September 28, 2025 • 43 mins
A deep look at the New Jersey governor’s race, where Democratic candidate Mikie Sherrill faces scrutiny over allegations of questionable stock trades. Clay and Buck break down reports that Sherrill’s net worth skyrocketed from a few million to roughly $12 million while serving in Congress, despite an annual salary of $174,000. They discuss her awkward response to Charlemagne tha God’s question about making $7 million in trades and explore the broader issue of insider trading in Congress, calling for mandatory blind trusts or index fund requirements to restore public trust.
House Judiciary Chairman, Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio, discusses Google’s admission that they censored and banned conservatives on YouTube at the demand of the Biden Administration.
Dr. Mehmet Oz, Administrator for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services explains this week’s autism announcement made by the Trump administration.
Make sure you never miss a second of the show by subscribing to the Clay Travis & Buck Sexton show podcast wherever you get your podcasts! ihr.fm/3InlkL8
For the latest updates from Clay & Buck, visit our website https://www.clayandbuck.com/
Connect with Clay Travis and Buck Sexton:
FB - https://www.facebook.com/ClayandBuck/
IG - https://www.instagram.com/clayandbuck/
YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/c/clayandbuck
Rumble - https://rumble.com/c/ClayandBuck
TikTok - https://www.tiktok.com/@clayandbuck
Follow Clay & Buck on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/clayandbuck
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):
The Team forty seven podcast is sponsored by Good Ranchers
Making the American Farm Strong Again.
Speaker 2 (00:09):
Team forty seven with Clay and Buck starts.
Speaker 3 (00:12):
Now there are who going to toil races that are underway.
Some of them are going to be hotly contested in
important states, places like Virginia. We had win some sears
on she's lieutenant governor. Very impressive woman. But in New Jersey.
Remember New Jersey was a much closer election. What was it, Clay,
(00:33):
It was not this, but it was it was in
the off year that that that Glenn was up in.
Speaker 1 (00:39):
Night or two in twenty twenty one. And remember Trump
only lost New Jersey by five last year. And they
think the Trump team does if they had had Commawa
level money that they could have flip New Jersey into
their column.
Speaker 3 (00:53):
So New Jersey is still blue, but it's it's more
interesting than they wanted to be. But for sure, and
this might help a bit more. This is just one
of the great moments on Charlemagne the God on the
Breakfast Club. Mister the God was sitting down with Democrat
(01:13):
candidate New Jersey Governor Mikey Cheryl. So the Democrat, sorry,
Democrat candidate for Governor Mikey Cheryl, and I'm not familiar.
That's why I'm asking people to weigh in a little
bit on what do I need to know about Mikey Cheryl.
But this was a great moment, and mister the God
(01:34):
asked about this, and I think it was worth us
all just hearing for a second, because people are very
sick and tired of members of Congress, particularly who seemingly
are trading in a way in the stock market that
mirrors information that they would only have access to because
(01:54):
of things that they're doing in Congress and making a
lot of money. She was asked Mikey Cheryl about this,
and here is the response from the Breakfast Club a
couple of days ago.
Speaker 4 (02:06):
Play this one when Newsmax claimed that you made seven
million dollars from stock trades? What are you talking about?
Speaker 3 (02:11):
Newsmax is, first of all, a very questionable organization that
is paying multiple fines. I'm not sure what they're talking about.
Speaker 2 (02:19):
Well, did you make seven million in stock.
Speaker 4 (02:20):
Trades at all? I I haven't.
Speaker 1 (02:25):
I don't believe I did, but I'd have to go
see what that was alluding to again, what kind of
came from uh Clay?
Speaker 3 (02:35):
I think if you're a member of Congress making about
one hundred and eighty grand. By the way, I think
that if you made seven million dollars trading the stock market,
whether somebody else is making those trades on your behalf
or you're making them, I think you should know.
Speaker 1 (02:51):
Unless you're a billionaire and so rich that you could
plausibly say I don't know what happened with seven million dollars.
Ninety nine point nine to nine percent of people in
America would know if they made seven million dollars or
not in the stock market. A lot of you out
(03:12):
there would know if you made seven hundred dollars in
the stock market or not. Certainly seven thousand or seventy thousand,
to say nothing of seven million. These people are so
bad at this buck. I just I watch so many
of these politicians, and we've reached out, by the way,
to Jack Cidarelli, who is the Republican contender who almost
(03:34):
won in twenty twenty one. He is the nominee on
the Republican side for this race. To remind all of you,
Virginia and New Jersey and the mayor of New York
City are all off calendar elections, so they will be
taking place this November. That's in basically six weeks. Some
of you basically can already go early vote on these
(03:56):
I just I mean credit to Charlottage, the god who
is of the left, I think, but is kind of
pointing out a seven million dollars Can you follow up
and just kind of tell us about coming here?
Speaker 3 (04:07):
All right, I've got some I've got some some stats
and numbers to throw into the mix here. Cheryl makes
I said one hundred and eight one hundred and seventy
four grand as New Jersey's eleventh congressional district rep. So
she remember, they have financial disclosures everybody, so we can
know this public it's public record how much money these
(04:31):
individuals have within a range. But you have some sense
of it, right, So in twenty nineteen, she reported total
assets between seven hundred and thirty and I'm just gonna
abbreviate the numbers here, but seven hundred and thirty thousand
and four point three million dollars. Now that's a huge range,
by the way, Yes, does that includes your house? You know,
to anybody listening, the difference in being worth seven hundred
(04:51):
grand on paper and being worth four million on paper
feels like a lot. But anyway, that's where she was.
But Clay her most recent one, in her most recent
disclosure form, she's worth more like twelve million. Yeah, this
and so and so. You say to yourself, wait a second,
(05:12):
she's making one hundred and seventy four It's not like
she had some huge trust fund, because we would know
that from the financial disclosure forms previously. So somehow she
has and Jack Chidarelli has come out and hammered her
on this somehow while a member of Congress sitting on
the Arms Services Committee who allegedly has a fondness for
(05:34):
trading clay and defense stocks, saying, interesting, she has gone
from being worth you know, let's call it a couple
million dollars to put it in the middle, to being
worth about twelve million dollars.
Speaker 1 (05:46):
I mean, she.
Speaker 3 (05:46):
Could be worth as much as four million there even still,
that would be a tripling of her net worth while
making one hundred and eighty grand a year.
Speaker 1 (05:55):
Now, sometimes spouses make the money, which can all sometimes
be suspect, right, because they'll say, well, this is not
the money that I'm making, this is my spouse. I
think this is what happened with and I don't even
know who her spouse is now.
Speaker 3 (06:10):
But Elon Holman, Now we'll get he's an investment banker,
so his compensation may be a significant part of this.
But lay she was fined for failing to disclose stock
sales in twenty twenty one.
Speaker 1 (06:25):
Well, this is where it gets very shady. Okay, correct
me if I'm wrong on this, because this seems like
something that shouldn't be allowed. You basically cannot prosecute elected
officials like congressmen and senators for insider trading. Correct, because
they get all sorts of information that is not public
(06:45):
and then they're allowed to trade on it. And this
is where it gets super shady. This is like the
Nancy Pelosi situation. The spouse oftentimes is the person who's
actually trading on this, and they are able to monetize
this in a way that is hyper shady.
Speaker 2 (07:02):
Remember, if you look.
Speaker 1 (07:03):
At Nancy Pelosi's trading record for stocks, she's somehow better
than Warren Buffett at buying and selling stocks. There's a
Nancy tracker out there where you can look at all
the moves Pelosi makes. Because they have to disclose it,
I don't understand why it isn't basic required for everybody
(07:26):
out there to put their holdings.
Speaker 2 (07:29):
In a trust and just use that.
Speaker 1 (07:32):
Let me give you an example, Buck, most of my
money after I sold out Kick that is not in
real estate is in S and P five hundred index funds.
That is, I just buy the five hundred largest companies
in America. Ninety percent of the time the S and
P five hundred outperforms experts. I am not buying large
(07:53):
buying and selling very many stocks. Now, there's no restriction
on me buying and selling very many stocks in the
first place. But I would say about five percent of
my stock assets are in physical stocks that I control,
and about ninety five percent is effectively an S and
P five hundred index funds. I don't understand why it
(08:14):
isn't standard for everybody, Democrat, Republican, Independent, who was elected
to Congress to put their assets, their four oh one
k their individual stocks, just put it into a index
fund and say, I'm not going to buy and sell
individual stocks while I'm a representative of the United States Congress.
Speaker 3 (08:32):
What am I missing here?
Speaker 1 (08:33):
To me? That seems like it should be standard for
everyone out there, And if they're arguing otherwise, I think
it's highly suspect for people to be trading hundreds of
times in a year. And remember what happened during COVID,
because I haven't forgotten this. Remember when they got the
briefings about how dangerous COVID was going to be and
(08:56):
what was going to happen, and a ton of congressmen
and women immediately sold all their stocks before the stock
market started to decline. They got access to information that
you and I didn't have access to about what was
going to happen in terms of shutdowns. The stock market plummeted,
and a lot of congressmen and women sold before the
(09:17):
stock market collapsed, and then bought at bottoms and made
a ton of money off information that's not public. I
don't know what I'm missing here. This candidate, I think
is lying. I think she has likely benefited off inside information.
But this is important. When it comes to corruption. We
don't just focus on corruption itself. We focus on the
(09:40):
appearance of corruption because it's so toxic to public trust.
How is there not a direct appearance of corruption when
individual congressmen and women are making trades and destroying the
greatest investors of our lifetimes in their results.
Speaker 3 (09:58):
Just just so everybody understand in something like the National
Defense Authorization Act or one of those big omnibus or
you know, Perculus or whatever you want to call it,
these big bills that come out where they're just full
of pork and they're full of all this spending. If
you're on some committee and you know that a certain
defense contractor for example, is about to get correct, a
(10:21):
three or five or ten billion dollar government contract, guess what,
it's probably gonna go up as a stock. Okay, I
think we all understand that. And so if you are
essentially now you know the rules. They've changed the rules
so that technically there's like a little more reporting and stuff,
but you're not barred from trading. And let's just let's
(10:42):
just take let's just be honest about this. Have you
seen anybody get in trouble for insider trading from the
United States Congress. No, I'm not aware of it right.
Speaker 1 (10:49):
Now, I think, but that they're not you're not allowed
to be prosecuted for it.
Speaker 2 (10:53):
I think they used to.
Speaker 3 (10:54):
Be the case. They changed the rules. Let me let
me check on it. They made some the Stock Act,
they made some adjust to it. But I think it's
like you can't be prosecuted for knowledge that comes from
the course of your job, which is the whole point
of that. Let me check on this one. I got
to see what the rules are because this was cl
This has been a push for over a decade. People
have been trying to, you know, trying to figure out
(11:18):
why members of Congress are able to get so rich.
Speaker 1 (11:22):
But larger issue, Yes on that. To me, it's just
it shouldn't be allowed. Minor issue or secondary issue as
it pertains to this race. If you made seven million
dollars in stock trades, you better have a good explanation
for how that happened. And again the husband may well
(11:45):
be the reason. But to claim, oh, I don't know,
I'd have to look into that. How out of touch
are you if you can make seven million dollars and
not recall whether or not it happened, unless you're a
billionaire and your stock price valuation is constantly going up
and down. Again, all I'm saying is, I'm not a
congress person. SNB five hundred index funds a good option.
(12:07):
Why would we not make that standard for anybody who's
in elective office? Now, there are some complexities, usually blind trust,
and this is getting into specifics. Let's say you own
a company and that company is publicly traded. You can
just say, hey, I'm not going to buy or sell stock,
or it's a blind trust, I'm not managing it. There
are lots of ways to handle this that do not
(12:29):
create this huge, this huge impression of impropriety that to
me would make a lot of sense.
Speaker 3 (12:37):
Well, I just would know, Clay. So, two former members
of the House of Representatives have been prosecuted and convicted
for insider trading, which the Stock Act of twenty twelve,
that's what I'm referred. So this has been going on
for a while. So there is this Stock Act. It
doesn't bar them from trading. Obviously there's disclosure requirements. But
here's the thing. It's super hard because of the information
(12:59):
that coming to contact with is of a political nature.
It can be very like if you're going to invest
in a big defense contractor what's how do you know
that you don't just you know, they get into this
mosaic defense strategy for white collar criminals have like, well,
did I do it because I thought of this bill
that's coming up, or because I love the fundamentals and
I know I read the letters ten k I mean
(13:20):
that's well, also curious on whatever, I would be curious
what the prosecution for insider trading is because those guys
could have been prosecuted for actual insider trading that had
nothing to do with Congress.
Speaker 1 (13:34):
Right. In other words, I believe the testimony that you
hear behind closed doors is not allowed to be prosecutable
for insider trading. You could still be prosecuted if, for instance,
you're out of office and your cousin calls you and
he sits on the board of X company and he says, hey,
we're about.
Speaker 3 (13:54):
To That's what happened.
Speaker 5 (13:55):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (13:55):
By the way, they actually were not prosecuted. This is
very important clarification. They were not prosecuted for anything under
the Stock Act or anything having to do with Congress.
They were prosecuted for insider trading access they had before
being in Congress. Yes, that's a difference.
Speaker 1 (14:12):
This is what I'm saying, Like, you basically get a
free reign to insider trade at Congress.
Speaker 3 (14:16):
So my initial premise of like no one in Congress
has ever that no one in Congress has ever been
prosecuted for insider Congress insider Congression information. That is true.
Speaker 1 (14:25):
People ask us all the time, how we can save
the next generation.
Speaker 3 (14:28):
We've got our show and the info is an antidote.
But we also have a couple books coming out, Clay.
Speaker 1 (14:34):
That's right, and you can pre order both of them
right now and be book nerds just like us.
Speaker 3 (14:39):
You'll laugh, you'll nod, and you'll get smarter too.
Speaker 1 (14:41):
Mine's called balls how Trump young men in sports saved America.
Speaker 3 (14:45):
And mine is manufacturing delusion how the Left uses brainwashing,
indoctrination and propaganda against you.
Speaker 2 (14:52):
Both are great reads.
Speaker 1 (14:53):
One might even say they would make fabulous gifts.
Speaker 3 (14:57):
Indeed, so do us a solid and pre order yours
on Amazon. Today.
Speaker 2 (15:02):
You're listening to Team forty seven with Clay and Buck.
Speaker 3 (15:06):
Congressman Jim Jordan of the Great State of Ohio is
with us. Congressman, I always appreciate you making the time, sir.
Thank you to be with you.
Speaker 5 (15:14):
Be good to be with you, guys.
Speaker 4 (15:16):
But let's have you hit one hundred. Have you hit
one hundred?
Speaker 1 (15:23):
Yeah, it's been raining.
Speaker 3 (15:24):
It's been raining a lot at Miami, so the courts
have been wet. But it's happened in Congressman, I'm telling
you this right now. You're reminding me that a deal
is a deal, a bet is a bet. I'm going
to get out there, Laura Travis very excited for me
to cross that one hundred miles per hour mark. I've
only get ninety seven, so it's really quite a leap
to get there. But I'm going to get there, and
I promise you, Congressman, you will be among the first
(15:45):
to know it's going to happen this calendar year.
Speaker 5 (15:48):
Now that good to hear.
Speaker 4 (15:50):
See. Thank you, thank you the video you said, by
the way, I was impressed it was. I mean, I
don't I like watching sports. I'm not a tennis player,
but I was impressed. Good for me hit the ball.
I mean, I did think you it it's that close
to one hundred, but it was pretty impressive.
Speaker 2 (16:03):
So I think, hey, I appreciate that.
Speaker 3 (16:05):
You know, I'm a middle aged guy and I can
pretty much crank that serve at ninety seven miles an hour,
I said Clay. I told Clay one hundred initially, so
it's not like I was way off. All these people
are saying sixty in the replies. These people are nuts.
They need to get a speed gun, all right. So
so since we've got that out there, thank you for
the reminder though, because that is going to happen. I'm
in Taiwan next week, so not a lot of tennis.
Oh I just kind of let that slip, didn't I Uh,
(16:27):
not a lot of tennis going there, but I will
be doing it when I get back here to lovely
Miami beach. Okay YouTube YouTube YouTube, let's take a look here.
Here's where I am on this. And maybe you're talking
to the to the more cynical of the duo, as
you may know, Congressman, as you do know, Okay YouTube
admits what we've known from the beginning. They censored, and
(16:47):
they've been censoring terribly. So what does anything happen because
of us? What's the action item? The information is important.
I think people need to know. It's sure, but what happens.
Speaker 4 (16:58):
Well, they put it in writing, so if in the
future they go back on their word, then there's you know,
you can't lie to Congress. There's eighteen US the one
one thousand and one, so there's there's going forward. I
think there's that second. They are reinstating people who they
took their channel with people. I mean there was there
was big names like Dan Bongino, he gets his you know,
he gets the channel back, he gets he gets to
go back. I think more importantly, it's the thousands of
(17:19):
people that they that they cut off will get to
come back to. So, uh, that's helpful. But you're right,
you know what what happened to him in this, I
mean some of this is four or five years uh,
you know, because it goes back to the COVID and
people speaking out against all the false things that the
government told us. And when you spoke out against it,
you got centered, you got or you lost your you
lost your uh your channel on YouTube. So the yeah,
that's tough, but you know, I look at the glass
(17:41):
half half full. Going forward, people are being reinstated, they've
admitted to it, they've they've said they will never use
fact checkers like some of these other platforms did, because
we all know, you know, these fact checkers were left
east who you know, labeled all kinds of things misinformation,
disinformation and censored people. So I think all that's positive,
but I get what you're saying. All we can do, though,
is the best we can and as we're as we're
(18:03):
moving forward.
Speaker 1 (18:04):
Jim, I appreciate you coming on with us, and I
appreciate you calling out Buck because I've forgotten and it
is interesting how the rain has been coming down and
this allowed of.
Speaker 3 (18:12):
Me rainy season hurricanes. Excuse me, very tough for the
outdoor courts here, but you may proceed, Clay.
Speaker 1 (18:19):
We were banned, OutKick was banned. You had me, to
your credit, to come testify. I think back in February
or March of twenty one, they made me wear a mask.
I think it's like the only time I ever wore
a mask, even to testify at the hearing that was
at the absolute apex of we're going to restrict speech.
So you've been fighting these battles for a long time.
(18:39):
I think you deserve a lot of credit with that
in mind. One of the things that Buck and I
are super frustrated by is there basically are no consequences.
And I'm curious what you think here. When YouTube banned us,
when they gave us strikes, when they took us down,
when they didn't allow our videos to circulate, it had
very real financial co consequences for a company that I
(19:02):
owned at the time. OutKick now Fox owns. But they're
as Bucket's pointing out, there are a lot of people
out there that are just trying to make two three
four grand a month off YouTube, and that is a
huge part of their ability to fund what they're doing
and saying, shouldn't there be some sort of consequences, shouldn't
Google slash YouTube have to make some sort of I'm
(19:23):
just tossing this out there, huge payment to fund free
speech so that they could actually be sued by lawyers
actually committed to free speech, not what the ACL you
used to do, like what organization, what way are their consequences,
because it seems pretty convenient for YouTube now to say, oh, yeah,
we did this. We wouldn't allow this in a court
(19:44):
of law, by and large, when you admit wrongdoing, usually
there is a consequence for the wrongdoing. Here there seems
to be none.
Speaker 4 (19:51):
Yeah, and we're working on we have legislation. Harriet Hageman
a wonderful member from Whales All Our Committee, and she's
got a bill that says if the government, you can
go after the government if they're pressuring people to censor you.
You know, that's that's you know, classic violation of First Amendments.
So we're looking at at that like individuals in the government,
like you'd have a private right of action. So we're
looking at that legislation we passed this last Congress out
(20:14):
of committee. We're looking to bring that back. But it
is tough to go after. I mean, maybe you can
get a class together and see if it works and say,
you know, these people were all kicked off, they were
all lost you know, such and such revenue, this is
their damages. You might be able to do that, but
I think that's again, I think it's tough. And so
what we're trying to focus on is, look, they've admitted
(20:34):
to what they did. They admitted that it came from
the Biden administration. They cave to it. They did this.
It's not going to happen. Very similar frankly to the
letter Mark Zuckerberg sentence last August where he said the
same thing. The Biden administration pressure is the censure. We
did it. We're sorry, we're going to stop. And to
his credit, they've actually changed policy there. They use the
community notes approach to posts that are put on their
(20:55):
site or on their platform, just like Elon does at X.
So again I look at the positive, but I get it.
You know, it happened to you directly. I was shadow band.
There was four of US members shadow band back in
twenty eighteen by Twitter, before Elon had purchased that company.
So I know it's tough, but we've got to move
forward and look at the bright sid I.
Speaker 3 (21:15):
Think Congressman something that, as I mentioned, I'm gonna be
traveling a lot next week and the weeks after, and
Clay and I are actually gonna doing a bunch of events.
So flying is on my mind. And I've seen some
reporting again because I think the most frustrating thing is
when it's crystal clear skies. Everything's fine, everyone's there, we
(21:35):
got there, we got through TSA, we did the whole
they did the whole thing, and then we're told there's
no crew there. Sorry, don't have people to actually do
the plane flying thing. You know, there's this let pilots,
let experience pilots fly bill that's been kicking around that
cruise as a sponsor Marshall Blackburn Center sponsor, as a
(21:58):
sponsor on the Senate side, is this actually something you
guys on the House side are looking at doing too,
because this is one of those things where we could
get some of the best pilots. We have to keep flying,
which means everybody's one in safe hands. Two the newer
pilots get better instruction, and three we have to wait
less at the gate for a couple of hours at
a time. Can you guys get this done? Where is this?
Speaker 4 (22:18):
I'm all for it. I'm not on the transportation committee,
but I'm all for it. I travel like the last
three weekends. I've been in Vegas and Sacramento one weekend,
Dallas the next weekend. Last week, and I went from
North Carolina to North Dakota. So I mean, I'm just
like you. We fly all the time, and you want
the best pilots, and you want it to be on
time and not have to I mean the delays when
it's backed up and you can't even use land and
(22:40):
you can't even get to a gate because the gates
they're all plu I mean, it is on and on
and on. So it's frustrating. Yeah. And to the extent
that you know, allowing good pilots to stick around and
continue to operate, I think that's great.
Speaker 5 (22:52):
In fact, I had a pilot talk to me.
Speaker 4 (22:54):
At a fundraising. I forget what state we were in,
but he talked to me about this very build. I said, yeah,
this makes sense. I hope, we hope we do.
Speaker 3 (23:00):
Who on the Transportation Committee think, I mean, who can
we have on to talk.
Speaker 4 (23:03):
About this is dam Graves to have the chairman, Chairman Graves,
good man, he's shared that committee for a number of years.
They have him on and he can tell you in Clay.
Speaker 3 (23:13):
I'm telling you, I know you're a big Southwest fan.
We get this thing through and you're gonna thank me
because your delays are gonna drop. And by the way,
the older pilots are all the Clay and buck listeners too,
They're the ones that are all about this show.
Speaker 1 (23:26):
I fly Southwest everywhere. You know, I'm not a bragger.
I don't like to draw attention to myself, as everyone
well knows. I have two million Southwest Airlines points, That's how.
And on my last Southwest Airlines flight from New York
City to Nashville, I don't think I said this on
the air. The pilots wanted to come out and shake hands.
They're like love the shows. Like I was posing for
(23:46):
photos with the flight attendants. So I've got a lot
of awesome people at Southwest and I enjoy meeting everybody there. Congressman,
what is the latest you were working hard and I
don't know the absolute latest, but the score act. I
know there are a lot of people out there that
are big college football fans, college sports fans in general.
We're in the midst of the fall football season. What's
(24:06):
the latest there? What can you tell us.
Speaker 4 (24:08):
We're working on getting some Democrats to vote for it.
We have some some great supporters out there who want to,
you know, looking at some changes. You know, we got
Cody Campbell, great guy with a big, big booster Texas Tech,
talking about some things that he thinks can happen, particularly
I think maybe better suited for the Senate, but we're
we're looking at those as well. The bill is through committee.
(24:29):
We do have some Democrats support for it. I think
there's strong support for it. To use your lingo, uh
play with you know, people in the Southeast Conference part
of the country and the Big ten part of the country.
So we'll we'll see, but we do want to get
this done and we continue to work on it. We
think it's a darn good start.
Speaker 5 (24:48):
To help with.
Speaker 4 (24:50):
You know, when we started this process, I said, I
think there are three things we want to focus on.
We want we want real competition, want some parody You
don't want just the same teams winning all the time.
As much as I'd like to see the Badgers and
the buck guys, you know, always at the top. You
want you want some parody.
Speaker 5 (25:04):
Uh.
Speaker 4 (25:05):
You you don't want to diminish opportunity for athletes.
Speaker 5 (25:08):
Uh.
Speaker 4 (25:08):
The USOC is very concerned about what happens to the
so called non revenue sports, the Olympic sports and women's sports,
and so we're trying to see how we can be
helpful there. And part of the thing in the bill
is we we don't want any school to drop the
sports at state Division one. You got to have sixteen.
We kept that in the we put that in the bill.
And then finally, I do think we at some point
(25:30):
got to remember it's supposed to be about getting an education.
You got some of these athletes in football and basketball
who transfer, you know, six times in five years and
and and never get a degree. I don't think that's
helpful to the system or to that to that individual.
So we're trying to have those overall objectives in mind
when we put this legislation together, but we're not quite
(25:51):
there yet.
Speaker 1 (25:52):
What should happen with Jimmy Kimmel, You know we're going
to talk about this, I think at some point during
the course of the show. But you know, with the
YouTube we we started off the show by saying, and
I think it's really important, Jimmy Kimmel is a small
pinprick of the importance of what Google and YouTube were doing.
Any comedian would be relative to the policies those companies
come in place, and Next Star and Sinclair are still
(26:14):
not caring. Meaning I'm not sure where your affiliate station is, Jim,
but I know here in Nashville, I couldn't watch last
night if I wanted to. They have news on I'm
a Next Star affiliate here in the ABC Nashville market.
What in your mind is the right solution here? If
you were the magic wand guy and you got to analyze.
Speaker 4 (26:31):
This, well, I looked at this the way you've boys
described to Claire. I looked at this as Republicans by
sneakers too. Republicans watched Late Night TV two and I
think Next Star and Sinclair just said, you know, our
we just don't think it's appropriate that you know, excuse me,
if your late night talk show hosts you should you
should not do two things you shouldn't tick off half
the potential audience, and you should be funny, and it
(26:53):
seems like Jimmy Kimmel was failing on both of those
those two things. So I think I think nextarn and uh,
nexttar In and Sinclair said we just like something different. Frankly,
so I think this is a business decision largely, and
you know, it couldn't just be the government censoring because
ABC or Disney putting back on. So yeah, I think
(27:14):
I looked at it all throughout this whole thing, and
I understand what what Commissioner car said, but I looked
at it largely as this was a business deal. Next
Star came forward and said, no, we want we want
something different, and you can't blame him for that because
I think I think they're losing money on the show
ABC is. I didn't thought he was really that funny.
It was all just we know, it was all just
(27:35):
attacking Trump all the time, and and half the country
doesn't doesn't particularly care for that. So that's how I
viewed it, versus government government doing what they did. And
in all these areas where we have emails from the
Biden administration saying take down this tweet, a sap and
It was a tweet from RFK Junior when he was
running for president against Joe Biden. For goodness sake, So
(27:56):
that's as bad as it gets. It said, the Biden
administration set up the disinformation Governance for most allwellian thing
in history. Oh yeah, bunch of bureaucrats, tell you what
you can say.
Speaker 1 (28:04):
Nia Jenkowitz. I haven't forgotten her name.
Speaker 4 (28:07):
Totally, totally. So so that's a that's a completely different
animal than next to our saying we don't think our
audience really likes this show. We just assume be something else.
That's a business call my mind code.
Speaker 3 (28:19):
Totally agree. Congress and Jim Jordan will have you back,
and there will be video of that one hundred mile
an hour service. It will happen. I will not be denied.
Speaker 5 (28:26):
It's good to happen.
Speaker 3 (28:27):
Thank you, sir, Thank you.
Speaker 5 (28:28):
All right, Thank you guys.
Speaker 2 (28:30):
You're listening to Team forty seven with Clay and Buck.
Speaker 3 (28:36):
We're joined now by doctor Oz. Doctor Mehmet Oz serves
as the Administrator for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid
Services under HHS Secretary RFK Junior and President Trump. Doctor Oz,
welcome to the show. Is always good to talk to.
Speaker 5 (28:51):
You, good talkers always, It's been an active week. I
justspect you'll want to speak a bit about autism and
what might work.
Speaker 3 (28:59):
Yeah, let's le's talk about autism and the tile and
all situation here, Doc, what is actually what do we know?
What is being recommended? What is actually going on? And
let's just stay as tight to the facts as we
can on this one, because there's a lot of passion
around this topic.
Speaker 5 (29:16):
There is Let's take a step back for one second
and just make it really clear. There is no political
benefit to President Trump talking about this. This is a
hostscale departure from what historically has happened with data within government,
which is we have the row take process. You don't
really know what we know. Eventually we figure it all
out and tell you the best we can. We saw
that that in covid at backfires when moms think that
(29:39):
they're gaslighting, they're being gas lit because they're not getting
access to data. So the President charged all of us
sector Kennedy beating the process. We're just breaking all the silos,
breaking the barriers. Just do the work and release the
information when you have it. This is the first example.
There'll be future ones so let's go over the data.
Fifty million dollar is put into a process to try
(30:02):
to research autism, say about a chart at the NIH
has been allocating that money in grants along the way
studying what's going on with autism, and discovered two signals,
two leads that were intriguing enough that after a lot
of discussion, we were decided to share with the American people.
The first had to do with a prescription medication called
(30:22):
lucu worn, which no one's ever heard of, but prescription
lucuborn is essentially a way of getting B vitamins into
the brains of children. Why is that a problem? We
believe that there's a fair amount of ethology around B
vitamins in the brains of kids who have autism. That's
one of the reasons their brain get cloudy, foggy, they
can't really process information, they don't learn to speak right.
(30:44):
And so if we can reverse that problem, which is
caused by their genes in some cases that we know of,
and by antibodies blocking those receptors those pathways into the brain,
and others, that would make a difference. It turns out
with a couple of hundred kids in different small studies
that about half the kids seem to benefit when given
this medication. Correctly, it's not perfect. We don't know enough
(31:06):
about it to make broader promises. But I asked the
key question claim about both you just tell me that
if you just resonates with you. I asked the question
everyone should ask their doctor, would you do it for
your kid? And the answer I got over and over
again was yes, we don't know for sure, but because
it's so safe and the drug's been around forever, we
think it will be worth it, so we release that information.
(31:27):
At the same time, there was a data that's been
around for a couple of years, but more and more
of it coming out about potential concerns around a set ofmnfen,
which is the raw material in talentol. Now, I want
to say this as crisply and clearly, sticking to the
facts as you asked me to. If you have a
high fever, if you've got a bad problem, please talk
(31:48):
to your doctors. If you're pregnant, make sure that they're involved,
and take the centim nifen, which is pretty much the
only drug we would use in that setting, and it's
the drug that most doctors use. Myself included in that
setting because all the other drugs seem to have bigger problems,
and having high fevers itself caused the problem. So this
is not a warning never to take the drug. However,
(32:08):
in cases where there was a lot of use of
this drug, that does seem to be a signal concerning
enough that we were sharing it that women subsequently have
babies to develop autism. So the message really is, if
you have a low grade temperature, if you stub your toe,
don't use the medication, willy nilly, use it thoughtfully, recognizing
that any medication is strong enough to help you is
(32:28):
strong enough to hurt you.
Speaker 1 (32:30):
Doctors, you have kids, Buck has a baby, I've got three.
I want to run through a couple of things because
I know we got a lot of moms and with
a lot of grandmas out there, and everybody when they
get pregnant, by and large, is trying to do the
best possible things they can for the baby that they
are carrying. And there's a couple of things out there
(32:52):
that I was going to point out, and how complicated
and sometimes even to the detriment that all of these
strictures can be. In America, they say women should eat
sushi pregnant women. They say that women should not have
alcohol at all, as I'm sure you're aware. In Japan
(33:13):
women continue to eat sushi throughout pregnancy, most no issues.
In France, women continue to drink glasses of wine. I
mean they're not pounding bottles of wine and getting super drunk,
and by and large kids aren't having issues there. Circling back,
I read in the New York Times today you may
have more accurate data than this that now I believe
it's one in every thirty one kids is being classified
(33:36):
as autistic. Those numbers are have skyrocketed. Something is going
on right. Either we're identifying autism way more, and maybe
that's partly it. Maybe we are, Maybe there are multiple
different factors out there. You're a doctor, though, and I'd
just like to go baseline. What would you tell a
woman who just found out she's pregnant right now that
(33:59):
is concerned about autism that she should do, in your opinion,
to be the absolute healthiest. And obviously one answer is
she can talk to her doctor. But if this were
your if this were your daughter and you were about
to have a grand baby, what would you tell her.
Speaker 5 (34:16):
The most important thing you can do, and when you're
pregnant is actually to be calm and realistic about the numbers.
You will almost certainly do well. Mortality rates obviously are
very low because we're so good generally at taking care
of crises or complications when they occur, and anxiety itself
is a problem doing pregnancy. So recognize that you're in
(34:38):
pretty good shape and you're lucky to be born in
an era where we have high quality care. That stated,
there are some unforced errors, rookie errors. You want to avoid.
Trusting that there's one product that's so safe that you
can take it whenever you think you might have a
small little thing not right is unwise because we just
don't know. There's so many things happening during pregnancy. With
(35:01):
that miraculous process where these cells are growing at a
fast rate, differentiating into organs, everything's got to work. It's
sort of a miracle that it ever works, but it
almost always does work because we get out of the way.
If I say the same thing to my kids is
when I've got five grandkids, now when we're coming case,
just get out of the way of biology and let
it run itself. A low grade temperature is a healthy thing,
(35:24):
usually because it'll kill the virus that's bothering you, but
it doesn't hurt your own cells. Don't trust external substances
of any kind. I don't think alcohol is a good
thing to do when you're pregnant, and you shouldn't have
to drink alcohol to be able to get through your day.
So yes, you know, if you're going to toast someone
that's different, but it should not be part of the norm.
If it's a cleaner you eat, the better. Do not
(35:45):
trust the environment to be clean. Go out of your way.
Air purifires, water pure fires are wise moves. It's the
time for you to be so careful because you're the
canary in the coal mine. Anything that's not right in society,
in the world around us would have an increased detrimental
effect on you and your fetus. And then they take
(36:05):
one step back up because you mentioned this stat one
in thirty one kids that'll have autism. Just to put
this in perspective, that is five times more than it
was in twenty twenty five years ago, five times more so.
It's not genetics. And I don't buy the canard that
this is all about measurement, because I just turned sixty five.
I'm running the agency that I'm a member of now,
(36:26):
medicare right. There aren't any people my age that I
know of who have autism. Bobby Kennedy, Secretary Kennedy is found,
you know, reminds all of us that he and his
whole life never met anyone his age who has autism.
I'm sure they're out there, but they're not very common.
Whereas you go to school today, if you think of
kids to school, you talk to the other parents. Many
(36:48):
of those parents have kids with autistic children. It changes
their life. So the President's passionate about this comes from
a realization this is not genetic, this is not measurement.
There is a change in our environment. He is on
He will find it and pursue it. And these are
two clues of how to deal with it.
Speaker 3 (37:04):
Doctor Oz, I wanted to follow up on this is
it you're and now I'm asking more for your analysis
and maybe even a bit of your your gut instinct
on this. Having practiced medicine for decades and now having
access to, uh, you know, the data on these things
at a very high level on the policy side, when
you're talking about that, we just established that that really
(37:26):
deeply troubling rise of autism. Do you think it is
most likely to be a multi factor problem that has
caused the increase, as in several things you know together,
or just several things in general, or do you think
that it might be a really one primary culprit that
will be found. It's just a question of whittling down
(37:48):
the data and pursuing the science and finally getting us
to what's really at the heart of this of this crisis.
Speaker 5 (37:55):
I believe it's multifactorial, but they may work through common mechanisms.
For example, well I brought up the reality that foliate
levels are low in the brain full it comes from
foliage leafy greens, So this vitamin benign is a critical
element in brain development. It's possible that several of the
things we're worried about all work to inhibit the ability
(38:16):
of the fragile child's brain to take up enough of
this critical ingredient so their brain forms normally. It could
happen because antibodies are made because the kid's allergic to
everything from a food that they're being given, to substance
in their body, to a toxin and their environment mold
and chemicals, all kinds of things. We don't know how
(38:37):
they work in the body, but they probably work through
several common pathways. What I do have confidence in since
I've been looking at this together with the rest of
the team and Jay Batsharia, Marty McCarey, who head of
the NIAH and FDA, we're all raisier focused on this,
in part because the Secretary insists it and the President
demands it. We are seeing signals of lots of things.
We didn't want to talk about all of them, but
(38:59):
we're seeing thing is that all could be concerning. We
just want to try to whittle it down and get
to the ones that are legitimate, the things we might
be able to do differently in our lives. But certainly
you want to start being transparent with the American people
because trust is built brick by brick, by a shining
light and all the things you know. If I know
things you don't know, there's no reason why you would
(39:20):
trust me to do more and better with it than
you would. And this is why I think parents in particular,
who love their kids more than anybody, should be armed
with the best data the government has as we get it.
And of course this it scares people that alarms people.
They don't not every want to hear it. Frees Ideologically,
I get all that stuff, but if you mix politics
in medicine, you know what you get politics, you kill medicine.
(39:42):
And so the last thing we want to do is
hold back because there's a political rationale, which is again,
if you're a political person who's passionate about people, you
tell them what you know. That's what a doctor does.
Speaker 1 (39:54):
We're talking to doctor Oz. You just hit on something.
This will be a last question because I know you're
busy and we've got to hit a break. But the
autism rates have skyrocketed. You talked about how they've skyrocketed,
not just historically but in the twenty first century in particular.
It's also happened with allergies. I know there are a
lot of parents out there. You mentioned, Doctor Oz, that
you rarely see and Bobby Kennedy has rarely seen people
(40:16):
your age who have autism allergies. When I was a
kid growing up, nobody was allergic to peanuts. It didn't
feel like now the peanut allergy is so commonplace that
they don't even give out peanuts on airplanes anymore. They've
had to stop doing that. Is it possible that we're
seeing some connection in the environment that is impacting things
(40:38):
on a variety of different levels. Do you think there
might be any connection between autism and allergies and just
the way that the body chemistry is changing? And Buck
and I have talked about this. This is a big
question too. Is it partly maybe connected also to the
idea of older parents? Right, dads and moms frankly are
having babies way later in the twenty first century than
(41:01):
they did for basically the entirety of human existence.
Speaker 5 (41:05):
Clay such an excellent question. All the things you identify
because you're a curious person. And by the way, to me,
the MAHA movement is not being curious and eighty percent
of statements are questions in disguise. You're actually a curious
human being. The questions you're asking are the ones that
we have got to be brave enough to answer and
share for courageous with people around us. But you got
to be kind. So you mentioned age of the parent. Yes,
(41:26):
that's a risk factor. We've known that, but it's hard
to hear that if you're a parent. But yet again,
you got to be transparent. Doctors tell patients things they
don't always want to hear, but these will respect us
for telling you the truth. The allergy issue, I think
is a bigger problem. There's a reason why so many
kids are allergic. You're right, pen analogies unheard of when
I was a kid. You know, we have an epidemic
(41:48):
of all types of alogies, which again is reflective of
the fact that we're traumatizing the fragile immune system of
the child who's just trying to figure out what the
world is about and to differentiate what's friendly. Their immune
system is confused. I suspect there are chemicals that they're
getting exposed to that are causing this. We are actively,
of course, searching. There's many allegations. When you don't know
(42:09):
the answer is easy to blame folks. We don't have
the luxury of bickering when you're increasing by five fold
the incidents of a tragic condition that could be Obviously,
these kids are lovable, should be loved, will be taking
care of it. As a society, we're judged by how
we take care of our most vulnerable, So we'll always
take care of kids on the author's in spectrum. But
it's a heck of a lot easier not to have
(42:31):
to fight that battle when you're going through a life
and these kids deserve better. We have got to deliver.
And looking at the cause of allergies, I think is
one of the biggest clues, because they're the tip of
the iceberg. You figure that out, that's the leading edge.
Behind that are a whole bunch of other conditions Celiac disease,
bowel problems of course, you know all kinds of pathologies
like toiness, spectrum ADHD. If you can go down the
(42:53):
laundry list of issues that plague our youth, and many
of them come back to an immune system that can't
function correctly. It a tragile system. It's being maligned. We've
got to figure out what's doing it.
Speaker 1 (43:04):
Doctor Oz. We appreciate the time. Thank you so much
for joining us. Always happy to have you on. Just
let us know when you think it makes sense, and
good work and good luck trying to figure all this out.
Speaker 5 (43:15):
God bless you both. Take care,
The Team forty seven podcast is sponsored by Good Ranchers
Making the American Farm Strong Again.
Speaker 2 (00:09):
Team forty seven with Clay and Buck starts.
Speaker 3 (00:12):
Now there are who going to toil races that are underway.
Some of them are going to be hotly contested in
important states, places like Virginia. We had win some sears
on she's lieutenant governor. Very impressive woman. But in New Jersey.
Remember New Jersey was a much closer election. What was it, Clay,
(00:33):
It was not this, but it was it was in
the off year that that that Glenn was up in.
Speaker 1 (00:39):
Night or two in twenty twenty one. And remember Trump
only lost New Jersey by five last year. And they
think the Trump team does if they had had Commawa
level money that they could have flip New Jersey into
their column.
Speaker 3 (00:53):
So New Jersey is still blue, but it's it's more
interesting than they wanted to be. But for sure, and
this might help a bit more. This is just one
of the great moments on Charlemagne the God on the
Breakfast Club. Mister the God was sitting down with Democrat
(01:13):
candidate New Jersey Governor Mikey Cheryl. So the Democrat, sorry,
Democrat candidate for Governor Mikey Cheryl, and I'm not familiar.
That's why I'm asking people to weigh in a little
bit on what do I need to know about Mikey Cheryl.
But this was a great moment, and mister the God
(01:34):
asked about this, and I think it was worth us
all just hearing for a second, because people are very
sick and tired of members of Congress, particularly who seemingly
are trading in a way in the stock market that
mirrors information that they would only have access to because
(01:54):
of things that they're doing in Congress and making a
lot of money. She was asked Mikey Cheryl about this,
and here is the response from the Breakfast Club a
couple of days ago.
Speaker 4 (02:06):
Play this one when Newsmax claimed that you made seven
million dollars from stock trades? What are you talking about?
Speaker 3 (02:11):
Newsmax is, first of all, a very questionable organization that
is paying multiple fines. I'm not sure what they're talking about.
Speaker 2 (02:19):
Well, did you make seven million in stock.
Speaker 4 (02:20):
Trades at all? I I haven't.
Speaker 1 (02:25):
I don't believe I did, but I'd have to go
see what that was alluding to again, what kind of
came from uh Clay?
Speaker 3 (02:35):
I think if you're a member of Congress making about
one hundred and eighty grand. By the way, I think
that if you made seven million dollars trading the stock market,
whether somebody else is making those trades on your behalf
or you're making them, I think you should know.
Speaker 1 (02:51):
Unless you're a billionaire and so rich that you could
plausibly say I don't know what happened with seven million dollars.
Ninety nine point nine to nine percent of people in
America would know if they made seven million dollars or
not in the stock market. A lot of you out
(03:12):
there would know if you made seven hundred dollars in
the stock market or not. Certainly seven thousand or seventy thousand,
to say nothing of seven million. These people are so
bad at this buck. I just I watch so many
of these politicians, and we've reached out, by the way,
to Jack Cidarelli, who is the Republican contender who almost
(03:34):
won in twenty twenty one. He is the nominee on
the Republican side for this race. To remind all of you,
Virginia and New Jersey and the mayor of New York
City are all off calendar elections, so they will be
taking place this November. That's in basically six weeks. Some
of you basically can already go early vote on these
(03:56):
I just I mean credit to Charlottage, the god who
is of the left, I think, but is kind of
pointing out a seven million dollars Can you follow up
and just kind of tell us about coming here?
Speaker 3 (04:07):
All right, I've got some I've got some some stats
and numbers to throw into the mix here. Cheryl makes
I said one hundred and eight one hundred and seventy
four grand as New Jersey's eleventh congressional district rep. So
she remember, they have financial disclosures everybody, so we can
know this public it's public record how much money these
(04:31):
individuals have within a range. But you have some sense
of it, right, So in twenty nineteen, she reported total
assets between seven hundred and thirty and I'm just gonna
abbreviate the numbers here, but seven hundred and thirty thousand
and four point three million dollars. Now that's a huge range,
by the way, Yes, does that includes your house? You know,
to anybody listening, the difference in being worth seven hundred
(04:51):
grand on paper and being worth four million on paper
feels like a lot. But anyway, that's where she was.
But Clay her most recent one, in her most recent
disclosure form, she's worth more like twelve million. Yeah, this
and so and so. You say to yourself, wait a second,
(05:12):
she's making one hundred and seventy four It's not like
she had some huge trust fund, because we would know
that from the financial disclosure forms previously. So somehow she
has and Jack Chidarelli has come out and hammered her
on this somehow while a member of Congress sitting on
the Arms Services Committee who allegedly has a fondness for
(05:34):
trading clay and defense stocks, saying, interesting, she has gone
from being worth you know, let's call it a couple
million dollars to put it in the middle, to being
worth about twelve million dollars.
Speaker 1 (05:46):
I mean, she.
Speaker 3 (05:46):
Could be worth as much as four million there even still,
that would be a tripling of her net worth while
making one hundred and eighty grand a year.
Speaker 1 (05:55):
Now, sometimes spouses make the money, which can all sometimes
be suspect, right, because they'll say, well, this is not
the money that I'm making, this is my spouse. I
think this is what happened with and I don't even
know who her spouse is now.
Speaker 3 (06:10):
But Elon Holman, Now we'll get he's an investment banker,
so his compensation may be a significant part of this.
But lay she was fined for failing to disclose stock
sales in twenty twenty one.
Speaker 1 (06:25):
Well, this is where it gets very shady. Okay, correct
me if I'm wrong on this, because this seems like
something that shouldn't be allowed. You basically cannot prosecute elected
officials like congressmen and senators for insider trading. Correct, because
they get all sorts of information that is not public
(06:45):
and then they're allowed to trade on it. And this
is where it gets super shady. This is like the
Nancy Pelosi situation. The spouse oftentimes is the person who's
actually trading on this, and they are able to monetize
this in a way that is hyper shady.
Speaker 2 (07:02):
Remember, if you look.
Speaker 1 (07:03):
At Nancy Pelosi's trading record for stocks, she's somehow better
than Warren Buffett at buying and selling stocks. There's a
Nancy tracker out there where you can look at all
the moves Pelosi makes. Because they have to disclose it,
I don't understand why it isn't basic required for everybody
(07:26):
out there to put their holdings.
Speaker 2 (07:29):
In a trust and just use that.
Speaker 1 (07:32):
Let me give you an example, Buck, most of my
money after I sold out Kick that is not in
real estate is in S and P five hundred index funds.
That is, I just buy the five hundred largest companies
in America. Ninety percent of the time the S and
P five hundred outperforms experts. I am not buying large
(07:53):
buying and selling very many stocks. Now, there's no restriction
on me buying and selling very many stocks in the
first place. But I would say about five percent of
my stock assets are in physical stocks that I control,
and about ninety five percent is effectively an S and
P five hundred index funds. I don't understand why it
(08:14):
isn't standard for everybody, Democrat, Republican, Independent, who was elected
to Congress to put their assets, their four oh one
k their individual stocks, just put it into a index
fund and say, I'm not going to buy and sell
individual stocks while I'm a representative of the United States Congress.
Speaker 3 (08:32):
What am I missing here?
Speaker 1 (08:33):
To me? That seems like it should be standard for
everyone out there, And if they're arguing otherwise, I think
it's highly suspect for people to be trading hundreds of
times in a year. And remember what happened during COVID,
because I haven't forgotten this. Remember when they got the
briefings about how dangerous COVID was going to be and
(08:56):
what was going to happen, and a ton of congressmen
and women immediately sold all their stocks before the stock
market started to decline. They got access to information that
you and I didn't have access to about what was
going to happen in terms of shutdowns. The stock market plummeted,
and a lot of congressmen and women sold before the
(09:17):
stock market collapsed, and then bought at bottoms and made
a ton of money off information that's not public. I
don't know what I'm missing here. This candidate, I think
is lying. I think she has likely benefited off inside information.
But this is important. When it comes to corruption. We
don't just focus on corruption itself. We focus on the
(09:40):
appearance of corruption because it's so toxic to public trust.
How is there not a direct appearance of corruption when
individual congressmen and women are making trades and destroying the
greatest investors of our lifetimes in their results.
Speaker 3 (09:58):
Just just so everybody understand in something like the National
Defense Authorization Act or one of those big omnibus or
you know, Perculus or whatever you want to call it,
these big bills that come out where they're just full
of pork and they're full of all this spending. If
you're on some committee and you know that a certain
defense contractor for example, is about to get correct, a
(10:21):
three or five or ten billion dollar government contract, guess what,
it's probably gonna go up as a stock. Okay, I
think we all understand that. And so if you are
essentially now you know the rules. They've changed the rules
so that technically there's like a little more reporting and stuff,
but you're not barred from trading. And let's just let's
(10:42):
just take let's just be honest about this. Have you
seen anybody get in trouble for insider trading from the
United States Congress. No, I'm not aware of it right.
Speaker 1 (10:49):
Now, I think, but that they're not you're not allowed
to be prosecuted for it.
Speaker 2 (10:53):
I think they used to.
Speaker 3 (10:54):
Be the case. They changed the rules. Let me let
me check on it. They made some the Stock Act,
they made some adjust to it. But I think it's
like you can't be prosecuted for knowledge that comes from
the course of your job, which is the whole point
of that. Let me check on this one. I got
to see what the rules are because this was cl
This has been a push for over a decade. People
have been trying to, you know, trying to figure out
(11:18):
why members of Congress are able to get so rich.
Speaker 1 (11:22):
But larger issue, Yes on that. To me, it's just
it shouldn't be allowed. Minor issue or secondary issue as
it pertains to this race. If you made seven million
dollars in stock trades, you better have a good explanation
for how that happened. And again the husband may well
(11:45):
be the reason. But to claim, oh, I don't know,
I'd have to look into that. How out of touch
are you if you can make seven million dollars and
not recall whether or not it happened, unless you're a
billionaire and your stock price valuation is constantly going up
and down. Again, all I'm saying is, I'm not a
congress person. SNB five hundred index funds a good option.
(12:07):
Why would we not make that standard for anybody who's
in elective office? Now, there are some complexities, usually blind trust,
and this is getting into specifics. Let's say you own
a company and that company is publicly traded. You can
just say, hey, I'm not going to buy or sell stock,
or it's a blind trust, I'm not managing it. There
are lots of ways to handle this that do not
(12:29):
create this huge, this huge impression of impropriety that to
me would make a lot of sense.
Speaker 3 (12:37):
Well, I just would know, Clay. So, two former members
of the House of Representatives have been prosecuted and convicted
for insider trading, which the Stock Act of twenty twelve,
that's what I'm referred. So this has been going on
for a while. So there is this Stock Act. It
doesn't bar them from trading. Obviously there's disclosure requirements. But
here's the thing. It's super hard because of the information
(12:59):
that coming to contact with is of a political nature.
It can be very like if you're going to invest
in a big defense contractor what's how do you know
that you don't just you know, they get into this
mosaic defense strategy for white collar criminals have like, well,
did I do it because I thought of this bill
that's coming up, or because I love the fundamentals and
I know I read the letters ten k I mean
(13:20):
that's well, also curious on whatever, I would be curious
what the prosecution for insider trading is because those guys
could have been prosecuted for actual insider trading that had
nothing to do with Congress.
Speaker 1 (13:34):
Right. In other words, I believe the testimony that you
hear behind closed doors is not allowed to be prosecutable
for insider trading. You could still be prosecuted if, for instance,
you're out of office and your cousin calls you and
he sits on the board of X company and he says, hey,
we're about.
Speaker 3 (13:54):
To That's what happened.
Speaker 5 (13:55):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (13:55):
By the way, they actually were not prosecuted. This is
very important clarification. They were not prosecuted for anything under
the Stock Act or anything having to do with Congress.
They were prosecuted for insider trading access they had before
being in Congress. Yes, that's a difference.
Speaker 1 (14:12):
This is what I'm saying, Like, you basically get a
free reign to insider trade at Congress.
Speaker 3 (14:16):
So my initial premise of like no one in Congress
has ever that no one in Congress has ever been
prosecuted for insider Congress insider Congression information. That is true.
Speaker 1 (14:25):
People ask us all the time, how we can save
the next generation.
Speaker 3 (14:28):
We've got our show and the info is an antidote.
But we also have a couple books coming out, Clay.
Speaker 1 (14:34):
That's right, and you can pre order both of them
right now and be book nerds just like us.
Speaker 3 (14:39):
You'll laugh, you'll nod, and you'll get smarter too.
Speaker 1 (14:41):
Mine's called balls how Trump young men in sports saved America.
Speaker 3 (14:45):
And mine is manufacturing delusion how the Left uses brainwashing,
indoctrination and propaganda against you.
Speaker 2 (14:52):
Both are great reads.
Speaker 1 (14:53):
One might even say they would make fabulous gifts.
Speaker 3 (14:57):
Indeed, so do us a solid and pre order yours
on Amazon. Today.
Speaker 2 (15:02):
You're listening to Team forty seven with Clay and Buck.
Speaker 3 (15:06):
Congressman Jim Jordan of the Great State of Ohio is
with us. Congressman, I always appreciate you making the time, sir.
Thank you to be with you.
Speaker 5 (15:14):
Be good to be with you, guys.
Speaker 4 (15:16):
But let's have you hit one hundred. Have you hit
one hundred?
Speaker 1 (15:23):
Yeah, it's been raining.
Speaker 3 (15:24):
It's been raining a lot at Miami, so the courts
have been wet. But it's happened in Congressman, I'm telling
you this right now. You're reminding me that a deal
is a deal, a bet is a bet. I'm going
to get out there, Laura Travis very excited for me
to cross that one hundred miles per hour mark. I've
only get ninety seven, so it's really quite a leap
to get there. But I'm going to get there, and
I promise you, Congressman, you will be among the first
(15:45):
to know it's going to happen this calendar year.
Speaker 5 (15:48):
Now that good to hear.
Speaker 4 (15:50):
See. Thank you, thank you the video you said, by
the way, I was impressed it was. I mean, I
don't I like watching sports. I'm not a tennis player,
but I was impressed. Good for me hit the ball.
I mean, I did think you it it's that close
to one hundred, but it was pretty impressive.
Speaker 2 (16:03):
So I think, hey, I appreciate that.
Speaker 3 (16:05):
You know, I'm a middle aged guy and I can
pretty much crank that serve at ninety seven miles an hour,
I said Clay. I told Clay one hundred initially, so
it's not like I was way off. All these people
are saying sixty in the replies. These people are nuts.
They need to get a speed gun, all right. So
so since we've got that out there, thank you for
the reminder though, because that is going to happen. I'm
in Taiwan next week, so not a lot of tennis.
Oh I just kind of let that slip, didn't I Uh,
(16:27):
not a lot of tennis going there, but I will
be doing it when I get back here to lovely
Miami beach. Okay YouTube YouTube YouTube, let's take a look here.
Here's where I am on this. And maybe you're talking
to the to the more cynical of the duo, as
you may know, Congressman, as you do know, Okay YouTube
admits what we've known from the beginning. They censored, and
(16:47):
they've been censoring terribly. So what does anything happen because
of us? What's the action item? The information is important.
I think people need to know. It's sure, but what happens.
Speaker 4 (16:58):
Well, they put it in writing, so if in the
future they go back on their word, then there's you know,
you can't lie to Congress. There's eighteen US the one
one thousand and one, so there's there's going forward. I
think there's that second. They are reinstating people who they
took their channel with people. I mean there was there
was big names like Dan Bongino, he gets his you know,
he gets the channel back, he gets he gets to
go back. I think more importantly, it's the thousands of
(17:19):
people that they that they cut off will get to
come back to. So, uh, that's helpful. But you're right,
you know what what happened to him in this, I
mean some of this is four or five years uh,
you know, because it goes back to the COVID and
people speaking out against all the false things that the
government told us. And when you spoke out against it,
you got centered, you got or you lost your you
lost your uh your channel on YouTube. So the yeah,
that's tough, but you know, I look at the glass
(17:41):
half half full. Going forward, people are being reinstated, they've
admitted to it, they've they've said they will never use
fact checkers like some of these other platforms did, because
we all know, you know, these fact checkers were left
east who you know, labeled all kinds of things misinformation,
disinformation and censored people. So I think all that's positive,
but I get what you're saying. All we can do, though,
is the best we can and as we're as we're
(18:03):
moving forward.
Speaker 1 (18:04):
Jim, I appreciate you coming on with us, and I
appreciate you calling out Buck because I've forgotten and it
is interesting how the rain has been coming down and
this allowed of.
Speaker 3 (18:12):
Me rainy season hurricanes. Excuse me, very tough for the
outdoor courts here, but you may proceed, Clay.
Speaker 1 (18:19):
We were banned, OutKick was banned. You had me, to
your credit, to come testify. I think back in February
or March of twenty one, they made me wear a mask.
I think it's like the only time I ever wore
a mask, even to testify at the hearing that was
at the absolute apex of we're going to restrict speech.
So you've been fighting these battles for a long time.
(18:39):
I think you deserve a lot of credit with that
in mind. One of the things that Buck and I
are super frustrated by is there basically are no consequences.
And I'm curious what you think here. When YouTube banned us,
when they gave us strikes, when they took us down,
when they didn't allow our videos to circulate, it had
very real financial co consequences for a company that I
(19:02):
owned at the time. OutKick now Fox owns. But they're
as Bucket's pointing out, there are a lot of people
out there that are just trying to make two three
four grand a month off YouTube, and that is a
huge part of their ability to fund what they're doing
and saying, shouldn't there be some sort of consequences, shouldn't
Google slash YouTube have to make some sort of I'm
(19:23):
just tossing this out there, huge payment to fund free
speech so that they could actually be sued by lawyers
actually committed to free speech, not what the ACL you
used to do, like what organization, what way are their consequences,
because it seems pretty convenient for YouTube now to say, oh, yeah,
we did this. We wouldn't allow this in a court
(19:44):
of law, by and large, when you admit wrongdoing, usually
there is a consequence for the wrongdoing. Here there seems
to be none.
Speaker 4 (19:51):
Yeah, and we're working on we have legislation. Harriet Hageman
a wonderful member from Whales All Our Committee, and she's
got a bill that says if the government, you can
go after the government if they're pressuring people to censor you.
You know, that's that's you know, classic violation of First Amendments.
So we're looking at at that like individuals in the government,
like you'd have a private right of action. So we're
looking at that legislation we passed this last Congress out
(20:14):
of committee. We're looking to bring that back. But it
is tough to go after. I mean, maybe you can
get a class together and see if it works and say,
you know, these people were all kicked off, they were
all lost you know, such and such revenue, this is
their damages. You might be able to do that, but
I think that's again, I think it's tough. And so
what we're trying to focus on is, look, they've admitted
(20:34):
to what they did. They admitted that it came from
the Biden administration. They cave to it. They did this.
It's not going to happen. Very similar frankly to the
letter Mark Zuckerberg sentence last August where he said the
same thing. The Biden administration pressure is the censure. We
did it. We're sorry, we're going to stop. And to
his credit, they've actually changed policy there. They use the
community notes approach to posts that are put on their
(20:55):
site or on their platform, just like Elon does at X.
So again I look at the positive, but I get it.
You know, it happened to you directly. I was shadow band.
There was four of US members shadow band back in
twenty eighteen by Twitter, before Elon had purchased that company.
So I know it's tough, but we've got to move
forward and look at the bright sid I.
Speaker 3 (21:15):
Think Congressman something that, as I mentioned, I'm gonna be
traveling a lot next week and the weeks after, and
Clay and I are actually gonna doing a bunch of events.
So flying is on my mind. And I've seen some
reporting again because I think the most frustrating thing is
when it's crystal clear skies. Everything's fine, everyone's there, we
(21:35):
got there, we got through TSA, we did the whole
they did the whole thing, and then we're told there's
no crew there. Sorry, don't have people to actually do
the plane flying thing. You know, there's this let pilots,
let experience pilots fly bill that's been kicking around that
cruise as a sponsor Marshall Blackburn Center sponsor, as a
(21:58):
sponsor on the Senate side, is this actually something you
guys on the House side are looking at doing too,
because this is one of those things where we could
get some of the best pilots. We have to keep flying,
which means everybody's one in safe hands. Two the newer
pilots get better instruction, and three we have to wait
less at the gate for a couple of hours at
a time. Can you guys get this done? Where is this?
Speaker 4 (22:18):
I'm all for it. I'm not on the transportation committee,
but I'm all for it. I travel like the last
three weekends. I've been in Vegas and Sacramento one weekend,
Dallas the next weekend. Last week, and I went from
North Carolina to North Dakota. So I mean, I'm just
like you. We fly all the time, and you want
the best pilots, and you want it to be on
time and not have to I mean the delays when
it's backed up and you can't even use land and
(22:40):
you can't even get to a gate because the gates
they're all plu I mean, it is on and on
and on. So it's frustrating. Yeah. And to the extent
that you know, allowing good pilots to stick around and
continue to operate, I think that's great.
Speaker 5 (22:52):
In fact, I had a pilot talk to me.
Speaker 4 (22:54):
At a fundraising. I forget what state we were in,
but he talked to me about this very build. I said, yeah,
this makes sense. I hope, we hope we do.
Speaker 3 (23:00):
Who on the Transportation Committee think, I mean, who can
we have on to talk.
Speaker 4 (23:03):
About this is dam Graves to have the chairman, Chairman Graves,
good man, he's shared that committee for a number of years.
They have him on and he can tell you in Clay.
Speaker 3 (23:13):
I'm telling you, I know you're a big Southwest fan.
We get this thing through and you're gonna thank me
because your delays are gonna drop. And by the way,
the older pilots are all the Clay and buck listeners too,
They're the ones that are all about this show.
Speaker 1 (23:26):
I fly Southwest everywhere. You know, I'm not a bragger.
I don't like to draw attention to myself, as everyone
well knows. I have two million Southwest Airlines points, That's how.
And on my last Southwest Airlines flight from New York
City to Nashville, I don't think I said this on
the air. The pilots wanted to come out and shake hands.
They're like love the shows. Like I was posing for
(23:46):
photos with the flight attendants. So I've got a lot
of awesome people at Southwest and I enjoy meeting everybody there. Congressman,
what is the latest you were working hard and I
don't know the absolute latest, but the score act. I
know there are a lot of people out there that
are big college football fans, college sports fans in general.
We're in the midst of the fall football season. What's
(24:06):
the latest there? What can you tell us.
Speaker 4 (24:08):
We're working on getting some Democrats to vote for it.
We have some some great supporters out there who want to,
you know, looking at some changes. You know, we got
Cody Campbell, great guy with a big, big booster Texas Tech,
talking about some things that he thinks can happen, particularly
I think maybe better suited for the Senate, but we're
we're looking at those as well. The bill is through committee.
(24:29):
We do have some Democrats support for it. I think
there's strong support for it. To use your lingo, uh
play with you know, people in the Southeast Conference part
of the country and the Big ten part of the country.
So we'll we'll see, but we do want to get
this done and we continue to work on it. We
think it's a darn good start.
Speaker 5 (24:48):
To help with.
Speaker 4 (24:50):
You know, when we started this process, I said, I
think there are three things we want to focus on.
We want we want real competition, want some parody You
don't want just the same teams winning all the time.
As much as I'd like to see the Badgers and
the buck guys, you know, always at the top. You
want you want some parody.
Speaker 5 (25:04):
Uh.
Speaker 4 (25:05):
You you don't want to diminish opportunity for athletes.
Speaker 5 (25:08):
Uh.
Speaker 4 (25:08):
The USOC is very concerned about what happens to the
so called non revenue sports, the Olympic sports and women's sports,
and so we're trying to see how we can be
helpful there. And part of the thing in the bill
is we we don't want any school to drop the
sports at state Division one. You got to have sixteen.
We kept that in the we put that in the bill.
And then finally, I do think we at some point
(25:30):
got to remember it's supposed to be about getting an education.
You got some of these athletes in football and basketball
who transfer, you know, six times in five years and
and and never get a degree. I don't think that's
helpful to the system or to that to that individual.
So we're trying to have those overall objectives in mind
when we put this legislation together, but we're not quite
(25:51):
there yet.
Speaker 1 (25:52):
What should happen with Jimmy Kimmel, You know we're going
to talk about this, I think at some point during
the course of the show. But you know, with the
YouTube we we started off the show by saying, and
I think it's really important, Jimmy Kimmel is a small
pinprick of the importance of what Google and YouTube were doing.
Any comedian would be relative to the policies those companies
come in place, and Next Star and Sinclair are still
(26:14):
not caring. Meaning I'm not sure where your affiliate station is, Jim,
but I know here in Nashville, I couldn't watch last
night if I wanted to. They have news on I'm
a Next Star affiliate here in the ABC Nashville market.
What in your mind is the right solution here? If
you were the magic wand guy and you got to analyze.
Speaker 4 (26:31):
This, well, I looked at this the way you've boys
described to Claire. I looked at this as Republicans by
sneakers too. Republicans watched Late Night TV two and I
think Next Star and Sinclair just said, you know, our
we just don't think it's appropriate that you know, excuse me,
if your late night talk show hosts you should you
should not do two things you shouldn't tick off half
the potential audience, and you should be funny, and it
(26:53):
seems like Jimmy Kimmel was failing on both of those
those two things. So I think I think nextarn and uh,
nexttar In and Sinclair said we just like something different. Frankly,
so I think this is a business decision largely, and
you know, it couldn't just be the government censoring because
ABC or Disney putting back on. So yeah, I think
(27:14):
I looked at it all throughout this whole thing, and
I understand what what Commissioner car said, but I looked
at it largely as this was a business deal. Next
Star came forward and said, no, we want we want
something different, and you can't blame him for that because
I think I think they're losing money on the show
ABC is. I didn't thought he was really that funny.
It was all just we know, it was all just
(27:35):
attacking Trump all the time, and and half the country
doesn't doesn't particularly care for that. So that's how I
viewed it, versus government government doing what they did. And
in all these areas where we have emails from the
Biden administration saying take down this tweet, a sap and
It was a tweet from RFK Junior when he was
running for president against Joe Biden. For goodness sake, So
(27:56):
that's as bad as it gets. It said, the Biden
administration set up the disinformation Governance for most allwellian thing
in history. Oh yeah, bunch of bureaucrats, tell you what
you can say.
Speaker 1 (28:04):
Nia Jenkowitz. I haven't forgotten her name.
Speaker 4 (28:07):
Totally, totally. So so that's a that's a completely different
animal than next to our saying we don't think our
audience really likes this show. We just assume be something else.
That's a business call my mind code.
Speaker 3 (28:19):
Totally agree. Congress and Jim Jordan will have you back,
and there will be video of that one hundred mile
an hour service. It will happen. I will not be denied.
Speaker 5 (28:26):
It's good to happen.
Speaker 3 (28:27):
Thank you, sir, Thank you.
Speaker 5 (28:28):
All right, Thank you guys.
Speaker 2 (28:30):
You're listening to Team forty seven with Clay and Buck.
Speaker 3 (28:36):
We're joined now by doctor Oz. Doctor Mehmet Oz serves
as the Administrator for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid
Services under HHS Secretary RFK Junior and President Trump. Doctor Oz,
welcome to the show. Is always good to talk to.
Speaker 5 (28:51):
You, good talkers always, It's been an active week. I
justspect you'll want to speak a bit about autism and
what might work.
Speaker 3 (28:59):
Yeah, let's le's talk about autism and the tile and
all situation here, Doc, what is actually what do we know?
What is being recommended? What is actually going on? And
let's just stay as tight to the facts as we
can on this one, because there's a lot of passion
around this topic.
Speaker 5 (29:16):
There is Let's take a step back for one second
and just make it really clear. There is no political
benefit to President Trump talking about this. This is a
hostscale departure from what historically has happened with data within government,
which is we have the row take process. You don't
really know what we know. Eventually we figure it all
out and tell you the best we can. We saw
that that in covid at backfires when moms think that
(29:39):
they're gaslighting, they're being gas lit because they're not getting
access to data. So the President charged all of us
sector Kennedy beating the process. We're just breaking all the silos,
breaking the barriers. Just do the work and release the
information when you have it. This is the first example.
There'll be future ones so let's go over the data.
Fifty million dollar is put into a process to try
(30:02):
to research autism, say about a chart at the NIH
has been allocating that money in grants along the way
studying what's going on with autism, and discovered two signals,
two leads that were intriguing enough that after a lot
of discussion, we were decided to share with the American people.
The first had to do with a prescription medication called
(30:22):
lucu worn, which no one's ever heard of, but prescription
lucuborn is essentially a way of getting B vitamins into
the brains of children. Why is that a problem? We
believe that there's a fair amount of ethology around B
vitamins in the brains of kids who have autism. That's
one of the reasons their brain get cloudy, foggy, they
can't really process information, they don't learn to speak right.
(30:44):
And so if we can reverse that problem, which is
caused by their genes in some cases that we know of,
and by antibodies blocking those receptors those pathways into the brain,
and others, that would make a difference. It turns out
with a couple of hundred kids in different small studies
that about half the kids seem to benefit when given
this medication. Correctly, it's not perfect. We don't know enough
(31:06):
about it to make broader promises. But I asked the
key question claim about both you just tell me that
if you just resonates with you. I asked the question
everyone should ask their doctor, would you do it for
your kid? And the answer I got over and over
again was yes, we don't know for sure, but because
it's so safe and the drug's been around forever, we
think it will be worth it, so we release that information.
(31:27):
At the same time, there was a data that's been
around for a couple of years, but more and more
of it coming out about potential concerns around a set ofmnfen,
which is the raw material in talentol. Now, I want
to say this as crisply and clearly, sticking to the
facts as you asked me to. If you have a
high fever, if you've got a bad problem, please talk
(31:48):
to your doctors. If you're pregnant, make sure that they're involved,
and take the centim nifen, which is pretty much the
only drug we would use in that setting, and it's
the drug that most doctors use. Myself included in that
setting because all the other drugs seem to have bigger problems,
and having high fevers itself caused the problem. So this
is not a warning never to take the drug. However,
(32:08):
in cases where there was a lot of use of
this drug, that does seem to be a signal concerning
enough that we were sharing it that women subsequently have
babies to develop autism. So the message really is, if
you have a low grade temperature, if you stub your toe,
don't use the medication, willy nilly, use it thoughtfully, recognizing
that any medication is strong enough to help you is
(32:28):
strong enough to hurt you.
Speaker 1 (32:30):
Doctors, you have kids, Buck has a baby, I've got three.
I want to run through a couple of things because
I know we got a lot of moms and with
a lot of grandmas out there, and everybody when they
get pregnant, by and large, is trying to do the
best possible things they can for the baby that they
are carrying. And there's a couple of things out there
(32:52):
that I was going to point out, and how complicated
and sometimes even to the detriment that all of these
strictures can be. In America, they say women should eat
sushi pregnant women. They say that women should not have
alcohol at all, as I'm sure you're aware. In Japan
(33:13):
women continue to eat sushi throughout pregnancy, most no issues.
In France, women continue to drink glasses of wine. I
mean they're not pounding bottles of wine and getting super drunk,
and by and large kids aren't having issues there. Circling back,
I read in the New York Times today you may
have more accurate data than this that now I believe
it's one in every thirty one kids is being classified
(33:36):
as autistic. Those numbers are have skyrocketed. Something is going
on right. Either we're identifying autism way more, and maybe
that's partly it. Maybe we are, Maybe there are multiple
different factors out there. You're a doctor, though, and I'd
just like to go baseline. What would you tell a
woman who just found out she's pregnant right now that
(33:59):
is concerned about autism that she should do, in your opinion,
to be the absolute healthiest. And obviously one answer is
she can talk to her doctor. But if this were
your if this were your daughter and you were about
to have a grand baby, what would you tell her.
Speaker 5 (34:16):
The most important thing you can do, and when you're
pregnant is actually to be calm and realistic about the numbers.
You will almost certainly do well. Mortality rates obviously are
very low because we're so good generally at taking care
of crises or complications when they occur, and anxiety itself
is a problem doing pregnancy. So recognize that you're in
(34:38):
pretty good shape and you're lucky to be born in
an era where we have high quality care. That stated,
there are some unforced errors, rookie errors. You want to avoid.
Trusting that there's one product that's so safe that you
can take it whenever you think you might have a
small little thing not right is unwise because we just
don't know. There's so many things happening during pregnancy. With
(35:01):
that miraculous process where these cells are growing at a
fast rate, differentiating into organs, everything's got to work. It's
sort of a miracle that it ever works, but it
almost always does work because we get out of the way.
If I say the same thing to my kids is
when I've got five grandkids, now when we're coming case,
just get out of the way of biology and let
it run itself. A low grade temperature is a healthy thing,
(35:24):
usually because it'll kill the virus that's bothering you, but
it doesn't hurt your own cells. Don't trust external substances
of any kind. I don't think alcohol is a good
thing to do when you're pregnant, and you shouldn't have
to drink alcohol to be able to get through your day.
So yes, you know, if you're going to toast someone
that's different, but it should not be part of the norm.
If it's a cleaner you eat, the better. Do not
(35:45):
trust the environment to be clean. Go out of your way.
Air purifires, water pure fires are wise moves. It's the
time for you to be so careful because you're the
canary in the coal mine. Anything that's not right in society,
in the world around us would have an increased detrimental
effect on you and your fetus. And then they take
(36:05):
one step back up because you mentioned this stat one
in thirty one kids that'll have autism. Just to put
this in perspective, that is five times more than it
was in twenty twenty five years ago, five times more so.
It's not genetics. And I don't buy the canard that
this is all about measurement, because I just turned sixty five.
I'm running the agency that I'm a member of now,
(36:26):
medicare right. There aren't any people my age that I
know of who have autism. Bobby Kennedy, Secretary Kennedy is found,
you know, reminds all of us that he and his
whole life never met anyone his age who has autism.
I'm sure they're out there, but they're not very common.
Whereas you go to school today, if you think of
kids to school, you talk to the other parents. Many
(36:48):
of those parents have kids with autistic children. It changes
their life. So the President's passionate about this comes from
a realization this is not genetic, this is not measurement.
There is a change in our environment. He is on
He will find it and pursue it. And these are
two clues of how to deal with it.
Speaker 3 (37:04):
Doctor Oz, I wanted to follow up on this is
it you're and now I'm asking more for your analysis
and maybe even a bit of your your gut instinct
on this. Having practiced medicine for decades and now having
access to, uh, you know, the data on these things
at a very high level on the policy side, when
you're talking about that, we just established that that really
(37:26):
deeply troubling rise of autism. Do you think it is
most likely to be a multi factor problem that has
caused the increase, as in several things you know together,
or just several things in general, or do you think
that it might be a really one primary culprit that
will be found. It's just a question of whittling down
(37:48):
the data and pursuing the science and finally getting us
to what's really at the heart of this of this crisis.
Speaker 5 (37:55):
I believe it's multifactorial, but they may work through common mechanisms.
For example, well I brought up the reality that foliate
levels are low in the brain full it comes from
foliage leafy greens, So this vitamin benign is a critical
element in brain development. It's possible that several of the
things we're worried about all work to inhibit the ability
(38:16):
of the fragile child's brain to take up enough of
this critical ingredient so their brain forms normally. It could
happen because antibodies are made because the kid's allergic to
everything from a food that they're being given, to substance
in their body, to a toxin and their environment mold
and chemicals, all kinds of things. We don't know how
(38:37):
they work in the body, but they probably work through
several common pathways. What I do have confidence in since
I've been looking at this together with the rest of
the team and Jay Batsharia, Marty McCarey, who head of
the NIAH and FDA, we're all raisier focused on this,
in part because the Secretary insists it and the President
demands it. We are seeing signals of lots of things.
We didn't want to talk about all of them, but
(38:59):
we're seeing thing is that all could be concerning. We
just want to try to whittle it down and get
to the ones that are legitimate, the things we might
be able to do differently in our lives. But certainly
you want to start being transparent with the American people
because trust is built brick by brick, by a shining
light and all the things you know. If I know
things you don't know, there's no reason why you would
(39:20):
trust me to do more and better with it than
you would. And this is why I think parents in particular,
who love their kids more than anybody, should be armed
with the best data the government has as we get it.
And of course this it scares people that alarms people.
They don't not every want to hear it. Frees Ideologically,
I get all that stuff, but if you mix politics
in medicine, you know what you get politics, you kill medicine.
(39:42):
And so the last thing we want to do is
hold back because there's a political rationale, which is again,
if you're a political person who's passionate about people, you
tell them what you know. That's what a doctor does.
Speaker 1 (39:54):
We're talking to doctor Oz. You just hit on something.
This will be a last question because I know you're
busy and we've got to hit a break. But the
autism rates have skyrocketed. You talked about how they've skyrocketed,
not just historically but in the twenty first century in particular.
It's also happened with allergies. I know there are a
lot of parents out there. You mentioned, Doctor Oz, that
you rarely see and Bobby Kennedy has rarely seen people
(40:16):
your age who have autism allergies. When I was a
kid growing up, nobody was allergic to peanuts. It didn't
feel like now the peanut allergy is so commonplace that
they don't even give out peanuts on airplanes anymore. They've
had to stop doing that. Is it possible that we're
seeing some connection in the environment that is impacting things
(40:38):
on a variety of different levels. Do you think there
might be any connection between autism and allergies and just
the way that the body chemistry is changing? And Buck
and I have talked about this. This is a big
question too. Is it partly maybe connected also to the
idea of older parents? Right, dads and moms frankly are
having babies way later in the twenty first century than
(41:01):
they did for basically the entirety of human existence.
Speaker 5 (41:05):
Clay such an excellent question. All the things you identify
because you're a curious person. And by the way, to me,
the MAHA movement is not being curious and eighty percent
of statements are questions in disguise. You're actually a curious
human being. The questions you're asking are the ones that
we have got to be brave enough to answer and
share for courageous with people around us. But you got
to be kind. So you mentioned age of the parent. Yes,
(41:26):
that's a risk factor. We've known that, but it's hard
to hear that if you're a parent. But yet again,
you got to be transparent. Doctors tell patients things they
don't always want to hear, but these will respect us
for telling you the truth. The allergy issue, I think
is a bigger problem. There's a reason why so many
kids are allergic. You're right, pen analogies unheard of when
I was a kid. You know, we have an epidemic
(41:48):
of all types of alogies, which again is reflective of
the fact that we're traumatizing the fragile immune system of
the child who's just trying to figure out what the
world is about and to differentiate what's friendly. Their immune
system is confused. I suspect there are chemicals that they're
getting exposed to that are causing this. We are actively,
of course, searching. There's many allegations. When you don't know
(42:09):
the answer is easy to blame folks. We don't have
the luxury of bickering when you're increasing by five fold
the incidents of a tragic condition that could be Obviously,
these kids are lovable, should be loved, will be taking
care of it. As a society, we're judged by how
we take care of our most vulnerable, So we'll always
take care of kids on the author's in spectrum. But
it's a heck of a lot easier not to have
(42:31):
to fight that battle when you're going through a life
and these kids deserve better. We have got to deliver.
And looking at the cause of allergies, I think is
one of the biggest clues, because they're the tip of
the iceberg. You figure that out, that's the leading edge.
Behind that are a whole bunch of other conditions Celiac disease,
bowel problems of course, you know all kinds of pathologies
like toiness, spectrum ADHD. If you can go down the
(42:53):
laundry list of issues that plague our youth, and many
of them come back to an immune system that can't
function correctly. It a tragile system. It's being maligned. We've
got to figure out what's doing it.
Speaker 1 (43:04):
Doctor Oz. We appreciate the time. Thank you so much
for joining us. Always happy to have you on. Just
let us know when you think it makes sense, and
good work and good luck trying to figure all this out.
Speaker 5 (43:15):
God bless you both. Take care,
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show News
Hosts And Creators
Clay Travis
Buck Sexton
Show Links
WebsiteNewsletterPopular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
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.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.