhm.

>> It's near impossible to change behaviors as simply as you put it. I've launched a program during my residency program where I as a physician exercised with my

patients. I brought them in to try and

patients. I brought them in to try and see if spending time with your doctor, exercising, getting them to do it safely was a way to get them motivated. And we

saw some successes. But in order to have done that, we need to scale that. We

need to trial that to see ultimately how behaviors change. For example, you've

behaviors change. For example, you've seen uh research where people say if you give people step counter and they walk 10,000 steps a day, they're healthier.

Well, yeah, if you walk more, you move more, you're healthier. But when we actually looked at long-term research of giving people step counters, it didn't change. literally just contradicted

change. literally just contradicted yourself and and unless you're saying we need to take that money that RFK Jr. is cutting from the budget and we need to spend it on the approaches that we know

work, then all you're doing is just supporting the system as is.

>> Did he take half the budget and make it for exercise?

>> Well, personally, I don't think that that's the government's role. And the

reason why the reason why I don't think it's the government's role is I'm going to tell you a story and ultimately this is what it comes down to. Okay? I was in a halfway house in Newark, New Jersey.

Okay? I could leave the halfway house because I was technically still an inmate and I could go to my job. All

right? If I veered from that path, I could literally go back to prison. Okay?

But eating healthy was so important to me that I broke the rules, went to Whole Foods, and bought healthy food on a $8 an hour job that the halfway house took

20%. And I still did not make excuses,

20%. And I still did not make excuses, and I found a way to eat healthy. Okay?

doctors, the federal government, it's never going to instill that in people.

And I think that it's wrong to really place that responsibility on you. You do

not have the tools in your toolbox to effectively change behavior. And whether

it's ego, I mean, like I I think you're a good person. What tools are we missing? I think it's more societal and

missing? I think it's more societal and it's more.

>> You just said the government shouldn't be a part of it. So when you say societal how >> the president would have more power right now with the bully pulpit than any form of legislation. And that's what I'm trying to say is that what RFK

represents for so many people that support him, he represents a cultural shift that will have more power than any form of legislation. It's just like my political views. I do not believe in

political views. I do not believe in democracy. I believe in a

democracy. I believe in a consumerocracy. The laws the politicians

consumerocracy. The laws the politicians the legislation they will fail us regardless of which party it is. Okay?

But right now we could change the world if we all went out there and we made different consumer decisions. You don't

have to have one president change. You

don't have to have one law change. This

goes viral right here. People start

talking about a consumer bureaucracy.

The world changes. Laws, politicians,

legislations will never have that power.

You are trying to fight a problem with force when the solution is power. And we

have to shift from that.

>> Can I ask you something real quick? Just

because before we shift topics, I think it's important. A lot of what you're

it's important. A lot of what you're saying, I want to say back to you and you tell me if I'm seeing your point.

well is that individual responsibility here is more important than societal responsibility for keeping people healthy.

>> I respect your viewpoint. Now this is my viewpoint and tell me what part of this you disagree with. I think individual responsibility is incredibly important.

I try and instill that in all my patients that exercise is important. I

try all different strategies to try and get them individually motivated. But as

a from a societal perspective, let's for example say we make a city more walkable. We make lighting more

walkable. We make lighting more available, especially at night. We

create more sidewalks. We make more parks. We create programs for kids to

parks. We create programs for kids to participate in afterchool sports programs. Those are societal things that politicians can get behind. Don't you

think that will make it easier for individuals to be healthy?

>> All of the money that you're advocating for and you're criticizing RFK Jr. for cutting in the budget, none of that money went to those things. If if you talk >> diabetes prevention, how do you think we think about diabetes prevention?

>> Well, let me ask you this. How many

people have diabetes right now? Has the

number gone up since that program's been in effect for the past 30 years. So, the

question is when is enough enough? The

definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over again and expect different results.

>> Agreed.

>> It's failed.

>> Is it also insanity to say since this failed, better not do anything and cut it all together?

>> He's not saying better not do anything.

>> Cut it in half.

>> Okay. But is he doing nothing?

>> Yes. Tell me what he's done to encourage people to exercise.

>> Okay. What what about the law in Texas that he passed with I I forget exactly what it was, but he's going around. He's

essentially using what would be considered his bully pulpit and he's trying to inspire people and make cultural changes. And ultimately that's

cultural changes. And ultimately that's an inspirational figure and not be the head of health and human services.

>> So it's it's it's really simple. Where

has legislation gotten us? We take all of our time, all of our energy, and all of our budget and we put it into legislation. And here's the deal.

legislation. And here's the deal.

Whether you want to admit it or not, when you have something like pharmaceutical companies funding 70% of research, >> do you think junk food is healthy?

>> No.

>> Do you think burgers and fries are healthy? Not at all.

healthy? Not at all.

>> Why in the first month that Secretary Kennedy was put into office, he's sitting at a Steak and Shake talking about how brave it is that they're frying beef tower?

>> I do not. Well, first of all, putting fries in beef tallow actually is not unhealthy.

>> But it's not about whether or not it's unhealthy. Do you think sitting at a

unhealthy. Do you think sitting at a Steak and Shake, one of the leading contributors to our obesity epidemic? do

not agree. I do notable I do not agree with everything that he's done. I also

>> What do you agree with besides the Texas individual point?

>> Um I think that before he was getting into office he was sporting regenerative agriculture. I think that regenerative

agriculture. I think that regenerative agriculture it has the ability to change the world. I find it comical that people

the world. I find it comical that people drive Teslas because supposedly they're scared about global warming and yet they eat vegetables and they have no idea that there's 550 gigatons of carbon in the air from top soil depletion

specifically rated to related to vegetable rowcrop farming. There's only

350 gigatons related to the burning of tops. I mean, uh, burning of carbon

tops. I mean, uh, burning of carbon fuels. We could literally stop all the

fuels. We could literally stop all the carbon in the air, dead in its tracks, put it back in the soil in one year if we switched over to regenerative agriculture. Why isn't that being talked

agriculture. Why isn't that being talked about?

>> Because he cut $15 million from the PFAS uh, farm program to track PFAA, PFAS's, which are potentially toxic chemicals

>> on farms. He's cutting these programs. The EPA is losing their research and development. Goes back to the consumer.

development. Goes back to the consumer.

How can the consumer know about the >> farm? Different choices. What do you

>> farm? Different choices. What do you mean how can consumer? Like I said, I was in a halfway house. Okay. I had

everything against me and I still found a way because I believe that Whole Foods that you went to the entire city had toxic against me. But what if I'm sorry even a little leap?

>> Hello. Hello.

>> Nice to meet you. Nice to meet you as well.

>> I'm uh I'm excited to be here because >> you know a lot of times when people do these debates, folks want to win >> and genuinely I want to learn from you guys and learn what we're doing wrong in

healthcare that's impacting you. So I'm

all ears.

>> I completely agree. Um it's not about winning, it's about getting to the truth. And I think we all can agree that

truth. And I think we all can agree that we all want the truth. And that's why um that's one of the reasons why I support RFK is because he supports transparency.

>> Okay.

>> And especially with like vaccines and healthcare and everything like that. Uh

another thing about RFK is that he's working to get fluoride out of the water. Why do we have fluoride in the

water. Why do we have fluoride in the water in the first place? Is it for dental care? I think that's an

dental care? I think that's an individual thing. If you want strong

individual thing. If you want strong teeth, you should probably just brush your teeth and floss. You know what I mean? You shouldn't rely on a government

mean? You shouldn't rely on a government regulated system of our water system to give you good dental care. Like I feel

like there's ulterior motives.

>> Are you against government programs that try and help groups of people as opposed to just individuals?

>> Not necessarily. It just depends on what it is.

>> Well, because when we say in America that the chronic health diseases in children is going up, it is. And I think I agree with everyone here on that.

Statistics don't lie, but one of those chronic issues is dental disease. So, if

we can >> can be improved by that, I think parents should stop giving their children so much sugar. Or maybe we should look at

much sugar. Or maybe we should look at the food industry and and ask why there's so much sugar in absolutely everything.

>> Can you walk and chew gum at the same time?

>> Are you going to bring up correlation?

>> No.

>> Yeah, you can walk and chew gum at the same time.

>> So, you can do both things. It's like,

why can't we encourage patients and parents to not overfeed their kids added sugars and make government programs that improve children's health?

>> But there's no point like why would I want water with an extra ingredient if I could just have pure water?

>> You know what I mean? Why would I need a government organization?

>> You can buy water without fluoride.

>> But why should I have to buy it? I think

water obviously it's nothing's free, but like water without chemicals should be free to get. If I want to drink out of my faucet, I should be able to do that without having fluoride in it, without

having to worry about fluoridosis or any uh other like, you know, overfluidation, you know, in my body. Why would I not be >> and you're against that buying a filter to get rid of?

>> I'm not against that, but why should I have to go out and buy that?

>> Well, because we everything in healthcare or public health always has a trade-off. Like if I'm giving anyone any

trade-off. Like if I'm giving anyone any medication, any therapy, there's always risks and benefits. So when we think about the benefit of putting fluoride in water in order to get kids to have healthier teeth, we think about the

impact on the general population. And in

fact, you're right. There's been some research that shows uh people who have high levels of fluoride, especially children, actually this doesn't apply to adults at all, but only for children, they can have neurologic issues.

>> Exactly. However, it's very important to look at the numbers and the areas that were studied because certain areas like in Asia, they have naturally very high levels of fluoride, not added by the

government, natural occurring fluoride.

And those numbers are quite high. So, it

really depends on what that number is and what that safe number is.

>> The thing about Asia is if if that's naturally in the water, then people from Asia are naturally adapted to that, which means it wouldn't like >> So, if you moved to Asia, you would have neurologic issues. If you said it didn't

neurologic issues. If you said it didn't apply to adults, then maybe not because I'm >> as a child. As a child, probably if you're not from that area, your body's not adapted to that. Which means if

there's studies shown that people who have high levels of fluoride in their body have neurological issues, then yeah, I'm sure that they would. But also

on another note, hold on one second. On

another note, >> why? Cuz if there's fluoride in the

>> why? Cuz if there's fluoride in the water and fluoride in the toothpaste and chemicals in our food, there comes a point where these things start stacking up. And I would much rather have kids

up. And I would much rather have kids with cavities than kids with neurological issues. You know what I

neurological issues. You know what I mean?

>> That's a false choice. You're not

choosing kids with neurologic disease or cavities. That's not really the two

cavities. That's not really the two choices you're making when you're making that decision.

>> So then what's the choice?

>> So I guess my question to you is when you say chemicals, like oxygen's a chemical, water is a chemical. So how do I I I am trying to really get down to the core of your argument to better understand you. I'm not trying to get

understand you. I'm not trying to get you in a nutsh.

>> So like how do you decide what a chemical is? Is is dihydrogen monoxide a

chemical is? Is is dihydrogen monoxide a chemical in your book?

>> Dihydro Can you Can you give me like the short version?

>> Hydrogen monoxide.

>> Is that oxygen?

>> No, that's water.

>> Water. Oh, water.

>> But like that's what I'm saying. Like

you could make a chemist or anything.

>> But I'm not again I'm not trying to trick you. The point is to show you a

trick you. The point is to show you a compound. There's a thing. But there's a

compound. There's a thing. But there's a difference between indogenous chemicals, things that I can make my body makes, right? And exogenous chemicals that

right? And exogenous chemicals that >> But does your body make water?

>> Does my body make fluoride?

>> But does your body make water? You need

water to live.

>> I need water to live. That okay, but my body is 72% water, which means that I am fully made of water. Like I was born.

>> We need essential amino acids.

>> I was born with water. You know what I mean? I wasn't born with fluoride.

mean? I wasn't born with fluoride.

>> Yeah, but the water came from your parent.

>> My what? My parent. Of course, but >> you got water from the environment.

>> That's fine, but like where did the first single cellled amieba get the water from? You know what I mean? Like

water from? You know what I mean? Like

we all have we've all any living being has water, right? But

>> we need the water to survive. That's

fine. We're not We're not here to debate about water. So So what's your point?

about water. So So what's your point?

>> My point is how do you decide what's a bad chemical versus a good chemical?

>> The effects on the body.

>> Okay. Pause. We're out of time.

>> Okay.

>> Thank you so much. Nice.

>> Hey, before we go any further, we want to take a moment to say thanks so much to Straight Arrow News for powering the fact checks in this video. Straight Air

News is on a mission to raise the bar on journalism in a time of media bias and mistrust. Straight Arrow News helps you

mistrust. Straight Arrow News helps you quickly find trusted information you need to understand the news, allowing you to dive deep into the topics that matter to you and the world around you.

Their work is trying to break the bias bubble, helping you understand how every side of the political spectrum is reporting on a story, so you get a full picture of the news. That's why we're so happy to be partnering with Straight

Arrow News. They deliver the facts,

Arrow News. They deliver the facts, unbiased, balanced, and designed to make sense of a complex world, getting you the clarity you deserve and news you can trust. Go to s.com/surrounded

trust. Go to s.com/surrounded

or click the link in the description to check it out. By clicking that link, you're not just supporting this channel.

You also take advantage of a better way to get the news. Welcome back to Trustworthy Journalism. Thanks again to

Trustworthy Journalism. Thanks again to Straight Arrow News for partnering with us on this episode. Now, let's get into it. My next surrounded claim is that the

it. My next surrounded claim is that the MA is sabotaging the doctor patient relationship.

>> Hi, doctor. Hello to meet you.

>> Okay, so repeat your claim for me.

>> My claim is that the maja movement is sabotaging the doctor patient relationship.

>> Okay, so for me, um I'm going to take this back to CO and I don't want to stay on this topic. I had the Delta variant, >> okay?

>> And I went to the doctors and I told them I'm sick, got tested positive, and my doctor told me go home until you cannot breathe.

>> Okay. At the same time, we didn't have any of the >> scary advice.

>> Yeah. We didn't have any of the monoconic antibodies. Uh we weren't

monoconic antibodies. Uh we weren't offered any therapies where I was listening to doctors and then watching them be censored. So I think if anything

damaged the doctor patient relationship, that was it. Um, for me, I actually had a friend run up to my house from Huntington Beach, about a 2-hour drive,

brought me a zithramyin, hydroxychloricquin, and ivormectin.

Within 48 hours, I started to recover.

>> Wow. It's a lot of a lot of drugs.

>> Yeah. But at the same time, I think that that hurt the doctor patient relationship more than anything else >> because your doctor sent you home without treatment.

>> Well, uh, that doctor and two telemed doctors.

>> I see.

>> All of them. No, no drugs, nothing to treat what I have. Absolutely.

>> Um I'm saying that the maja movement is sabotaging the doctor patient relationship and you're talking about how the co pandemic sabotaged the doctor patient relationship. Correct.

patient relationship. Correct.

>> You know what's wild? I agree with you.

I think we sabotage a doctor patient relationship.

>> Great.

>> So, can we talk about how the Baja movement's impacted? Well, well, I want

movement's impacted? Well, well, I want to share with you what I'm going through right now because >> um a month ago, my husband collapsed >> and had a brain tumor.

>> I'm sorry to hear.

>> Uh it's glyobblasto.

>> That's terrible.

>> And I don't want to cry.

>> No. Why?

>> But uh >> No, no, no, no. Take a breath.

>> Yeah.

>> Totally acceptable to cry.

>> Yeah. But what I'm running into now is they want us to do standard care where I think as a patient

>> we should have the right to try. Uh

we're currently looking into Dr. Sunun Xiang's trial for his bioimmunity therapy.

>> Okay, >> he's getting treatment at Cedar.

couldn't ask for better oncologists, but we cannot treat him with bioimmunity immunity therapies until he goes through chemo and radiation,

which basically if he's not doing bioimmunity, that's going to kill both his good and bad cells. So, for me, this is really personal at this point. I am

looking into it and I'm seeing the people that you want funded getting in the way of my husband's treatment where I and my husband as a patient should have a right to try.

>> I correct me if I'm wrong because I'm not an expert in oncology. Okay.

>> Isn't there such thing as right to try legislation that already exists?

>> There is, but I don't know why. Like for

instance, it's the FDA's in the way.

>> But the FDA is currently run by Secretary Kennedy. So is he your enemy

Secretary Kennedy. So is he your enemy right now? But see, right now we're on

right now? But see, right now we're on the same team.

>> Well, but at the same time, we can also go back into Biden's administration where all the money was going into changing kids genders.

>> All the money, >> well, a lot of it a lot of that was Well, I don't know the dollar amount, but again, is that important?

>> I think that the whole industry has failed us. And I don't even I can't even

failed us. And I don't even I can't even go back into who's in power. What I do like about Kennedy, if we're gonna >> stick on Kennedy, >> I like that for the first time I found

out how dangerous this water bottle I'm drinking out of is, I like for the fact that they're taking these dyes out of food. I like that they just passed the

food. I like that they just passed the where they're going to lower the drug prices where we end up paying the same amount as people from all over the world. These are things I like. I don't

world. These are things I like. I don't

think that I've ever seen a perfect HHS secretary. And I can agree that there's

secretary. And I can agree that there's things that Kennedy probably is doing that I don't agree with. But there's

definitely the thing that I like about him is he's opening up other options where before I feel like everything was you must do it by this.

>> And again, I would like to see the FTA broken. I've been trolling Dr. soon

broken. I've been trolling Dr. soon non-stop >> to the point I've gotten into I've gotten in touch with them, but my husband's starting chemo on Tuesday.

>> Yeah. That's That's a lot.

>> It's a lot.

>> It's a lot. Yeah.

>> And so they're barfed all over you.

>> No, no, no. That's Look, you're you're the person that every time I make a video about, I think about.

>> Every time I'm going to the hospital to work, you're the person I'm thinking about. Every time I fact check one of

about. Every time I fact check one of Secretary Kennedy's claims, you're the person I think about. You're the person I want to get accurate information. Not

information from Biden's secretary, not from President Trump's secretary. I

don't care who secretary. I want you to get the honest information so you can decide what's right for you and your husband. And currently, I don't feel

husband. And currently, I don't feel like that's happening. And I'll explain why so you could decide if what you think I'm saying is [ __ ] or not. In

2024, when Secretary Kennedy was running for president, he was on stage and he talked about how GLP-1 medications, these Ozmpics, WGO, and such, paralyze your stomach. They do these terrible

your stomach. They do these terrible things to your body. They're poisoning

our nation. In Europe, they're illegal.

All of that is untrue or overblown. A

year later, he's standing with President Trump celebrating that Americans are having access to these medications. How

can you believe what he's saying when every time he's flip-flopping about the truth to you when in 20 early 2000s he's doing interviews about mercury he says

vaccines save hundreds millions of lives and then now he's telling you they're a big problem and causing people death.

How do you decide when he's telling the truth versus when he's not when there's constant hypocrisy coming from him as an individual?

>> Well, I don't think that there it's 100%. I think that there's good things

100%. I think that there's good things and there's bad things with anybody that's in power.

>> And for me, I honestly am not coming here just gung-ho. I want to learn from you. I think you are here in good faith.

you. I think you are here in good faith.

>> I don't think that you're a bad man just trying to win the argument. And trust

me, I've sat in this chair where that's exactly what the person in the other seat wants to do.

>> What I would like is to see freedom for you as a doctor. What I would like to see is freedom for me as a patient and to be able to pursue those avenues that

are best. Again, as far as ompic, you

are best. Again, as far as ompic, you know what? If you eat too much ice

know what? If you eat too much ice cream, I say cut down on the ice cream.

I'm not 100% behind that whole ompic thing because I think it's vain. I think

that >> What about for people who have diabetes?

>> Well, I think that there's better ways for them to lose weight. My ex-sonlin

has diabetes and the bad kind and yet he drinks alcohol. You know that that's

drinks alcohol. You know that that's probably worse for him than anything.

But I do like what Kennedy's doing as far as not the dyes. You mentioned

>> the dyes and the plastics in our food, getting the pesticides out of our food.

>> So let's talk about the dyes because I think that's an interesting point. Uh,

you know, a lot of people talk about red dye number 40, right? That there was some research showing that kids who overconuming it, uh, have higher rates of hyperactivity and potentially tying

it to ADHD. You've heard that.

>> So, that research is real. It does

exist. It's shorter term, but it does exist. So, I actually think removing

exist. So, I actually think removing these petroleum based eyes is not necessarily a bad thing. I think it's a plus side into Secretary Kennedy's agenda. However, the issues that you're

agenda. However, the issues that you're talking about about giving doctors a chance to be with their patients the way we're spending time together is a systemic flaw. We don't get time with

systemic flaw. We don't get time with our patients. The difference between

our patients. The difference between seeing a naturopath versus a primary care doctor is that the primary care doctor usually spends 5 to 10 minutes with you. And that's not because they

with you. And that's not because they don't like you or they don't care about you. It's the system sucks for them. So,

you. It's the system sucks for them. So,

can we get Secretary Kennedy to change the system? really quick. What I would

the system? really quick. What I would like to see happen was you as a physician be able to reach across the aisle and work synergetically with other doctors that are specialists in other areas.

>> Sure.

>> For instance, with this oncology, the oncologist should work with the radiologist who should be working with bioimmunity. Well, they're not allowed

bioimmunity. Well, they're not allowed to work with the bioimmunity until he does radiation and chemo, which are going to destroy all of his good cells.

>> So, that's a problem. So, I think as far as everything that's gone on, like for instance, you brought up the kids with the ADHD. When my son was in third

the ADHD. When my son was in third grade, I had a teacher didn't like that he was a boy and hyperactive. She came

to me in third grade, put him on pills.

>> Yeah, that's that's rude. I'm sorry.

That shouldn't happen. And I said no.

But how many kids?

>> And I'm not saying that shouldn't happen because no children should be on the medication because they're putting everybody on it.

>> I I will this is another point I will succumb. We are sometimes too quick to

succumb. We are sometimes too quick to start medications and I think the reason for this needs to be evaluated. Part of

it, we have less time with our patients.

So therefore, we have to just do what we can.

>> Second, we also have patients that are very consumer-driven. Give me a pill to

very consumer-driven. Give me a pill to fix it as opposed to making me do the work to fix it. I don't want to patient blame, but this is the reality of what happens. So, how do we fix all of these

happens. So, how do we fix all of these big problems without creating disconnects by cutting research budgets?

Like if Secretary Kenny >> Well, I want to know where that money went because a lot didn't go anywhere.

Well, a lot of this money though was going to insurance companies.

>> The research dollars doesn't go to insurance.

>> Well, I I would I would you've seen what happens in local politics. I see a lot of money laundering going on. I hate to say it.

>> Thank you so much. I appreciate you.

>> I really appreciate you. Thank you.

>> Pleasure.

>> Good to meet you. Nice to meet you as well. So talk to me uh how do you feel

well. So talk to me uh how do you feel about the sabotaging of the doctor patient relationship by the maha movement?

>> I don't agree with it. I don't think that maha is sabotaging their relationship. As a matter of fact, I

relationship. As a matter of fact, I think it's cultivating confidence in patients to be able to speak to their doctors because it's providing education

in a way that has never exper been there before. And I know you were talking

before. And I know you were talking about uh research and so you're a busy doctor. Do you have time to do research?

doctor. Do you have time to do research?

>> When you say do research, do you mean actually do clinical trials myself?

>> Follow all of the data.

>> Sure, >> you do. So you in in addition to a a week-long log of patients, you make time to read all of the material and all the data about different

>> You want me to be honest? Sometimes I do it in the room with the patient. Okay.

>> Because I'm family medicine. So like a lot of different conditions come. So

absolutely important.

>> Well, you're very rare.

>> Well, I appreciate that, but let me ask you a question so we can get off to uh perhaps a better talking point.

>> Um, Secretary Kennedy, yes. In the last few months went on a podcast and uh basically defamed all doctors in the United States by saying doctors are just interested in profit and keeping

patients sick. Hearing that line, as a

patients sick. Hearing that line, as a patient yourself, do you feel that your doctor is in your best interest, is working in your best interest? And do

you have more trust in your doctor after hearing that line?

>> So, I have enormous respect for Bobby Kennedy. I feel like he's educated and

Kennedy. I feel like he's educated and informed and re and does the research on the data and has worked on cases that he's become familiarized with medical

data. So, I believe that when he speaks,

data. So, I believe that when he speaks, he comes from a place of informed Uh, so you agree that doctors I'm gonna I'm gonna answer that as well. So when I go

to my doctor typically my doctor I don't have thank goodness I don't have a lot of health issues but when I have my doctor wants to move me to medication which always makes me think that in med

school that doctors are trained to find a medicalized solution rather than an alternative solution that empowers my own immune system and my own body. Okay.

And so when I go in to talk to my doctor, my doctor will look at me and be like, "Okay, you don't want any of that." And I'd be like, "No, I want to

that." And I'd be like, "No, I want to have a different conversation." And Maha provides that because it's talking about removing dyes. And I'm also a parent. So

removing dyes. And I'm also a parent. So

for me, there's things that involve children that I so appreciate Maha presenting because before there wasn't a

choice. doctors thought of parents and

choice. doctors thought of parents and patients as kind of dumb.

>> I agree. Like 20, 30 years ago, that was absolutely the education.

>> Yes. And it still can exist.

>> Uh yeah, because doctors are older. So

that's true. Um I'd love for you if you can answer that question. Um like by hearing Secretary Kennedy say that doctors are just interested in keeping you sick. Does that improve your

you sick. Does that improve your relationship with your doctor or not?

>> I would have to hear the context.

>> That's the context. Well, but I mean like the whole thing because one thing that I've experienced a lot with Bobby is that people get sound bites and they don't hear the entire interview and the

entire dialogue and then they peacemeal it and then they go that man.

>> Yeah, people people do do that with things, right? What's a way that he

things, right? What's a way that he could have been saying that in in a genuine way?

>> Well, he in a genuine way. Well, I think he was I I can't speak for him.

>> Sure. But my experience of Bobby is that he is a genuine, compassionate, kind, caring human and he takes his work very

seriously and his commitment to ending chronic health disease and making sure children are healthy and adults are healthy is very very important to him.

So, but if I heard that, I I probably would have been like, hm, I want to understand more about where he is coming from because it doesn't line up for me

that he would just generalize that all doctors are doing that. But in context, he might have been referring to something. So, if one of the

something. So, if one of the participants here that are surrounding us uh came up to me after the show and said that you're a liar and everything you say is untrue, that perhaps could be

said in a nice way.

>> Oh, well, I would probably think that maybe there's something going on.

>> You a bad mother.

>> I've been a lot of things, >> but wouldn't that hurt?

>> It would make me think for a moment like, do you know me? Do you know what I do? Do you know how I am? Do you know my

do? Do you know how I am? Do you know my professionalism? That's how I feel as a

professionalism? That's how I feel as a doctor when Secretary Kennedy says that to me. He says, "We're interested in

to me. He says, "We're interested in people keeping people sick for profit. I

don't even take a salary to work as a doctor anymore. The YouTube stuff is so

doctor anymore. The YouTube stuff is so successful. I really am showing up for

successful. I really am showing up for my patients >> pro bono because I want to help people.

I'm here pro bono. I flew here myself for free because I want to give you the best information." And you said

best information." And you said Secretary Kennedy is well researched.

Yes.

>> He goes on the podiums and he says inaccuracies all the time. And look,

everyone's allowed to make mistakes. I'm

not about gotchas. I'm not that guy. But

when you say uh back in the day uh kids who had diabetes almost never existed and now one in three kids have diabetes, it's a lie.

>> One in 300 kids have diabetes.

>> So like, how much do I I as a YouTuber have to fact check Secretary Kennedy, the director of health and human services, before he comes out and says, "I messed up. I need to tell you the truth, and I'm getting the numbers wrong

so often." When does that happen?

so often." When does that happen?

>> That's a really good point. I don't

know. I guess we'd have to go back also to during COVID when they made these really um outrageous statements that weren't true. Either go back because

weren't true. Either go back because because we there have been mistakes and >> I have I have multiple videos on my on my YouTube channel including podcast

where we talk about every mistake we made I made during the pandemic because ultimately it's about trying to figure out how to do better not to score political points. Applause. You've been

political points. Applause. You've been

voted out. Please return to your seat.

>> Thank you so much. I appreciate you.

>> Got it. All right.

>> Hi. Nice to meet you, sir.

>> Pleasure.

>> So, yes, sir. Yes, sir. Make sure I got your hand.

>> So, I think to start this off, there's actually some truth to what he said. So,

yeah, as of right what Kennedy said. So,

the truth is that after the year 2000, doctors say that one in three children will actually develop diabetes in their lifetime. So there's actually so often a

lifetime. So there's actually so often a lot more truth to what Kennedy says than what you give him. And I know that >> he just said it inaccurately. You mean

like cuz he said this is a quote unquote that currently one in three children have diabetes.

>> I mean it could have been that maybe the wording was wrong but the truth is that if you were born after the after the year 2000 one in three people are going to develop diabetes prediction. Yes. And

so I think so often what we can do with Kennedy is we can still paint him in bad faith even if that's not our intention.

And I think one of the things that you said actually was that Kennedy said that half of the people in China have diabetes, right? And I remember in this

diabetes, right? And I remember in this video you said, "No, it's actually 13% of people." I'm like, "Total total fact

of people." I'm like, "Total total fact check." Well, the truth is is that while

check." Well, the truth is is that while 13% of people in China do have diabetes, the truth is that making up the rest of that 50% margin are actually people that right now already have pre-diabetes. And

since in from 2005 to 2023, there has been a 50% increase in the number of people with diabetes in the country of China. So what you're saying is he gets

China. So what you're saying is he gets it wrong but the intention is good.

>> Well I mean when you are >> sort of right >> sorry when you're in the public eye for years and years and years and years there's a good shot that you're going to misword something that said like I >> did he come out and correct himself when he did that?

>> Well in many cases he has come out and correct himself. I mean the truth is

correct himself. I mean the truth is >> what cases are those?

>> Okay so specifically the case in Tylenol. I mean he came back and he said

Tylenol. I mean he came back and he said there is not enough scientific evidence to say that Tylenol causes autism. So,

doesn't that concern you as a person who lives in the United States that there's a press conference, there's the president, health and human services secretary, the director of CMS, Dr. Oz,

and they're telling you, even Dr. McCari, who runs FDA, goes on uh the weekn night shows on Fox, and says there's a causal relationship between Tylenol and autism. That this is quote

unquote, I'm not twisting words. This is

what was said. And then two weeks later, they go, "Nah, never mind." Doesn't that upset you in the same way that we flip-fpped back in co days? I'm curious

why it changes.

>> So, here's the thing you have to understand and I know you know this and the truth is that science is a constant practice. It's a constant thing and so

practice. It's a constant thing and so medicine specifically is also constant in itself. The thing is if something is

in itself. The thing is if something is a fact then it will be able to be refuted or sorry then it will stand no matter what whenever you whenever >> you learn something new and maybe that will change.

>> True. But if we have scientific facts established and they are in fact true then they will simply stand. And that's

the thing, the thing that I appreciate about Kennedy is he understands that science at the highest levels is a constant debate. And so when you see a

constant debate. And so when you see a study come out that contradicts the status quo to say that and to say okay Americans we have found that you know whatever could do whatever contrary to

what's believed um specifically in the town situation. It's good that he

town situation. It's good that he presented that we found this and then he actually retracted that u two weeks later I believe. So, I think that it's very very important to say if we do find something and there's scientific evidence for something that does go

against the grain to come out there and say that you have that evidence.

>> Yeah. So, this is pretty interesting what you're pointing out. Um, I would say a year before this press conference, I had a video lined up to talk about the relationship between Tylenol and autism

in those who are pregnant. So, like I literally was making a video on that subject. Okay.

subject. Okay.

>> Uh, and just because of production delays and such, we didn't get a chance to put it out. So in the medical community, we were already understanding that there is a potential tie there, an association. We knew that there wasn't a

association. We knew that there wasn't a causal link to prove that definitely because it's not even widely agreed as of today what causes, right? But then

again, I think that we should constantly be looking into these things a little bit deeper than we already do.

>> Well, there's a problem here because 70% >> like the research he's quoting wasn't done the week he presented it. Do you

know why it was presented the September when he presented it?

>> So, sorry. So, the research wasn't done in September of 2025. Yeah, it was done.

It was a done a long period before that.

There was multiple research done cuz you said we need to look into >> You said that there's multiple there's there's multiple of them.

>> Yeah.

>> So, I think the reason he probably shared it is because there were multiple of them. Then he's like it actually

of them. Then he's like it actually posed a red flag in the situation.

>> No. Do you want me to be honest and tell you why he shared it? Because at the beginning of his time and his tenure, he promised that by September we'd find the cause of autism. And because he did not

find it, because we've been looking for we want to help people. I want to find the cause of autism. I'm being honest with you. I wish I could help my

with you. I wish I could help my patients.

>> Flip the switch really fast.

>> No, no, but I I I really want to be I want to show you how passionate I am because when Secretary Kennedy raises his voice, people see his passion and we in healthcare don't have the same passion. So, I want to show you my

passion. So, I want to show you my passion. We want to find it and we

passion. We want to find it and we haven't found it. And when he presents to you a fake link because he knows it doesn't exist, why are you not mad at him like we are mad at him?

>> Sir, that question. I don't know how you can say that today everyday Americans should be trusting research that that's put out because there was a recent study that was done that said 70% of studies that are put out put out have a conflict of interest. The majority of which are

of interest. The majority of which are for undisclosed amounts and the average amount that is known is $27,000 per throw out all research. Why are you trusting? Do you know if there's a

trusting? Do you know if there's a conflict of interest with all research?

>> I'm not arguing with you. I agree

conflict of research the switch so fast and it's like >> but I agree with you. I'm intense

because I'm glad we not because I'm mad at you.

>> So am I. And and the thing is is that what's known is when you come in and obviously you can't directly receive money from big pharma. However, you can >> you can't it's in kickbacks and also in funding.

>> Well, you can get paid to speak at conferences, promote certain medications. That's absolutely

medications. That's absolutely >> and then it's shown that the majority in family practice and cardiology, every specialty, the majority of physicians have received um conflict of interest payments. They've been paid off by big

payments. They've been paid off by big pharma. And that's to be said that it's

pharma. And that's to be said that it's well 75 I saw the statistic. I don't

know how this is.

>> No, I'll I'll help you. I agree. We

could talk about it's disclosed, >> right? These things have to be

>> right? These things have to be disclosed. But the thing is is that

disclosed. But the thing is is that something, >> you know what that law is called?

>> Something as much as as little as $20 actually can change the um the prescription given by a doctor. And I

think this is a major problem. And you

guys have broken trust with American citizens.

>> So look, it needs to be disclosed. Money

can create conflict. Agree with you totally. I don't disagree with the

totally. I don't disagree with the sentence you said.

>> So should we remove it?

>> Remove what?

>> Should we not allow conflict interest?

>> Let me just catch up on your point. I

agree that conflict conflict of interest can create bias. I agree that pharmaceutical companies pay doctors and he could bias them.

>> They're on the same team. This is

>> Yes.

>> Good.

>> Does Secretary Kennedy make money?

>> Absolutely.

>> Has he been paid hundreds of thousands of dollars by law firms to pursue vaccine claims? Because these not these

vaccine claims? Because these not these are lawsuits that he himself has gone after somebody.

>> Why doesn't it bias him? Why when he gets paid by Children's Health Defense, why does that not bias? Why are you looking at bias only in one direction?

>> So, you got to you kind of have a problem here. And you're just assuming

problem here. And you're just assuming that his intention is bad.

>> I'm not I'm not I'm asking why.

to say bias is bad here but not here.

>> I'm agreeing with you on your side. Why

are you disagreeing with me with bias with him receiving most?

>> Do you know how much money he's gotten paid by pharmaceutical companies?

>> You gave me the figure.

>> No, you won't know because he's not a doctor. He doesn't have to disclose it.

doctor. He doesn't have to disclose it.

>> What does this have to do with him receiving for the reason you know doctors do it is because we disclose it to try and reduce bias. He doesn't have to. Huberman does ads. You know who

to. Huberman does ads. You know who Andrew Huberman is? A very popular doctor. He does ads for Athletic Greens

doctor. He does ads for Athletic Greens all the time. Do you know how much he gets paid? No, he doesn't have to

gets paid? No, he doesn't have to disclose it. Isn't there bias there?

disclose it. Isn't there bias there?

>> So, there's a difference between an influencer and a physician that is direct influencer. I'm I'm talking about

direct influencer. I'm I'm talking about Andrew. Andrew is a is an influencer,

Andrew. Andrew is a is an influencer, right? Then somebody that's your family

right? Then somebody that's your family practice doctor that's prescribing you.

>> The Secretary of Health and Human Services.

>> He's getting money. How is that impacting his money in the past? He

doesn't take payments anymore. He can't.

And >> do you know who's taking payments on his behalf?

>> You're probably going to say his wife.

His son.

>> Okay. Well, here's the thing about that.

It isn't this is all a problem.

>> Most of these are cases that he himself has fought. He himself has gotten into

has fought. He himself has gotten into the court and he himself has won and then he receives payments from that.

>> Don't you feel that you're being unfair by saying bias on one side but not biased on the other side when it's the same scenario?

>> I look it's it's the thing is is that you're it's two different things, right?

You're talking about every doctor in America and 70% of them are paid off versus this guy who's been winning lawsuits and this is mainly because he found something in the environment and then it gets taken out specifically chem

or whatever it is. So I think these are two different things and I think that in today's America we're in a moment where we need reform rather than just going along. So I think we agree on so much

along. So I think we agree on so much time. We're out of time. Thank you so

time. We're out of time. Thank you so much.

>> I appreciate it.

>> I believe that he should be the president because they believe that his agenda of mass deportations were going to help make America safe again.

>> So I asked him one piece of evidence in the case that you dispute and you couldn't do so.

>> I just answered the question. You just

don't like how I answered the question.

I'm sorry about that. So, you didn't answer the question. You didn't provide a specific example. It sounds like the American people didn't do research on the case, yet they still were willing to vote for Donald Trump.

>> Welcome to Face Off, where two people debate four claims, one clock, no interruptions.

>> My next surrounded claim is that big pharma is more trustworthy than Big Supplement.

>> Dr. How are you?

>> Love the suit. Thank you so much.

>> It's a pleasure to be with you today. I

just wanted to say uh it's really unfortunate that you're feeling that the Maha movement is getting in the way of the relationship you're having with your

patients. I think what we really need to

patients. I think what we really need to be talking about is public trust and the public is losing trust in our government

because it is being captured by special interests like big pharma. And I say that because like FDA is about funded

about 50% or more from fees that are paid to it by the very drug companies that they are approving. So there's a little bit of a conflict of interest there.

>> And also big pharma spends about $20 billion a year in advertising.

>> 7 billion of which is direct to consumer. And we see all of these ads on

consumer. And we see all of these ads on TV. You know the ones I'm talking about.

TV. You know the ones I'm talking about.

Absolutely. With pretty butterflies.

>> They're going through fields and they're happy and singing songs.

>> Us in New Zealand, right?

>> Yeah. And

at the end really really quickly it's all about like it could be a anti-depression medication and at the end it's like really really fast may

cause explosive diarrhea spontaneous combustion and even suicidal thoughts.

You know, big pharma, like any special interest, has captured our government.

And when it's captured our government on so many levels, not just the threeletter agencies, but it's out in the open how much they're giving to our electeds.

>> And so they are literally putting the profits of big pharma over >> people >> people and our health.

>> Interesting. Um there's parts of that I agree with and parts that I disagree with. Um, if you'd like to hear uh what

with. Um, if you'd like to hear uh what I agree with is that pharmaceutical companies are absolutely interested in profits. This is a for-profit system.

profits. This is a for-profit system.

It's a capitalist nation. Um, in fact, if you look at our food supply, it's primarily focused on profits instead of trying to keep us healthy. That's pretty

much always been the case within the last 50 years or so. When it comes to pharma versus supplements, which is kind of what we were discussing here, because some people say, uh, I don't want to take a pharmaceutical. I'd rather go the

natural approach. that is said a lot in

natural approach. that is said a lot in terms of the internet and I think that there's two issues with it. One is that there's this natural fallacy that just because something is natural means it's safe and just because something is for

profit means it's evil and that's weird to me because things that are natural can be absolutely dangerous. So like

cyanide, arsenic, these are natural phenomenon and they're absolutely dangerous.

>> Absolutely.

>> Um and things that are for profit like supplement companies can be sometimes beneficial. Like if someone has a

beneficial. Like if someone has a vitamin D deficiency, I would absolutely tell them to take a vitamin D supplement.

>> The issue is, do you know how big the pharmaceutical industry is in the United States for billions of dollars? If you

don't, just say no.

>> How many billions of dollars they make?

>> Yeah.

>> I don't know off the top.

>> 600 billion dollars. Crazy sum, right?

Do you know how big the Global Wellness Institute says the wellness industry is in the United States?

>> It's probably bigger than that.

>> Two trillion. So why are you only interested in conflicts of interest for pharma when the supplement wellness industry is 3 4x I'm not great at math off the cuff.

>> So I'm just curious on that specific point.

>> You know it's interesting because I I don't disagree that either I think again going back to my point about eroding the public trust. I think what's happening

public trust. I think what's happening with what I know about big pharma is that they often have board members that sit on boards of the big media like Fox

and CNN, but they also sit on the board of the big pharma. And so it it's that that we're worried about because those things are really causing more complications. Like you're taking one

complications. Like you're taking one big pharmaceutical pill and it's causing five other problems and it becomes the sick care system. I can elect to take

those other uh non-FDA approved drugs and I'm choosing that, but I'm being told by my doctors who are also, you know, being pushed by big pharma to push these options on us. So, it's more of a

choice for >> are they forcing you to take those medications? I mean, you when you when

medications? I mean, you when you when you when you go to a doctor and you're trying to figure out and you're constantly being bamboozled by you should take this and that and a third, you feel like that's your only option

because we're kind of being programmed that we have to go in that direction.

>> What happens when you walk into a pharmacy and you walk down the vitamin aisle? What are the words that you see

aisle? What are the words that you see thrown at you?

>> Oh, like help sleeping or >> sleeping, healthy, energy.

>> Uh, what proof do they have to submit in order to sell their supplements? I would

guess nothing.

>> Me and you right now can take whatever supplement we want.

>> Yeah. It's our choice.

>> Bottle it up right here. No, no, no.

Bottle it up right here on this table in capsules. Market it. Put it in a

capsules. Market it. Put it in a pharmacy if it sells well. Especially if

you have lots of followers and make millions of dollars.

>> Sure, you could. But it's still my personal choice as a consumer. And I

think it goes back to >> And it's still your personal choice to take pharmaceuticals. No one's forcing

take pharmaceuticals. No one's forcing you to take pharmaceuticals.

>> Yes, absolutely. That's true. But

pharmaceuticals at least have to submit something to prove that they work, that they have some safety profile. But what

me and you created today, no one has to prove anything. And they also have had

prove anything. And they also have had instances where they've led people to have liver failure, death. Um, they've

been sued by the FDA. There's been

threatening letters. Consumer labs goes and tests what's in these supplements and finds out what's on the label is not actually in the pill. Why don't you have an interest in that?

>> Well, I don't think the doctors are pushing that. If I go to my doctor,

pushing that. If I go to my doctor, they're not pushing all those supplements and everything like that.

>> Yeah, the influencers are. Don't you

think that's a bigger problem when it's two trillion verse 600 billion?

>> Okay, pause. You've been voted out.

>> Oh, >> thank you so much. Appreciate you.

>> Hi.

>> Hello. Pleasure.

>> I'm Heidi.

>> Nice to meet you, Heidi.

>> Nice to meet you, too.

>> So, we're talking supplements.

>> Supplements versus pharma. What do you got?

>> Okay. Um, what I heard in the last debate is that you feel like doctors don't have the responsibility to teach their patients about the supplements.

Like if I went to the doctor and I said, "Hey, I heard that magnesium can really help me with cramps, you know?"

>> Okay.

>> Um, and the doctor would educate me on that, right? Especially if I asked a

that, right? Especially if I asked a question. Sure.

question. Sure.

>> But if I went into the doctor and said, "Listen, I am suffering from these leg cramps that are excruciating. I am

screaming into the air at night and my neighbors are scared of me.

>> What can I do situation?

>> Well, I have both, but um >> um you know, what do I do? What's your

first go-to? Are you going to go towards the pharmaceutical in it, you know, or are you going to hit, well, maybe magnesium can help you, which it has. I

will present the correct diagnosis pathway to first of all make sure that is the condition that you have >> because a lot of times the internet guides patients to believe that they have certain conditions that they don't.

>> Well, cramps are pretty self-explanatory.

>> Meaning not the symptom. Your symptom is your symptom. I'm no expert in that.

your symptom. I'm no expert in that.

It's your body.

>> So the symptom is real. The question is what is the diagnosis that's leading for that symptom to happen? Because some

functional medicine doctors tend to take this approach where they say, "We look at the root cause where your doctor doesn't." Well, I don't know. I was

doesn't." Well, I don't know. I was

trained in medical school to always look for the root cause and not just put a bandage on things because I actually want to help you.

>> So, I wouldn't necessarily look to treating your symptom instantly. I would

first start an investigative path to figure out why you have said symptom.

for restless leg syndrome. One of these uh lab values that's oftentimes not checked that correlates with restless leg syndrome is anemia.

>> And sometimes supplementing iron in those patients who are anemic could be beneficial for them.

>> And guess what? That's an absolute supplement that can help in those situations. But better yet, here's what

situations. But better yet, here's what a good doctor should do. A good doctor should present the options if there's a pharmaceutical one, if there's a natural one. I agree.

one. I agree.

>> And ask which one resonates with you.

Well, then why are doctors and and big supplement fighting with each other? Why

are they against each other? Why

shouldn't they work? Shouldn't they work together?

>> They absolutely should. Uh here's what happens. If certain supplements start

happens. If certain supplements start becoming very well proven in research that they work, they just become regular medicine and we don't even think about them as supplements. Like if someone has a vitamin D deficiency or an iron

deficiency, no one thinks about a doctor prescribing iron or vitamin D, but we do that. In fact, uh there are some rare

that. In fact, uh there are some rare indications where we use prescription grade omega-3 medications called Labaza.

>> So, we absolutely do prescribe those.

But why we go to war with the supplement company, especially me on my YouTube channel, is because I feel when our health care system screws you over and you're hurt because you were misdiagnosed, not listened to, written

off, which I'm sure happens, >> which happens, >> they go to you and they pretend like they care to sell you something that is potentially unproven.

>> Well, don't exaggerate the same thing.

Do you just automatically assume all doctors care? Because not some doctors

doctors care? Because not some doctors get into it just for the money. Um, I I think that absolutely can happen. I I

think it's impossible to judge intention on a huge generality like that, but I I think the war, just to answer your question, is that we want people to tell the truth about and about their

supplement, about their pharmaceutical medication. In fact, there's been

medication. In fact, there's been lawsuits that have been settled with the pharma industry in the 201s for $3 billion by GSK. Do you know what that lawsuit was about? What?

>> Improper branding of the two medications, Paxel and Wellbutrin.

>> These two medications were improperly branded. And pharmaceutical companies

branded. And pharmaceutical companies were held liable. When did the supplement companies get held liable when they say you'd be faster, stronger, better looking, whatever it is.

>> Pause. You've been voted out. I'm sorry.

>> Sorry. Thank you so much.

>> I had it too.

>> Back again.

>> Hello, sir. Good to see you. Okay. So, I

want to point out something that you did 600 million to two trillion. Correct?

You stated that the 600 million was the size of the industry in the United States. You compared that to a global

States. You compared that to a global number.

>> No, the global number is 4 trillion. 2

trillion is the US number. If I said it wrong, >> Okay. All right. So, I was just going to

>> Okay. All right. So, I was just going to call you out. The other thing I would like to ask though is what is the operational definition? I'm assuming

operational definition? I'm assuming that that's coming from a research article.

>> Global Wellness Institute is >> Okay. Global Wellness Institute. And

>> Okay. Global Wellness Institute. And

what I'm asking you is what is the operational definition? The reason why

operational definition? The reason why I'm asking that is because I would bet you dollars to donuts that when they came to defining what a wellness and supplement company is, they threw this wide sweeping net in order to inflate

the numbers because when I did the research, it said that the supplement industry in the United States was 10% of what the pharmaceutical industry was.

That's accurate.

>> The other thing you just said it wasn't >> because the wellness industry isn't just driven by supplements, >> but your product was big supplement. So,

is it Big Wellness or Big Supplement?

>> Big Supplement works in tangent with Big Supplement. Every time you see a

Supplement. Every time you see a wellness influencer, they're not just selling you supplements. They're selling

you their courses, they're selling you their get well schemes, uh the miraculous fixes for whatever is ailing you. And this idea of capturing too many

you. And this idea of capturing too many things all at once. When we say that their chronic diseases are significantly higher in children, I think you said that earlier. In the United States, kids

that earlier. In the United States, kids are sicker than they used to be.

>> Oh, yeah. I said that they're sicker.

Yeah, absolutely. higher rates of chronic health diseases. Well, part of that is because >> there are more conditions that are now being counted in that scenario.

>> And if you look at children's mortality, children actively dying per 100,000, it's actually significantly down over the last 30 years.

>> So, who created the opioid epidemic? Big

pharma or big wellness? And how were they held accountable? Hundreds of

thousands of people had died. They had

to give up $7 billion. I spent seven years of my life for pedalling drugs. my

impact on people's lives was all compared to what they did and you're telling me that they were held accountable that is absolutely utterly disgusting. So then my question is just

disgusting. So then my question is just like what you asked this gentleman, if you're over here saying, "Hey, we need to light a fire. We need to hold big supplement accountable." Then my

supplement accountable." Then my question is, are you also investing equal energy in your own time to saying we need to hold big pharma accountable?

>> Absolutely.

>> In what way?

>> In every way. Anytime they say something that's inaccurate, I call balls and strikes >> with supplement with doctors too. With

pharmaceutical companies >> with doctors with pharmaceutical companies, you just called out the opioid thing that they You said what was their punishment? You said it's billion.

their punishment? You said it's billion.

>> I don't think that's enough. I think

that there should be harsher punishments for those executives that were making those.

>> Did you make YouTube's videos?

>> Of course, we talk about all the time.

>> I I don't know enough about your YouTube channel. If you did, it's not even about

channel. If you did, it's not even about me. It's a bigger issue, but it's it's

me. It's a bigger issue, but it's it's about trying to figure out what the truth is by calling balls and strikes fairly. So, if we something do something

fairly. So, if we something do something wrong in the healthcare industry, wrong, I will call it out. And medicine wants to call it out. There's definitely

special interest groups. They need to be held accountable. But if you're going to

held accountable. But if you're going to do it sloppily like how I believe Secretary Kennedy is doing it, you're actually going to have more bad actors.

He likes transparency, right? He said he wanted to run on radical transparency.

Can I tell you one thing that he did that's actually going to make things much less transparent?

>> Please do.

>> Every time HHS enacts a new policy since 1946, they had a period of waiting for public comment for people who are stakeholders to talk about how this policy will impact them.

>> Guess what? Secretary Kennedy ended this year for the first time since 1946.

>> Do do you know why he did it?

>> Yes.

>> Why?

>> I can quote you word for word why he did it.

>> Okay. So my understanding is >> I'm going to read it to you.

>> It's not needed and it's not very effective.

>> Okay. But the reason >> this is his quote.

>> The reason why he said that is because the industries were using that process to actually interfere with things and that public comment that that oh come on now. They can manipulate anything they

now. They can manipulate anything they want. The whole point of what he's doing

want. The whole point of what he's doing in HHS is he's saying here's how corporate capture is taking place and here's how we get rid of it. That's all

he's trying to do. If you look at what he did with like the FDA, he was saying things weren't centralized. They were

ineffective. We don't need this much money. Get rid of it. He's saying here's

money. Get rid of it. He's saying here's how the revolving door happens. On and

on and on all these things. So even if you don't like Senator Secretary Kennedy in of itself, you do agree with some of the things that he's >> I don't even go as far as saying I don't

like him. I just think that when you cut

like him. I just think that when you cut $3.8 billion from HIV, maternal health research, ALS, when you cut the funding for mRNA vaccines that in the future can perhaps help treat one of our family

members from having pancreatic cancer, prevent them from having pancreatic cancer. I think that's not someone I

cancer. I think that's not someone I want in charge of HHS, >> but we just went over it. If everybody

focuses on their lifestyle changes, we don't need that.

>> That's not true.

>> It is true.

>> Not everything in health is a lifestyle change issue. A lot of it is. If your V2

change issue. A lot of it is. If your V2 max is in the upper 2 percentile for your age group, your risk for all cause mortality is next to nothing. It

literally doesn't matter. I'm not saying that they don't die, but they don't die from chronic disease is ultimately what it comes down to.

>> Even genetic diseases.

>> So genes have to be activated. Gene, the

bad genes are activated by oxidative stress. Literally, all diseases related

stress. Literally, all diseases related to mitochondrial dysfunction. Okay,

>> which Secretary J says he can diagnose by >> which is which is why V2 max is so powerful. You are judging the

powerful. You are judging the respiratory exchange ratio which is telling you if your body is using fat for substrate or if it's using sugar for substrate. You are then judging the

substrate. You are then judging the lactate threshold. And if you use more

lactate threshold. And if you use more fat for energy and your lactate threshold is further off, there is less oxidative stress in your body which does not damage genes which means that your likelihood for cancer and all cause

mortality is next to nothing. But is

that true?

>> It is true.

>> It's not true. So then so then you're telling me that Dr. Aia is full of [ __ ] Dr. >> I don't think Dr. Tia would agree with you. I think he would say V2 max

you. I think he would say V2 max focusing on that will decrease someone's likelihood of dying from heart disease.

It will >> literally said it, your risk is next to nothing. The the whole point is that the

nothing. The the whole point is that the current system that you are supporting, all right, quality of life goes up. You

know, we're in our 30s and our 40s and it drastically starts to drop.

>> I don't think it should be that way.

>> Okay. It shouldn't be that way. It

should just be flat and then all of a sudden we should just go straight down.

>> Well, I don't think quality of life should ever just go flat. I mean,

>> no, no, no. I mean like so so like my uh >> I actually think medicine that's where it [ __ ] up. I think medicine doesn't >> but Dr. has talked about the chart where if you look at the difference that drugs have made it's at the very end of life.

It doesn't actually extend life. If

anything if if anything there's like this much of a gap as far as improving quality of life at the end. So if you're really looking at the research the drugs have done absolutely nothing. And the

other thing that it does is it shields people >> sepsis and you are incredibly sick >> acute versus chronic. When it comes to acutes, I will sit there and say, "Yes, we need doctors. Yes, we need pharmaceuticals." Okay. But when it

pharmaceuticals." Okay. But when it comes to chronic disease, >> born with type 1 diabetes, are you going to tell that person, "Go V2 max."

>> Why are they born with type 1 diabetes?

>> I don't know. But you tell me why.

>> Do do you not maybe think that it's because the mother was unhealthy and there was oxidative stress that possibly >> definitely raises the risk of it. But

you don't think that people will need pharmaceuticals if they just think about their V2?

>> We have to make it either or. Why can't

it be both?

>> We Okay, but here's the deal. But we

only have so much money, right?

>> Sure.

>> Do we have unlimited funds?

>> Well, we can separate it.

>> We need to So, we need to make the decision. Are we going to continue to

decision. Are we going to continue to treat and enable or we going to prevent?

Okay. If we start taking our money and we start putting it into prevention, things will change. Things will happen.

>> You know what helps with prevention?

Vaccines. You know what? Secretary

Kennedy doesn't support vaccines.

>> Okay. Pause.

>> Thank you.

Love the colors.

>> Thank you so much, doctor. It's

absolutely pleasure. Really is.

>> Got some notes. I love it. Love to see.

>> I do. I do. This It's not every day you get to sit down across from a doctor.

>> I mean, if your doctor is not spending time with you, I think you should look for a second opinion instantly.

>> Perhaps so, but I'm a long ways away from you and you're unique. Okay. So my

first question for you is you spent years in med school, >> right?

>> You spent years practicing. What has

been your chief goal?

>> To keep patients as healthy and happy and have the highest quality of life for as long as possible.

>> Okay, that's I think that's what everyone's looking for from the medical industry. And I did call it an industry.

industry. And I did call it an industry.

>> I'm not saying that that's you.

>> No, it is me. Okay,

>> don't hedge it. It's me.

>> It's you. I think what's so important is that the time that you spent there, how much of it was spent trying to give your patient something that would

prevent them from getting sick rather than treating them after they've gotten sick >> a lot. Okay.

>> Can I give you some examples?

>> I'd love it.

>> When a patient comes in for their annual physical, uh it's funny to say, but uh I don't think annual physicals really exist. I think most people come in

exist. I think most people come in because they have a problem and then they just tack it on to their annual physical. But

physical. But >> uh I think about what risks they face.

So if someone has an elevated BMI, not the best way to judge obesity, but using my vision and uh the BMI number, I could tell if they have obesity. I will check certain blood variables to see if they

have pre-diabetes. Okay?

have pre-diabetes. Okay?

>> Uh I will check their blood pressure. Uh

essentially thinking about a form of primary prevention >> because the number one killer in America is heart disease. Okay? And my goal is to decrease death, improve quality of life. And the way that I think about

life. And the way that I think about that is by preventing cardiovascular disease, which is heart attack, strokes.

>> The way that I could do that, the two biggest ones outside of like getting them to stop bad habits like smoking, is lowering their blood pressure to a normal range, getting them to have healthier cholesterol numbers, and getting them to have healthier sugar

numbers when they're fasting.

>> Okay, >> that is the biggest thing that I do.

>> The biggest >> the biggest thing. Okay.

>> In addition to thinking about those numbers, I also spend time focusing on their mental health, their sleep. Uh

sometimes that requires doing a sleep study to see if they have sleep apnea because a lot of people who have high blood pressure, they don't know why.

It's because they have sleep apnea and they're not sleeping well. Okay.

>> I think about lifestyle changes related to exercise. I incorporate aerobic

to exercise. I incorporate aerobic training and resistance training especially to those who are older than age 60 because by keeping your muscles strong carrying weight on your body you

not only strengthen your muscles which is a longevity organ but also keeping your bones strong especially for women.

So a lot of what I do probably the majority of what I do is focus on and vaccines.

>> Okay. And vaccines. Okay. Let me ask you this. Why is it then you seem to be

this. Why is it then you seem to be resistant to supplements when what we've said is that some people have a

deficiency of magnesium or iron or many things. Why is it that it's usually a

things. Why is it that it's usually a prescription that is chosen first over these things? And you said that

these things? And you said that supplements it's um how did you say a forprofit? Of course supplements are

forprofit? Of course supplements are forprofit. Pharmacy is forprofit. Yeah.

forprofit. Pharmacy is forprofit. Yeah.

>> But here's my issue. Diabetes makes a lot of money for a lot of people.

>> Yeah.

>> Okay. Can we agree with that?

>> Yeah, absolutely.

>> Yes, it does.

>> Is that a bad thing?

>> Okay. Here's the bad thing. Why are we just treating the symptoms of diabetes?

Why is it there isn't pills that are being designed to cure the diabetes, but instead to keep us taking the pill for the rest of our lives? All the side

effects. I want an industry that is

effects. I want an industry that is maybe linked to the idea of good health cure. Why are we treating people for a

cure. Why are we treating people for a lifetime and never coming up with something? Metformin has never cured

something? Metformin has never cured anyone of diabetes yet. It's the number one prescribed drug in America for diabetes. Hasn't cured anyone.

diabetes. Hasn't cured anyone.

>> Why isn't that the goal?

>> I think it is the goal. I just don't think we have the cure. And you know how we get the cure? research dollars. We're

weaponizing all these words against big pharma, but we need them to create the cure. And look, I'll tell you what some

cure. And look, I'll tell you what some conspiracy-minded people think. And I've

thought it too myself because I think it's important to think about the other side. Is big pharma withholding cures

side. Is big pharma withholding cures because they want us to be subjugated to their medication and paying them their whole lives? Reasonable question, right?

whole lives? Reasonable question, right?

I think about that myself. So,

pharmaceuticals for profit.

>> They'd make a lot of money if they make a cure. Why would they not want to make

a cure. Why would they not want to make a lot of money if they make a cure?

>> Because once the cure comes, then we're not a slave to the right. We're no

longer a slave to their pharmaceutical.

>> I think the same.

>> Do you know what my next level of thought is?

>> Do you think when we say big pharma, there's one pharmaceutical company or two pharmaceutical companies?

>> There's a lot.

>> There's a lot.

>> There a lot of competition, right?

>> Of course. Wouldn't they be deathly afraid if one of their competitors created the cure, made billions and trillions of dollars on the cure, and they were left hanging?

>> Okay, let me show you an example. There

was a bag company about 15 years ago.

They made a bag that was so strong, no joke, a bag. It a bag. It was so strong.

It wouldn't rip. It wouldn't tear.

>> Is this an Hermes thing?

>> This is It was an amazing bag. I am

telling you, it was an amazing bag. But

guess what?

>> I thought you were going to tell me about the Birkin right now real quick.

They what? No. No, not at all. They went

out of business because guess why? You

only had to buy one.

>> Mhm.

>> You only had to buy one. It lasted you the next 15 years.

>> I think this is what's going on. These

people are in it for the profit.

>> That's why they rush to try to protect something. Okay. So that way they can

something. Okay. So that way they can say this belongs to us.

>> When you say protect something, tell me what you mean.

>> Well, they do the research. They develop

a pill and they make certain that they are legally protected to be the only ones to manufacture that precisely. And

the only reason that after that period has run out is because it's run out and then other companies can do other drugs that >> and you know what's messed up about that whole process that they sometimes when

their patent runs out. Yes. They do like a little shady reformulation.

>> Exactly.

>> I agree. I think that's [ __ ] >> It stinks.

>> I agree and I call that out.

>> We're out of time.

Great work. Thank you so much. I like

you. I love you. Thank you. Thank you.

>> My final surrounded claim is that Maha leadership cares less about health and more about money, power, and politics.

>> Hey, doc.

>> Hello. Hello. How you doing?

>> Nice to see you.

>> Good to meet you.

>> So, I want to hear uh what your proof for your claim is.

>> Yeah. So, uh, I think if you care about health, you would put investment into research, into finding cures, as we talked about earlier. You look into systemic ways to get the biggest bang

for your buck in terms of improving people's lives. I think the MA has said

people's lives. I think the MA has said a lot of those things to get PR wins, but hasn't actually executed any of them. Instead, what has happened is

them. Instead, what has happened is we've seen a tremendous cut in these budgets that have been reserved for improving our health. By the way, it wasn't RFK who did that. That was the Department of Government Efficiency who did that. So, that wasn't even him. They

did that. So, that wasn't even him. They

did that at the beginning of the year.

>> He's in charge of Health and Human Services, which is responsible for NIH, FDA, >> and Doge was in charge of cutting all federal agencies, and they were the one who made the cuts. So, like

>> I agree with you. Where was RFK on television talking about how terrible that is?

>> Uh, he wasn't anywhere because a large portion of that funding wasn't necessarily going to what we thought it was going to, for example.

>> Let's say yes. Let's say that's the case. You don't even need to prove it.

case. You don't even need to prove it.

>> Okay.

>> Did he redirect that funding to something better?

>> No.

>> He just cut it.

>> Yeah. Right. Right.

>> But don't we need to invest more into >> I'll tell you why. Because we have so many conflicts of interest in the government, which I think you would agree. Right. part of your claim, and I

agree. Right. part of your claim, and I think you made this earlier, was that RFK actually is like he doesn't have to report where his funding comes from, which is not true because the head of

the HHS, the CDC, um the NIH, they all any any head of any federal government agency always has to report any of their financial backings, right? So, they do have to they do have to report that.

>> But if you look at one of the things that people were very upset about, for example, how uh the NIAC board, right, you're familiar with that where he cut like >> No, tell me about that. Um, so he he cut uh I believe a lot of the members of the board there and everything.

>> Oh, the ACIP.

>> That's what I meant. Yeah. Yeah.

>> The advisory committee for immunization.

>> Exactly. Yeah. 70 to 80% of that board was not reporting enough of where their financial backing was coming from. So, a

lot of the backing that they're doing in those uh in that research isn't firstly necessarily going to where you think it's going. What makes you think that

it's going. What makes you think that they care so much about money, power, and politics when he's not making any money from it? He's clearly being

demonized by the media and they haven't even put any regulations in place. The

only thing that RFK has done in the eight months that he's been in office is the food d regulation. Everything else

has just been a recommendation. There's

been no regulations that have been passed by the HHS.

>> Did you see the first MA report that he put out?

>> I did not. No. Oh, it was in September, right?

>> Uh, no, it was earlier in the year, but it was a big report. He said, "Look, we're trying to make children healthier." And there were some valuable

healthier." And there were some valuable things. They were focusing on lifestyle

things. They were focusing on lifestyle changes. That's cool. um seven sources

changes. That's cool. um seven sources fully made up about research that was never done when it reached out to the authors that they listed their reasoning for why they were making certain record.

I guarantee you those sources were fully made up.

>> Okay.

>> People reached out to the participants names that were listed as authors and they quote unquote said we never did that research. It does not exist.

that research. It does not exist.

>> Okay. What was in the report? Cuz I'm

I'm >> I mean the report is unfamiliar >> dozens of pages long.

>> What was it about?

>> About children.

uh regulation. Was it just regul?

>> No, the report was basically like a state of the union report about what's happening with children's health. But

isn't it frustrating or scary that the reasons why they're putting in certain recommendations in the report come from research that fully doesn't exist? And

I'll tell you my theory about it, and I can't prove it.

>> Okay, go ahead.

>> That they use AI to make those sources and AI hallucinated those sources, which I've seen happen when I ask AI questions. Okay.

questions. Okay.

>> So, to me, I think it's really scary.

>> Are are you talking about the report that talked about like >> it's the maha landmark report children have autism >> because that's true.

>> I'm not arguing about individual claims. >> Well, let's talk about that for a second.

>> Sure. I think more kids than ever before have been diagnosed with autism. I just

I agree.

>> Why is that? So, let me just ask you this. Do you think that America is the

this. Do you think that America is the most unhealthy nation in the world?

>> No.

>> Okay. That's

>> in the world.

>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. We spend the most on healthare on health. We have the most highest rates of chronic disease from in terms you're comparing it probably to industrialized countries or like very wealthy nations. But in the world we

wealthy nations. But in the world we have the highest rates of chronic disease. Would you say that?

disease. Would you say that?

>> I think we're we're up there. Look, who

cares about absolutes? We're up there.

We're not doing great health-wise. We're

terrible.

>> Okay.

>> In fact, a lot of the capitalistic stuff that got us so unhealthy, all this ultrarocessed foods, we're now exporting to other countries and getting them sick and they're catching up.

>> Yeah. And I think that that's a problem.

Why are you opposing the first figure in 60 years who said that that's a problem?

>> Well, um, hold on. I'll answer your question. Go ahead. This is good. Yeah,

question. Go ahead. This is good. Yeah,

because I don't think he is. And I don't think he's actually doing anything to oppose it because he's sitting at Steak and Shake and telling people about McDonald's, how they used to fry their fries in in beef tallow, and it was so

much better. And then answering your

much better. And then answering your question even further, Michelle Obama tried to get kids to have healthy lunches at school. And again, not partisan here because Secretary Kennedy

used to be a Democrat also. Okay.

>> Um Michelle Obama had a program for kids to move after >> those lunches have like seed oils in them cuz the whole point he went there the fast food restaurant.

>> Let me finish the point. So whether or not there's seed oils or beef tallow, it doesn't matter. It's still junk food.

doesn't matter. It's still junk food.

Michelle Obama tried to get kids to have healthier lunches and she tried to get them texturized. You know what people

them texturized. You know what people called her on the right? Food police.

They hated it. They they despised it.

Michael Bloomberg in New York tried to put a soda tax on here defending the Republican party.

>> But the the issue is he's part of the Republican party that's driving these part of an independent party and he got >> but he's not he's part of the administration.

>> Sorry you've been voted out. Please

return to >> Thank you so much. Appreciate it.

>> Hi.

>> Hello. Hello. Nice to meet you.

>> Good to meet you. Um, okay. This is

something I personally know a little bit about because I joined the campaign um to see for myself if RFK was crazy.

>> Okay.

>> And >> did you think that initially?

>> No.

>> I I listened to some of his podcasts, read his like memoir on his family and I was like, it sounds like this guy cares about people.

>> Um, >> I actually would probably not disagree with that. I mean,

with that. I mean, >> good intentions can have terrible outcomes though, >> right? Uh, and I do have like after I

>> right? Uh, and I do have like after I mean I was specifically like following his vice president Nicole Shanahan like around the country for eight months. She

had put together this think tank to figure out how to like fix climate change. They basically came back said

change. They basically came back said all green energy is bunk. There's one

thing that we could do to become carbon neutral and that's regenative farming.

But we'd have to switch over 200,000 acres I think of farmland. We either

have to be able to explain why we're doing everything. Otherwise, we're going

doing everything. Otherwise, we're going to end up in the situation that I think we are. Now, Tylenol to me was the

we are. Now, Tylenol to me was the antithesis of everything I had been trying to do and whatever. I'm not there doing it. So, like I don't represent

doing it. So, like I don't represent them. But that was a disaster. Um

them. But that was a disaster. Um

because we're here now fighting more instead of working together.

>> Do you think we're fighting >> me and you? No. But I do think that maha and the traditional medical world there is a lot of misunderstanding and it's not good for anybody.

>> What is the misunderstanding?

>> I mean I think the skepticism with doctors that began with co and I think I don't think RFK is in HHS without CO. I

think that there has been a disaster that has just kept going and some somehow we need to come together and make sense of this.

>> Well, I'm hoping today that could be it.

>> We're going to solve the whole thing.

No, I think by having these conversations with them because you know, look, okay, uh, Secretary Kennedy uh got Skittles, I believe, to remove titanium dioxide, a random chemical outside of Skittles.

>> Yeah.

>> But like, let's be as genuine and honest as possible today.

>> Is that the reason why Skittles is not considered a healthy food for kids?

>> Probably not. So, like I feel their administration is getting all these like random PR wins that aren't actually making America healthy >> and I would love for Americans to get

healthy, but they're just not doing it and they're distracting everyone with all of this noise that I feel actually harms people. I

harms people. I >> I mean, I don't entirely disagree. It

feels as someone who's trying to like support this, it feels like there's sabotage in the administration. Okay,

>> straight up. I think the solution probably is, okay, HHS is cool for the first time ever, whether we like the guy that became the face of it or not, he's a 70-year-old healthy man who overcame

heroin and talks to Eagles. Like, that's

not the worst thing we could be dealing with.

>> I think Yeah, but we need he needs help from the medical industry. He needs help from the pharmaceutical industry because it can't all be bad. There are

>> I agree. I would argue >> because if someone fainted here today, >> you're calling 911 or yelling out.

>> Yeah, that that's that's the thing. I

don't know if you saw during the GOP1 press conference. Yes.

press conference. Yes.

>> There was an individual. This person

fainted. Did you see what Secretary Kennedy did?

>> Makes no sense.

>> Well, tell me what he did. He

>> He split out of the room as if >> What do you think I'm going to do if something was to happen to you right now?

>> Well, you took an oath. You have to help me.

>> Okay. So, why is Secretary Kennedy the one going out and saying, "I care about profit." Am I going to ask? Okay, I'll

profit." Am I going to ask? Okay, I'll

tell you even a cooler story that no one even really knows. I was on an airplane last week. I was flying uh across the

last week. I was flying uh across the Atlantic Ocean to France.

>> Yes, >> I was exhausted. I didn't sleep the night before. The reason I didn't sleep

night before. The reason I didn't sleep the night before was cuz I was doing a Makea-Wish in Disney with a child who was dying of a cancer, who's only buying time because of the miraculous work at uh one of the Texas medical

institutions. After that, I flew back

institutions. After that, I flew back home only to fly uh the next day to France. I'm exhausted. They ask, "Is

France. I'm exhausted. They ask, "Is there a doctor on board?" I'm exhausted, but I care about the patient more. I

volunteer. I help one individual.

There's a second medical emergency. I

help the second individual. There's a

third medical emergency. I help that individual. Do I need props for that? Do

individual. Do I need props for that? Do

I need money for that? I couldn't care less. I want to help people. These are

less. I want to help people. These are

the type of people we And there's so many of It's not me. This is who I work with. The people that I surrounded

with. The people that I surrounded myself with, the colleagues, do they fail at times? Do they make you feel gaslit as a patient? Yes. We suck at that because our system sets us up as

doctors for failure. Healthcare spending

is at an all-time high. Absolutely true.

Is that because doctors are getting paid more? Absolutely not. It's because

more? Absolutely not. It's because

administrators have ballooned beyond any reasonable level. Pharmaceutical

reasonable level. Pharmaceutical companies have no transparency. pharmacy

benefit managers who take kickbacks and all sorts of rebates with zero transparency break the system. And

instead of going after those issues, Secretary Kennedy's calling me a profit monger.

>> Aren't you mad at that?

>> Yes, I absolutely am because I care about people and I think that they we should be doing a better job. And I

think that a big part of what America there's a hurt that our food systems have been ignored by large corporate power that does run things. And somehow

this movement has come out of a place of people being like there's important things like nutrition that needs picked out. Does it want does it need to get

out. Does it want does it need to get taken over by pig supplements? God know.

We don't want need more. You've been

voted out.

>> Thank you so much. Yeah, absolutely.

>> Hello, sir.

>> Good.

>> Good to talk to you.

>> Pleasure.

>> Yeah. Going off of what the other guy said, you're saying that why is the RFK's industry is why is he attacking you personally, right, as a doctor? And

I don't think he's ever called it called you out Dr. Mike. You know what you're saying. But I I

saying. But I I >> he says all doctors, >> right? But I understand what what he's

>> right? But I understand what what he's saying is that the fact that there is a a profit margin that they're trying to meet in the medical medical industry.

They're merging with government like during the co uh scam, right? And they

they had people like Dr. Fouchian which was pushing these mRNA harmful shots into the public through governmentmanded vaccines. Right.

vaccines. Right.

>> Well, we had options that weren't mRNA.

>> Well, no, we did not have an option because we >> I'm saying they were vaccines that were not MRA.

>> No, it was not. It was not an option to take whatever shots that was mandated through from government because >> right some of them were not >> the country was in lockdown right the country was in lockdown we had masks

over our faces we had these media pouring out all these propaganda to us right so at the beginning this beginning of the pandemic it was 2020 they were saying that all right so this is a very

dangerous virus that's coming out of Wuhan China and like what you were saying about knowledge informing the public they did not give us the proper information about how to treat this

virus.

>> We didn't know.

>> No, no wait, wait. No, we did. No, the

public didn't know, right?

>> I didn't know.

>> Okay. Well, maybe you didn't. Okay. So,

I'm I'm going to assume you Okay. I'm

going to assume you didn't, right?

>> But we didn't know.

>> So, people doctors were coming out saying, "No, we need zinc, vitamin D, sunlight." People were people were told

sunlight." People were people were told told to stay indoors.

>> I agree that was stupid.

>> Yeah, that was very stupid. And being

being locked in uh and all that stuff.

>> Hydroxychloricquin, right?

Hydroxychloricquin. Trump was saying this hydroxychloricquin in it might work and people just got on them, attacked him for it. Now we know it works. I've

taken it myself. My friends have taken it myself.

>> The common flu and it it does work, right?

>> I I would say that the evidence says no.

>> No, it does work. Basically, what I'm saying is the pharmaceutical industry through people like uh Anthony Fouchy and Dr. Deborah Burks, they're merging

with big government in order to do these lockdowns, in order to have government mandates, medical mandates in order for us to take peace. So, I don't think it's

I don't think you can compare what RFK Jr. is saying along with what the medical industry what he's going up against is saying.

>> Okay, pause. You've been voted out.

>> Shoot.

>> Thank you, sir. Appreciate you.

>> Hello. Pleasure you talk to Mike.

>> Um, can you repeat the claim just real quick?

>> Uh, we're on claim that the Maha leadership cares less about health and more about money, power, and politics.

>> So, the previous health and human services secretaries, they all cared about health. Would you say?

about health. Would you say?

>> Uh, I would say that they put a higher emphasis on health. Yes.

>> Okay. Do you know our rating in the world for maternal mortality rate, infant mortality, obesity, type 1 diabetes, type two diabetes? We lead in all developed nations across the world.

And for chronic diseases, we're number one in the world. I don't think we're number one in the world.

>> Yeah, we are. Okay.

>> For chronic diseases in a single battle.

>> Again, it depends what you put into the chronic disease, but yes. Okay.

>> So, all this and did you have any like >> Yeah, I have a reason for the past that were in charge before did you go against them because our health has been on a steady decline.

>> I I think that we're conflating a couple of things and check my logic. So, if you think my logic is flood, tell me why. I

think that the reason we got to where we are today is multiffactorial, meaning for a bunch of reasons, but the biggest reasons I think because we live in a capitalist nation. We try and get people

capitalist nation. We try and get people to eat the foods that are most addictive, that taste the best, that make us very unhealthy. And uh just like any other thing that we do in society,

when we tire it out for making profits on one end, we try and create solutions for those problems and make money on making the solution. This happened with horse and carriages where there was poop all over the streets and now we have the

issues with cars and people are trying to figure out ways how to make money by cleaning our environment. We're a

capitalist nation. So over the last 50 years or so the chronic health diseases have gone up because people have gained a lot of weight from eating really unhealthy foods. Not because we in the

unhealthy foods. Not because we in the health care system necessarily have failed them and there was instances why we have but it's just because these foods were so addictive. We try to uh

create the highest profit margins and not take health seriously.

Also, social media, electronics, people not leaving their homes, being sedentary. There's folks, I have

sedentary. There's folks, I have patients who don't leave their house for days because they can have relationships with people online. They have their virtual realities where they don't have

to participate in sports or any kind of other activities. So, in general, our

other activities. So, in general, our lifestyles have gotten unhealthy. But to

blame that on past health and human services secretaries, I feel like is an inaccurate way to blame somebody.

>> Well, I'm just using your logic because you said he doesn't care about health.

So, if it's been on a steady decline, then that means all the previous ones didn't care about health. And if our increase in spending is what, 5 trillion in healthcare, it's 10 trillion worldwide. We spend 50% compared the

worldwide. We spend 50% compared the whole world in healthcare, we're ranked number one in all those categories. So,

if it's been on a steady decline, then you have to have some against all the previous ones, too, right? So you're

looking at certain numbers and you're just zooming in on those numbers. Again,

as I mentioned earlier, chronic health diseases have gone up. Part of that is because there's less acute death. So

we've had wins in preventing acute deaths. So people who have sepsis, who

deaths. So people who have sepsis, who have strokes, have heart attacks, pharma has been driving the survival of these individuals. Now, here's the problem.

individuals. Now, here's the problem.

When you solve someone's acute illness, they end up being a sick person for longer and end up turning into a chronic health patient. So this is an

health patient. So this is an interesting uh example of our successes actually counting against us. So

vaccines eliminating certain conditions in the world in the world, smallox, polio, measles in the year 2000s, it's back now, >> uh has led people to believe that these diseases aren't so bad because they

don't see them because we've eradicated them. When we help people survive a

them. When we help people survive a heart attack and now they become a chronic health patient, we view that as a failure because chronic health numbers are going up. I view it as partially a failure because we could do better there but also a win that we helped them

overcome and mortality has dropped.

>> Yeah. Well, our lifespan's increased but our health span's decreased. So by 2015 >> what's your definition of health span?

>> So longevity of like not chronic diseases, obesity, type 1 diabetes, maternal mortality, those things. So all

those have >> I think lifestyle changes are big.

>> So our lifespan's decreased but our health span has decreased. by 20 2050 we're going to be ranked 66th in the world in life expectations because those are not very accurate and one medication

coming out like we're seeing with the Olympics with goies that RFK is now excited about can drastically change those outcomes. So it's very difficult

those outcomes. So it's very difficult to predict those numbers in the future.

I I will say like just zooming in and saying everyone before Secretary Kennedy was terrible because chronic health disease has gone up and Secretary Kennedy must be better is just not true.

Maybe the previous ones could have been better as well. I've criticized Fouchy.

I critic criticized Dr. Fouchi to his I'm saying is they didn't care about health either. If you're going to make

health either. If you're going to make that claim, you have to make that claim for everyone else. That's all I'm saying. So, keep it consistent.

saying. So, keep it consistent.

>> There's difference between they didn't care about health or their policies were unsuccessful. I don't think Secretary

unsuccessful. I don't think Secretary Kennedy is actually doing any policies that are meaningfully successful right now.

>> Okay, pause. We're out of time.

>> Yeah, I want to get into pharmaceuticals but >> yeah.

So many choices.

>> I feel like we had a a very argumentative end.

>> I chose Jack for the final debate because I feel Jack is arguing in good faith. I believe Jack is very passionate

faith. I believe Jack is very passionate and uh I also feel a little bit bad by raising my voice earlier. Uh it was because of passion for patients, but I wanted to rekindle our relationship and see if we can get on a better page.

>> How do you feel about coming up?

>> What's that?

>> I said, "How do you feel about coming up?" But it sounds

up?" But it sounds >> I'm blessed. I'm I'm very grateful to talk to you. I mean, I've watched your stuff. I've known who you are for many,

stuff. I've known who you are for many, many years. My surrounded claim is that

many years. My surrounded claim is that unchecked big pharma is reason enough for Kennedy's reforms. So, I guess what I want to start this off with is just a little bit of history, okay? And in

1986, what was signed into law by Ronald Reagan was the National Child Vaccine Injury Act. And from there you were no

Injury Act. And from there you were no longer able to sue companies like Fizer holding them holding them accountable for vaccine injury or things like that for the specific reason that they wanted the out they wanted the releasing of

vaccines to be more effective to the public. Right? So they set up a national

public. Right? So they set up a national compensation fund then you're playing by the federal government's rules in their own courts. And so also another thing

own courts. And so also another thing that happened is in 2010 I'm going to cite this is there was a Supreme Court case called Citizens United versus FEC.

What they decided in the Supreme Court case was that now a corporation is a person is a singular a singular person and that to restrict the amount of money that they are able to give to somebody running in a campaign would be infringing on their first amendment

right of freedom of expression. And so

from there we now have today where 95 out of 100 United States senators are now backed by big pharma. And then you also have on the flip side referring back to um what Ronald Reagan did in the

80s. You have a large amount of doctors

80s. You have a large amount of doctors now that are being paid off. Uh, as I bring up the statistic again, uh, 70% of research being published by physicians is published with a conflict of

interest. 80% of NIH funding comes from

interest. 80% of NIH funding comes from big pharma. Things like these, I say,

big pharma. Things like these, I say, are reason enough that Kennedy's reforms need to take place.

>> It's interesting you bring up quite a few subjects. I'll start with the

few subjects. I'll start with the vaccine injury fund. I think that's valuable. I I think perhaps your

valuable. I I think perhaps your interpretation of the rule there is not exactly accurate. Okay. If you go

exactly accurate. Okay. If you go through this national uh injury vaccine compensation fund and you're not happy with what you received and you're saying that they didn't give me enough money or

it's taking too long, you could drop out and you could sue a vaccine manufacturer. That's absolutely true.

manufacturer. That's absolutely true.

You could unequivocally true.

>> But the thing is that the problem is in our country we have big pharma has protections that no other that I mean I was trying to get out here for big big supplement because I was going to argue that big pharma has protections that big supplement does not. Well, they they

have protections, but they also have a responsibility to put out research that is checked by independent researchers uh where big supplement doesn't. Like how

do we know that uh taking a medication to lower your blood pressure prevents a heart attack because they did the research studies to prove it.

>> But when someone recommends a supplement, they don't have to do that.

>> So I think it's different. So in the state of California, I mean as of 1980, sorry about as of 1980 in all 50 states, you required to get a vaccine to go to public school, right? This is the thing.

So the difference between big farm and big supplement is choice. You have

several different manufacturers or companies making the exact same thing.

The reason why something is called a supplement is because you're supplementing something that's already in your diet. So in today's day in America, 70% of children have or sorry 70% of a child's diet is now

ultrarocessed foods, right? And so from there, you're having things like vitamin C, creatine, all these things which already exist in the foods we eat, which we are now lacking at a rate like never before because of the diet we have in America.

>> Do you think there's a widespread issue of vitamin C deficiency in the United States?

>> I'm not sure specifically about vitamin C. I don't know. Well,

C. I don't know. Well,

>> creatine deficiency, I don't know.

>> But I'm saying is so creatine appears in foods like steak, whatever else. I mean,

we're eating those less than we did before. It's necessarily

before. It's necessarily >> Are we eating red meats less than before?

>> I I would say so. Natural American

standard is >> natural red meat is what a cheeseburger is made out of is not necessarily the same as >> I think this is a really cool thing for us to end on because it's going to be about me making a disclosure that I'm curious how it lands for you. Okay. Are

you familiar with the pharmaceutical company Abbott?

>> No.

>> Okay. Well, there's a pharmaceutical company. It's a giant pharmaceutical

company. It's a giant pharmaceutical company. They're called Abbott Labs. Uh

company. They're called Abbott Labs. Uh

they paid me over the last five years. I

created content for them.

>> Do you think that biases me as a physician to be a worse physician? I

would have to know more about you and things that you said, things that you reported, things like that to be able to say >> based on the conversations you heard today. Or is it reasonable?

today. Or is it reasonable?

>> We haven't talked about Abbott.

>> Well, here's the reason why I bring it up because some people bring this up as a way to sort of weaponize the fact that I've taken money from uh big pharma. And

I think it's reasonable to bring it up whether or not it does bias me. I think

I should evaluate that within myself.

>> Here's what I took money from Abbott for.

>> To create a multi-yearlong campaign to encourage blood donation.

>> Okay. Abbott is one of the largest testers in the United States of donated blood. So they make money by checking

blood. So they make money by checking donated blood to make sure it's free of diseases because that's what we want, right? Like if you get into a car

right? Like if you get into a car accident, you get a transfusion, you want disease-free blood.

>> So I think it's a good thing that they do that and they were facing a huge shortage especially after the pandemic.

So they hired me to try and figure out a way to encourage blood donation. So your

main argument would be that we should look into okay the actions that people are actually taking when they do take money from companies or whatever that be and we want to see what people are doing with it. So shouldn't you say that that

with it. So shouldn't you say that that argument then applies to RFK's actions after winning lawsuits and getting paid from those?

>> Sorry I didn't follow.

>> Okay. So then you criticize RFK from taking money. Right. So I think that we

taking money. Right. So I think that we should say here is okay we need to apply that exact same logic to Kennedy because you criticized him heavily for taking money in in the lawsuits in the case.

>> I didn't criticize him. I said I presented that because someone said earlier that if someone is biased by taking money from a pharmaceutical company, I said how is he not biased if he's taking money from a a lawsuit case?

>> So I think generally your overall argument is that so often bias isn't necessarily a bad thing.

>> Uh I think bias that is hidden is a bad thing.

>> Okay. How would you say that something is a hidden bias when you have situations like on a grand scale in the United States and this is kind of my overall problem, right? Is that you're seeing that this money is actually making a difference. It's not just

somebody supporting uh a company or whoever is giving them money because they believe in what that company stands for, right? Because what we're seeing is

for, right? Because what we're seeing is if you give a doctor even a meal as small as $20, then they're actually going to be more likely to prescribe.

>> You think I'm more biased cuz I took a lot of money from Abbott.

>> That's the thing I don't know anything about.

>> But you just said $20 will bias you. So

I took way more than $20. I promise you.

>> But are you actively writing prescriptions right now?

>> Of course. I'm a practicing physician.

But do you know how many vaccines Abbott, for example, makes here? No,

>> zero.

>> I'll say you specific. I'll say, you know, I'll be respectful. You got me there. But that's the thing is I just

there. But that's the thing is I just don't >> But it's not about getting there. It's

it just it's about the fact that like my issue with bias is to me bias becomes an issue when it's hidden and there's a lack of transparency. And I fault a pharmaceutical company for playing these

games with pharmacy benefit managers.

They play these types of untransparent uh issues all the time. And I hate it.

But when you have administrators within the Maha leadership, Casey Means, Kaylee Means, these individuals can be taking money from companies and no one is aware of who's taking the money. But when you

look at the Sunshine Act, which requires pharmaceutical companies to tell the truth about doctors taking money, >> you know, transparency is there. Don't

you think there's less bias when there's transparency?

>> Yes, absolutely. That's one of the things that RFK and the the Maha movement represents. So when he shuts

movement represents. So when he shuts down public opinion after an HHS policy, you think that should >> Well, it's specific. It's specific to shareholders and they want to know what they need.

>> Stakeholders. Stakeholders.

>> Stakeholders meaning that a policy that will impact someone's life. So imagine

HHS was ruling on a policy for a condition that you had. They just cut HIV funding. I'm not saying you have

HIV funding. I'm not saying you have HIV, but let's say someone has HIV.

>> Well, let's take that back. Let's say

someone has HIV and they just cut HIV funding. Before HHS would have to have a

funding. Before HHS would have to have a time of public opinion to voice concerns about that. he removed it. Where is the

about that. he removed it. Where is the radical transparency?

>> So, here's the thing. The one thing you need to understand about uh the federal government is that is intended to move slow, right? And the thing the thing is

slow, right? And the thing the thing is that the Senate legislation, they are in charge of the purse of the United States of America. Right now, we're on a

of America. Right now, we're on a government shutdown, right? And so, in order to get a lot of funding for these things, it has to come from um the legislation. And so, until we can get

legislation. And so, until we can get spending, which I mean, Democrats wanted to increase our our spending on Medicare and Medicaid by $ 1.5 trillion. So until

we get this money, you can make cuts, but it's largely uh it's very very difficult for the federal government to then add things.

>> So Secretary Kennedy is part of an administration that controls the legislative branch. The uh executive

legislative branch. The uh executive branch >> there is separation of powers. The

executive branch does not control.

>> Well, they have the majority and the legislative branch.

>> The majority is nothing when you have branch and the judicial branch. Why is

more not being done to rein in pharmaceutical companies? Why is more

pharmaceutical companies? Why is more not being done about improving chronic health conditions with children instead of talking about Skittles and titanium dioxide?

>> Well, it's not that simple. You have

something in in our Senate called a filibuster. So even if Republicans have

filibuster. So even if Republicans have a majority, we are still >> present something that someone filibustered against. You're talking

filibustered against. You're talking about all these hypotheticals.

>> I'm talking about why they can't get money in the first place is because we're in a shutdown.

>> Money for what?

>> The federal government gets money from the legislation when they pass >> a month or so. What what about the time that he was in office before that?

>> Well, the thing is is the federal government, like I said, moves very very slow. So the very beginning of his

slow. So the very beginning of his administration was intended to okay look over those things have bring oversight and then make these cuts. And now when it comes time to actually pass a spending bill we're not able to do that because we're in a lockout and we can't even agree on things like this. Even

when you have a majority a filibuster is still very very powerful. But I still don't think that it should be.

>> So let me ask you this because this is a good question for for me to understand your position better. Secretary

Kennedy's been in the office about a year. Is that fair to say? It's a little

year. Is that fair to say? It's a little less than that but let's say a year. So

far he's removed red dyes which is I think is a good thing out of out of kids foods. uh some random other things about

foods. uh some random other things about swapping oils for one another which I don't think makes a big difference.

Removing certain >> are you upset with him by not doing enough?

>> I I I want to recap everything he's done and then we could talk about it. So

those are the big things he's done. He's

also published the Maha report, this landmark report that they celebrated that had false sources in it, inaccurate statistics. He did a press conference

statistics. He did a press conference saying that he swore he'd find the cause of autism where he said the cause and then two weeks later took it back. you

feel like this is a good first year for him?

>> Well, the thing is that science is a constant thing. Science is constantly

constant thing. Science is constantly developing and so you can't necessarily hold him to something that he says even when he retracts it. And I would honestly say that that itself is transparency.

>> So what happened in the two weeks from when he said Tylenol did cause autism to when it didn't, what new information came out that suddenly scientifically made him change his mind?

>> Enough scientific evidence to disprove.

>> Do you think you think research was published in those two weeks?

>> Do I think the research? Well, not

necessarily, but they could have in their systems looked at more research outside of that.

>> You don't think they should have done that before making a press conference to millions of people.

>> The thing is what actually happened is he said that there could be a possible link. He didn't just say Tylenol

link. He didn't just say Tylenol >> causes the DA commissioner went on Fox News and said causes.

>> He he straight up saidauses.

>> But then again, two weeks later they went back and they said that that's the case.

>> Yeah. But there was no new like I get let I'm trying to be fair. Let's say

they said it causes it and then in the middle of that two weeks later they publish a new article that disproves and they go we learned we need to take it back. I wouldn't judge them for that.

back. I wouldn't judge them for that.

But that didn't happen.

>> I mean so often though you do judge Kenny for things that he doesn't necessarily believe anymore.

>> Like what?

>> And specifically I was talking about that Kennedy well he said that half of China has diabetes, right? And so the actual percentage was 13% had diabetes and then the the remainder making up

that half is actually has pre-diabetes.

And so I don't think you should necessarily hold things like that against him because >> I don't think I should hold the Secretary of Health and Human Services from getting statistics wrong over and over again.

>> Well, no, it's not. It's like if he has >> that's the most important thing for him.

He's in charge. He's the one making decisions.

>> The thing is, if he's conflicted by something and there's something that says something, I think it's honest if he would present that in front of the American people, >> right? But it didn't take me a lot of

>> right? But it didn't take me a lot of work to find out what the number was.

Like if I can find it out as a YouTuber, why can't the secretary of health and human services get the numbers right before making up? It's not like someone asked him off the cuff, what's the percentage and they gotcha, you got it wrong. He presented it at a conference.

wrong. He presented it at a conference.

>> So simply for him presenting a study that contains nuance, you're going to have a problem with.

>> It's not he's presenting nuance. He's

presenting inaccurate information that is very simple to fact check. apologize.

>> I think it was a a really productive conversation between folks who very much disagree with me and I'm hoping today was an opportunity for them to see that doctors are interested in helping them

that the health care system could be revived and there's absolutely opportunities for us to see eye to eye.

>> When there's rebellion, an empire is always going to call it misinformation, dishonesty, etc., etc., all these things. So if you are going to attempt

things. So if you are going to attempt to try to convince these people that you really have the truth, you can't frame things in a dishonest way like he did today.

>> Somehow the information has been weaponized and we're fighting and that needs to end and someone needs to be big enough to bridge that gap. Instead of uh

focusing on better transparency, more scientific rigor, we instead have an individual who doesn't quite understand science, someone who takes anecdote over

hard data. And ultimately that's going

hard data. And ultimately that's going to make worse outcomes for all of