The CEO of Axon thought he had a solution to mass shootings in schools: putting taser-equipped drones in public facilities. Axon's ethics board resigned, but the story's not over yet. Researchers reveal an unprecedented finding -- it seems a new drug has completely eliminated all traces of a very specific type of cancer. All this and more in this week's Strange News.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
From UFOs to psychic powers and government conspiracies. History is
riddled with unexplained events. You can turn back now or
learn the stuff they don't want you to know. A
production of I Heart Radio. Hello, welcome back to the show.
(00:25):
My name is Mett. They call me Ben. You're joined
as always with our super producer Paul. Mission controlled decade.
Most importantly, you are you. You are here, and that
makes this the stuff they don't want you to know.
War fomenting across multiple areas of the world, North Korea
(00:47):
launching some more missiles, finally admitting they have COVID, and
of course, Matt, as you and I were discussing right
before we rolled, bees are for legal purposes now fish
in in some places, bees are fish now. Congratulations everybody,
we did it, finally coming. I don't know how that's
(01:11):
us getting them, you and I, but well, they called
it fly fishing for so long, and you're like, you know,
why why do they call it fly fishing. I'm just
imagining people now out in the middle of a field,
in a meadow just trying to catch all them fish.
(01:31):
And it's it's funny because just really quickly on that
where we're specifically referencing a recent ruling in California that
it's a little bit um, I don't know, it's a
little bit headlining and click baity for us just to
say bees or fish, But technically it means that bees
(01:52):
are invertebrates that the court allows to fall under the
statute definition of fish for environmental and conservationist purposes. So
still bes are fish. That's all you need. That's the
only takeaway I know, right, So, uh, we opened with
(02:13):
some hard hitting the real news wars, starvation, food supply crisis,
and and bees. But now don't forget the water. Yes, Matt,
Today you and I are going to one of our
favorite weekly segments, Strange News, and we're going to talk
(02:34):
about you know, we don't always get to do this,
but I think we're both very excited because we get
to explore some very good news, some news that may
well be historic. We're gonna talk a little bit about
some heavy stuff, and then we're also going to talk
about some potentially amazing, very much life saving stuff, and
(02:58):
we'll do it with the shorty you have come to
expect from stuff they don't want you to know, which
means I will endeavor unsuccessfully to keep my butt jokes
at a minimum. Oh, your butt jokes were already strong
in this episode before we started rolling, so I can't
wait for that jeez. All right, well, maybe our our
(03:20):
first story met that. Um, we should start out with
concerns mass shootings in the United States, but not in
the way that you think. You know, this is, um,
this is one of those situations that the English language,
with all its weird pirated words, still does not have
(03:44):
a proper term for tragedy, doesn't cover it right. Atrocity
doesn't quite fit either. Um. You know, it's scary that
it's scary, and it's heartbreaking, honestly that mass shootings in
the US have become normalized for the population. People are dying.
(04:05):
Everyone knows there is a huge systemic problem. No one
can agree universe. No one has proposed a solution that
all parties agree to, And I would argue, you know,
part of that clearly is due to um moneyed interest
right putting their hand in the conversation tail as old
(04:27):
as time, same as it ever was. But our starting
story today is about a near miss, like a matrix dodge,
And I don't know if it's a good near miss,
if it's a bad near miss. I guess it depends
on your perspective. But Matt, you know what we're talking about. Oh,
I do know what we're talking about. We're talking about
a group of people, a small group of people, who
(04:49):
thought they had come up with an answer to that problem, like,
how do we prevent mass shootings at least in specific
places where we really don't want mass shootings to happen
i e. You know, schools and perhaps in the future churches,
other places like that of mass gathering. Uh, they thought
(05:10):
they found an answer. They really really did. Yes, they
really did. Our story starts with a group called Axon
Air a x O. N Axon Air manufactures drones. If
you go to their website axon dot com, then you
(05:30):
will see that their primary mission, what they consider their remit,
is to be an end to end drone solution which
has all the bells and whistles of surveillance and with
the aim being public safety. So this means they have
wireless live streaming video capability. Uh, they can interface in
(05:54):
a network. They allow for what you would call real
time situational awareness, which is a huge thing that all
the modern militaries of the world are looking for as
well as law enforcement, even you know, even race race
car drivers, race car teams are looking for stuff like
(06:14):
this because if you can know what's happening while it's
happening on the ground, you can avoid the fog of war.
And you can also if you go with Axon enroll
in training programs. They really want to be stem to stern,
soup to nuts. And a few days ago, not too
long ago, Axon said they were gonna work to build
(06:39):
drones that could fly in school, and they specifically said
this would help prevent the next Duvall Day, the next
Sandy Hook, the next Columby. How would it help prevent
we have these robotic insects flying around, Well, it would
help prevent mass shootings, Acson argued, because the drones would
(07:03):
be armed with tasers, which are technically less than lethal weapons.
It's an important distinction. You know. It always bugs me.
I don't know about you, Matt, but it always bugs
me when I hear people describe things like tasers as
non lethal. Tell that to someone you know with a
faulty ticker. You think, less less than lethal is the
(07:27):
only way you can phrase it. Well, let's talk Let's
talk about Taser in particular, because that's that's one of
those band aid situations, right. Uh, it's a it's a
proper noun for a thing. A taser gun made by Taser.
That's the ones that have the two the two prickly
bits that shoot out and shock you. They both have
(07:50):
to hit and remember that's important. Um. But they also
make you know, stun guns that just have the two
nodes that shooting electrical arc across. But Taser is the
proper noun. The company that is now known as ax On.
I didn't know that before we did this story. Yes,
that's correct, just like um, just like Blackwater XE. However,
(08:18):
you yeah, don't, don't get married to that name. I'm
sure they'll change it, you know, the next time the
news cycle finds him again. But yes, Taser changed its name.
If you want to learn the full history of Taser
as a company, do check out our pal Robert Evans
um Camera. I think it did. I think it was
(08:39):
behind the Bastards. I should know because it was on
that episode or that series. But anyway, it has a
long controversial history. And what do you do when you
have a long controversial history. You rebrand. Baby, It's America.
That's not me anymore. You know, Taser was really smart.
(09:01):
What they would do is spend all of that money
that I'm sure they spend on lobbying, as all of
these companies do, and uh, try and convince you know,
the lawmakers within the United States that Americans should own
tasers and stunt guns instead of guns. Right, and then
you could get tasers in the hands of everybody and
(09:22):
there'd be eight million tasers in the world instead of guns.
That would be smart Taser, you should do that. Yeah,
So Taser as well acts on enterprise, we should say,
which is I'm being kind of unfair. They were founded
ninety three. They were just always best known for tasers,
and that's what they had called themselves. It's got an
(09:44):
interesting entomology. It's based on a novel made in nineteen
eleven called Tom Swift and his Electric Rifle. And so
the guy who came up with this idea NASA researcher,
by the way, decided to just play with the language
a little and call it taser. Uh. These things were
(10:05):
originally classified as firearms, by the way, you don't hear
too much about now, but it's because they used to
use gunpowder as they're propellant. Anyhow, fast forward modern day
mats shootings. This company, which is publicly traded, their CEO,
Rick Smith, said shortly after the latest school shooting in Texas,
(10:29):
he said he felt compelled to make this idea of
taser equipped drones in grade schools public because he was
catastrophically disappointed in the response by police who did not
move in to kill the suspect for more than an hour.
And that is a true story, by the way, folks,
if you are not in the US or you haven't
(10:51):
been following that news, police presence was there at the
school and simply refused to enter. I unders do anything
to say to that. Yeah, but there's I mean, it's
a fact. It's not my opinion. Yeah yeah. And he
said in his statement which you can you can read.
(11:11):
It's an interview with the Associated Press, he said that
at this point he's going public with this as a
reaction to the tragedy, to the atrocity. And he was
very clear that no actual product had been launched, and
he said any potential launch would be kind of quote
down the road, right, so no definitive deployment date. But
(11:36):
he said he felt he needed to share the idea
now because it was kind of in the zeitgeist. There
was there wasn't his strident public conversation and debate about
how to increase safety for schools. You'll hear people argue
any number of things and prioritize them any number of ways. Um.
(12:00):
One I think that is particularly shortsighted is the idea
of effectively turning a school into a box canyon, making
it one one entry exit point and just I guess
worrying about that later during a fire or something. Anyhow So,
and this is not dunking on people who thought that
(12:22):
was a big answer. It's just they're reacting and there
if they're politicians, they're reacting to what they see as
an opportunity for poll numbers. If they're people, they're reacting
to try to find a way to try to find
a way to prevent more mass deaths. And that's in
a political statement at that point. Anyhow So, there we go,
(12:45):
this has this mass shooting occurs, and this one in
particular uh and inspires or compels his words the CEO
to say, we are working on what we feel is
a solution, a solution in that it would be a
less than lethal approach right to uh to a perpetrator.
(13:09):
And it would also avoid involving human law enforcement on
the scene. Right, So maybe it would circumvent that problem.
It's heavily implied, so it isn't the concept also that
the drones themselves would not be operated by the local
police force. It would be a separate third party that
(13:30):
actually controls and operates the drones. Maybe maybe I read
that wrong. I was reading the Vice article you shared, Ben.
It seemed like that's one of the major issues the
the board took issue with the ethics board. Yeah, the
this is an article from Janice Rose over Vice Motherboard.
(13:50):
And I don't want to give the headline just yet
because we'll save it just for a second. But also
while we're shouting out journalist, which we always love to do,
want to shout Michael Balsamo over a p News as
well as Matt O'Brien also over a p Okay. Here's
the here's the headline. Here's what happened. So they went
(14:13):
public with this statement, and they're a big company, know
they're successful. Uh. They announced just a few days later,
just like forty eight hours ago as we record this,
that one they had an ethics board, which I wasn't
aware of that accent. And two that the vast majority
(14:34):
of their ethics board resigned once this announcement came through,
and that led them to say again just forty eight
hours ago, that they are not in fact going to
go forward with making drone armed tasers. Uh. This ethics
board is particularly concerned with artificial intelligence. And Smith said, look,
(14:59):
we wanted this statement was meant to quote initiate a
conversation on this as a potential solution. And then he said,
I want to what you think of this man? And
then he said the ensuing discussion quote provided us with
a deeper appreciation of the complex and important considerations end
(15:20):
quote around this issue. So I don't know, what, what
do you think about this? Do you think that means
they're going to come back with a different idea or
do you think they're gonna just throw it out. That's
a tough Uh, that's a tough one for me. It
feels like they're going to throw it out at least
for a while. My understanding from the statement given by
(15:40):
that advisory board, or at least by someone speaking on
behalf of the members who resigned on that advisory board
is that they did discuss attempting this, but doing it
in a tiny little pilot program. Right, let's pick one
school or one place, one community that decides this is
an okay idea, then we'll try it there. What happens.
(16:01):
But then I guess the advisory board, the ethics committee,
they decided, well, we should probably not do that. But
the actual company and that person Mr Smith, I guess
who runs the company, made that announcement that yes, this
is going to happen, we are doing this. It seems
as though, in my mind the company really wants to
(16:22):
make it happen and they'll do what they need to
make it happen or something like that. Because it does
feel like a way to get your company and it's
products in a lot of places, right that I think
the company will at least attempt to do it in
some other way at some other time maybe, um, because
it does seem smart. It seems like a smart business
(16:45):
attempt at least. Do you can see the profits that
would be there? Yeah, I agree with you, because if
you think about it, and just in purely profit motivated terms,
and we're not saying that anybody at acts on is
a bad. To be clear, Uh, if you think about
it in purely profit defined terms, then every business in
(17:07):
the US conceivably wants to get a contract with the government,
right with the government of the land. Their coffers are
nearly endless. They will guarantee work for multiple years. And
you are at one of the juiciest troughs in all
(17:27):
of capitalism. If you can, if you can get your snout,
you know, just up in that junk, then you are
going to be fat and happy. Again, this is not
This maybe a crass picture, right, but I want to
go back to this board. So this board earlier had
(17:48):
voted not to proceed with the pilot of the Taser drone,
or they voted against recommending that I go forward. They
can't cut it off themselves, which is why they had
to resign. They voted eight to four against it, and
then nine people resigned after the statement, and they issued
an extraordinarily rare public explanation of why they left. Rather
(18:14):
than be associated with this kind of technology. They said
that this was quote trading on the tragedy of the
Uval Day and Buffalo shootings. And then they also said
they had lost faith in Axons ability to be a
responsible partner, and they were very concerned about this stuff
(18:37):
being deployed in minority communities, minority schools that they felt
were already over policed. And one of the lines that
really stood out to me from this statement was the
following quote, we wish it had not come to this.
Each of us joined this board in the belief that
we could influence the direction of the company in ways
that would help mitigate the harms the policing technology can
(19:00):
so and better capture any benefits. And later one of
the board members, a guy named Barry Friedman, who is
a law professor at n y U. He said it
had been a painful struggle for most of most of
his time on the board to try to talk acts
(19:21):
on back from the brink of doing potentially disastrous things
in a in a search for I guess good, a
well intentioned search for safety and of course, inseparably profits.
I just I don't know, man, did your did your
school have a metal detector? No, I've I've know. There
(19:43):
may have been a metal detector at the entrances of
a few buildings down in Georgia State, in downtown Atlanta,
but not not where I went to. Like you know
k through twelve mm. It feels. Man. The more I'm
thinking about this, I can total the see why the
advisory board would have such a problem. They're thinking long term.
(20:05):
No matter how good of an idea you think, this
is to protect schools, even if you don't believe that
it will you know, be used in instances of racial
injustice and other forms of injustice and issues within the school.
Even if you don't think about that, think about when
there's a huge number of these things in circulation at
(20:26):
schools in cities across you know, at least the United
States or potentially the world, and there's some kind of
peaceful protests, some kind of gathering of people to speak
out against something, and let's say a public square that
happens to be fairly close to a school. Could those
things be deployed as like crowd control? Could they be
(20:50):
deployed as non lethal deterrence for things like that? And if,
if you know, ACXON sees a lot of growth because
of that, would they not then just sell a bunch
of these that are I mean, this is me just
completely making things up, but a bunch of these that
are somehow attached to a vehicle that could be you know,
(21:11):
just driven up to an area where protest is occurring
and they just fly out like some horrifying black mirror scenario.
I mean, you can totally see that. It's the it's
the slope that doth slip. Yes, but I love the
art of that. We've been going a little bit long
(21:34):
on this one, so before we pause, just a couple
of quick points. Primary sources are key in any any search.
You know, um, for many people who are listening to
the show today, you may have lost someone to a
(21:54):
firearm debt. Unfortunately, the statistics speak for themselves here, and
everyone we can reasonably assume is looking for some sort
of solution. People differ in their opinions on what those solutions. Maybe.
If you want to learn more about why Rick Smith
(22:17):
of Acts on Enterprise proposed this plan before quickly you know,
walking it back, then, I recommend you check out his
a m A interview or his a m A thread
on Reddit. A m A stands for ask me Anything,
and numerous people will go on this forum and they'll
(22:39):
say just that, ask me anything, and they'll give you
a little note about what they really want to talk about.
The absolute worst one being Woody Harrelson's debacle when he
went to promote a movie called Rampart. Rampart, But you
can hear from him directly, and he seems like he's
arguing in good faith. You don't have to agree with him,
(23:00):
but if you want to learn more about, you know,
his logic, then check that out. More importantly, for our purposes,
we want to hear from you. We haven't talked about
this very often on the show, but it's inescapable. There
are many mass shootings here in the United States, so
much so that, as we said at the top, they
(23:21):
have become normalized. Everyone agrees there's a problem. What do
you think a solution would look like? Three st d
w y t K. You can also find us a
conspiracy iHeart radio dot Com. We're gonna pause for a
word from our sponsors and will return and we're back. Ben.
(23:50):
I think it was Noel who recommended the show, or
maybe it was you. I can't remember the HBO show
We Own This City, which is David Simon's next like
project at least that he's been working on. Looking at
Baltimore and the years surrounding the Freddy Gray incident and
Burner Um pretty interesting and because of that last segment.
(24:12):
I just have images again of police being able to
release these things for everything from street policing to no
knock warrants, like serving a no knock warrant with a
little several drones that surround a building. It's terrifying to me. H, Okay,
let's move on to something else. Uh. Cancer, we've all
(24:34):
got it, well, not yet. Maybe we just don't know
about it yet. Plastics got it, got it well. I'm
being a little joking about this because I have many
people in my family who have suffered from cancer. A
few you've made it through, several have not. And I
(24:54):
know that most of us listening are in the same situation.
You've probably been affected by cancer in your uh personal
life in some way. Well, we have some astoundingly seemingly
good news on the cancer front, which doesn't happen very often,
and it comes to us via a single study, a
(25:17):
very small clinical trial. But there's there's silver in this lining,
and let's let's talk about it in this rectal lining.
I'm sorry we are going to be talking about rectum's.
Just prepare yourselves. It's fine, everybody listening. We don't need
to warn you a rectum is a butt. That's okay. Look,
(25:40):
I know you're riding in the car with your mom. Uh,
she thinks butts are funny too. It's totally fine. She
She may not tell you, but butts are. Butts are funny.
Cancer is not. So let's talk about this. Let's start
with NBC New York. The title of an article is
NYC cancer trial delivers quote unheard of result, complete remission
(26:04):
for everyone. This was posted June six two, that is,
two days prior to us recording this. It's incredible. A
group of people, twelve individuals who were suffering from cancer,
took a new drug. They took it for six months,
(26:24):
administered every three weeks, and when they finished taking those
drugs for six months, they were looked at for an
additional six month period by the people running this trial.
And at the end of that time, they were all
tested in various ways, all the ways you would pet scans,
m r s, and all kinds of other ways, and
(26:46):
in all twelve patients who were a part of this study,
no cancer was found. They were all suffering from a
very specific type of colorectal cancer that had a specific mutation. Uh,
but my goodness, you guys, a drug cured people of cancer.
(27:06):
At least that's the way it seems according to the
small number of people, the small sample size that was
used in this study. As it currently stands. I'm gonna
jump over quickly to the New England Journal of Medicine
just to give you some of the cold heart facts
about this and you can read this as well. Good
luck finding it by its actual title, because the title
(27:29):
is p D one blockade in mismatch repair deficient locally
advanced rectal cancer. Oh, it's an important title. It's the
thing is and I know we're going to get to it.
But the reason that sounds so specific and coveatted is
because it needs to be as you say it is. Yeah,
(27:50):
it very much is. Um. But this this article is
worth reading. It is widely linked on you. You can
read the abstract. You might need to put a little
more legwork into reading the full thing. Yes, there there
actually is quite a bit of leg work to understand this. Um.
(28:13):
Let me just read from the abstract of this in
the results section, just so we all are on the
same page. Here, a total of twelve patients have completed
the treatment with this drug. It is titled doe star
lim ab d O s t a r l I
m a b as a drug that was created by
(28:33):
Glaxo Smith Klein, one of the giants in the pharmaceutical industry.
The patients underwent six months of follow up after going
through this treatment, and all patients had a clinical this
is a good quote, had a clinical complete response with
no evidence of tumor on m r I imaging on
(28:57):
p et positron emission tomorrow, a graphy and descopic evaluation,
digital rectal examination or biopsy. So literally zero. It's not
like they just went, oh, hey, no cancer. They looked
for that cancer and they could not find it. That's huge.
It also states that when this report was released, which
(29:18):
was on June five, only three days prior to US
recording this uh, they say that no patients had received
like chemotherapy or undergone surgery, and no cases of progression
or recurrence had been reported during the follow up. That's
six months. Oh. It says there's a range here of
six to twenty five months for some of the patients.
(29:41):
Six months being the the the minimar end, right, the minimum. Yeah,
how do I forget the word minimum? Yeah? They're also
more importantly, I mean just as importantly, I would say
there were no severe side effects, which means, like to
harp on that a bit um. There are many, many drugs, medicines,
(30:04):
and treatments for any number of human conditions that can
address that root problem while creating other problems along the way,
and this specific treatment doesn't seem to have that drawback.
That's only one of the one of the reasons that
(30:24):
so many scientists and experts in their field are calling
this unheard of and unprecedented. That's not hyperbolee, folks. This
has not happened before. Yep, it's not happened before. And Ben,
you brought something up. This is you know, it sounds
like such a small clinical trial. Twelve individual patients, there
(30:45):
are more correct. When we were we were looking up
some of the reporting was a bit odd. Some people
were stating eighteen patients. Some people are stating twelve patients.
Some are saying more than that. Uh, including the New
York Times. I believe they quoted eighteen patients, But then
the actual journal quotes twelve patients. What did we find.
We found that this is an ongoing trial, so all
(31:08):
the like, if you look at the patients all told,
then Ultimately the number is supposed to hit thirty patients.
I think that was the plan from the jump, but
I guess the results were so spectacular that they wanted
to share this immediately and get the eyes of their
colleagues and peers on on this because it's fascinating and
(31:32):
it's it's good news in a area of medicine that
sorely needs good news. And to underline how big a
deal this is, even with all the caveats, let's I
think we can just throw a quick stat out everyone's way.
If you look at the National Cancer Institute and you
(31:52):
factor in all the variables, all the different types of cancer,
all the different genetic factors, people's individual life decisions, environmental contaminations,
so on the ultimate lifetime risk, the ultimate chance of
you getting cancer sometime in your life is about thirty
(32:13):
seven point five percent to forty two point zero five,
no matter how clean you're trying to live, no matter
how cancer free your genetic predisposition. Maybe the fact of
the matter is the odds are higher than you think.
I know. So that's why these kinds of revolutionary treatments,
(32:38):
these new drugs, are so important. It really is. And
with that We're going to take a quick break here
from a sponsor and we will be right back. And
we've returned. Let's just let's dump more into what the
drug actually does. In a few were facts about this study.
(33:01):
I'm going to jump to n d t V. They've
got a quick little article here titled ten points on
dos star lam Ab, the weird drug title that cured
cancer patients. This this study was conducted at the Memorial
Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in Manhattan, United States. That's where
it actually occurred. All of those patients that we've talked
(33:24):
about had a very specific type of cancer. We talked
about that. It's uh, they also were at a specific
stage of cancer originated in the rectum and it had
spread in some cases only to a few lymphs like
lymph nodes within that section of the body. But it
had not spread further into their body. So it was localized, right,
(33:48):
The cancer that was being treated wasn't throughout the body um.
That's that's an important fact. This this medicine that was
given every three weeks for the period. According to the
New York Times, it costs around eleven thousand dollars per dose,
(34:09):
So think about that what if we did find the
cure for cancer, but absolutely ten people in the world
could afford it, what I mean what I don't know
how it would work, if it was prescribed, and how
insurance would work for this drug or anything like that,
but that seems like a steep price. Also, we have
(34:30):
to remember, because this research is ongoing, the results are unprecedented. Right,
these scientists did look at those cancer cells and say
ha ha hashtag w rectum. But they did not I know.
I'm sorry, but I know, I know, I know, but
they didn't. They don't have confirmation that this is a
(34:54):
lifetime elimination, you know what I mean, the difference between
cure and remission. So it's possible. Again, no one knows.
It's possible that there may be a situation where that
specific cancer returns and one has to undergo this treatment
regiment or a similar regimen at some point in the future,
(35:15):
maybe a decade hence or something. We we just don't know.
But still again, sorely needed good news. Oh yeah, sorely needed, dude.
Just on the drug itself. This is stuff I don't understand.
I'm gonna much like the scientific reporting done in places
across the internet, I'm going to regurgitate some stuff that
I just read that I don't fully understand, and I
(35:38):
need a you know, a scientist or someone who actually
reads these things and understands these things too to tell
me what they mean. But this dose starlam mab, according
to NBC New York, it is a monoclonal antibody, which
is antibodies like the ones that we have within our selves,
(35:59):
within our working, functional human bodies to fight illness. These
are things that go through and we'll we'll kill the
bad stuff theoretically that shouldn't be in our bodies. Well,
this is a lab made version of that, and they
are lab designed to fight specific things that the body finds.
But also, interestingly enough, at least according to NBC New York, uh,
(36:24):
this substance, the just starlam mab, it in a way
turns on the the immune system itself. So it's like
it activates your own antibodies that you've got going on
in your body already to fight the thing that's not
supposed to be in there, the cancer selves. Oh and uh,
(36:44):
but as someone who is also not an authority on
this in any way, I do want to point out, uh,
something we didn't hit on the title. I don't think
p D one reason that's yeah. Uh. That stands for
programmed death receptor, which is kind of mental for the
(37:05):
cancer cell itself, like it jumps on and it programs death.
It's like you're gonna die cancer. It is a program
death receptor one blocking monoclonal antibodies. So we're already in
deep water for us here, Matt, but I just too
deep but life saving, you know, especially considering I don't
(37:29):
I have a question for you regarding this. I don't
want to de relist, but does this have substantive significance
for um potential treatments of other forms of cancer in
the future. It's like it, but I don't know. Don't
ask me that kind of question because I can't answer it.
(37:51):
What I can do is send everybody over to YouTube
check out, and I apologize, sir if I'm not pronouncing
this correct. Clee Vene Prasad, who's a doctor, uh he has.
He's got a great video series where he breaks down
scientific studies, clinical trials, papers that come out like this
(38:13):
that are gobbledegook in many ways. To me, he does
a great job of breaking this kind of stuff down
and you. I would just recommend him in particular, but
there are also a lot of other YouTube channels and
you know, social media sites that can help you understand
this better. Uh as uh Dr Prasad did me um
(38:34):
when I say that, I still don't understand it, So
maybe you didn't do them the perfect job and you
at least help man, Thank you for helping, and thank
you for all of the fantastic work. I mean, explaining,
explaining the nuts and bolts of this is no mean feat.
(38:57):
It's not easy to do. Uh. And I I saw
that video as well, Matt, and I gotta I gotta say,
I don't think. I don't think it's on that YouTuber
At least in my case, it's on me for not
fully understanding. Oh no, no, for sure, it's it's come on, yeah,
I look, I passed all the necessary exams to get
(39:17):
a college degree. That doesn't mean I understand anything. And
also it was is an arts degree whatever? Uh who
so hey, let's hear it for a response rate in
twelve individuals. That sounds awesome. There's hopefully something there. Don't
get your hopes up yet because it is only twelve people.
(39:41):
But Glaxo Smith klin is definitely, you know, giving itself
a little slow clap, like, man, we did a really
great job buying that to sorrow company that that designed
to this drug a little while back. And also, you know,
from close up these sorts of breakthroughs can look like
they might be smaller than they are. Right, Cancer is
(40:04):
a killer, and there are many people listening. Many of
our fellow listeners today have battled cancer themselves, are battling
some form of cancer, have survived some form of cancer,
or almost doubtlessly have a loved one who has been
one of those situations. So we don't know how this
(40:25):
will work out, but it is quite possible that this
will lead to more improvements already, even in just that sphere,
you know, here's hoping that all eventually thirty strong members
of this trial will find themselves free of cancer at
the conclusion. And just to throw some more good news
(40:45):
out there, I was looking at some stats earlier before recorded,
and I didn't know this bet, but according to the
American Cancer Society, the risk of dying from cancer in
the US has actually decreased over the past twenty eight years.
So people are fighting the good fight. Guess awesome indeed
(41:07):
been blasting. Uh. You may see this drug if you
ever encounter it in your life, if you're being treated
for cancer, or anyone ever offers it to you, you
may see the drug titled as Jim Harley j E
M P A r l I. That is the the
brand name of the substance that was created by T.
(41:28):
Sorrow It's Massachusetts company that was acquired by Glaxo Smith
Klein a couple of years back in nineteen. Yes, yes,
I'm just laughing because I originally misread it as Jumanji,
and I thought, there's no no way they can get
ready with that. They're just releasing a whole bunch of
animals into your body. Um, that's what it is. There. Yeah,
(41:52):
there are tiny, tiny little animals that just get released
and there's attack the bad thing. It's perfect, so awesome though,
since early it's one of my favorite things about the
human species is that people are so intelligent and working
around the clock to help other people. And we'll leave it.
We'll just stop there. That was a good thought, man.
(42:16):
I so badly wanted to talk about Glaxo Smith Klein
and how much they spend on lobbying and the industry
and like it's bad man, and they're not the same
as the scientist. There there are no huge problems with
with any for profit pharmaceutical entity. I almost feel you
(42:36):
know what, I almost feel like you and I looked
at each other just for a second in silence on
this call and thought, maybe we'll give him a pass
today exactly what I was like, Oh, I'm not gonna
do it. I'm not gonna do it. I'm just gonna say, yep,
good people helping people. That's good. That's a happy Scientists
are great. The scientists are great. But in the end,
(42:59):
it's a company that spends My god, if you go
to open secrets dot org, that was just perusing there.
I tend to do that sometimes. If you look up
Glaxo Smith client, it's got from the year two to
oh wow, going back to nineteen all the money that
they have reported, like officially reported that they spend on lobbying,
(43:21):
and just this year so far they're paying venable lll
p FA, Greed Drinker at All W Strategies, Thorn Run Partners,
SIMS Strategies, JST Strategies, east End Group, Capital Council, b
GR Group, Alpine Group. We're talking fifty grand, sixty grand.
(43:42):
I mean, just every time all those people I mentioned,
just yeah, we're not going to give them a pass.
Let's also mention that h G. S K Glaxo Smith
client had to pay a fine of three billion dollars
layers to the US government for illegally promoting Paxel to
(44:05):
treat depression in children. Let's see what they also had
to be guilty and um into accounts of introducing other
misbranded drugs like well butrin. Their hands aren't clean, is
what we're saying. None of the pharmaceutical giants are and
it's the nature of what they do. And we're trying
(44:26):
to be nice right now. This is us being nice.
Uh so, uh twelve people, good for you. Awesome, Hopefully
thirty We just will keep our fingers crossed for the
rest of y'all. Um, Hopefully it becomes a drug that
(44:46):
doesn't cost eleven thousand dollars per pop. Hopefully don't die
for the crime of being poor, and which is you know,
I would say if you look at it in the
big picture, that is when the leading causes of death
in the US and arguably abroad. But there I think
we leave it for now. Folks, we cannot wait to
(45:09):
hear your thoughts. Is humanity on the precipice of finally
making terminal cancer a thing of the past. How do
you see this playing out? Do you think that it
will end up being a treatment reserved for the rich?
Do you think there are more variables ahead? What do
(45:30):
you wish more people in general knew about the Big Sea?
And then also tell us what you think about drones
with tasers attached operating wirelessly in your school or in
your children's school. Are you for it? Are you against it?
We want to hear your thoughts. Also, what's your take
(45:51):
on bees being fish? I think that's just really interesting
to both of us. Uh, we can't wait to hear
from you. Uh. Give us a shout over on the
internet where we're easy to find, Facebook, YouTube, and by
the way, yes we do check out all of those
social media platforms. I want to give a special thank
(46:12):
you and specific to our fellow conspiracy realist Justin Richards,
who it turned out, I think also also talked about
the taser drone plans on our Facebook page. Here's where
it gets crazy, and big, big thanks to everybody who
reached out to us regarding the sweepstakes for the book.
(46:35):
Congratulations and trempid conspiracy realist, We hope you enjoy it.
For everybody else who's saying I want to copy the book, well,
if you would like for us all to continue this
crazy endeavor together, then one of the best ways you
can help us, now, if you're able, is to go
pre order the book at stuff. You should read books
dot com. That's the spiel. I just have to do
(46:57):
it every time I see that Honda Odyssey slowly pulling
up past past my street as we record. But let's
say you don't you don't like sipping the social meets.
You heard our episodes and you said, nah, I get
it big data. If it's free, that means you're the product. Geez,
I can't get on the internet anymore. But I have
a story to tell you, Matt Pray, tell how can
(47:19):
people get in touch with us? Then? Well, just hop
on the Old Mayflower, which is not the one you think.
It's an automated ship and it's recently sailed across the
seas to Canada because I had to make a weird
extra trip. But I was just thinking about that. Because
we're talking about drones, Well, they fly through the air
(47:40):
with tasers. What if there are ships that are automated
drones that run on AI and they're just floating around,
except they've got cannons. Oh boy, anyway, call us. Our
number is one eight three three std W y t K.
Tell us about all the things that we've been saying
this episode. Give us your thoughts. Please, please, please, We're
(48:03):
making our way through. We've still got a ways to go,
but we want to hear from you regardless, we will
hear from you. When you call in. Give yourself a
cool name, whatever you want it to be, it doesn't matter.
Please within the message, let us know if we can
use your name and message on the air. And remember
that you only have three minutes when you call in.
(48:24):
It cuts you off after three minutes, so if you've
got more to say they can fit in that timeframe.
Why not instead send us a good old fashioned email.
We are conspiracy at i heart radio dot com. Stuff
(48:55):
they don't want you to know is a production of
I heart Radio. For more podcasts from my heart Radio,
you visit the i heart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or
wherever you listen to your favorite shows.
From UFOs to psychic powers and government conspiracies. History is
riddled with unexplained events. You can turn back now or
learn the stuff they don't want you to know. A
production of I Heart Radio. Hello, welcome back to the show.
(00:25):
My name is Mett. They call me Ben. You're joined
as always with our super producer Paul. Mission controlled decade.
Most importantly, you are you. You are here, and that
makes this the stuff they don't want you to know.
War fomenting across multiple areas of the world, North Korea
(00:47):
launching some more missiles, finally admitting they have COVID, and
of course, Matt, as you and I were discussing right
before we rolled, bees are for legal purposes now fish
in in some places, bees are fish now. Congratulations everybody,
we did it, finally coming. I don't know how that's
(01:11):
us getting them, you and I, but well, they called
it fly fishing for so long, and you're like, you know,
why why do they call it fly fishing. I'm just
imagining people now out in the middle of a field,
in a meadow just trying to catch all them fish.
(01:31):
And it's it's funny because just really quickly on that
where we're specifically referencing a recent ruling in California that
it's a little bit um, I don't know, it's a
little bit headlining and click baity for us just to
say bees or fish, But technically it means that bees
(01:52):
are invertebrates that the court allows to fall under the
statute definition of fish for environmental and conservationist purposes. So
still bes are fish. That's all you need. That's the
only takeaway I know, right, So, uh, we opened with
(02:13):
some hard hitting the real news wars, starvation, food supply crisis,
and and bees. But now don't forget the water. Yes, Matt,
Today you and I are going to one of our
favorite weekly segments, Strange News, and we're going to talk
(02:34):
about you know, we don't always get to do this,
but I think we're both very excited because we get
to explore some very good news, some news that may
well be historic. We're gonna talk a little bit about
some heavy stuff, and then we're also going to talk
about some potentially amazing, very much life saving stuff, and
(02:58):
we'll do it with the shorty you have come to
expect from stuff they don't want you to know, which
means I will endeavor unsuccessfully to keep my butt jokes
at a minimum. Oh, your butt jokes were already strong
in this episode before we started rolling, so I can't
wait for that jeez. All right, well, maybe our our
(03:20):
first story met that. Um, we should start out with
concerns mass shootings in the United States, but not in
the way that you think. You know, this is, um,
this is one of those situations that the English language,
with all its weird pirated words, still does not have
(03:44):
a proper term for tragedy, doesn't cover it right. Atrocity
doesn't quite fit either. Um. You know, it's scary that
it's scary, and it's heartbreaking, honestly that mass shootings in
the US have become normalized for the population. People are dying.
(04:05):
Everyone knows there is a huge systemic problem. No one
can agree universe. No one has proposed a solution that
all parties agree to, And I would argue, you know,
part of that clearly is due to um moneyed interest
right putting their hand in the conversation tail as old
(04:27):
as time, same as it ever was. But our starting
story today is about a near miss, like a matrix dodge,
And I don't know if it's a good near miss,
if it's a bad near miss. I guess it depends
on your perspective. But Matt, you know what we're talking about. Oh,
I do know what we're talking about. We're talking about
a group of people, a small group of people, who
(04:49):
thought they had come up with an answer to that problem, like,
how do we prevent mass shootings at least in specific
places where we really don't want mass shootings to happen
i e. You know, schools and perhaps in the future churches,
other places like that of mass gathering. Uh, they thought
(05:10):
they found an answer. They really really did. Yes, they
really did. Our story starts with a group called Axon
Air a x O. N Axon Air manufactures drones. If
you go to their website axon dot com, then you
(05:30):
will see that their primary mission, what they consider their remit,
is to be an end to end drone solution which
has all the bells and whistles of surveillance and with
the aim being public safety. So this means they have
wireless live streaming video capability. Uh, they can interface in
(05:54):
a network. They allow for what you would call real
time situational awareness, which is a huge thing that all
the modern militaries of the world are looking for as
well as law enforcement, even you know, even race race
car drivers, race car teams are looking for stuff like
(06:14):
this because if you can know what's happening while it's
happening on the ground, you can avoid the fog of war.
And you can also if you go with Axon enroll
in training programs. They really want to be stem to stern,
soup to nuts. And a few days ago, not too
long ago, Axon said they were gonna work to build
(06:39):
drones that could fly in school, and they specifically said
this would help prevent the next Duvall Day, the next
Sandy Hook, the next Columby. How would it help prevent
we have these robotic insects flying around, Well, it would
help prevent mass shootings, Acson argued, because the drones would
(07:03):
be armed with tasers, which are technically less than lethal weapons.
It's an important distinction. You know. It always bugs me.
I don't know about you, Matt, but it always bugs
me when I hear people describe things like tasers as
non lethal. Tell that to someone you know with a
faulty ticker. You think, less less than lethal is the
(07:27):
only way you can phrase it. Well, let's talk Let's
talk about Taser in particular, because that's that's one of
those band aid situations, right. Uh, it's a it's a
proper noun for a thing. A taser gun made by Taser.
That's the ones that have the two the two prickly
bits that shoot out and shock you. They both have
(07:50):
to hit and remember that's important. Um. But they also
make you know, stun guns that just have the two
nodes that shooting electrical arc across. But Taser is the
proper noun. The company that is now known as ax On.
I didn't know that before we did this story. Yes,
that's correct, just like um, just like Blackwater XE. However,
(08:18):
you yeah, don't, don't get married to that name. I'm
sure they'll change it, you know, the next time the
news cycle finds him again. But yes, Taser changed its name.
If you want to learn the full history of Taser
as a company, do check out our pal Robert Evans
um Camera. I think it did. I think it was
(08:39):
behind the Bastards. I should know because it was on
that episode or that series. But anyway, it has a
long controversial history. And what do you do when you
have a long controversial history. You rebrand. Baby, It's America.
That's not me anymore. You know, Taser was really smart.
(09:01):
What they would do is spend all of that money
that I'm sure they spend on lobbying, as all of
these companies do, and uh, try and convince you know,
the lawmakers within the United States that Americans should own
tasers and stunt guns instead of guns. Right, and then
you could get tasers in the hands of everybody and
(09:22):
there'd be eight million tasers in the world instead of guns.
That would be smart Taser, you should do that. Yeah,
So Taser as well acts on enterprise, we should say,
which is I'm being kind of unfair. They were founded
ninety three. They were just always best known for tasers,
and that's what they had called themselves. It's got an
(09:44):
interesting entomology. It's based on a novel made in nineteen
eleven called Tom Swift and his Electric Rifle. And so
the guy who came up with this idea NASA researcher,
by the way, decided to just play with the language
a little and call it taser. Uh. These things were
(10:05):
originally classified as firearms, by the way, you don't hear
too much about now, but it's because they used to
use gunpowder as they're propellant. Anyhow, fast forward modern day
mats shootings. This company, which is publicly traded, their CEO,
Rick Smith, said shortly after the latest school shooting in Texas,
(10:29):
he said he felt compelled to make this idea of
taser equipped drones in grade schools public because he was
catastrophically disappointed in the response by police who did not
move in to kill the suspect for more than an hour.
And that is a true story, by the way, folks,
if you are not in the US or you haven't
(10:51):
been following that news, police presence was there at the
school and simply refused to enter. I unders do anything
to say to that. Yeah, but there's I mean, it's
a fact. It's not my opinion. Yeah yeah. And he
said in his statement which you can you can read.
(11:11):
It's an interview with the Associated Press, he said that
at this point he's going public with this as a
reaction to the tragedy, to the atrocity. And he was
very clear that no actual product had been launched, and
he said any potential launch would be kind of quote
down the road, right, so no definitive deployment date. But
(11:36):
he said he felt he needed to share the idea
now because it was kind of in the zeitgeist. There
was there wasn't his strident public conversation and debate about
how to increase safety for schools. You'll hear people argue
any number of things and prioritize them any number of ways. Um.
(12:00):
One I think that is particularly shortsighted is the idea
of effectively turning a school into a box canyon, making
it one one entry exit point and just I guess
worrying about that later during a fire or something. Anyhow So,
and this is not dunking on people who thought that
(12:22):
was a big answer. It's just they're reacting and there
if they're politicians, they're reacting to what they see as
an opportunity for poll numbers. If they're people, they're reacting
to try to find a way to try to find
a way to prevent more mass deaths. And that's in
a political statement at that point. Anyhow So, there we go,
(12:45):
this has this mass shooting occurs, and this one in
particular uh and inspires or compels his words the CEO
to say, we are working on what we feel is
a solution, a solution in that it would be a
less than lethal approach right to uh to a perpetrator.
(13:09):
And it would also avoid involving human law enforcement on
the scene. Right, So maybe it would circumvent that problem.
It's heavily implied, so it isn't the concept also that
the drones themselves would not be operated by the local
police force. It would be a separate third party that
(13:30):
actually controls and operates the drones. Maybe maybe I read
that wrong. I was reading the Vice article you shared, Ben.
It seemed like that's one of the major issues the
the board took issue with the ethics board. Yeah, the
this is an article from Janice Rose over Vice Motherboard.
(13:50):
And I don't want to give the headline just yet
because we'll save it just for a second. But also
while we're shouting out journalist, which we always love to do,
want to shout Michael Balsamo over a p News as
well as Matt O'Brien also over a p Okay. Here's
the here's the headline. Here's what happened. So they went
(14:13):
public with this statement, and they're a big company, know
they're successful. Uh. They announced just a few days later,
just like forty eight hours ago as we record this,
that one they had an ethics board, which I wasn't
aware of that accent. And two that the vast majority
(14:34):
of their ethics board resigned once this announcement came through,
and that led them to say again just forty eight
hours ago, that they are not in fact going to
go forward with making drone armed tasers. Uh. This ethics
board is particularly concerned with artificial intelligence. And Smith said, look,
(14:59):
we wanted this statement was meant to quote initiate a
conversation on this as a potential solution. And then he said,
I want to what you think of this man? And
then he said the ensuing discussion quote provided us with
a deeper appreciation of the complex and important considerations end
(15:20):
quote around this issue. So I don't know, what, what
do you think about this? Do you think that means
they're going to come back with a different idea or
do you think they're gonna just throw it out. That's
a tough Uh, that's a tough one for me. It
feels like they're going to throw it out at least
for a while. My understanding from the statement given by
(15:40):
that advisory board, or at least by someone speaking on
behalf of the members who resigned on that advisory board
is that they did discuss attempting this, but doing it
in a tiny little pilot program. Right, let's pick one
school or one place, one community that decides this is
an okay idea, then we'll try it there. What happens.
(16:01):
But then I guess the advisory board, the ethics committee,
they decided, well, we should probably not do that. But
the actual company and that person Mr Smith, I guess
who runs the company, made that announcement that yes, this
is going to happen, we are doing this. It seems
as though, in my mind the company really wants to
(16:22):
make it happen and they'll do what they need to
make it happen or something like that. Because it does
feel like a way to get your company and it's
products in a lot of places, right that I think
the company will at least attempt to do it in
some other way at some other time maybe, um, because
it does seem smart. It seems like a smart business
(16:45):
attempt at least. Do you can see the profits that
would be there? Yeah, I agree with you, because if
you think about it, and just in purely profit motivated terms,
and we're not saying that anybody at acts on is
a bad. To be clear, Uh, if you think about
it in purely profit defined terms, then every business in
(17:07):
the US conceivably wants to get a contract with the government,
right with the government of the land. Their coffers are
nearly endless. They will guarantee work for multiple years. And
you are at one of the juiciest troughs in all
(17:27):
of capitalism. If you can, if you can get your snout,
you know, just up in that junk, then you are
going to be fat and happy. Again, this is not
This maybe a crass picture, right, but I want to
go back to this board. So this board earlier had
(17:48):
voted not to proceed with the pilot of the Taser drone,
or they voted against recommending that I go forward. They
can't cut it off themselves, which is why they had
to resign. They voted eight to four against it, and
then nine people resigned after the statement, and they issued
an extraordinarily rare public explanation of why they left. Rather
(18:14):
than be associated with this kind of technology. They said
that this was quote trading on the tragedy of the
Uval Day and Buffalo shootings. And then they also said
they had lost faith in Axons ability to be a
responsible partner, and they were very concerned about this stuff
(18:37):
being deployed in minority communities, minority schools that they felt
were already over policed. And one of the lines that
really stood out to me from this statement was the
following quote, we wish it had not come to this.
Each of us joined this board in the belief that
we could influence the direction of the company in ways
that would help mitigate the harms the policing technology can
(19:00):
so and better capture any benefits. And later one of
the board members, a guy named Barry Friedman, who is
a law professor at n y U. He said it
had been a painful struggle for most of most of
his time on the board to try to talk acts
(19:21):
on back from the brink of doing potentially disastrous things
in a in a search for I guess good, a
well intentioned search for safety and of course, inseparably profits.
I just I don't know, man, did your did your
school have a metal detector? No, I've I've know. There
(19:43):
may have been a metal detector at the entrances of
a few buildings down in Georgia State, in downtown Atlanta,
but not not where I went to. Like you know
k through twelve mm. It feels. Man. The more I'm
thinking about this, I can total the see why the
advisory board would have such a problem. They're thinking long term.
(20:05):
No matter how good of an idea you think, this
is to protect schools, even if you don't believe that
it will you know, be used in instances of racial
injustice and other forms of injustice and issues within the school.
Even if you don't think about that, think about when
there's a huge number of these things in circulation at
(20:26):
schools in cities across you know, at least the United
States or potentially the world, and there's some kind of
peaceful protests, some kind of gathering of people to speak
out against something, and let's say a public square that
happens to be fairly close to a school. Could those
things be deployed as like crowd control? Could they be
(20:50):
deployed as non lethal deterrence for things like that? And if,
if you know, ACXON sees a lot of growth because
of that, would they not then just sell a bunch
of these that are I mean, this is me just
completely making things up, but a bunch of these that
are somehow attached to a vehicle that could be you know,
(21:11):
just driven up to an area where protest is occurring
and they just fly out like some horrifying black mirror scenario.
I mean, you can totally see that. It's the it's
the slope that doth slip. Yes, but I love the
art of that. We've been going a little bit long
(21:34):
on this one, so before we pause, just a couple
of quick points. Primary sources are key in any any search.
You know, um, for many people who are listening to
the show today, you may have lost someone to a
(21:54):
firearm debt. Unfortunately, the statistics speak for themselves here, and
everyone we can reasonably assume is looking for some sort
of solution. People differ in their opinions on what those solutions. Maybe.
If you want to learn more about why Rick Smith
(22:17):
of Acts on Enterprise proposed this plan before quickly you know,
walking it back, then, I recommend you check out his
a m A interview or his a m A thread
on Reddit. A m A stands for ask me Anything,
and numerous people will go on this forum and they'll
(22:39):
say just that, ask me anything, and they'll give you
a little note about what they really want to talk about.
The absolute worst one being Woody Harrelson's debacle when he
went to promote a movie called Rampart. Rampart, But you
can hear from him directly, and he seems like he's
arguing in good faith. You don't have to agree with him,
(23:00):
but if you want to learn more about, you know,
his logic, then check that out. More importantly, for our purposes,
we want to hear from you. We haven't talked about
this very often on the show, but it's inescapable. There
are many mass shootings here in the United States, so
much so that, as we said at the top, they
(23:21):
have become normalized. Everyone agrees there's a problem. What do
you think a solution would look like? Three st d
w y t K. You can also find us a
conspiracy iHeart radio dot Com. We're gonna pause for a
word from our sponsors and will return and we're back. Ben.
(23:50):
I think it was Noel who recommended the show, or
maybe it was you. I can't remember the HBO show
We Own This City, which is David Simon's next like
project at least that he's been working on. Looking at
Baltimore and the years surrounding the Freddy Gray incident and
Burner Um pretty interesting and because of that last segment.
(24:12):
I just have images again of police being able to
release these things for everything from street policing to no
knock warrants, like serving a no knock warrant with a
little several drones that surround a building. It's terrifying to me. H, Okay,
let's move on to something else. Uh. Cancer, we've all
(24:34):
got it, well, not yet. Maybe we just don't know
about it yet. Plastics got it, got it well. I'm
being a little joking about this because I have many
people in my family who have suffered from cancer. A
few you've made it through, several have not. And I
(24:54):
know that most of us listening are in the same situation.
You've probably been affected by cancer in your uh personal
life in some way. Well, we have some astoundingly seemingly
good news on the cancer front, which doesn't happen very often,
and it comes to us via a single study, a
(25:17):
very small clinical trial. But there's there's silver in this lining,
and let's let's talk about it in this rectal lining.
I'm sorry we are going to be talking about rectum's.
Just prepare yourselves. It's fine, everybody listening. We don't need
to warn you a rectum is a butt. That's okay. Look,
(25:40):
I know you're riding in the car with your mom. Uh,
she thinks butts are funny too. It's totally fine. She
She may not tell you, but butts are. Butts are funny.
Cancer is not. So let's talk about this. Let's start
with NBC New York. The title of an article is
NYC cancer trial delivers quote unheard of result, complete remission
(26:04):
for everyone. This was posted June six two, that is,
two days prior to us recording this. It's incredible. A
group of people, twelve individuals who were suffering from cancer,
took a new drug. They took it for six months,
(26:24):
administered every three weeks, and when they finished taking those
drugs for six months, they were looked at for an
additional six month period by the people running this trial.
And at the end of that time, they were all
tested in various ways, all the ways you would pet scans,
m r s, and all kinds of other ways, and
(26:46):
in all twelve patients who were a part of this study,
no cancer was found. They were all suffering from a
very specific type of colorectal cancer that had a specific mutation. Uh,
but my goodness, you guys, a drug cured people of cancer.
(27:06):
At least that's the way it seems according to the
small number of people, the small sample size that was
used in this study. As it currently stands. I'm gonna
jump over quickly to the New England Journal of Medicine
just to give you some of the cold heart facts
about this and you can read this as well. Good
luck finding it by its actual title, because the title
(27:29):
is p D one blockade in mismatch repair deficient locally
advanced rectal cancer. Oh, it's an important title. It's the
thing is and I know we're going to get to it.
But the reason that sounds so specific and coveatted is
because it needs to be as you say it is. Yeah,
(27:50):
it very much is. Um. But this this article is
worth reading. It is widely linked on you. You can
read the abstract. You might need to put a little
more legwork into reading the full thing. Yes, there there
actually is quite a bit of leg work to understand this. Um.
(28:13):
Let me just read from the abstract of this in
the results section, just so we all are on the
same page. Here, a total of twelve patients have completed
the treatment with this drug. It is titled doe star
lim ab d O s t a r l I
m a b as a drug that was created by
(28:33):
Glaxo Smith Klein, one of the giants in the pharmaceutical industry.
The patients underwent six months of follow up after going
through this treatment, and all patients had a clinical this
is a good quote, had a clinical complete response with
no evidence of tumor on m r I imaging on
(28:57):
p et positron emission tomorrow, a graphy and descopic evaluation,
digital rectal examination or biopsy. So literally zero. It's not
like they just went, oh, hey, no cancer. They looked
for that cancer and they could not find it. That's huge.
It also states that when this report was released, which
(29:18):
was on June five, only three days prior to US
recording this uh, they say that no patients had received
like chemotherapy or undergone surgery, and no cases of progression
or recurrence had been reported during the follow up. That's
six months. Oh. It says there's a range here of
six to twenty five months for some of the patients.
(29:41):
Six months being the the the minimar end, right, the minimum. Yeah,
how do I forget the word minimum? Yeah? They're also
more importantly, I mean just as importantly, I would say
there were no severe side effects, which means, like to
harp on that a bit um. There are many, many drugs, medicines,
(30:04):
and treatments for any number of human conditions that can
address that root problem while creating other problems along the way,
and this specific treatment doesn't seem to have that drawback.
That's only one of the one of the reasons that
(30:24):
so many scientists and experts in their field are calling
this unheard of and unprecedented. That's not hyperbolee, folks. This
has not happened before. Yep, it's not happened before. And Ben,
you brought something up. This is you know, it sounds
like such a small clinical trial. Twelve individual patients, there
(30:45):
are more correct. When we were we were looking up
some of the reporting was a bit odd. Some people
were stating eighteen patients. Some people are stating twelve patients.
Some are saying more than that. Uh, including the New
York Times. I believe they quoted eighteen patients, But then
the actual journal quotes twelve patients. What did we find.
We found that this is an ongoing trial, so all
(31:08):
the like, if you look at the patients all told,
then Ultimately the number is supposed to hit thirty patients.
I think that was the plan from the jump, but
I guess the results were so spectacular that they wanted
to share this immediately and get the eyes of their
colleagues and peers on on this because it's fascinating and
(31:32):
it's it's good news in a area of medicine that
sorely needs good news. And to underline how big a
deal this is, even with all the caveats, let's I
think we can just throw a quick stat out everyone's way.
If you look at the National Cancer Institute and you
(31:52):
factor in all the variables, all the different types of cancer,
all the different genetic factors, people's individual life decisions, environmental contaminations,
so on the ultimate lifetime risk, the ultimate chance of
you getting cancer sometime in your life is about thirty
(32:13):
seven point five percent to forty two point zero five,
no matter how clean you're trying to live, no matter
how cancer free your genetic predisposition. Maybe the fact of
the matter is the odds are higher than you think.
I know. So that's why these kinds of revolutionary treatments,
(32:38):
these new drugs, are so important. It really is. And
with that We're going to take a quick break here
from a sponsor and we will be right back. And
we've returned. Let's just let's dump more into what the
drug actually does. In a few were facts about this study.
(33:01):
I'm going to jump to n d t V. They've
got a quick little article here titled ten points on
dos star lam Ab, the weird drug title that cured
cancer patients. This this study was conducted at the Memorial
Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in Manhattan, United States. That's where
it actually occurred. All of those patients that we've talked
(33:24):
about had a very specific type of cancer. We talked
about that. It's uh, they also were at a specific
stage of cancer originated in the rectum and it had
spread in some cases only to a few lymphs like
lymph nodes within that section of the body. But it
had not spread further into their body. So it was localized, right,
(33:48):
The cancer that was being treated wasn't throughout the body um.
That's that's an important fact. This this medicine that was
given every three weeks for the period. According to the
New York Times, it costs around eleven thousand dollars per dose,
(34:09):
So think about that what if we did find the
cure for cancer, but absolutely ten people in the world
could afford it, what I mean what I don't know
how it would work, if it was prescribed, and how
insurance would work for this drug or anything like that,
but that seems like a steep price. Also, we have
(34:30):
to remember, because this research is ongoing, the results are unprecedented. Right,
these scientists did look at those cancer cells and say
ha ha hashtag w rectum. But they did not I know.
I'm sorry, but I know, I know, I know, but
they didn't. They don't have confirmation that this is a
(34:54):
lifetime elimination, you know what I mean, the difference between
cure and remission. So it's possible. Again, no one knows.
It's possible that there may be a situation where that
specific cancer returns and one has to undergo this treatment
regiment or a similar regimen at some point in the future,
(35:15):
maybe a decade hence or something. We we just don't know.
But still again, sorely needed good news. Oh yeah, sorely needed, dude.
Just on the drug itself. This is stuff I don't understand.
I'm gonna much like the scientific reporting done in places
across the internet, I'm going to regurgitate some stuff that
I just read that I don't fully understand, and I
(35:38):
need a you know, a scientist or someone who actually
reads these things and understands these things too to tell
me what they mean. But this dose starlam mab, according
to NBC New York, it is a monoclonal antibody, which
is antibodies like the ones that we have within our selves,
(35:59):
within our working, functional human bodies to fight illness. These
are things that go through and we'll we'll kill the
bad stuff theoretically that shouldn't be in our bodies. Well,
this is a lab made version of that, and they
are lab designed to fight specific things that the body finds.
But also, interestingly enough, at least according to NBC New York, uh,
(36:24):
this substance, the just starlam mab, it in a way
turns on the the immune system itself. So it's like
it activates your own antibodies that you've got going on
in your body already to fight the thing that's not
supposed to be in there, the cancer selves. Oh and uh,
(36:44):
but as someone who is also not an authority on
this in any way, I do want to point out, uh,
something we didn't hit on the title. I don't think
p D one reason that's yeah. Uh. That stands for
programmed death receptor, which is kind of mental for the
(37:05):
cancer cell itself, like it jumps on and it programs death.
It's like you're gonna die cancer. It is a program
death receptor one blocking monoclonal antibodies. So we're already in
deep water for us here, Matt, but I just too
deep but life saving, you know, especially considering I don't
(37:29):
I have a question for you regarding this. I don't
want to de relist, but does this have substantive significance
for um potential treatments of other forms of cancer in
the future. It's like it, but I don't know. Don't
ask me that kind of question because I can't answer it.
(37:51):
What I can do is send everybody over to YouTube
check out, and I apologize, sir if I'm not pronouncing
this correct. Clee Vene Prasad, who's a doctor, uh he has.
He's got a great video series where he breaks down
scientific studies, clinical trials, papers that come out like this
(38:13):
that are gobbledegook in many ways. To me, he does
a great job of breaking this kind of stuff down
and you. I would just recommend him in particular, but
there are also a lot of other YouTube channels and
you know, social media sites that can help you understand
this better. Uh as uh Dr Prasad did me um
(38:34):
when I say that, I still don't understand it, So
maybe you didn't do them the perfect job and you
at least help man, Thank you for helping, and thank
you for all of the fantastic work. I mean, explaining,
explaining the nuts and bolts of this is no mean feat.
(38:57):
It's not easy to do. Uh. And I I saw
that video as well, Matt, and I gotta I gotta say,
I don't think. I don't think it's on that YouTuber
At least in my case, it's on me for not
fully understanding. Oh no, no, for sure, it's it's come on, yeah,
I look, I passed all the necessary exams to get
(39:17):
a college degree. That doesn't mean I understand anything. And
also it was is an arts degree whatever? Uh who
so hey, let's hear it for a response rate in
twelve individuals. That sounds awesome. There's hopefully something there. Don't
get your hopes up yet because it is only twelve people.
(39:41):
But Glaxo Smith klin is definitely, you know, giving itself
a little slow clap, like, man, we did a really
great job buying that to sorrow company that that designed
to this drug a little while back. And also, you know,
from close up these sorts of breakthroughs can look like
they might be smaller than they are. Right, Cancer is
(40:04):
a killer, and there are many people listening. Many of
our fellow listeners today have battled cancer themselves, are battling
some form of cancer, have survived some form of cancer,
or almost doubtlessly have a loved one who has been
one of those situations. So we don't know how this
(40:25):
will work out, but it is quite possible that this
will lead to more improvements already, even in just that sphere,
you know, here's hoping that all eventually thirty strong members
of this trial will find themselves free of cancer at
the conclusion. And just to throw some more good news
(40:45):
out there, I was looking at some stats earlier before recorded,
and I didn't know this bet, but according to the
American Cancer Society, the risk of dying from cancer in
the US has actually decreased over the past twenty eight years.
So people are fighting the good fight. Guess awesome indeed
(41:07):
been blasting. Uh. You may see this drug if you
ever encounter it in your life, if you're being treated
for cancer, or anyone ever offers it to you, you
may see the drug titled as Jim Harley j E
M P A r l I. That is the the
brand name of the substance that was created by T.
(41:28):
Sorrow It's Massachusetts company that was acquired by Glaxo Smith
Klein a couple of years back in nineteen. Yes, yes,
I'm just laughing because I originally misread it as Jumanji,
and I thought, there's no no way they can get
ready with that. They're just releasing a whole bunch of
animals into your body. Um, that's what it is. There. Yeah,
(41:52):
there are tiny, tiny little animals that just get released
and there's attack the bad thing. It's perfect, so awesome though,
since early it's one of my favorite things about the
human species is that people are so intelligent and working
around the clock to help other people. And we'll leave it.
We'll just stop there. That was a good thought, man.
(42:16):
I so badly wanted to talk about Glaxo Smith Klein
and how much they spend on lobbying and the industry
and like it's bad man, and they're not the same
as the scientist. There there are no huge problems with
with any for profit pharmaceutical entity. I almost feel you
(42:36):
know what, I almost feel like you and I looked
at each other just for a second in silence on
this call and thought, maybe we'll give him a pass
today exactly what I was like, Oh, I'm not gonna
do it. I'm not gonna do it. I'm just gonna say, yep,
good people helping people. That's good. That's a happy Scientists
are great. The scientists are great. But in the end,
(42:59):
it's a company that spends My god, if you go
to open secrets dot org, that was just perusing there.
I tend to do that sometimes. If you look up
Glaxo Smith client, it's got from the year two to
oh wow, going back to nineteen all the money that
they have reported, like officially reported that they spend on lobbying,
(43:21):
and just this year so far they're paying venable lll
p FA, Greed Drinker at All W Strategies, Thorn Run Partners,
SIMS Strategies, JST Strategies, east End Group, Capital Council, b
GR Group, Alpine Group. We're talking fifty grand, sixty grand.
(43:42):
I mean, just every time all those people I mentioned,
just yeah, we're not going to give them a pass.
Let's also mention that h G. S K Glaxo Smith
client had to pay a fine of three billion dollars
layers to the US government for illegally promoting Paxel to
(44:05):
treat depression in children. Let's see what they also had
to be guilty and um into accounts of introducing other
misbranded drugs like well butrin. Their hands aren't clean, is
what we're saying. None of the pharmaceutical giants are and
it's the nature of what they do. And we're trying
(44:26):
to be nice right now. This is us being nice.
Uh so, uh twelve people, good for you. Awesome, Hopefully
thirty We just will keep our fingers crossed for the
rest of y'all. Um, Hopefully it becomes a drug that
(44:46):
doesn't cost eleven thousand dollars per pop. Hopefully don't die
for the crime of being poor, and which is you know,
I would say if you look at it in the
big picture, that is when the leading causes of death
in the US and arguably abroad. But there I think
we leave it for now. Folks, we cannot wait to
(45:09):
hear your thoughts. Is humanity on the precipice of finally
making terminal cancer a thing of the past. How do
you see this playing out? Do you think that it
will end up being a treatment reserved for the rich?
Do you think there are more variables ahead? What do
(45:30):
you wish more people in general knew about the Big Sea?
And then also tell us what you think about drones
with tasers attached operating wirelessly in your school or in
your children's school. Are you for it? Are you against it?
We want to hear your thoughts. Also, what's your take
(45:51):
on bees being fish? I think that's just really interesting
to both of us. Uh, we can't wait to hear
from you. Uh. Give us a shout over on the
internet where we're easy to find, Facebook, YouTube, and by
the way, yes we do check out all of those
social media platforms. I want to give a special thank
(46:12):
you and specific to our fellow conspiracy realist Justin Richards,
who it turned out, I think also also talked about
the taser drone plans on our Facebook page. Here's where
it gets crazy, and big, big thanks to everybody who
reached out to us regarding the sweepstakes for the book.
(46:35):
Congratulations and trempid conspiracy realist, We hope you enjoy it.
For everybody else who's saying I want to copy the book, well,
if you would like for us all to continue this
crazy endeavor together, then one of the best ways you
can help us, now, if you're able, is to go
pre order the book at stuff. You should read books
dot com. That's the spiel. I just have to do
(46:57):
it every time I see that Honda Odyssey slowly pulling
up past past my street as we record. But let's
say you don't you don't like sipping the social meets.
You heard our episodes and you said, nah, I get
it big data. If it's free, that means you're the product. Geez,
I can't get on the internet anymore. But I have
a story to tell you, Matt Pray, tell how can
(47:19):
people get in touch with us? Then? Well, just hop
on the Old Mayflower, which is not the one you think.
It's an automated ship and it's recently sailed across the
seas to Canada because I had to make a weird
extra trip. But I was just thinking about that. Because
we're talking about drones, Well, they fly through the air
(47:40):
with tasers. What if there are ships that are automated
drones that run on AI and they're just floating around,
except they've got cannons. Oh boy, anyway, call us. Our
number is one eight three three std W y t K.
Tell us about all the things that we've been saying
this episode. Give us your thoughts. Please, please, please, We're
(48:03):
making our way through. We've still got a ways to go,
but we want to hear from you regardless, we will
hear from you. When you call in. Give yourself a
cool name, whatever you want it to be, it doesn't matter.
Please within the message, let us know if we can
use your name and message on the air. And remember
that you only have three minutes when you call in.
(48:24):
It cuts you off after three minutes, so if you've
got more to say they can fit in that timeframe.
Why not instead send us a good old fashioned email.
We are conspiracy at i heart radio dot com. Stuff
(48:55):
they don't want you to know is a production of
I heart Radio. For more podcasts from my heart Radio,
you visit the i heart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or
wherever you listen to your favorite shows.
Stuff They Don't Want You To Know News
Hosts And Creators
Matt Frederick
Ben Bowlin
Noel Brown
Show Links
RSSStoreAboutLive ShowsPopular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.