The YoJoeShow™ Podcast – Episode 7 - The YoJoeShow™ Podcast

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:04):
Hey. Hey, everyone. And welcome back to episode
seven of the Yojo show podcast. Hey, Joe.
Hey, Yo. How's it going?
I'm awake and alive.
I think we've got a lot of very
interesting things to discuss.
Yep. I'm doing okay. My heart's beating. Lungs
are working. I know not to complain too
much. If not for those two things, the
rest just wouldn't matter.

(00:24):
What's first up on our docket?
So first up, I think we're gonna be
talking a little bit about some one of
my favorite topics, which has to do with
the state of our health care, health, wellness,
nutrition,
drug companies.
These are all topics that, you know, are
near and dear to my heart. And the
very first one actually
involves some interesting news.

(00:44):
Many people may not be aware, but
much of the decision making
in government regarding
our health and our food systems
are made by different committees
and groups that often have people that are
sitting on those groups and committees that are
part of the actual industry. So they're industry
insiders who are actually going and

(01:07):
essentially agreeing to the things that they want
to agree to. That would be the danger.
Right?
There's Or advising the government on things that
they have personal biases and motivations
for. Right. Ultimately, you
don't want the criminals, so to speak, using
that term loosely, running the police
department or the or the institutionalized running the

(01:28):
institution, so to speak. So it's it's encouraging.
We'll see where things go. We do have
a clip that kind of explains a little
bit. This is on the Megyn Kelly show
where
there's
the dichotomy of this. Right? So government wants
to work with
these different industries and wants to work with
the different companies,
but

(01:49):
can't allow and shouldn't allow. In fact, it's
somewhat surprising and concerning
that this has been going on for all
this time where we have
decisions being made, let's say, by people that
are insiders to the companies they're deciding things
about. So let's play that.
We have to do two things. Number one
is we have to partner with industry and

(02:09):
pharma to facilitate the process to make it
user friendly and expeditious.
We shouldn't be in a receive only mode.
We want American pharma companies to do well
and companies that do business in The United
States to do well. But the scientific evaluation
needs to be independent. And that's why today
we're announcing we're removing
industry members, pharma members from FDA advisory committees.

(02:32):
I was shocked when I learned
that employees
of big pharma companies
sit on FDA advisory committees as members of
those committees.
So we're gonna be replacing them whenever statutorily
possible with patients and family caregivers. We are
going to be inviting
pharma companies to send representatives to the advisory

(02:52):
committees, but
they can sit with the rest of the
public and watch and post questions as the
rest of the American public can. I think
this is very exciting news, and it is
somewhat of a transition from
what is
ridiculous policy that's been going on for many
decades
where the drug manufacturers can send representatives, where
the food manufacturers
can send representatives

(03:14):
to determine what is healthy and what is
not, what is advisable and what is not.
I think most people by now hopefully know
that the food pyramid, it should literally
be upside down or almost be upside down.
So the advice that they've been giving us
for a very long time hasn't been sane
advice. We've seen this especially during COVID.
So
this does seem
like
a very decent development, especially when instead of

(03:37):
having these corrupt company representatives
on the board, we'll have families and patients
families of patients instead. It seems like it
may be a very kind of
moment of taking the power away from the
elite and giving it back to the people.
At least that's something that comes across to
me. And I think that it is a
good development, yet it is still

(03:58):
astonishing
how long this has gone on and how
this was the situation in the first place.
Like we see when Boeing
for the FAA kind of does their own
inspections and their own investigations,
doors start flying off of Boeing's and engines
start stop working, and that can cause the
death of many people. So one of the
very few
tasks that governments do have aside from, like,

(04:20):
internal and external, security
is preserving courts and legal systems
and then monitoring that those rules are implemented.
And if you
allow the companies to monitor themselves, then there's
really no monitoring happening. And that's that will
that's what we've seen across all of the
bureaucracy. It's, like, one of the core duties
of the government.
And instead, they claim that they didn't have

(04:42):
enough funds even though their budgets are tens
of billions
of dollars large, but they still don't do
not have enough funds
to have enough inspectors and have enough regulators
to regulate, whether it's the food companies or
the drug companies or the airline or the
air aircraft manufacturing companies. It's just absurd. Like,
where is the budget all going to? And
the budget is all going to administrative
costs, which is just bureaucrats being bureaucrats who

(05:04):
do nothing valuable. Right? So instead of them
doing their core responsibility,
they basically outsource that even if at the
cost of American lives. And that's very sad
to see, but exciting to see that has
finally changed.
And time will tell, right, as always. But,
certainly,
that it's being discussed and being brought to
light
so that everybody understands that we have this

(05:25):
sort of situation. And you give an example.
It's not just that certainly without without question
outside just the medical field. So it's not
just big pharma, the drug companies, just it's
not just
the food industry.
We actually have
essentially a widespread
concern
that when decisions are being made about what
should and shouldn't be done,

(05:47):
that
this should be an unbiased decision that's being
made for the benefit of the constituency
of the people that live here in The
United States. One of the things we often,
as of late, have been
discussing and bringing up has to be the
mind boggling concerning
drug ads and some of the disclosures that

(06:07):
are put in the fine print.
And I'm Rumor has it. You have a
few more of those for us. I do.
And the examples are tie in exactly as
to why it's important
that because we asked ourselves before, how could
this even be legal that they're allowing some
of these ads to run? You would think
there should be no level of trickery, deception,
or sleight of hand
in medical and pharmaceutical

(06:29):
advertising.
Maybe this is perhaps why there's some concerns.
Here's one example,
And we brought up,
several last episode, I believe. And then there's
this one.
This is a beautiful diagram that they put
here. I think it's very, perhaps distracting. It
seems very official looking.
It helps people understand where the lower back,

(06:52):
the lumbar spine
is, where the hip or the total hip
is, and then the femoral head, the top
of the femur, the leg bone, connecting in
to make the connection to the hip.
Great. You look at that and go, wow.
It's very educational. It says the drug called
EVENITY
significantly
twelve months,
significantly increased bone mineral density in the lumbar

(07:15):
spine,
total hip, and femoral neck at twelve months,
versus placebo.
And then there is a little star. So
if we go ahead and we try and
Let's not look at the star yet. Let's
look at the things that are most obvious
first. Most obvious is so what is it
basically telling us on
the opening density
increases the bone density, which is assumed to

(07:36):
be a very good thing. Right. And remember,
people are taking this drug because they're concerned
about having fractures, having a broken hip, for
example. Right? Fractures in their bones.
And these type of drugs are intended to
reduce the likelihood that you're going to have
typically, you're given these when they're concerned you're
imminently going to have a fracture where you've
had one and you don't want to keep

(07:57):
having them. So
that's the premise.
It seems like compared to placebo, which is
the nonactive
drug that's given to the person that's doesn't
that's just basically like a sugar pill as
you'd call it. There is a difference, it
says. Significant
increase in bone mineral density.
Okay. Then it says in a study, what
does it say at the bottom? In a

(08:17):
study that followed over seven thousand women with
postmenopausal
osteoporosis
receiving EVENITY, which is the drug being advertised,
or placebo,
a treatment without medicine for 12, women on
EVENITY experienced a significantly
a significant increase in the bone mineral density
b BMD
of their lumbar spine, total hip, and femoral

(08:37):
neck compared to women on placebo.
So this basically is just a repeat of
what we saw earlier.
But then
you pointed out something that I basically missed.
Right. And and why did we miss it?
Tell me what's unique about that writing that's
next to the little asterisk that's on the
picture.
Yeah. So typically when you see an asterisk
in the main text, it it is referring

(08:59):
back to the bottom of the poster to
the kind of small text at the bottom.
And that's what we just read, which is
almost a repeat of the main text. So
that's a little ironic.
And there's a line that is very easy
to miss. It is like very
light blue on a light blue background.
And I really have to bring the laptop
up to see, and it says BMD results

(09:20):
do not imply fracture risk reduction.
So this is a drug being promoted, being
sold to reduce the risk of fractures of
broken bones, and then it gives you this
whole spiel about how amazing
this drug is at improve at approving bone
density.
But then in the tiny letters on the
light blue on light blue, it basically says

(09:41):
there's no evidence that improving bone density will
help produce fractures.
So then So are you selling us this
drug?
So that's an important consideration. So
a lot of individuals, especially as they advance
in age, will be asked to take a
scan, a DXA scan, a bone density scan.
And when they do that,
it does provide information as to how dense

(10:01):
or thick the bones are. The concern is
that doesn't always have a direct straight line
to a reduction
in the chances of getting fractures because
some of what appears denser in the bones
actually is a framework that's not as strong
as what you'd want. And that's why legally

(10:21):
they're putting this disclosure saying, Yeah, this medication
will increase the density or thickness of your
bones. However,
they have I'm sure their attorney said, you
have to disclose
somewhere,
maybe very small print with light blue on
light blue background or that's the way it
seems, that
just because it does do that to your

(10:42):
bones,
that may not prevent actual other fractures, specifically
does not imply
a fracture risk reduction.
So again, this is taken off an ad
that you would typically see on television or
maybe on social media,
and
it
flashes up on the screen for a period
of time. There's also print ads that are

(11:03):
like this, which again, even in print, as
you can see, it's very difficult to even
read what it says. You have to hunt.
After you read it, you have to understand
what that even means because a lot of
patients might not really even know
what the importance of that statement is. So
you would think
that just because of the
potential confusion or misunderstanding, that should be enough

(11:24):
to perhaps say that advertising like this would
need to be cleaned up a bit before
it was published.
And
we'd wonder how is it
that there are ads like this. And again,
not to knock this one drug or drug
manufacturer because as we've already discussed previously, but
we're going to look at some more examples,
this is a common tactic,

(11:46):
if we call it that. It's certainly again,
I understand that's a good way to market.
You don't want to scare people, but if
you have something that if you're going to
buy a car and there's the wheels fall
off, you may want to mention that there's
a potential for the wheels falling off. That's
really my concern with some of these things
is that it doesn't provide, I think, a
clear enough
notice to the potential consumer, which is the

(12:08):
patient
of the ins and outs of what they're
taking. Here's another one. Yeah. Just about that
last one, the ironic thing is at the
bottom, it says that while taking Aventity, you
also need to take vitamin d and calcium.
Right. Now we know that calcium, it helps
with bone density. And we were like,
I'm no doctor or anything, but just curious.
Maybe if you take a whole lot of

(12:29):
vitamin d and calcium and maybe do a
little bit more sport and eat a little
bit more healthy, you won't need avenity in
the first place. And you won't have to
deal with all the side effects that are
extremely likely come with these drugs. So, yeah,
this is another drug for Kisqali, and it
says live longer, which is a very motivational
little slogan. It can almost be Nike's new

(12:49):
slogan, I think. And then on the bottom,
it says in postmenopausal
woman, at a twenty six month check-in,
median time to worsening
of at least 10% in quality of life
score was 27.7
with Kisqali
plus letrozole
versus twenty seven point six months with placebo

(13:09):
with placebo plus letrozole. First of all, this
quality of life score, that sounds something that's
very easy to play with and mesh with.
And then the difference between twenty seven point
seven and twenty seven point six,
While regardless of if you take this Kisqali,
you have to take another drug called letrozole.

(13:30):
Maybe letrozole is doing most of the heavy
working. I don't know. But it's point 1%
of a difference,
And the headline is live longer. That is
just utterly ridiculous.
So
point if you think about it, it's point
one
month difference. So for months, thirty days, which
is depends on the month, but let's just
keep it simple. You're talking three days.

(13:53):
So we're basically saying that the difference is
about three days.
And
this has to do with, again,
quality of life, but also specifically the claim
is how long you're going to live. So
it's saying that essentially
there was at least a 10%.

(14:13):
So it means 90% didn't change, but it's
at least 10%
change in the quality of life score. It
was at least an improvement or it wasn't
deteriorating as quickly.
27.6
versus twenty seven point seven months or 27.7
versus 27.6.
It's such a small
amount of time if you look at it
just a few days, and it's for a
small- Better 10% better quality of life. Like

(14:34):
what does that even mean? It's a score
based on the person answering essentially what they
can and can't do, how they're feeling the
pain and so forth. It's still a valid
measure. It's just that the amount of difference
between the patients that are given this medication
is maybe statistically significant,
but it's certainly
not what you would think. When you say

(14:55):
live longer, you're thinking
years longer, a long time longer. Or minutes
longer. You don't it's just that and again,
I'm not saying these drugs don't have a
purpose. It's quite
striking when you look at
the fine print and the disclosure is telling

(15:16):
you something that
you know, needs to perhaps be better discussed.
So then you can more carefully look at
the potential side effects and risks of taking
the drug and then decide
with the potential actual benefit to you and
how many days and quality of life and
so forth just whether it's worth taking. Here's
another one.

(15:37):
What does this one say in big bold
letters?
Optivo plus Yervoy,
a chance to live longer. In a study
of previously untreated
NSCLC
SCLC, yeah, patients,
half of those,
Optivid plus Yervoy,
were alive at seventeen months versus fifteen months
on platinum based chemotherapy.

(16:00):
So chemotherapy, cancer treatment, chemical cancer treatment,
patient is being given an opportunity to
try something to prolong their life.
And now these are a combination
of two drugs,
and they're basically saying that when you're comparing
patients that are taking these two drugs
versus someone that just on

(16:22):
a type of chemotherapeutic
agents, that there's a difference. And, yes, statistically
significant difference why they can put it here,
but what's the real life difference they're saying
on the fine print at the bottom? In
the two groups that they're comparing,
half of the people, not all of them,
only half
were alive. It doesn't say that they were
thriving or doing great. They were simply alive

(16:45):
at 17
versus
the other group, which at fifteen months was
the max they were alive. So there's only
a two month difference
that only half of the people live two
months two months longer by taking these drugs.
And not only do you live two months
more, it just says that you're alive. It

(17:05):
doesn't
say if you're on life support or what
whether you wish you hadn't lived those extra
two months because you're not feeling well. This
is serious business. Anyone that's being put on
these medications
is seriously ill.
And
again, not only does it say a chance
to live, but it has the TM, the
trademark

(17:25):
symbol next to it because they're trademarking that.
And the other thing that I find interesting
after reading the fine print,
a chance to live longer,
that's like going to play the lottery. You
have a chance to win the lottery,
but most people don't actually think they're gonna
win when they go play it. And I
would hope that when it comes to pharmaceutical,
we should have a little better hope

(17:47):
than the likelihood of being able to win
the lottery when we play it. So that's,
again,
not knocking that these drugs don't have a
purpose and a value.
It's just
it seems very concerning when you read this
fine print which flashes on the screen
briefly
that the amount of potential benefit, the amount
of time you might live longer, we're talking

(18:09):
two months in half of the people that
were studied. And believe me, if there was
some better outcome and it was a year
or two, they would put it. This is
the best they could muster
to promote this particular
combination of drugs. So it's Just a little
bit of a credit to this drug manufacturer
is they set a chance to live longer,
whereas the previous ones said live longer. So
at least they put in the term a

(18:30):
chance there. I had pointed out earlier that
the difference between twenty seven point seven and
twenty seven point six seems like it's below
the margin of error, which means when you
do these surveys, there's always a margin of
error. And you rightfully noted that they should
have already removed the margin of error from
the calculation.
But
I think It's not that. It's not in

(18:50):
scientific analysis.
They're obviously looking for that. If it's statistically
insignificant,
okay, then it wouldn't be there. But the
reality is you can still have a study
that shows that statistically,
there is a difference. Okay? There is an
actual mathematical difference. The outcomes aren't the same.
But in the real world,
okay,
the difference is that nobody cares about that.

(19:12):
You care about the reality of your condition
and how much longer you're gonna live, how
healthy you're gonna feel,
whether as like in the pictures what showed
what looked like a woman perhaps with a
grandchild.
Are you gonna be there how much longer
to enjoy your grandchild? That's what why people
are willing to take some of these medications
knowing that there are risks and side effects.

(19:33):
But if the potential benefit
is very low,
it may
not be the right way to go. And
that's a decision that's made between the patient,
their families,
and the caregivers, the physicians and prescribers.
But I just find it concerning sometimes when
it appears that some of the certainly the

(19:53):
advertising
isn't putting out there
really the these numbers. They're not hiding them.
They are having to disclose them, but they're
not being represented
in the ad as well as they should
be. And this is for the same two
medications.
What is this shows obviously what looks like
some family having some fun over here. They

(20:13):
got books of a campfire out there. And
then what does it say
has the disclosure or disclaimer that flashes on
the screen? Problems can occur together and more
often when
Optivo is used with Yervoy. So the previous
ad, which is the same ad, was talking
all about how the fact that these two
drugs together are so beneficial.
And then you can get problems with each

(20:36):
of these drugs and it can be even
worse when these problems are together. Do you
have another slide you want to show or?
I do. I have a couple more and
it's in the same theme. Ultimately,
that's the thing. So wait a minute, I'm
going to take these medications. They may have
a benefit.
It's not necessarily very clear from the ad
how great the benefit is, but okay, I
definitely want to consider it. But now in
the fine print it reminds you that taking

(20:57):
those two medications together can cause
more potential side effects because you're taking two
medications together, not like a big surprise.
And then you have another disclosure. What does
this one say? Same same same drug. Let's
stop for a second. Let's not be distracted
by the fact that looks like it's the
grandmother, her daughter, and the grandchild there, and

(21:18):
they're all smiling and happy. I I would
imagine
playing playing the guitar and Yeah, there's a
guitar and they're outside. They're
camping, everything's beautiful.
There's a lot of open optimism. Set the
calendar going,
everybody's smiling of course. And it says, Opdivo
plus Yervoy can cause your immune system to
harm healthy parts of your body during and

(21:39):
after treatment. These problems can be severe and
lead to death.
Yeah. We were just told that if you
take both of these drugs together, then maybe
you'll have maybe a chance of surviving an
additional two months while you're taking chemotherapy, which
kills your body. But now we discover that
this can harm
the healthy elements of your body and can
even cause to your even cause your death.

(22:00):
So I think this really gets to the
gist of this entire subject.
And that is when people try to make
decisions, we try and compare pros and cons.
And what
these advertisements
are a way of showing the cons while
trying to avoid showing the sorry. Showing the
pros while trying to avoid showing the cons.
And what people really need is to see

(22:22):
them side by side and a real comparison.
Like, okay. Advantages,
potential a, b, c, and d at the
best case scenario.
Disadvantages,
these are the side effects. And
what I don't like about side effects is
that, yes, the drugs have to rattle off
what side effects they can cause. They don't
have to mention the likelihood
that you will get those side effects. And
I think that's where they really get you

(22:42):
because my feeling is that the likelihood of
getting some of these side effects has to
be so high where they are forced to
put it in their advertisement. So the fact
that they are forced to say, hey. This
can cause lots of problems and taking them
together can double the problems. Oh, and this
can cause harm to your healthy body organs,
which you don't have any problem with, but
you will soon if you take our drug

(23:03):
and then you'll need more of our drugs
probably.
Oh, and it can even cause your even
lead to your death.
Is wait. That is what I'm getting in
return for maybe being able to live two
months longer? Like, it's just not the pros
and cons people wanna see. It's not clear
the way people wanna see them. People wanna
be able to know the likelihood of each
of these side effects. And again, like I
said, if they have to put it in

(23:24):
the ad, it means that the likelihood is
fairly noticeable because otherwise, they would probably not
put it there. Mia, what do you think?
An an important consideration,
certainly in
the area of cancer treatment, is that the
treatments typically are very brutal on your body.
K? And once you weaken,
as it says here that these medications will
very likely
cause harm to the healthy

(23:46):
immune system and so forth, which you do
need and the immune system can be used
to help fight off the cancer.
Bottom line is if you weaken the rest
of your body, the likelihood
of cancer progression
metastasis
is higher,
And many patients don't die of their primary
cancer targets. Those get
beaten down with the medication and radiation and

(24:06):
maybe surgery.
But then you find a year later, year
and a half later, a lot of these
cancers have spread.
And it's very difficult to treat
cancer
when
your body's weak. So that's why some of
these disclosures are very important. That's why they're
putting them there. And these are the conversations,

(24:27):
again, that you have to have
with your doctor
and maybe get a second opinion and try
to understand
really the waters you're navigating when you're getting
your care. And that's really the purpose of
the conversation. We're not saying don't take these
drugs or they're all bad. It's not about
that. It's that
it's if you're going to advertise something, certainly
for in the realm of pharmaceuticals,

(24:48):
it's important that the people reading these ads
really understand what this is about and not
get a false understanding of what's good or
bad about taking that particular drug. And
as we're mentioning, it's not just
the FDA and the drug industry, the pharmaceutical
industry.
It's the same thing across the board with
food. I would tell you the two things

(25:10):
are tied at the hip. Much of what's
going on in our food industry is exactly
the same.
A lot of our foods are have dyes
and chemicals,
and everything is laced with massive amounts of
sugar, either fructose or other sugars
that
really, I think,
are at the core of most of the
illnesses that people have. The heart disease, the

(25:32):
cancer,
and probably other things such as, again, conversations
about autism and other things that we now
have in abundance in our society that really
we didn't previously.
So one of the next things I'd like
to share is really a a clip from
really the discussions about the changes. Now we
have certain states that are starting

(25:53):
to
ban the use of certain chemicals in the
foods,
even though for many years in The United
States, we've considered them to be safe. There's
a lot of concerns about this and through
the make America healthy again movement
at the federal level and a lot of
the offshoots of that at the state levels,
we are starting to see some changes

(26:13):
in what is
considered
acceptable. So I'm gonna queue that up for
us, listen to, and have some conversation about
it. Yeah. It's nice to end this topic
on a little bit of a more positive
news. So let's squash that. Here we go.
And this is Vani Hari being interviewed. She's
known online as the food babe, and she
has been
a real strong

(26:34):
advocate
for food safety and understanding the chemicals and
dyes that are put into our foods here
in The United States, many of which are
banned in other countries.
Here we go.
We are under enormous pressure from the American
Beverage Association. And it was absolutely
stunning to watch the secretary of agriculture, Brooke

(26:55):
Rollins, call them out and say that they
are going against
American health. How does it make sense that
SNAP will pay for unhealthy sodas, for candy,
and for junk food, but not for rotisserie
chicken. The SNAP program is designed to help
those in need of assistance,
not to hurt them. So that's a message
for every governor out there and anybody who

(27:17):
tries to veto these bills. You are going
against American health. Taxpayers are spending $10,000,000,000
giving that to the soda companies,
another $4,000,000,000
a year for junk food. And over the
next ten years, they're estimating that it's going
to be close to $240,000,000,000
of savings that could go towards healthier options.

(27:38):
So we have to look at the root
cause of why we are so sick, why
we have rising rates of diabetes, heart disease,
and obesity in this country, and it starts
with what we're eating. Food is medicine. We
know soda does not provide a nutritional benefit
to the human body.
Yeah. And the general idea of SNAP, and

(28:00):
that's the, it used to be fall called
food tickets or something,
But that's for people who struggle in terms
of sufficient income.
The idea is to provide them with the
nutrition that they need to survive,
but instead,
the vast majority of that SNAP funding goes
to
right back to the industries that have been

(28:21):
funding and lobbying for this in the first
place, and that is the kind of the
large manufacturers that manufacture very unhealthy foods. So
it's not really going to
organic
vegetables and fruits and chicken and meat and
stuff like that. Instead, the vast majority of
the SNAP funding ends up going to destroying
people's nutrition instead of helping them

(28:41):
with their nutrition. And that is the entire
idea of this thing. And, again, this is
where we get to see how the government,
in the name of acting for the benefit
of the American people, actually
do harm, to the American people. Even if
it's the American people making the final choice
at the end of the day, if that
money is going for nutritious, it should
be for nutritious food and not for extremely

(29:02):
unhealthy and damaging
food that will make you sick. But it's
a circle. Right? The food manufacturers work together
with the drug manufacturers because they wipe out
the hand that feed you that feeds you.
Right? And the,
quite literally,
the food manufacturers feed the drug manufacturers.
And, it almost it's almost like a an
evil circle. So,
yeah, for some reason,

(29:23):
like we've mentioned before, Elon keeps on emphasizing
this. The perception of doing good is very
easy. The actuality of doing good is very
hard. People who care about the perception of
doing good, oh, we're helping hungry people have
more food. It's no. You're actually helping them
become more sick and then spending more time
in hospitals and doctors' beds and consuming more
medicine. Right? Again, even if it is the

(29:44):
choice of the people, if this money should
be for nutrition, it should be for nutrition,
not for
yeah. This is food stamps was the word
I was looking for, also known as SNAP.
What do you think? And just so you
know, what you're describing is really the about
biting the hand that feeds.
There is a tremendous
lobbying effort that's been ongoing forever.
And there's

(30:05):
Casey and Kelly Means. They are a brother
and sister team.
She's a doctor,
and he used to work for a large
sugary drink company, which I won't name
probably the most common household name.
And he he's spoken publicly a lot about
how
essentially,

(30:27):
they did everything in their power to make
sure that
every time there was an effort
to remove sugary drinks or other foods that
are we would colloquially call junk food from
the SNAP or food stamp program as it
had often been called.
They would do
everything

(30:47):
to convince the politicians to vote against such
an effort.
And the reasons, in fact, I've heard the
same kind of thing
this time around,
has been, oh, you don't understand.
You're discriminating.
You're hurting the poorest people.
It's unfair that someone that's poor
can't have

(31:08):
a sugary
soda or can't have candy.
Why punish them?
And what's ironic is you're not punishing them.
You're allowing them and by by design,
making foods available that are healthier.
Because the last thing you need if you
are
unable to go out and buy food regardless

(31:28):
of cost, you wanna make sure that the
best quality and healthy food is available to
you if you're on one of those programs.
But the lobbyists and the marketing is often
twisted in a way that makes the politicians
scared
of supporting any measure which
reduces
or cuts off these types of food of
being SNAP eligible.

(31:49):
And
this time around, maybe something different will happen,
and it's
goes beyond that. I just think many of
these foods shouldn't be widely available with some
of the chemicals and things that they have
in them. I think we need to make
some changes. And again, it's not about going
in and completely banning everything,
but we certainly don't wanna essentially encourage this

(32:11):
to happen.
And
there's been transformations
at different in different states where
Sarah Huckabee Sanders was there. I think she
was gonna announce that her state is going
to
be also making changes. There's several states now
that are talking
about
making the needed changes,
and then there's

(32:31):
a a final
recognition that this is a problem. The next
clip, very short, Megyn Kelly just basically
talking
about her own realization
of
what she's doing every time she gives her
kid. Even if it's junk food, it's not
just junk food and maybe gonna put on
a few pounds, but listen to what she

(32:51):
says about her 14 year old.
My daughter turned 14 this past Monday,
and I was baking her a cake. And
I went I just got the Duncan Hines.
I'm not gonna lie. I can't do anything
from scratch. But then I just took a
moment to look at what was in the
icing with which you would use to write
happy birthday.
Everything in there was red dye number this,

(33:13):
yellow dye number that, green dye number this,
and I thought
this is this could alternatively
read carcinogen
x, carcinogen y.
And I that's where I drew the line.
I'm sure there were tons of seed oils
and so on in the cake itself, but
my point is,
how does that even make its way onto
the shelf
where the vast majority of people have no

(33:35):
idea that all those dyes that are in
our food, but not in the Europeans,
can cause cancer? And so I'm giving my
child cancer for her fourteenth birthday, which is
a no. Yeah. And I think it's just
especially when there are sufficient decent alternatives out
there. That's the thing is that
it it's not like the European Union banned
or Canada banned these dyes and suddenly

(33:56):
there's nothing colorful in the European Union or
Canada anymore.
They're they can use beetroot to create purple
dye. There are different techniques they can use.
As colorful, though. So one of the things
that
food babe, the food babe has pointed out
and brought and went and
has repeatedly shown examples. This is a bag
of fruit loops, which again, I don't even

(34:17):
encourage anyone to eat fruit loops regardless of
how they color it. But here's a bag
of fruit loops in The United States, and
here's one in Canada or the European Union,
and they don't look the same. The US
One is so brightly colored, and we're drawn
to brightly colored things. The kids are as
well, and there's no other reason why they
would put that in there. It's an inexpensive

(34:37):
food coloring, but it's designed to
be attractive looking.
So that should never be done
at the expense
of quality or the expense of how healthy
something is. And unfortunately,
that's been what's been going on. And At
the end of the day, the question is
how much does it affect sales. And I
don't know if there's an if there was

(34:58):
a noticeable
drop in sales for these foods after these
rules went in and they had to replace
the dyes that they were using. But it's
just the whole concept.
People assume that if something is called food
coloring,
then it is color
that you can use as food that is
edible. Right?
If it's filled with carcinogens,
how the hell is it a food coloring?

(35:19):
Just
humor me. Why is it called a food
coloring if it's poison?
Because, again, as you mentioned earlier, when you
do a study, it may or may not
seem that it's
going to cause cancer in the quantities being
given. But the bottom line is
it's
why would you want to take a chance?

(35:39):
And here's where we're at. We know something
is going on with everyone's health in The
United States. Okay? There's never been more people
who are obese. There's never been more people
with type two diabetes.
There's never been more
autism and Alzheimer's, and you can go on
and on. Okay?
And
that being said, we have a problem.

(36:00):
We may not agree what's causing the problem,
but we're in a desperate situation to figure
out what is causing it. And we certainly
have to look at everything, and we certainly
have to look at these particular things.
And
the medication side of it and the food
side of it are just two sides of
one coin.
Okay? If you stay healthy, you won't need

(36:21):
medication.
Not that long ago, people weren't on ten,
twenty medications. Today, the older someone gets, the
more you can determine how many pills they're
gonna be taking because that's just the way
it is. And
the sad part is that
the same sort of marketing,
maybe deception is a big word, but concerns

(36:41):
that exist in pharmaceutical
marketing
exist with regards to marketing of food. There
There will be a lot of foods that
have a thing put on right in the
front saying heart healthy. It's got a little
heart, it's got some sort of approval from
the American Heart Association or whatever. What they
don't go out of their way to point
out, yes, is that the American Heart Association,
every medical association

(37:02):
gets huge amounts of funding
from the food industry.
So
like you said, you mentioned again, you don't
wanna bite the hand that feeds. So it's
not that they're necessarily going and saying everyone
can go out and start dosing with heroin,
but
there's a lot of encouragement
to maybe look the other way,

(37:22):
no different than you mentioned some of the
concerns regarding the oversight in the aviation industry
with some of the accidents that happened in
years past.
And
ultimately,
there's a reason why there are quote unquote
regulators. They have to be regulating and watching
what's happening. And if that isn't happening, that's
a problem.
And
I think that
people have had enough.

(37:44):
There's enough of an interest in trying to
figure out what's happening and why,
and to
ultimately
get to some sort of better state of
health care in The United States where people
aren't all sick and needing all these medications.
Then you wouldn't worry as much about all
these little fine all the fine print and
all the things that are being said there.
I think that

(38:06):
the most important thing
is that if we were to
put ourselves in the shoes
of someone who's sick,
If the physicians, the nurses, if everybody
had worked caring for patients directly or indirectly
understood what it's like to be sick,
understood what it was like to be

(38:28):
stuck in the health care system.
K.
Then perhaps
and if they were given the power
and the opportunity
to do the right thing,
then I think things would be very different.
And over the last many years,
I've talked to a lot of
physicians, nurses, technicians,

(38:49):
and even people that work in clerical or
administrative roles in health care, doctors offices, and
so forth.
And I've encouraged them. I said, this is
something you probably need to do from time
to time as I do,
and that's to watch a movie.
It's a Hollywood movie. It's
basically
yes, it has somewhat of a fairy tale

(39:10):
ending in a way, and it's got its
ups and downs.
But the movie is based on a true
story,
And the story was of a doctor
who became sick.
In the movie,
it basically
does the typical Hollywood thing, but it gives
you the right message.

(39:30):
And
ultimately, there's a scene in that movie where
the doctor
was portrayed as a kind of arrogant heart
surgeon.
I worked with several heart surgeons for a
few years,
and you gotta have a certain ego to
be able to do that type of work,
which is a good thing.
When he started feeling a lump in his
throat, knew there was something there. He kept
ignoring it because he was too busy like

(39:52):
everyone else to actually pay attention to himself.
He eventually
got the courage to go and get seen
and was diagnosed as having
a tumor in his throat, the base of
his tongue.
And ultimately, and interestingly, I'd have had a
family member with the same type of tumor.

(40:12):
And
once that happened,
the realization
came to him that
his life might change. Not only was the
risk of dying,
but
one of the ways of treating this is
removing the tumor. And if they did that,
there was a high chance that he might
lose the ability to swallow or speak.
And he was a very successful,

(40:32):
prominent heart surgeon.
And in the movie, it shows him basically
being too busy for
his wife and his family and anything else.
He's just so busy being a surgeon,
which is not a far cry from what
often happens.
And now all of a sudden, he's had
to pay attention to himself
and to recognize the importance of the support
that he needed from his family.

(40:54):
And he walks in the movie to a
waiting room
to
get some treatment or to get examined. And
as he gets there, he tells the person
at the desk how important it is that
he hurry they hurry up and see him
because there's all these patients waiting.
And
they basically asked them to sit down, and
then the
one of the actresses in the movie turns

(41:16):
to him and looks at him and
says, doctor, now that you're here with us,
basically, she says, I'm paraphrasing,
you're not a doctor. You're just a patient.
Like, call the rest of us. You're nobody
basically is the message
and
just deal with it. And that was really
the crux, the turning point of the movie
where he started

(41:37):
over time realizing that
life from the side of the patient is
nothing that anybody would want to ever
have to endure.
And
at the end of the movie,
he does something quite remarkable. And that's the
very tiny clip I'd like to share. And
I'd like to talk a little more about
medicine and how,

(41:58):
when we trust the science and all these
different things that we're programmed to do, we
have to remember
doctors are people too, but a lot of
times it's easy for them and all the
other caregivers
to lose sight of
to lose sight of essentially
what it's like to be a patient. They
may not even ever know what it's like
to be a patient. Alright. So let me

(42:19):
So while we go ahead and pull that
up, I just have one suggestion for the
new head of the FDA,
and
that is to maybe rename
food colorings
that have peer reviewed scientific
documentation that are that they are carcinogenic and
can cause cancer.
Maybe we should rename
them from food colorings to

(42:39):
colorful
poison. And then we can put a little
asterisk.
It'll be colorful poison
at
small doses
not likely to cause your immediate death.
I think that would be a great way
of renaming the term food coloring because they've
lied to us with that terminology for so
long. So let's go ahead and watch what

(43:00):
happens when a doctor learns to think like
a patient.
And let me tell you, just to end
your point,
we have to recognize
that most of the tobacco industry companies when
cigarettes
fell out of favor in The United States
and Canada in North America
these companies
started acquiring

(43:21):
the major food companies. Most people don't realize
it's the same marketing that existed for cigarettes.
It's the same
looking the other way that happened for cigarettes.
It's the same denial that existed for cigarettes.
And what's even more,
I don't know, shocking in a way is
there are cultures of individuals of people that
are still tribal individuals who are smoking

(43:44):
and don't have all the diseases we have.
The cigarettes that were widely available in North
America often had hundreds, if not thousands of
chemicals added to them. Okay.
So the story, including, I believe, sugar was
added to cigarettes as well.
But the bottom line is
the same playbook,
the same concerns,
the same issues that were raised when

(44:06):
we were talking about
banning cigarette use or reducing its use, and
then putting warning labels on cigarettes
is
basically what you're recommending be done for certain
food types. And in other countries,
there are a lot of candy and fast
food that actually have
skull and bone warning labels on them, warning

(44:27):
the people that if they eat it, that
there could be some damage to their health.
Let's play this, and then we can
see if this might be really the thing
that everyone needs to keep in mind if
they're working in the health care field.
Arthur,
you have spent a lot of time

(44:48):
learning the Latin names for
diseases your patients might have.
Now it's time to learn
something simpler about them.
Patients
have their own name.
Sarah,
talent, Jack.

(45:11):
They feel
frightened,
embarrassed, and vulnerable,
and they feel sick.
Most of all, they wanna get better.
Because of that,
they put their lives in our hands.

(45:35):
I could try to explain what that means
until I'm blue in the face, but you
know something that wouldn't mean a thing.
It sure as hell never did to me.
So for the next seventy two hours, you'll
each be allocated a particular

(45:55):
disease.
You'll sleep in hospital beds, eat hospital food.
Okay.
You'll be given all the appropriate
tests.
Oh, thank you. Test you will one day
prescribe.
Unbelievable.
Yeah. So this is a clip after he
told them to change from their regular

(46:16):
kind of nursing I think these are physician
assistants from their uniforms.
They're not other
They're they're all medical students, basically. Interns, medical
students. They're not yet doctors.
And his idea was that
since they work if you listen to what
he says, if they're gonna become once they
become doctors, they need to remember what it
was like to be a patient.

(46:37):
So they basically have to run order all
the tests that they would have to run.
Based on whatever chart they get. It's gonna
say what disease they supposedly
have.
They would have to order the tests. So
if the test was to get blood work,
if it's to go and get a colonoscopy,
they need to have those tests performed on
them.
Again, this is a Hollywood movie, but the

(46:57):
truth is
it's and that's William Hurt, the lead actor.
He passed away going on three years ago
now, and he did a really good job,
I think, in
representing
the gist of the original book. The book
is called The book is An athlete, so
it's called A Taste of My Own Medicine.
The book was written by doctor Edward

(47:17):
Rosenbaum
and was an account
of him getting sick
and understanding for the first time really
what it meant to be a patient
And
I don't wish illness on anyone
And
there's only one thing worse than being sick
and that's having to endure the healthcare system
in this country or probably any country.

(47:40):
I can tell you that the grass isn't
always greener somewhere else.
I spent many years working in and around
the health care system in in Montreal, Quebec,
in Canada.
And it it's no picnic over there either
even though it's a somewhat
socialized health care system that each province has

(48:02):
it's not an easy solution and the most
important thing to glean from all of this
is don't get sick
And if you're involved in caring for the
sick,
it's time to periodically remind yourself what it
could what could happen if you ever became
that that patient.
So Yeah. I think that's really important.
I think this video was from a movie
called The Doctor. Is that correct? That's correct.

(48:24):
So The Doctor is the Hollywood portrayal of
the taste of my own medicine.
So that kind of reminded me of
another movie with a very similar name called
The Physician.
That is a a movie that takes pure
that takes place in
the medieval periods in England
where kind of medieval

(48:46):
medical
concepts were
the commonplace, and those were many times very
damaging to people. And it's about a young
student who wants to become a doctor.
And during the dark ages in Europe, it
was the golden age of Islam.
So
he meets some Jewish doctors, and they start

(49:06):
teaching some things. And then he's able to
slowly travel the world until he arrives to
the greatest doctor at that time in Spain,
I think, under Lucia. That was the name
of the
Arab control Spain.
And the the name of the doctor is
Ibn Sina,
and that is portrayed
by the the brilliant actor, Ben Kingsley,

(49:27):
I think his name is. And, yeah, it's
just a very fascinating movie about kind of
ancient medicine. I like movies that take place
in a different time period because it gives
us a glimpse of what life was like.
And then when you realize that they didn't
have a theory of bacteria
and that many times doctors would deliberately
use the hands with bloods from one patient
to another patient, I think they believe that

(49:48):
if it was warm, then it would be
better for the new patient or something like
that. So in this movie, the physician kind
of learns the basic concepts of the fact
that the rats and the bodies lay laying
around everywhere, and this is during the black
plague,
that these could be causes for additional people
getting sick and just the basic concept of
moving the bodies away and burying them and

(50:09):
moving the sick people aside and keeping everybody
healthy and separate.
Just very basic ideas that the basic idea
of bacteria and germs and how revolutionary
that was for its time. So, yeah, that's
just a great movie. Do you happen to
have a clip of that or no?
I do. I can put it up to
just give a little bit of the in
fact, I think what I will do is
for we'll continue the discussion. We can maybe

(50:31):
put it up without any audio.
I would say that with regards to your
description, that's totally accurate.
Everyone just assumes that surgeons and doctors wore
gloves all the time, and this was
the way it's always been.
And it hasn't
much of the benefit,
of
medicine has been really derived from

(50:54):
the use of antibiotics.
Any of the diseases that we think were
cured by vaccines and this, that, and the
other thing really have to do with
basic
changes in society where
we started understanding that once we knew there
was a bacteria and that where it could
grow,
that there was the idea of washing your
hands, not only by doctors, but by people

(51:15):
in general. People handling food
would wash their hands and keep it clean.
And that
I think if it weren't for doctors as
portrayed in this movie,
this is the physician
that you described that movie.
We would have never probably figured this out.
How people were dying and no one knew
why. They were trying all kinds of crazy

(51:35):
treatments on these individuals
without understanding
that oftentimes the doctors were the carrier disease
from one sick patient to the next.
Yeah. We're really lucky that we're born and
that we live when we do. Even
living in a time before there were available
the term I'm looking for is for drugs
that that kind of put you to sleep

(51:55):
or anesthes
anesthetics,
was just brutal. No matter if it was
a small issue or a big issue,
the
suffering you would have to go through for
the doctors to hopefully
do something to save your life in an
unsanitized
manner
was just completely terrifying and brutal and very

(52:16):
painful.
And we are very lucky to be living
when we are at the moment. But just
the earlier concept that you brought up of
a lot of what we consider disease has
to do with
the environment.
And like we said, you are what you
eat, but also just the environment of where
we are and how we live, especially things
to do with kids and their behavioral behavior.

(52:38):
I think the
modern education system is an outcome of the
industrial revolution.
So prior to the industrial revolution,
the concept of mass education for everyone was
extremely rare. It existed mostly
princes and priests who would educate their children,
priests to clergy, and princes to educate them

(52:58):
because they would be future leaders. The
one side note is Jews had education
throughout almost all of history, and, so it
was very traditional for Jews to study for
thousands of years from age three to age
18 usually when they're ready to get married.
But the concept of general schools, general education
is an outcome of the industrial revolution because

(53:19):
factory owners realized
that they need factory workers who can read
and write and complete basic
computational
calculations.
So they created a production line for factory
workers,
and that is what we call the education
system. And if you look at the modern
day education system, it really is very reminiscent
of a production line. Right? You put 30

(53:40):
kids in a classroom
who have to sit there in front of
one lecturer, who sits there and who yells
at them, and who who delivers things for
them to memorize, and then they move from
one classroom to another classroom,
from one age to another age until they
graduate from the production line of school and
they're ready for the production line of work.
Right? And
education as a whole, at least public education,

(54:01):
hasn't changed drastically
a lot over the past a hundred to
two hundred years. I think Montessori schools are
very different and are
very fresh idea. Obviously, Maria Montessori is a
50 years old. Obviously, she's not she's no
longer alive, but the concept of
that type of education where people where children

(54:22):
are free to pursue their interest, to pursue
what they enjoy, what entertains them, but in
an organized manner
where children are not siloed based on their
exact age with other children of their exact
age. Rather, they get to be with children
who are a little younger and a little
older, and they can learn things from the
older kids, and they can teach things to
the younger kids, and teaching is the best

(54:43):
way of learning.
This seems like a much much better model
of education at least to me. We recently
saw a post by
from the Phenomenal All In podcast
about how
when the school diagnosed his child with ADHD
and they want wanted to put, I think
it's the son or daughter, on best basically

(55:04):
methamphetamine, which is what most of these ADHD
drugs are. And he was like, just no.
Like, the issue is an issue of
environment. It's an issue of setting. It's an
issue of the teachers not having the capacity
or the willingness or the strength to put
up with 30 kid children at a time
and give them personalized attention in teaching them.
It could be issues of problems at home.

(55:24):
It could be issues of what they're eating.
And plus
I mean, what we consider ADHD as, like,
a sickness, a disease is really children wanting
to get up and run and play and
climb trees.
That is what children are. That is what
children are supposed to be. That is the
definition of childhood. The fact that we turned
that into some evil thing, and now if
they're not willing to sit like robots and

(55:46):
take methamphetamine,
then the only solution is to drug them
up and put them in these classrooms and
fit them, squeeze them into the system.
Yeah, it just seems like it's a huge
mistake. Recently, there was an article in the
New York Times that delves very deeply in-depth
on the outcomes of these drugs to children.
It turns out that while post thirteen to

(56:06):
eighteen months, I think, it does seem like
these are effective at helping the kids sit
down and focus
instead of being children and getting up and
running around.
After three years, it loses the vast majority
of its effect,
and these kids continue
to regularly consume this very powerful drug. So,
yeah, do you have anything else to add
on the whole ADHD

(56:26):
conversation that's been exploding recently?
Sure. It's listen.
It's not just ADHD. It's autism, spectrum of
autism, which is a very broad
representation.
It's
Alzheimer's. It's cancer. It's type two diabetes.
The reality is these things just have all
exploded out of nowhere, where now there's just

(56:49):
such a prevalence
of patients with these conditions.
And I think it it all goes back
to the same thing. What's the root cause?
What's causing this?
Humans didn't suddenly start getting sicker,
didn't start having all these conditions that they
didn't have before. Some people will argue it's
not that those conditions didn't exist.
It just they didn't know how to diagnose
them.

(57:10):
I don't buy that. Okay? Because pediatricians will
tell you that they weren't seeing children with
many of these conditions. The example I've given
in other
in other episodes includes even type two diabetes.
When I was taught
in various both for my
exercise
science, when I was learning exercise physiology and

(57:30):
so forth, when I had my paramedic training,
ultimately,
type two diabetes used to be called adult
onset diabetes.
They can't call it that anymore. Kids in
grade school have
type two diabetes, so it's no longer adult
onset.
How did that happen? How is it that
it never happened before? That was unheard of.
We had to change the name

(57:51):
of this condition
because now kids have it at a young
age.
And so what are the consequences of metabolic
dysfunction
where the patients are displaying that they have
diabetes because they have
altered metabolism, high blood sugars. What's happening?
What else is it affecting?
And we know

(58:12):
from
endless
studies now
that patients with various conditions,
with Parkinson's,
with Alzheimer's,
with
even
psychiatric conditions like schizophrenia,
depression.
Patients have seen marked changes
when they have radical changes made to their

(58:32):
diet under clinical testing conditions, where they say
that these patients couldn't perform
certain tasks and then they change their diets,
primarily
moving towards a keto diet where and reducing
massively eliminating sugar intake. There's no minimum daily
requirement for sugar.
No one's gonna die if they stop eating
sugar.
Okay? What will happen is if you slowly

(58:55):
wean off of the feeding sugar, your body
will eventually learn to do what it was
originally programmed to do, which is
switch to ketones from burning fat.
And I think most people now that we
know walking around, including myself up until not
that long ago,
we couldn't do that. Our bodies only knew
how to burn sugar, and that takes a
toll.

(59:16):
So I think that,
again, as a theme to the discussion earlier,
we have to take a step back, understand
what's causing all this.
Look for
look under every rock. Look for every possible
food additive.
There's,
a whole concern over grass, which is the
not the kind the cows eat or the

(59:37):
horses eat, but it's it's an acronym for
generally recognized
as safe.
Originally, there were just a few
things in food
manufacturing that were GRS
items. Now there's like endless
that if they're used in small enough quantities,
they don't even have to list them on
the ingredient list. Spoiler alert,

(59:59):
when you look at the ingredient list, it
doesn't list everything,
and it doesn't list all the things that
are done to the food and all the
chemicals that are used on the food.
Because if it's done in passing and it's
not considered an additive, it's just that the
food was treated with it, It's not listed
anywhere.
It's a standard industry practice.
So there's a reason why

(01:00:20):
so many people are sick.
And I think the bigger concern is if
the only answer is
take this pill, take that pill, get a
shot of this and a shot of that,
go see a doctor three times a week,
that may not be the best route.
It's an okay way to look at it
maybe for an acute emergent
sort of situation where you're having someone who's

(01:00:42):
having a breakdown
in their health. But
that shouldn't be the long term goal.
And I think that's the big failure in
medicine today.
Doctors,
the entire health care system is geared at
putting it's like you have a boat springing
a leak and you're just putting corks into
the holes each time. Maybe you need to
ask why is the boat springing so many

(01:01:03):
leaks? Maybe you need to stop taking the
boat into such shallow waters
and
taking on all that risk. And the risk
here is eating some of the things we're
eating and all the medications have risks.
If you have to take them, you do.
But the goal should be to get off
of them if you at all possible.
These are conversations that I think, again,
they've been had behind the scenes.

(01:01:24):
But now to see government and to see
some doctors actually coming forward and openly discussing
their own worries
and to have some people in the media
at least starting to bring this
to the table and pointing out just how
scared they are for their own health and
that of their families.
And then you have people like this, the
food babe, going out and making a ruckus

(01:01:46):
with all these companies and forcing them to
wake up. She's one of many that are
now out there,
and people
may not quite realize just how important it
is that there are people like her and
even like us just even talking about this
because this isn't some crazy conspiracy theory that
there's a problem with our food system or
with the medical system or with the pharmaceutical

(01:02:09):
industry. There are issues, and I think we
need to work together
to to to rectify them.
It seems like the entire medical industry
has
basically
reorganized
themselves
to
avoid pain at all costs. And that's why
we're seeing, like, pain management doctors become really
popular, which are basically doctors who can

(01:02:31):
prescribe
really horrific drugs drugs to you that will
get rid of your pain. But when all
our and we've seen that hospitals are rated
by,
basically, patients have a questionnaire, and it's how
do you feel your pain was treated? And
if anybody's in pain, then they're gonna complain.
So, therefore,
the hospital is incentivized
to give people as much drugs as possible

(01:02:52):
to reduce their pain. And if they end
up becoming addicted and end up dying on
the street in fentanyl three months or three
years later, then, you know, that is what
it is. But it doesn't seem like the
medical world really cares that much because
they are derived. And again, I'm not referring
to the entire medical world, but at least
many aspects of the commercialized medical world that

(01:03:12):
they're focused on the reduction of pain. And
when you focus on the reduction of pain,
you're focused on treating the symptoms and not
the root of the problem. And that really
seems to be the issue because how can
your doctor like, who who thinks your doctor
has a right to tell you to eat
healthy food and to do sport? Like, how
dare he even tell you such a thing?
His job is just to make sure you
don't complain about pain. So if you're in

(01:03:33):
pain, you go to him, and then he'll
give you a drug so you're in less
pain. And then you'll
but it it was just, really ironic. Not
long ago, we were in Mexico, and my
father-in-law was visiting us, and
he had these open ulcers in his foot.
And, we called the local doctor to come
and see it, and the local doctor asked

(01:03:53):
to see what drugs he was currently taking,
and there was a list of 20 different
drugs my mother-in-law pulled out. And he starts
going through them, and he's this and this
are all treating the exact same symptom.
These three are three different names of what
is basically the same drug or the same
active material. And it's again,
why should anybody be taking 20 drugs on
a regular basis? That doesn't make any sense,

(01:04:15):
and he just kept on, like, drilling in.
He's
you're gonna have to you're gonna have to
walk it. And by falling with this huge
pain when I walk, that pain is what's
causing blood to rush to the area, and
that's what's helping your body those wounds close
and get better. And, the the doctor's like,
get rid of half eat mark, like, half
of the drugs. Stop taking them. And focus
on
eat healthy. Eat salads every single day. Walk

(01:04:37):
a lot.
And and he actually did a procedure where
he was, like, pulling out the
open dried up fat that and and fibers,
basically, like, the inside of his body that
was there and rotting away in this open
wound. And he, like, manually pulled it out.
And my father-in-law was intense pain, intense pain.
And I think it was very refreshing to
see a doctor

(01:04:58):
who was, like, very understanding that, like,
if you wanna actually solve this problem,
stop taking the drugs that may be causing
the issue, especially when there are so many
different redundancies and so many different things that
are actually causing problems. And so he like,
some of these drugs will cause him to
urinate a lot, but then he has problems
because he's urinating too much. And then he
has problems because of and then he needs

(01:05:19):
sleeping pills because he doesn't wake up to
to urinate in the middle of the night.
And it's just like one pill is for
another pill is for another pill for another
pill. And
at the end of the day, it's just
ridiculous, but it was very refreshing to see
this doctor who was, like, very clear about,
yes. You have an open wound. It will
cause pain when we are basically operating on
it. It wasn't an operation. He was just

(01:05:39):
locally in our house. He was pulling these
pieces of tissue out. And my father-in-law was
in immense pain, and it's I'm sorry, but
it is what it is. If you wanted
to cure, this is what we have to
do. And really, he kept on doing it,
and the wound kept on closing. So it
was working. Right? And for years, he went
to doctors and the doctors couldn't help him.
And this is not some Eastern medicine. This

(01:05:59):
is a Western
trained medical doctor,
except being in in, like, very authentic Mexico,
he just had a different way of thinking
than most American doctors or Israeli doctors for
that matter. And if if you are sick,
then you will be in pain. That is
part of what being sick is. And the
reason why you are in pain is for

(01:06:20):
your body to kick your ass
to to get up and do what's right
so you'll stop being in pain as opposed
to just treating the symptom and, oh, we'll
give you some drugs so you're no longer
in pain. Yeah. It just seems like a
perverse incentives. And unfortunately, when you are sick,
when you are injured, you will be in
pain and it will suck.
But hopefully, that'll motivate you to to get
better as opposed to just treat treating the

(01:06:42):
pain because that's not a solution. That's just
extending the problem for another day.
You bring up a couple of interesting points.
One, I'm gonna just clarify it. When you're
mentioning
you're basically
describing the opioid crisis, and that's been somewhat
it's like a pendulum. Now it's gone the
other way. So there were lawsuits, investigations,
and what they were finding was that there

(01:07:02):
was an overprescription
situation with
various opioid medications, narcotics.
K. People have been arrested. We had doctors
even here in Florida and Miami who were
basically giving the stuff out like candy. There
were towns in The United States
where
when they reviewed, they saw that there were
more medications being given than there were to

(01:07:23):
patients in the whole state out of some
little town. K. So arrests were made. People
lost their medical licenses.
The
pharmaceutical companies were
dramatically downplaying
the dangers
and the addiction
likelihood of these drugs.
And
what happened was because as we discussed earlier
in those examples,

(01:07:44):
with the marketing literature given to the doctors
totally downplayed
the risks.
So when you have a patient in excruciating
pain, what are you going to do? You're
trying to reduce the pain, and if you
believe
that the likelihood of addiction is small, you'll
keep prescribing
and often overprescribe.
Now there are patients who can't get their
hands on the medication.
They need to control pain because doctors are

(01:08:06):
under tremendous scrutiny
and are being warned not to overprescribe
narcotics.
So interesting that there's actually been a switch,
but it's not because of anything other than
people dying, people becoming addicted. And what happened
is
a lot of patients would eventually be cut
off because they needed they would get more
and more accustomed essentially to the medication that

(01:08:27):
they're being put on, and they needed more
and they just couldn't get a high enough
dose. So they turned to the streets
and bought drugs off the streets to be
able to try to control their pain. And
there are a lot of people that died.
And then you can look at the fentanyl
situation where fentanyl is a lot of people
don't know. They think it's just some street
drug. Fentanyl's been used at the in a
lab by medical companies.

(01:08:47):
I'm sorry? As they it was developed in
a lab by medical companies as the less
addictive version supposedly of It was basically more
powerful. So there's a number of of opiate
medications
that we used in the Operating Room all
the time, and anesthesia uses
all the time. These drugs weren't a problem
when used correctly by people that were trained
to know how to use them. The problem

(01:09:07):
is that you could actually manufacture them relatively
cheap
and you could spread them on the streets
and like anything else. It's not that fentanyl
was a bad drug when used correctly in
the right setting. Problem is you can't just
start taking it like candy and you can't
replace everything with it. But so the opioid
situation was one that was rectified because it
just got so out of control.

(01:09:28):
It's almost like the border situation where it's
okay if some people came across the border.
But when millions and millions were coming across,
all of a sudden problems happened.
Elections were won in large part because of
that. Okay? So things Wasn't morphine
marketed as the less addictive version of heroin,
and then it turned out to be more
addictive?
And then after morphine, there was another drug

(01:09:49):
that they also the drug companies also promoted
as being less addictive, almost non addictive, and
something that you don't have to worry about
being addicted to at all. And it's even
better better at treating pain, and then it
turned out to be even more addictive than
morphine. So it seems like fentanyl is just
the last version of this thing where it's,
like, less addictive
but greater at treating pain, and it turns

(01:10:09):
out that it's more addictive than anything. These
are not drugs that are behind it. These
are not drugs behind it out like candy.
Okay? Yeah. There are places to give these
drugs correctly. Mhmm. Morphine is like heroin, but
it doesn't give you the same kind of
high. It's used for medical purposes where people
want to get high, they typically will go
for heroin.
But ultimately, if all they can get is

(01:10:30):
morphine, they'll take that and they'll get accustomed
to taking that drug. The problem is these
type of medications, as you take them, you
need more and more to get the same
effect, to get the same relief from the
pain. And it gets to a point
where you're taking doses that are incompatible with
life. You just can't tolerate them. So
ultimately,
pain management is, yeah, it's a big deal.

(01:10:51):
But
there there's a consideration. You wanna be able
to treat pain and help pain patients not
be in pain. There's things other than drugs
to do that as well. But you do
bring up an important point.
Pain is there for a reason. It's there
to tell us something is wrong, like fever.
Just giving a Tylenol every time someone has

(01:11:11):
fever
maybe isn't the right thing. Now if the
fever is exceedingly high, yes, it can be
dangerous.
But for an adult that has some fever,
there may be a benefit in tolerating
the fever because your body has fever for
a reason, and it's trying to fend off
typically an infection.
So
I think that's what has happened

(01:11:32):
is that we have become a society. And
if you ask doctors and they're being honest
with you, they'll tell you where the patient
will go to the doctor and if they
don't get the pill to cure, treat the
pain or some other pill to do something
to fix whatever it is they're complaining about,
they won't be happy with that doctor. They'll
probably go to the next doctor and try
two, three doctors until they get to one

(01:11:53):
that actually gives them the pill
that they want because that is what people
have been led to believe is the correct
way to do things.
And it's not easy being on the receiving
end as a doctor or other prescribers and
there's practitioner,
physician assistant, etcetera,
with patients who are demanding. I went online
and I checked and you can give me
this and this is the dose and this

(01:12:13):
how many times I have to take it
a day and it'll solve my problem.
But sometimes What are the basic worry about
it. Solving the short term problem
may not solve the long term problem.
Right? So if we believe the story of
Noah's Ark, we needed the boat for the
short term problem, which was all the water
and rain.
But the reason that happened

(01:12:35):
biblically was because of the acts and actions
of people on this earth. Right? And if
people were not to
write their ways, that's why that was necessary.
Same thing with the these treatments.
They're not gonna necessarily fix the problem. They
may hide it or temporarily make it seem
like the problem went away. If we're not
out ultimately looking at what's causing it and

(01:12:57):
going after that cause, which could include
improper nutrition,
not enough sleep, not enough exercise, very basic
things,
then
things will happen, and then
the health care system is not really equipped
for that. Our health care system is really
designed
to cut things out if you're a surgeon,
which sometimes is necessary.

(01:13:18):
Or to medicate things if you're in pain.
It could be the right thing to do.
It could be the right thing to put
in an artificial hip or other artificial body
part because you've worn the other one out.
But
again,
why did that happen?
It's one thing if you're hit by a
Mack truck and you have broken bones. It's
another if you question yourself. Let's say I

(01:13:40):
have a family member that's younger than me.
And he has
a vascular necrosis,
which a vascular means without blood supply and
necrosis means essentially dead tissue.
So he has avascular necrosis
in his hip.
And the most likely cause is because he
had issues with his hip

(01:14:02):
and he was put on steroids.
And when you're put on steroids like that
for about six years, you almost always wind
up with a vascular necrosis. And then what
happens is there's not really an easy way
to fix it
except maybe cutting off the top of the
leg bone, the femur, and replacing with an
artificial part. So
that's the thing. We all need to take

(01:14:22):
a step back and do look at root
causes
and finding ways to prevent that from happening.
And unfortunately, that's not always the way it's
been.
Yes. Let's go on to our next topic,
which is
men playing in women's sport. Now some trans
activists will tell us that
if a man identifies as a woman, then

(01:14:44):
he is immediately
a % a woman, whether he's taking drugs
or doing operations or not. As we know,
that's not true even when somebody does take
drug drugs and do operations,
but it's funny that one is not even
required to go through those significant steps in
order to claim that they are the opposite
sex.
The odd thing is I've noticed many stories

(01:15:05):
of males participating in female sports, but I
have yet to see any stories of females
participating in male sports.
I'm just curious to why that could be.
It just seems
completely unbelievable to me. How is this such
a one-sided thing? I thought that if a
trans female
sorry. If a female decides that she's a

(01:15:25):
male, then she is immediately a male. So
why aren't we seeing more females compete in
male sports? Why is this a one way
thing?
I can't say that it's only a one
way thing, but certainly it's more visible when
it's the other way. And I'll say a
few things on this. Number one, the trans
people that I've known, they don't wanna call
themselves out.

(01:15:46):
They genuinely feel that they were born into
the wrong body,
and they wanna live their lives. So if
you're born a male and you really sincerely
view yourself in every which way as being
a female
and
that's how you're gonna live your life. That's
fine.
And I don't know of one trans person
that actually thinks it's okay to go and

(01:16:07):
try to compete
in
women's sports because although they're a trans woman,
they understand
biologically,
they have an unfair advantage
over
the actual biological females. It's no different than
even in other sports, even male sports where
you have boxing or what have you wrestling.
There's weight classes. Yeah. There's weight classes. Why

(01:16:30):
is that? To just be fair. So it's
the whole entire debate to me seems insane
because I would believe that the majority of
trans
individuals,
they don't they're not for this either. There
was and there's one
probably quite well known who
competed as an Olympian and did very well.

(01:16:51):
And I looked up to him when I
was growing up
and mister Jenner, who's now miss Jenner,
who is a very
respectable
trans advocate,
she's the first one to say as a
former as an Olympian
that it's completely
insane that anyone that biologically is a male
would wanna go and compete against

(01:17:12):
female genetic females.
So it's odd. I think she stands out.
I don't necessarily think that she's the norm.
Again, neither of us have any issues with
an adult who chooses to do to their
bodies whatever they like and to describe themselves
and act in whatever way they like.
Like, we don't mind. I'll call you whatever
name you wanna be called
even if that's Spider Man. It is what

(01:17:33):
it is. I may think of you differently
theoretically, but you have every right to do
whatever you like as an adult.
I think the issue is with the societal
changes,
the philosophical changes,
and the
what we were seeing under the at least
the prior administration, indoctrination
into this where it was children were being

(01:17:54):
indoctrinated in into it. Adults were being indoctrinated
into it as opposed to recognizing it as
a mental illness like it was recognized until
what it was 2017
or something.
It was recognized as a mental illness.
Instead of recognizing it as that, now it's
the whole world needs to accommodate somebody's feeling.
And the fact that one day they feel
like a male, another day like a female,

(01:18:14):
and a third day like a cat,
it just it gets ridiculous and preposterous at
some degree. So again, if you're an adult
and you wanna do with your body whatever
you wanna do, you are free to do.
I am not here to judge you, but
don't require me to call myself
a a cis cisgender male for that. I'm
sorry. The rest of the world doesn't have
to put up with whatever craziness. And especially

(01:18:36):
just please keep whatever you like, do whatever
you want in your bedrooms, but keep it
away from the kids. We don't have to
indoctrinate children that being trans is normal. It's
not normal. There are very rare situations of
people who have
abnormalities,
physical abnormalities. It is something that happens on
a regular basis, but it is not very
common. And then there are people who have

(01:18:56):
a mental framework that makes them think or
that causes them to feel like they're in
the wrong body, and that's fine too. Just
don't try to convince all of us that
we are the weird ones because we are
cisgender
and that our children all have to be
open to being transgender in order to cleansing
their sins of being a white male or
something like that. Yeah. The we have issues
with the ideas,

(01:19:17):
not with the people. And the biggest thing
that's really being debated now is this
the comp in competitive sports,
where if you have a
an unfair advantage for being biologically male, It's
completely unfair that you're competing in sports
where the biological females have virtually
no chance of winning. And what's happening is

(01:19:40):
girls that I never saw the opposite sport
happening. We never see females trying to be
males in male sports because
they don't have a very high chance of
succeeding. And if they would, it wouldn't be
an issue. Because again, this is a question
of fairness. That's the big issue. It's not
because someone's trans. It's because it's unfair.
So if the reverse situation occurred, it would

(01:20:01):
be fair.
And if they wanted to compete, I don't
think it'd be as much of an issue.
The issue is here that anyone that has
high school biology will understand
that men typically have greater
ability
to more respiratory volume or muscle mass on
and on. They're physically stronger typically. When people
saw as exceptions,
we're not talking about the exceptions. We're talking

(01:20:22):
about these cases where these individuals are competing
and
they're basically making it impossible
for girls who've been competing their entire lives
to advance in their competitive sports because there's
no way. In fact, a lot of these
trans females who were competing previously as males
And they weren't doing very well. And now

(01:20:43):
they switch over. So there's that their first
place. Right? Surprise.
Yeah. They might be thirtieth out of 30,
and then they come over and they're number
one
by a mile. Not that they just barely
won. They're winning and no one can even
come close.
And to me, that's
the concerning part because no one in good
conscience would want to accept the trophy for
something like that, but these individuals are. So

(01:21:06):
that's
certainly
raises an eyebrow. And then the second aspect
of this other than the competitive sports side
of it is, I have a daughter. I
wouldn't want to have
when she was younger, certainly, I think she'd
throw the guy out of the room now
if he came in or the trans individual
if they came in and were naked. But
we have young girls in dressing rooms who

(01:21:26):
are trying to change
and to have someone there that's physically a
male and have his male genitalia hanging out
is not normal.
Okay? There's all these accounts of these individuals
often coming and not even being modest about
what they're doing. Again, like everything,
if it was handled differently, it wouldn't be
an issue. It's an issue because it's been
made into an issue because we've had confrontations

(01:21:48):
where women don't feel safe, women are losing
their entire lives work in competing
where they can't move ahead because they're losing
competitions
with an unfair playing field. And I think
I think we have two videos to play
real quick that will help paint the picture.
I'm glad that it looks like we are
finally
doing something to just try to be fair.

(01:22:10):
What's happening through Title IX, which guaranteed essentially
women's ability to have women's sports.
The argument from the federal government now is
that if you're a biological male, you can't
compete against women.
There are states that are pushing back
and they're pushing back because they're losing federal
funding
and they're taking the federal government to court

(01:22:31):
and they're arguing Maine is one example that's
discussed here. They're arguing that a trans woman
is a woman and therefore she should be
protected.
And
ultimately, we all agree that everyone should be
protected,
but
that doesn't mean that you take away the
rights of someone else.
So let's listen real quick and then we
can Yeah. The easiest solution is also to

(01:22:52):
just have three different sports groups, one for
males, one for females, and one one's for
trans athletes.
I think that would show the division more
drastically, and
that wouldn't be beneficial. The important thing to
remember is there are creeps.
There are psychopaths.
And when you create
rules
that enable them to act

(01:23:12):
in their
just relentlessly evil ways, then that is exactly
what they're gonna do. They're gonna take that
opportunity and they're gonna use it. So we're
not saying that any everybody is like that.
But when you enable that, then you have
all these prisoners who decide the minute that
they're arrested. Oh, I just became a fem
female. I was arrested for rape, but I
just became a female, so now put me
in the female's prison so I can rape

(01:23:34):
someone. You know that's happened over and over
again. Yes. Exactly.
Trans women or biological males wind up in
women's prisons and then wind up getting
biological female
inmates pregnant.
Exactly. And so Not necessarily at their
with consent talking rate.
So, again, this has reached a level of

(01:23:54):
lunacy that just doesn't make any kind of
sense. Let's go ahead and just listen to
this. Sure. My first experience was when I
was 13 years old. I was going to
change
for gym, and I walked into the locker
room, and there was a biological male there.
From that point on, my junior year, I
competed in Nordic skiing and lost to a
biological male numerous of times.

(01:24:18):
I am fighting this fight for generations to
come.
And the fact that our governor can look
the women of our state in the eyes
and say, I'm not gonna fight for you,
is heartbreaking and it's betrayal, Riley said.
I just wanna thank all these women standing
behind me
and president Trump for fighting for us. Because
even though my own governor isn't fighting for

(01:24:40):
me, I know there are people out there
fighting for me.
So I compete in soccer and indoor track
and outdoor track. It was mentioned previously today.
I had to watch at the main
class b state indoor track championship
as my close friend and my teammate and
other female competitors
lost the state championship to a biological male.

(01:25:01):
And this was heartbreaking for me to have
to watch, and Riley
said that it's betrayal, and that's what it
is. It is the job of our elected
officials to protect our young female athletes, and
they have failed to do that. We walk
into
and into sports expecting to have a level
playing field and to walk into the state

(01:25:22):
championship
to see a biological male there and to
lose to a biological male,
that's betrayal.
And so I am extremely grateful
to AG Bondi for standing up for us
when our elected officials aren't doing that.
And on behalf of the girl athletes in
Maine, I just wanna say thank you all,

(01:25:42):
and I look forward
to having a level playing field back after
this fight. So thank you.
So what's ironic here is that the
the feminist movement has fought very hard, very
rightfully over the past hundred hundred years to
get females equal rights

(01:26:03):
to males, and that was a very noble
cause.
And it succeeded,
but the fight must continue even when you've
accomplished your objective when you're fighting for ideological
reasons.
So therefore, they continued the fight,
but they trend they they flipped everything over,
and now

(01:26:23):
they're fighting
against women instead of fighting for the rights
of women. So the same, quote, unquote, feminists
no longer care about females, and now they're
fighting for the right of transgender men to
be in female sports, and it is just
it's just wrong. There's nothing more to say
about it, I think.
I also would say because I'm from a

(01:26:45):
different
generation than you perhaps,
and I just couldn't
understand how the feminist movement here in this
country
didn't
do anything, let alone doing more. I was
gonna say do didn't do more, but I
don't think they did anything.
After the
massive amount of rapes

(01:27:05):
and torture of women that happened
at the hands of Hamas,
It was just
it just how can you say you defend
and protect women if you let if you
don't even have a voice for that?
And it's almost like it was a non
issue. And then the same thing with this.
Women aren't being protected.
And I think that

(01:27:26):
everyone has a role. And I also think,
as I said earlier,
this is a minority position,
this whole
right to compete.
Most trans individuals
wanna be left alone to live live their
lives.
They're not looking to go and
compete in sports against biological women if they're

(01:27:47):
that's not what they're looking to do. So
it's like a small making this noise. It's
a small number of people. And unfortunately,
that small number of voices being massively amplified
by a few organizations
and by certain people in political government who
think they could use this as leverage.
But given
really the way the tide has turned, most

(01:28:08):
people just say, look, we've got to just
be fair, reasonable with people. This next clip,
essentially,
the first one didn't paint the picture. This
one does.
And I'm gonna tell you the sad part
is at the end of it.
This young lady, I believe she's 17 years
old, recounting
her situation.
She's basically told to get on with it,
move along.

(01:28:29):
And this is the example
of what a lot of young girls and
young ladies feel when they're trying to voice
their concerns
about what's going on.
I think there's nothing better than hearing her
voice and understanding this.
Hello. My name is Celeste Dyst. I am
17 years old, a junior and track athlete

(01:28:51):
at HHS.
Most importantly, I'm a woman advocating for the
renewal of female rights, which recently has been
overlooked and disregarded.
I implore all of you to help put
an end to this current injustice.
Recently, I went into the women's locker room
to change for track fast practice, where I
saw at the end of my row a
biological male watching not only myself, but the
other young women undress.

(01:29:12):
His experience was beyond traumatizing.
I must add, he is not changing in
our locker room because he's in his truck
clothes dressed and ready to go to practice
at the beginning of the day. Therefore, there's
absolutely no reason for him to be in
any locker room, let alone the women's.
Adults like yourself made me and my peers
feel like our own comfort was invalid

(01:29:34):
even though our privacy was and still is
being completely
violated.
The individual who identifies
as female has XY chromosomes.
Biologically, this makes him a male
because females have XX chromosomes.
This is basic biology.
Okay. Please wrap it

(01:29:57):
up. I just wanna ask, what about us?
We cannot sit around and allow our rights
to be given up to cater to an
individual that is a man who watches woman
undress in a stripping away female opportunity
that once was bought for us. Sadly, we
have to try and regain our rights again.
I hope you put effort into the restoration
of our school safety. Thank you for speaking

(01:30:17):
to me.
Yeah. It's very sad, and what we've seen
repeatedly is that when,
at least during the previous administration, when women
were complaining about this, they were told that
it is you issue, and we can offer
you counseling
to figure out how to get used to
the fact that males will now be dressing
in your dressing room.

(01:30:38):
But it wasn't the issue of the male
in the dressing room. It was the issue
with the female who dared to question or
to complain about the practice.
It's just very sad, and thankfully, it seems
like this is starting to turn around. But
it's basically every male's fantasy, right, to go
into a dressing room and just look at
females, etcetera. Right? It's like the basics of

(01:30:58):
what most males wanna do. And if you're
just gonna enable creeps to be creeps, then
people will act like creeps. Right? We know
that five percent of the population are psychopaths,
and and they may not act out all
the time, but
a lot of the people are psychopaths. And
if you just enable it or if you
import them from foreign countries,
then the number of cases where psychopaths

(01:31:21):
mistreat people is just gonna go up. So
it is sad and it is scary, and
we just have to understand their biological differences
between males and females. And this is something
that was obvious to people for the last
half a million years plus. So it shouldn't
be taken into question now. There really is
no no reason for that. It seems like
hope.
Some hope would be what's happening in The

(01:31:43):
UK. It's a thirty second clip. It's ironic.
It's ironic. Right? You would think
that if any because there's a lot of
really strange things going on in The United
Kingdom right now. But
this
quick clip basically sums up
the right way to handle things.
And that it's really the same thing we

(01:32:04):
need to have here as far as how
we approach this. What do you think?
A judge at The UK's highest court today
has said a woman is legally defined by
biological sex under the Equality Act. He also
said the same law gives transgender people protection
against discrimination.
So what does this mean? In terms of
concerns are in single sex spaces like female
prisons, rape crisis centers, and female hospital wards,

(01:32:26):
transgender people with gender recognition certificates could now
be excluded.
For Women Scotland, the campaign group who took
the Scottish government to court welcomed the ruling,
and the UK government says it brings clarity
and confidence for women and service providers. Yeah.
So it seems even though The UK is
falling backwards on many respects, at least in
terms of basic biology,
they were able to put a stop to

(01:32:46):
the madness.
Also, I think countries that typically have languages
which define things based on feminine and masculine,
just it's just obvious to people that there
are males and there are females. And the
whole concept of
this being, like, not just the fact that
there are transgender people, but they must be
the norm and everybody else is a cisgender.

(01:33:08):
It just doesn't add up to people because
the language is associated. And that's why we
heard these concept of language being racism and
language being sexism when it's these activists themselves
who are the sexist. Like we said,
their great grandparents fought for the rights of
women, and now they're fighting for the rights
of men to abuse women. And that's just
really sad. I think it's time we move

(01:33:29):
on to the next story. What do you
think? Yeah. I think so. It is. It's
just refreshing. I said the idea of being
trans individuals should obviously have rights, and they
should be entitled to protections.
But in this one example, in this one
particular situation,
it's just unfair to allow them to compete
in
in certainly the in biologically

(01:33:49):
non equal sports because it doesn't it doesn't
advance anyone's cause. So The UK did, I
think, is looking at the right way. I
know one of the things we wanted to
talk about before we wrap. The next thing
is the golden dome. I have that queued
up. Oh, oh, this is what I wanted
to say. What's that?
So it's worth noting that many of the
things we were told about transgender people turned

(01:34:10):
out to be completely false. So we've been
told for many, many years
that
if you don't
certify
the trans person's delusions or identity person You
don't affirm.
If you don't affirm their their identity,
then they're extremely more likely to commit suicide.
So how dare you question them, you're causing

(01:34:31):
them to commit suicide. So you are a
murderer if you question somebody's somebody being a
transgender.
What
science has shown is that is actually very
much false.
To the contrary, what we are finding is
that the rates of suicide amongst trans people
are very high, and that's not surprising because
they're not feeling certain in their identity. So
it makes sense that, unfortunately, that the rate

(01:34:53):
of suicide would be higher. But
even trans people who complete all the operations
and take the drugs
and do the transition to their own satisfaction,
which is very rare because the amount of
drugs they have to take on a regular
basis is crazy and the amount of side
effects and diseases that they can receive from
the operations is huge. But even those who
are satisfied

(01:35:14):
with the completion of the process,
their rates of suicide are are even higher.
So this whole claim that if we don't
affirm
their them being transgender, we are somehow causing
their murder even if they end up taking
their own lives, is false because if we
affirm
them wanting to be transgender, it turns out
that their rate of suicide
skyrockets even further. So the whole concept

(01:35:37):
of doing it and the reason why we
were told to do it is false.
Another very interesting statistic that is never mentioned
by legacy media
is that a large percent of mass shooters,
especially school shooters, tend to be transgender
people.
So
people are frustrated. They're taking very powerful drugs
that are altering

(01:35:58):
the core of who they are. Right? These
are drugs that are altering the basics of
their biology.
And I guess it isn't surprising that people
on these drugs
may act in kind of crazy ways at
times, and it's very sad. But a lot
of these school shootings and a lot of
these just mass shootings end up being transgender
people, not all of them, but a large

(01:36:20):
percentage of them. So it is worth further
investigation to try and understand
maybe there is a causation and not just
a correlation, especially with the power of the
drugs that these people are being given. It's
worth noting that some of these drugs that
are now
that were being given commonly even to children
were drugs
invented

(01:36:41):
for pedophiles
in jails
to chemically
neuter them, essentially. Right? And this is what
some of these people are trying to convince
us to give children, and that is pure
lunacy. Thankfully, the world has graduated past that.
So I think now we can move on
to the Golden Dome.
Yep. Certainly. And for those folks who don't
know you, you're saying this from your heart,

(01:37:02):
just saying that, obviously, if individuals need
a better understanding and perspective on their lives,
they should get it. It's not just handing
out surgeries or medication.
Just like we were talking about before, there's
a tendency to just give the patient what
they think they want without necessarily knowing what's
best for the patient.

(01:37:22):
And that's no different than what we were
discussing before. But, yes, we're we wanted to
touch on, before we go, on the whole
Golden Dome,
defense system for The United States. Let me
pull that up,
and we'll watch a bit of this. This
is on NewsNation
talking a little bit about it, and we
can then

(01:37:43):
wrap up with some talk on this too.
As commander in chief, my focus is on
building the most powerful military of the future.
As a first step, I'm asking congress to
fund a state of the art Golden Dome
missile defense shield to protect our homeland,
all made in The USA.

(01:38:04):
However, critics say there's a conflict of interest.
I think this is exactly what the American
people find really repelling is that Donald Trump's
biggest donor
is actually cashing in on the investment he
made in Donald Trump, and it's candidly particularly
what Donald Trump promised he wouldn't do. Remember
all the talk of swamps? Musk denies bidding
on the project, posting on x, quote, SpaceX

(01:38:25):
has not tried to bid for any contract
in this regard.
Our strong preference would be to stay focused
on taking humanity to Mars.
If the president asks us to help in
this regard, we will do but I hope
that other companies, not SpaceX,
can do this.
Military
analysts think the Golden Dome system could cost
billions of dollars, Markey. However, president Trump recently

(01:38:48):
signed an executive order directing the defense secretary
to review programs with any more than 15%
behind schedule or 15% over cost possibly to
be on the chopping block. Yeah. For anybody
unfamiliar,
the
Golden Dome is a take on the Israeli
Iron Dome. So
in terms of missile defense systems,

(01:39:09):
there
are different types of missiles you have to
defend from, and then there are different defense
systems you use in order to to defend
against them. So the
most old school defense systems that we have
are against ICBM. So ICBM's intercontinental
ballistic missiles, these are
missiles that, have a ballistic trajectory. They typically

(01:39:32):
will leave Earth's atmosphere and then travel in
outer space for a few minutes before turning
back
to impact a very high speed and velocity.
Those are fairly easy to intercept
if you can sense the launch on time
because since they are ballistic, they do shoot
in a fairly
predictable

(01:39:53):
trajectory, and, therefore, it is fairly easy to
shoot up a very large interceptor
rocket and to intercept it. The next level
so in terms of that, the most advanced
systems are the in the world are The
US THAAD and, which is a thermal high
atmosphere
defense, I think, is the abbreviation for that.
And the is the Israeli

(01:40:14):
system called
Arrow three.
The second level of defense is against
ballistic men missiles that may not be intercontinental,
so they may not leave Earth's atmosphere. They
fly lower. Those have
a longer flight path.
And in addition to those, also cruise missiles,
which are basically

(01:40:35):
bombs in the shape of little planes. So
like big missiles, but they fly like planes.
So for that, there are a variety
of defense systems in including the Patriot, and
many air force jets can shoot down these
ballistic missiles as well as these cruise missiles.
And then the hardest solution

(01:40:56):
was what Israel was dealing with, which is
these little rockets that are built in people's
garages in underground factories under hospitals and schools,
and
they fly very low. They basically just fly
over the fence. And it was, for a
very long time, considered completely impossible to shoot
these down because you're shooting a bullet that's

(01:41:18):
flying at the speed of a bullet with
another bullet except that you do not have
a very long time. So for intercontinental
ballistic missiles, you typically will have seven to
ten or fifteen minutes
to understand the ballistic course and then intercept
it. The most advanced interceptors like the arrow
three will intercept in an outer space, actually.
Then the with traditional ballistic missiles and cruise

(01:41:39):
missiles, it's much easier because you'll sometimes have
hours of them flying through the air before
they arrive at your shores and you can
intercept them. The real challenging part are these
little rockets that just fly for thirty seconds,
a minute, three minutes over the fence and
then impact. And they're not accurate, and they're
not always very predictable.
Back in 2011, Israel initiated a program called

(01:42:01):
the Iron Dome to defend against this. There
was a lot of fight against it. There
was a lot of research going into laser
weapons and but it ended up being funded
thanks to American Funding in part. And the
Israelis were able to develop technology to intercept
it. They used the system's called the Iron
Dome. It has three parts. There's the radar
system. There's the command and control booth, and
then there is the intercept interceptor launchers and

(01:42:24):
missiles. The missiles themselves are called the Mirs.
And the problem was that Hamas and other
terrorists are building rockets with
pipes they they get out of the ground
and they fill with explosives
that cost a few hundred bucks, maybe a
few thousand bucks, whereas these interceptors were costing
originally hundreds of thousands of dollars. Israel was
able to reduce their cost drastically

(01:42:49):
by reducing some of the advanced technology on
the missile's warhead
and
allowing it giving it a data line communication
system. So that way it can communicate, and
the radar that found
the incoming rocket is able to direct it
closer and only when it is in close
proximity.
It uses its own sensors to activate, so
there therefore, it doesn't need advanced computers and

(01:43:10):
advanced sensors
to track it the entire way, and that
saves the on cost drastically. I think they
were able to reduce the price to below
$50,000,
missile as well, which is still a big
parity with a few thousand thousand dollars that
the terrorists use. Obviously, Israel is much richer
than most of these terrorists, so it can
technically afford it, but at some point, it
becomes a nutrition. Right? Like,
how many more can you shoot down? How

(01:43:31):
fast can you shoot down versus how many
they can produce? Right? So what we sent
it the IDF focus on is trying to
destroy the factories where these rockets are being
produced. But the Iron Dome has been extremely
effective.
I think it was assumed that if it
would have over a 70% success rate, it
would be considered a success. It out of
the launch, it had, like, an 85% success
rate, and then now it's 97%.
It's also smart enough to determine if the

(01:43:53):
rocket is gonna land in a inhabited area
or in
empty fields. If it's an empty field, it's
not worth shooting an an interceptor rocket at.
If it's heading towards an inhabited area, they
will obviously shoot an interceptor. So
the idea that The US
should have
a rocket defense system
sounds like, obviously, how does The US, the

(01:44:13):
greatest empire in the world, not have an
iron dome system of their own? Like, how
does small Israel have it and The US
not? The basic premises is that The US
has never needed it, and the Israelis definitely
had the need that they needed to develop
a solution for.
But, also, The United States is basically
an entire continent.
So until the Mexicans

(01:44:35):
or the Canadians
start shooting rockets at The United States, having
a system to deal with low flying short
range rockets
would not be very useful for The United
States. Like we said, The United States already
has THAAD, already has The United States Of
Patriot. So The United States already has THAAD
and the Patriot system
and other defense systems, which are good for

(01:44:56):
longer distance.
And, obviously, the United States air force and
coast guard planes can defend against a lot
of these ballistic missiles
and cruise missiles. So the danger for The
United States is not very prevalent for short
term rockets. So the need for an Iron
Dome system
wasn't
very obvious. So when people started saying, oh,
Trump is claiming that he wants an Iron

(01:45:18):
Dome. It's like, Trump doesn't understand The United
States doesn't need an Iron Dome.
And and he's just crazy and stupid. Now,
obviously, American assets around the world definitely need
an iron dome, and we've already seen The
United States test an iron dome. I think
it was in Taiwan or in Guam or
somewhere like that. So it makes sense for
American air force bases, American military bases, and

(01:45:38):
installations all around the world to have systems
like the Iron Dome. But what Trump was
referring to, especially with the renamed Golden Dome
because everything with Trump must be gold, is
something for The United States. And it's like,
this isn't even relevant. These are short term
rockets.
What we found, though,
is that first of all, Iron Dome is
great against drones.
Most drones don't have a very long range

(01:45:58):
either.
But the Iranians
have gotten very good at putting kamikaze drones
and rockets
built into shipping containers,
and it is very, very easy to send
the shipping container to The United States. So
if China One day decides that they wanna
attack Taiwan on Thursday
and Tuesday,
every shipping container that arrives in The United

(01:46:20):
States on both coasts
is instead of Chinese goods
ends up being Iranian rockets and missiles,
then suddenly,
you are needing to face these short range
attack
munitions,
in homeland United States. So this concept of
because we have oceans on both of our
sides, we no longer need this. It's irrelevant

(01:46:41):
when they can smuggle it into every single
port and every single con container,
And boom, the contain the roof of the
container opens up and
they just start launching these suicide drones and
these rockets. So suddenly a system like Iron
Dome is very relevant for that. But the
term Golden Dome is for the overall
kind of system as a whole, and it
is to protect against all missiles. So that

(01:47:03):
didn't may include the short range stuff, but
it also includes probably upgrades to the THAAD
and the Patriot and additional batteries. Do you
have anything to add?
The only thing I add is that, obviously,
the military
has an interest, so they may know things
we don't know, but I think you gave
some terrific examples as to why we probably
need this.
And, listen,

(01:47:24):
we certainly don't
want to not be prepared because
things are changing and the world isn't always
a friendly place. So I'm not laughing at
any of this. I think it definitely has
to be explored. And if we can put
in a system that is gonna be functional,
I don't believe that they're just gonna put
this thing up for no good reason on
that. I think the last thing to address

(01:47:45):
is Elon's tweet on the matter. So the
fact that it's, oh, Trump is trying to
give money to his crony billionaires because that's
what they need is they just want more
money. It's like the richest man in the
world really. That's what he needs. But I
think Elon's response is freaking badass, and it
is we don't want to do this. Yes.
It would be developing the most advanced missile
defense system in the world history

(01:48:06):
and what was considered impossible ten years ago
and replicating it on a much larger scale.
And it's super advanced, super whatever. But Elon
is listen. This is a problem. This is
an easy problem. Yes. It is super hard,
but it is an easy problem that, hopefully,
the legacy defense companies can handle. There was

(01:48:28):
a rumor that the top bid was SpaceX
along with Palantir
along with Andril. So those are the three
actually innovative defense companies. Andril is very good
at building the these rockets and missiles at
a very affordable price. Palantir has the most
brilliant defense AI systems on the planet. And,
obviously, SpaceX is builds the most advanced missiles

(01:48:49):
in the world as well. It was exciting
to see that. Finally, these innovative startups basically
theoretically being the front runner, but Elon right
away got ahead of it and knew this
is not true. We've never put in a
bid. And not only have we not put
in a bid, we prefer that others solve
this issue. These are the easy problems. We
are focused on really hard problems like getting
humanities
getting humans and humanity safely to Mars. If

(01:49:11):
the president asks and we really need to
help, then, sure, we'll do whatever is needed.
We'll easily solve this. But we hope that
Lockheed Martin and Boeing
and McDonnell Douglas and all these other defense
companies
can handle this on their own. If they
need our help, we're here to help, but
preferably, they don't. This whole narrative immediately
falls right through that, oh, he's just doing
it to give Elon money. Elon doesn't want

(01:49:33):
the money. He's preoccupied with much more important
things like this. But if the hardest defense
system is too hard for the legacy defense
manufacturers, then SpaceX can ease easily handle it.
And I think that just comes to show
the prowess of SpaceX
and that the Elon's
mindset,
first principles solving issues. We saw this with
Tesla as well when he was like, let's

(01:49:54):
make all of our patents public because what
we're really after is the transition of the
world to sustainable energy. And if that helps
our competition,
so be it. And we saw that the
American and the European companies were their ego
was too big for them to to look
at Tesla's patents. But the Chinese, they gobbled
it up and the South Koreans too, and
that's why they make much much more compelling
EVs. So

(01:50:16):
Elon's idea is we're not gonna we're not
gonna succeed by holding back our competition with
patents.
Instead of that, we will succeed by out
innovating everybody 10 times faster than them. So
if we are the most innovative and we
ramp up our speed of innovation,
then we will forever stay ahead. And that
is what we need to do instead of
trying to push our competition down. Like, we

(01:50:36):
saw recently OpenAI trying, under the Biden administration,
trying to pass laws that only, you know,
four or five companies will be able to
develop the top range AIs,
which is like OpenAI was successful at getting
to the roof and now they're trying to
pull up the ladder so nobody else can
climb up. They were a startup not too
long ago themselves. So instead of Elon taking
such an approach of we'll have all the

(01:50:57):
patents and then we'll sue everybody,
I think
the the much better solution is we'll just
innovate so much faster. And by the time
they copy us, they'll find our patents from
two, three, five years ago. By the time
they figure them out, they analyze them, they
understand them, they replicate them. It's gonna take
them another three, five, six, seven years to
do. By then, we will be ten years
even further because our speed of is, of

(01:51:19):
innovation is accelerating too. So I think, we're
lucky to have such a mastermind and such
companies in The United States.
I think so too. And I think to
finish up, we should talk a little bit
about the breaking news as reported by the
Babylon Bee on the federal judge
that's overturning
pretty much every

(01:51:41):
Trump accomplishment
that's been had.
I think this is super important news. Let's
listen in for a little bit. Alright. Quiet,
please.
Order in the court.
Pursuant to my jurisdiction as a federal district
court judge for The United States Of America,
I will be issuing my latest rulings regarding

(01:52:04):
several
cases that have been presented to me recently
in conjunction with the actions taken by the
president,
mister Donald Trump.
After considering
the issues and both sides of the arguments,
the court rules as follow. Firstly,
with regards to the issue of the price
of eggs, I order the price of eggs

(01:52:25):
to return to $12 a dozen
as they were a few weeks ago.
Further, I revoke any political credit mister Trump
has received for the lowering of the price
of eggs.
Secondly,
regarding the rescue of these astronauts
who were illegally
brought home

(01:52:45):
from the International Space Station the other week,
I ordered them to be returned to outer
space immediately.
Any discussion of the astronauts being rescued
by mister Trump, mister Musk, or SpaceX
is to be stricken from the record.
Okay. For the sake of time, I'm gonna
try and speed the rest of these up.

(01:53:05):
I order the White House to continue funding
biodiversity
communications in Nepal
and transgender operas in Guatemala
and Muslim Sesame Street in Iraq.
I hereby order McDonald's to permanently bring back
the McRib. Excuse me, your honor. Could you
please repeat that? The McRib. I want the

(01:53:25):
McRib.
I order five more seasons five
of the Meghan Markle show on Netflix. I
can't get enough of it. Really good.
I order Kenny Siefkin
from my fourth grade class to apologize
for calling me a wiener in 1968.
It's wrong then. It's wrong now.

(01:53:46):
I order Israel to return all the freed
hostages back to Gaza.
I order Neil Patrick Harris to come and
fight me like a man. He knows what
he did. Excuse me. What did he do,
your honor? Oh, he knows. I ordered little
Hitler mustaches to be drawn on all photos
of Donald Trump and maybe a pair of
devil horns or the silly glasses. Horns, glasses.

(01:54:07):
Either one's fine.
Also, I'd like a nice set of throw
pillows. That's not an official order. It's, just
would like
a nice set of those those extra pillows
for the bed. Nothing fruity. That's just something
that will give my room a look of
distinction.
Donald Trump is a wimpy little girly boy,
and Judge Jones could beat him in Skee

(01:54:29):
Ball any day of the week. Donald Trump
is a dumb what a dork noodle. Madam
reporter, can you read that back? Yes.
Okay. Donald Trump
is a wimpy little girly boy, and judge
Jones could beat him in Skee Ball any
day of the week. Donald Trump is a
dumb what a dork noodle, period.

(01:54:50):
I'm sorry. That is that's classic.
And finally, according to the twenty eighth amendment,
which I just made up and added to
Wikipedia,
I hereby appoint myself president of The United
States effective immediately. I do this in order
to save democracy.
And I have the authority to do this
because I said I have the authority.
I am now the president, and the former

(01:55:10):
president is no longer president.
Yeah. So that's hysterical specifically because we've been
seeing over the past few years all these
activist judges. We've seen this with the lawsuits
against Tesla,
with activist judges passing just
just completely
absurd
results and giving billions of dollars in rewards

(01:55:31):
to
supposed shareholders that owned 13 or nine shares
ten years ago. It's really just to these
law firms that are doing it for the
payout.
And
even when Tesla
held the shareholder vote and
literally tens of millions of shareholders voted and
said, no. We support Elon's payout. The judge
is, no. I choose differently. And then we've

(01:55:51):
seen this with judge Boseberg
trying to reverse a lot of Trump's ruling.
It's an issue with activist judges trying to
take control. And
here in The United States, it doesn't seem
like it's such a big issue. It's absurd
and crazy that these people are judges in
the first place.
But, thankfully, it doesn't seem like it's affecting
the Supreme Court, etcetera. But what we've seen
in other countries, notably Brazil,

(01:56:12):
is the judge
Morales Morales
basically took control of the country, and it's
really really creepy because
the dictator is the supreme court and specifically
this judge. And we've seen a very similar
situation in Israel
where
the supreme court
needed to choose the new president of the

(01:56:33):
Supreme Court. And this is what this I
declare myself president reminds me most of. The
president
must of the Supreme Court must be authorized
by the minister of
law, which is the person in charge of
the legal system,
and maybe by the parliament or something like
that.
The head of the Supreme Court was not
able to get the correct authorizations

(01:56:54):
because he was an activist. So
his name is judge Yitzhak Amit, and he
just decided,
I will declare myself judge of the Supreme
Court. He did have the majority within the
Supreme Court. Now the court system is corrupt
because they always elect from their own, so
they always choose their own ilk. So he
did have the agreement of the, at least
the majority of the other supreme court court

(01:57:16):
judges, but he did not have the support
of the parliament
or the minister or the government. Yet he
stood up, and he declared himself the new
president of the Supreme Court.
Be damned of what people want or think
or voted for. I am this is what
I declared is that I am now the
president of the Supreme Court. So now there
is this really awkward situation where the minister
of law is like, I am or the

(01:57:38):
justice minister is I am unwilling to recognize
you as the head of the Supreme Court.
And as head of the Supreme Court is
I won't recognize you as the minister of
law even though that's what the people voted
for. So
what we've seen is under probably twenty or
thirty years under a very
brilliant, but a
notorious judge called the Haroon Barak. He basically

(01:57:58):
changed all of the rules that allowed the
Supreme Court to get involved in anything. So
you don't have to wait for a case,
a lawsuit to go through the court systems
and arrive at the Supreme Court for the
Supreme Court to make a decision.
Instead, anything in the country the Supreme Court
does not like, the Supreme Court can just
decide that that's illegal and control that. And,
yeah. So this has been going on for
a very long time. About twenty or thirty

(01:58:19):
years ago, a notorious judge but brilliant named
Aharon Barak passed this law where instead of
the lawsuits going through the proper legal system
before they arrive at the supreme court and
only the most important ones arrive at the
supreme court for them to decide on, he
basically decided that the supreme court should be
able that they're in charge of keeping the

(01:58:39):
rights of the people, and therefore,
they very much care for human rights, surprise,
human rights. And therefore,
what they have to do is get involved
in anything that they see is incorrect or
wrong in the country. Even if there was
no lawsuit and it never arrived at the
Supreme Court, anything that they disagree with, any
law that they dislike, any politician's decision they

(01:59:01):
don't agree with, they would just decide that
it's illegal. So
showing seeing this video from the Babylon Bee
may seem a little absurd in The United
States, but this is happening around the world,
and it is very scary. So bringing attention
to it is very important.
And the most likely
trigger
to have them
write this up and put this together is

(01:59:23):
what's been going on here with the deportations.
So we have a district court judge
who essentially
has been using
his or the powers he believes he has
to essentially stop the president of The United
States
from
using the powers that he has. And, of
course, we know there's

(01:59:43):
different and coequal
branches of government.
The president
decided to
make use of the 1798
Alien Enemies Act.
And
the position is that the country is being
invaded and that we have terrorists

(02:00:04):
and gang members coming in and the country
is not safe.
And
president was using these powers to do what
presidents do and made the decision that he
made and now
ultimately was being stopped by a district court
judge, which, again, the counterargument to that is
the district court judge does not have the

(02:00:25):
authority or shouldn't have the authority
to
interfere with the actions of the president
and the authority that the president has. That's
really, I think, an interesting sort of discussion.
There are people that'll argue the other way.
But you gave a perfect example
as

(02:00:45):
to what happens when
power,
even within the
judicial branch,
goes unchecked.
And you can have people that think that
they can then or maybe in, in fact,
in some countries will go and take over
much of the control of the country
simply by sitting on the bench
and saying that they are entitled to it,

(02:01:07):
much like this judge in the skit
decided
that there was a new constitutional amendment and
that he was going to now become president.
So on that note, we're glad that's not
happening here right now.
And, again,
humor, of course, is the best medicine.
So
I think it's a good way to end
off.

(02:01:28):
Yep. Please let us know what you think
down in the comments below, and we'll see
you in the next episode. Thank you, Joe.
Yep. Sounds good.
See you all again soon. Great week.

All Episodes

The YoJoeShow™ Podcast – Episode 7

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Dateline NBC

24/7 News: The Latest

Therapy Gecko

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}The YoJoeShow™ Podcast – Episode 7