​It's A Saturday Morning Bonus Podcast For 04-26-25

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
The Michael Berry Show. Cheryl Atkisson is a true American journalist.
She's also an author. She's a media critic. It's a
beautiful woman. She's a patriot. She's known for her investigative
reporting and independent stance on media bias and government transparency.
Cheryl Atkison worked for over two decades at CBS, where

(00:22):
she gained recognition for her in depth investigative pieces, including
coverage of the Fast and Furious scandal, where I think
she led the charge on that, and the Bengazi attack.
In twenty fourteen, she resigned from CBS News citing concerns
over editorial interference, which was a nice way to say
they were protecting Barack Obama and she was exposing the

(00:44):
truth and what she viewed as a liberal bias that
prevented certain stories from being fully pursued. After leaving CBS,
she became an outspoken critic of media groupthink and political narratives,
advocating for greater political independence. She hosts the weekly Sunday
TV news program Full Measure with Cheryl Atkinson, which focuses

(01:06):
on investigative journalism and topics often overlooked by mainstream outlets.
She recently gave a lecture at the wonderful Hillsdale College
on the problem of Big Pharma and how the pharmaceutical
companies have co opted and corrupted not only our healthcare system,
but our media as well.

Speaker 2 (01:25):
So the topic I was given to talk about today,
per the book, is the problem of big Pharma, and
I would sum it up this way by saying, trust
me when I tell you that nearly every form of
information about our health has been co opted by the
pharmaceutical industry. Okay, you don't have to trust me. You're

(01:47):
not the trusting kind of crowd, and that's what I
like about you. So in my speech today, I'm going
to choose some excerpts and examples that will show how
medical interests have infiltrated and corrupted media, medical journals, medical school,
medical associations, medical researchers, continuing medical education classes, and more.

Speaker 3 (02:08):
Can you hear me? Okay?

Speaker 2 (02:11):
So I thought I would begin at the beginning. I'm
an investigative reporter, not a health reporter, and I used
to have no interest in medical stories. I didn't see
those as really part of my responsibility. But it began
for me. I call it my trip down the rabbit hole.
In the two thousand and one time period after the
nine to eleven attacks by Islamic extremist terrorists on America,

(02:33):
I was working at CBS News and they assigned me
to cover the restart of the smallpox vaccine program. Who
remembers when we tried to do that. They were going
to start vaccinating everybody for smallpox vaccine again, for smallpox again.
The idea was, we thought terrorists could now weaponize or
use as a biological weapon smallpox, and because of this

(02:55):
new threat, the vaccine that hadn't been given in a
very long time, maybe we should start giving that routinely again.
The reason it's controversial this vaccine, smallpox vaccine has a
greater incidence of adverse events than other vaccines, so it's
not something you want to just do without a lot
of thought. So they decided to start with first responders

(03:18):
and the military, and they would carefully monitor for any
serious adverse events among this population and then ultimately vaccinate everybody.

Speaker 3 (03:26):
If all went well.

Speaker 2 (03:28):
So CBS News assigned me to cover this restart. I
knew nothing of vaccines. In fact, I was probably like
a lot of Americans where I completely trusted the medical
establishment Dad's a doctor, brother's a doctor.

Speaker 3 (03:41):
I know a lot of great doctors.

Speaker 2 (03:43):
I couldn't imagine that anybody in that system would intentionally mislead.
I couldn't imagine that researchers would do things that were unethical.
I couldn't imagine that anybody in the governm would try
to cover up safety issues. So that was my starting point.
I covered the restart of this program, and again, as
I mentioned, first given to military and first responders. I

(04:07):
was embedded with the Air Force.

Speaker 3 (04:09):
This was the War with the.

Speaker 2 (04:10):
Rock was going on, so I'm traveling with the Air Force.
A colleague of mine named David Bloom of NBC was
embedded with the Army in a rock. Do people here
remember David Bloom of NBC. He was a White House reporter,
so you may also recall that pretty early on we
got the sad news that David had died, and not

(04:31):
in a battlefield injury, but he had died of a
blood clot and it was said that well, he had
genetic predispositions, and he had been cramped up in a
tank the whole day, and he'd had some pain in
his leg and so on. But I knew from the
research that I had been conducting for covering these stories
that the smallpox vaccine, according to some research, had blood

(04:54):
clots as a potential side effect, as many other things
deep vein thrombosis that could be fatal. So, of course, naturally,
in a program where they're thinking about restarting and they're
supposed to be measuring all adverse events that occur after
the vaccine, whether or not they think it was related,
they have to monitor all of them and report them
so they can be counted and looked at.

Speaker 3 (05:16):
Nobody was reporting David.

Speaker 2 (05:17):
Bloom's death as a potential vaccine side effect. So I
went to the source I had with the government, and
I said, shouldn't his death be reported? Because I was
able to confirm again through sources on the ground that
he'd had the smallpox vaccine. He'd had the anthax vaccine too,
by the way, in order to embed on the ground.

(05:38):
And my source said, well, he wasn't reported by the military,
which is who you would think would report to the
system that was trying to track all of this. At
the same time, there were reports of four civilian deaths
already attributed to the smallpox vaccine potentially. So I went
to another source, and I said, what are the names

(05:58):
of the four I wanted to know if David Bloom
was among them? Were they counting him as they were
supposed to? While the government says we can't give you
the names of the people who died. I came to
learn this as a very convenient catch twenty two. Whenever
you try to find out something from the government that
may implicate a product from the pharmaceutical industry, suddenly everything's.

Speaker 3 (06:19):
A big secret.

Speaker 2 (06:21):
But if it's something that they want to have released
for reasons that benefits somebody, they will tell you everything.
But in this case, I couldn't get the names of
the four civilians to find out if David Bloom had
been properly reported. So I decided to ask the question
a little differently. I didn't say, what are the names
of the four deaths? I said, is David Bloom's name
among them? And I was able to confirm that no,

(06:44):
he had not been reported. And it kind of blew
my mind as a reporter. I'm thinking, you know, his
name has to be reported. There shouldn't be a cover up, Like,
no one would be trying to cover this up, would they?
There are already a lot of questions surfacing about the
safety of this program pretty quick because of adverse events
that were popping up, and long story short, because I

(07:04):
broke the news. David Bloom's death was ultimately reported to
the system that was monitoring for adverse events and within
a pretty short period of time. For that and other reasons,
the government halted the restart of the smallpox vaccine program,
which is why we don't get smallpox vaccine shots today.
One little aside, smallpox vaccine is unique. It's my understanding

(07:30):
based on my reading, it's one of the few smallpox
is one of the few diseases for which they can
vaccinate after exposure and it can help. So another reason
not to have to give everybody a questionable vaccine. In advances,
if smallpox ever showed up in a city, they would
vaccinate in a ring around that positive case and could

(07:50):
theoretically catch an outbreak before it occurred. But that was
sort of my entrede down the rabbit hole of understanding, Yes,
people will cover things up. Why was I the only
reporter out of all the medical reporters covering this, and
I'm not a medical reporter. Why am I the only
one that asked the question about David Bloom and how
many more cases maybe weren't being reported or or perhaps

(08:13):
even being covered up. On this and other issues, the
next category I want to mention about ways in which
things are controlled that you might not have thought about.
You might be surprised to hear about nonprofits. Virtually all nonprofits,
I would now say, have their origins in some kind

(08:34):
of special interests that tend to be the opposite of
what the nonprofit says it does. And this was told
to me originally by a producer who worked for me
at CBS News years ago, and he said that very thing,
that if they say they're the citizens against cancer, it's
probably started by RJ.

Speaker 3 (08:53):
Reynolds or a tobacco company.

Speaker 2 (08:55):
And it turns out it's true when you start digging
a little deeper, which is not that hard to do.
But as journalists were not taught to do that, and
many journalists, including me in my earlier time, we don't
ask the basic questions. We're too trusting when a nonprofit
tells us something. Well, nonprofits are all good, right, They're
all just charities and altruistic. So let me tell you

(09:17):
about the American Cancer Society. Some years ago, I got
a tip that any perspersants had been linked to cancer,
to breast cancer, and this tip actually came from the
head of over the counter prescriptions from the FDA in
a conversation I was having about something unrelated, and I
was stunned because I'd never heard of such a thing.

(09:39):
And I had a child who was getting to be
about the age where she would start to use any
persperants and so on, and I have breast cancer in
my family, so certainly that's something I would want to know.
So as I explored it a little more deeply, he
told me that the FDA had been fighting for years
to try to potentially put the warning of any persper

(10:00):
and cancer link on the label for any perspirants, but
had been beaten down year after year by the power
of the anti persperant industry, which was saying that the
bar had to be met with different kinds of studies
and things that hadn't been conducted.

Speaker 3 (10:15):
More about that in a moment.

Speaker 2 (10:17):
But as I came to interview one of the scientists
who'd conducted a study linking the two, and as I
read other studies that existed that also made a link,
I asked for an interview with the antipersperant industry. Basically,
it's the cosmetics industry, their trade group in Washington, and
they didn't want to do an interview, but they kept saying,
interview the American Cancer Society. Go interview the American Cancer Society.

(10:40):
And I'm thinking, why do they think the American Cancer
Society is going to defend them? Why are they so
sure of that? And of course, in my mind, now
having covered these stories for a couple of years, I thought,
I'll bet there's a money tie. So I called the
American Cancer Society and their head of science that was
answering my questions. He begins with a non secret He

(11:01):
just basically says, this is all a myth, which, by
the way, the CDC website or the FDA website may
say that still today. It did when I looked a
couple of years ago, claimed that this potential link was
a myth.

Speaker 3 (11:13):
It's not.

Speaker 2 (11:14):
You know, you could say there's science on both sides,
but you cannot say it's a myth. So when he's
telling me it's a myth, I asked him about the
recent studies that I had, and he didn't know about
any of them. So here the American Cancer Society is
defending something any persperance as not a cause of cancer
and is saying it's a myth, but is not familiar

(11:35):
with the latest science. That's clue too that there was
something else at play. So I faxed him the studies,
and in the subsequent questions that I asked for my story,
all his answers were the same. Instead of addressing the study,
when I would ask a question about what about this finding,
about that finding, he would say women would do a
lot better to get their annual mammograms and stop worrying

(11:57):
about these other things that could be causing you know,
slight risk of cancer. They need to get their mammograms.
And I finally said to him do you guys get
money from the anti pursperant industry.

Speaker 3 (12:08):
And he was yes, why And I said, well how much?

Speaker 2 (12:14):
And they would not tell me how much, you know,
no dollar figure, not even a percentage. She just as
I kept asking, said, well it's a small amount. That's
a huge organization. If they get a small amount of
funding from every industry that's implicated in cancer, you can
see how the conflict of interest could stack up. So
I did do that story, and they got very angry

(12:35):
at the American Cancer Society because I reported neutrally what
they said and what they thought about this link between
antiperspirants and breast cancer. But I pointed out that they
accept money, and I said, they say a small amount
from the antipersperant industry, and that set them off like crazy.
We got nasty letter at CBS like how dare you

(12:56):
say that?

Speaker 3 (12:57):
Which is just the truth.

Speaker 2 (13:00):
Those supporters don't ask and then don't report that. I
think that's crucial context when you're looking at the viewpoint
somebody is presenting. I think you have a right to
know what the conflicts that exist may be just one
example of if you look at nonprophecies or full of
them when you're talking about medical advocacy, then there are

(13:21):
studies that are very conflicted. And boy, I spend a
lot of time talking about this in the book. I
think you would find a lot of this fascinating. But
I'll just give you one example of a study that
was done that probably should never have been done by
the according to the ethics bodies and watchdogs and people
that looked at this.

Speaker 3 (13:41):
But this was a study a few years ago.

Speaker 2 (13:43):
Of extremely premature, very sick infants. I call it the
Baby Oxygen Study. And it came out that only years
later did the mothers of these really frail, sick babies
find out through something I won't a reason I won't
go into to take up time, but it's in the book,
they found out their babies were in a study. And

(14:03):
most of them never knew it. They had not given,
in their view, informed consent, They had not been told
their babies were being put in a study. They were
being told they said, sign this paper on their way
in to get a c section.

Speaker 3 (14:16):
Sign this paper.

Speaker 2 (14:17):
This will help your baby, and the women would sign
the paper. Well, the babies ended up in a study
where their oxygen levels were manipulated for the purposes of
the study. They were randomly put into either a low
oxygen group or a high oxygen group. And as you
may know, most premature babies get oxygen therapy. If you

(14:38):
get too much oxygen, it can cause blindness. If you
get too little oxygen, it can cause brain damage. It's
a very touchy thing as to where that range should be. Well,
the problem is, this is one example of the unethical
things that were done as part of this study, and
this was not disclosed even if the women had read
the consent form had understood the the babies were in

(15:00):
a study, this was not put in there. The oxygen
monitors were rigged by the study scientists to give false
readings in order so that the hospital personnel would not
see the real readings and be tempted to adjust the
oxygen for the good of the baby. The babies were
to be kept in that study range. They were assigned
to at all costs. Years later, this comes out and

(15:25):
the ethics body that works for the government under HHS
finds a violation.

Speaker 3 (15:30):
You know, this shouldn't happen. There was lack of informed consent.

Speaker 2 (15:33):
This is part two of the incredible story about research
and ethics.

Speaker 3 (15:38):
Instead of these people being.

Speaker 2 (15:39):
Held accountable, they argued, we didn't do anything wrong, and
they spent a lot of time trying to beat down
the ethics office under HHS so that he wouldn't do
any enforcement actions, and they won. These researchers banded together
and got articles published in medical journals that said this

(16:00):
guy was being overreaching in his office on the ethics question,
that they didn't do anything wrong, and they argued in
a big conference held about all of this. Later sort
of what to do about this ethics issue that had arisen.
Over half the researchers argued, well, we shouldn't have to
tell people.

Speaker 3 (16:18):
About all the risks of a study.

Speaker 2 (16:19):
These rules are too firm, These rules are too tough,
because when we tell people all the risks of being
in a study, they don't want to take part in
this study. I'm telling you this is true. I'm sitting
there thinking, I'm like in a alice in Wonderland. And
then they said, how can we help the greater good
if we can't convince people to be in our studies

(16:40):
because they're worried about the risks. So I'm going to
this was years ago. I'm going to bring you to
something today that ought to really rock your world. So
all these years later, those researchers that were arguing for
loose and informed consent, they got their way about a
year and a half ago. Quietly, Congress and the federal agencies,

(17:02):
I'm sure being lobbied by the industries that make money
off of their studies and what they discover, they quietly
passed a new law and a rule that was finalized
by the FDA not long ago. That said researchers don't
have to give all the risks of a study to people.
If the researchers decide the risks are minimal, they don't

(17:22):
have to tell you about them. I think this is shocking.
This is the first upheaval in the rules for human
experimentation in this country since they were set after the
Tuskegee syphilis experiments. I mean, this is a huge sea change.

Speaker 3 (17:36):
I have a couple of questions.

Speaker 2 (17:37):
If the risks are minimal, then why won't you tell
people about them? If they really are minimal, that's not
going to scare them from taking part in the study,
or if it does, that's their choice. But number two,
you're relying on the honesty and judgment of the very
researchers who have proven to be wrong or corrupt in
the past to make a judgment that says the risks

(17:58):
are minimal. And by the way, they don't know if
they and that's why they're doing the study. So you know,
I think this is this has to be changed in
my view. I think this is something that's very problematic
and a new thing that's come out of something I've
heard being discussed for like I say, over a decade
onto some studies that are published. I've talked in the

(18:20):
past before. Maybe some of you have heard some of
the esteemed editors of medical journals that you're a doctor
and my doctor rely upon These medical editors themselves say much,
if not most, of the science now in these peer
reviewed published journals like the New England Journal of Medicine
is not to be believed because it's been taken over

(18:42):
so much by the pharmaceutical industry. Doctor Marsha Angel of Harvard,
who was edited at the New England Journal of Medicine,
told me in an interview that she fought this and
fought this as best she could to try to get
these tainted studies from being published in the New England
Journal of Medicine, and she lost the battle. After that,
Doctor Richard Horton of the British journal Lancet, he published

(19:06):
a very famous editorial that I think should have made
more news in the general press that said something like
science has taken a turn toward the dark side. And
he said, he's still the editor at Lancet, that much
of the science is not to be believed for the
very same reason these studies that are published in the
journals are so taken over by the pharmaceutical industry that
you're not getting the whole truth, or sometimes any truth

(19:28):
at all. The studies are controlled in the terms of
the studies in a way they didn't used to be
by the pharmaceutical industry. So if there are bad studies
about a medicine, you may never know because maybe twenty
years ago all the science was published good or bad.
Today that's not the case. And this changeover was happening

(19:52):
about two decades ago when there were researchers in California
who were working on a new vaccine for AIDS, and
they ended up stopping the trials because they knew fairly
early on it was a futility, finding that it was
not going to do any good, and they can't ethically
keep going forward with a study when the findings are

(20:12):
so obviously bad, because you're potentially putting study subjects at risk,
and you're wasting money and so on. So the scientists
stop the study and they get ready to publish what
they've learned, because collective science relies upon information being published,
whether it's good, positive, or negative about a medicine, so
that science can be advanced. People won't repeat the same

(20:34):
mistakes and so on. But what happened when these publishers
decided to publish was the vaccine maker told them they
couldn't that they weren't allowed to publish the data, that
the data was proprietary, they didn't want anybody else to
know about it. Well, this happens all the time now,
it's part of the contract, but it was pretty new
back then. The study scientists were incensed and they wanted

(20:55):
to publish, but they couldn't get complete data from the company.
It's another thing these companies do. They stovepipe the data
and the data centers, whereby if a researcher decides to
kind of go rogue and publish something the company doesn't want, well,
they won't have all the data to do so. Well,
something kind of unprecedented happened. Medical journals went ahead and

(21:17):
published what these researchers had to say without all the
data because they knew that the vaccine company was not
giving them all the data, and they thought this was
such an important stand to take that drug companies shouldn't
be able to stop science from being published. After it
was published, the vaccine maker sued the main scientist out
in California for seven million dollars for publishing the truth

(21:41):
about the study. If you can imagine the chilling effect
this has and had on scientists working for the industry.
They work at universities, get all this money from the industry,
and now your institution is looking at you. They're mad
at you. You have to hire lawyers that defend you.
Even if you were to win your case. It's a
huge problem and it's basically a career ender. Ultimately, the

(22:06):
scientists won the lawsuit. It was basically dropped and went away.
I don't think that would happen today. But the momentum
of the scientific community was so against the vaccine maker
for trying to take this strong arm approach that there
was no sense in the vaccine maker fighting it.

Speaker 3 (22:23):
Today. All of this is.

Speaker 2 (22:24):
Written into the contracts on the front end. So when
you think there are independent research institutions, you know like universities,
we all know they come out with a study, well,
that was funded usually by a drug maker who dictated
the terms of under which the study could be published
or may not ever be published if the findings aren't
don't come out right. A lot of stuff is being

(22:46):
dictated that is considered according to scientists on the insight
unethical and wrong and not leading to the truth. So
that's another example. Then I wanted to go to medical school.
So how our doctors are being skewed in medical school?
I'll bet all of us here, almost all of us

(23:07):
have the perspective of time. And we've known for twenty
years that we're suffering an epidemic of chronic diseases. And
we know that we're spending more money on health care
and insurance and medicine, hospitals and doctors than we ever have,
And we want to know why that's the case. But
if you've gone to your doctor the last twenty years,
odds are for the most part, they act like it's invisible.

(23:29):
They don't even act like they notice the chronic health epidemic,
but for the opportunity to treat it with an expensive medicine.
Why are so few doctors asking the critical questions about prevention. Yes,
let's try to treat something if there's something wrong, But
wouldn't it be better to also figure out the exposures
and the causes of these chronic disorders so that people

(23:50):
don't have them in the first place. Well, there's not
a lot of money to be made out of preventing
illness so that treatments can't be had.

Speaker 3 (23:59):
In the Mrk manual that.

Speaker 2 (24:00):
Medical school students read, In fact, some of them call
it the most important reference a med school student can ever.

Speaker 3 (24:08):
Have you heard me right?

Speaker 2 (24:10):
It's the Merk Manual, taught medical school and written by
the vaccine pharmaceutical company Merk. This is where some doctors
start to get their ideas for how to practice medicine.
And when I heard that Merk wrote the manual, like,
I'm thinking, how well, how do the med schools allow
this conflict of interest? And what exactly does the manual

(24:30):
say on crucial topics. By the way, Merk's own literature says, hey,
our Mark manual is completely separate from our pharmaceutical part
of the company.

Speaker 3 (24:42):
There's a firewall.

Speaker 2 (24:43):
One has nothing to do with the other. I will
point out that Merk and most of the other major
pharmaceutical companies have had to pay tens of billions and
collectively hundreds of billions of dollars in settlements to the
government in recent years for lying bribery, lying about the
safety of their drugs, giving doctors kickbacks. But we are
to trust that Mark would never cross over between editorial

(25:06):
for the book it teaches medical students with and its
pharmaceutical arm So I looked at a couple of examples.
What does the Mark manual teach young doctors about the
controversial HPV vaccine that Mark makes? And I opened it up,
Actually I searched online. It's very short, little substance there,

(25:27):
but it says something that really caught my eye. It
says there were no serious adverse events reported with the
HPV vaccine. And how that fell over because I had
covered it enough and read enough to know.

Speaker 3 (25:39):
That that's completely false.

Speaker 2 (25:41):
In fact, if you just look at the label, the
approved label for HPV vaccine, it lists dozens and dozens
of serious adverse events, everything from paralysis to death.

Speaker 3 (25:51):
But doctors are being taught.

Speaker 2 (25:53):
In the Mark Manual there are no serious adverse events reported.
Since I've been talking about this and published this fact
in my book. By the way, the MRK Manual online
remove that sentence. It did not, however, replace it with
the truth. They should have put in there, here are
the adverse events, because doctors need to start to understand
a watch for these things. But it simply removed that

(26:15):
paragraph entirely. There's no mention of it at all. So
when your doctor goes into practice, he's been prepped and
primed by med school experience that doesn't teach them to
watch out for adverse events from medicine, vaccines and other
medicine that in some instances may be giving them false
information about the status of what can happen from that medicine.

(26:38):
And I would argue that this is a lot of
the reason why we're treated the way we're treated at
the doctor's office, with them too often not trying to
figure out what the cause of our disorders are, but
just happily treating it with medicine. So they catch the
doctors when they're young in med school, but they also

(26:59):
got them when it comes to continuing medical education classes.

Speaker 3 (27:04):
Are there any doctors in here? Medical doctors?

Speaker 2 (27:07):
You guys, okay, you should know, and some of you
do know, but some of you don't know this, including
my he's gonna watch this, but my brother. Okay, so
I know from experience. When you go to a continuing
medical education class, if you're taught something about a medicine
and they try to tell you that this medicine is

(27:28):
just the best and that there's like no real side
effects or the side effects that you heard about. Just
don't worry about those. I'm telling you those people they
work for the drug company. One hundred percent of the
time when I've looked into it, that's been true. But
it's not disclosed for whatever reason in an obvious way
that the doctor's taken the courses would see it. Now,
there may be a place they can click into to

(27:50):
find this information, but these people are builled typically as
some kind of academic affiliation, not with the association they
have with whoever's been paying them as advisor, consultant or researcher.
One example from that, and I will use again the
HPV vaccine because I got a call from somebody who
was at one of these seminars and says, oh, just

(28:13):
listen to a great speech about the gardess of the
HPV vaccine. There's no side effects, it works super well.
And again this is by any neutral exam it potentially
problematic vaccine compared to even other vaccines. So I'm thinking,
why are the doctors being taught this. I said to
this person, the person giving you that speech works for Mark,

(28:35):
I'm telling you works for the drug company, and he says, no, no,
he doesn't I've looked at his affiliation. I said, ask somebody,
because I would bet you a lot of money.

Speaker 3 (28:44):
He called back within an hour and he's like, you're right,
he does works for Mark.

Speaker 2 (28:49):
But it was not disclosed on the sheet where you
look at what these affiliations are. So again, doctors are
taught in medical school, maybe not in a way that's
even of the industry is shaping how they're going to practice,
but it's influencing. And then they're taught on the other
end in the continuing medical education classes when they try
to get at the truth. Another quick example of that,

(29:11):
I saw continuing medical education class offered on the safety
of COVID vaccine and children, and I had just covered
the case of poor little child named Mattie, who was
twelve years old when she entered into a study on
the COVID vaccine.

Speaker 3 (29:27):
She's still not right to this day. She almost died.

Speaker 2 (29:30):
She's in a wheelchair, she was paralyzed. You know, many
horrible things happened to her very quickly after her second
test shot when she was in the Pfizer trials. And
I'm kind of waiting to see I look through the
slides on this Continuing Medical Education class, Well, how are
they going to handle the case of Maddie to Gary
and the other adverse events I know of in the
children not mentioned As far as the doctors are being taught,

(29:54):
Maddie to Gary doesn't exist. Now, when there's a child
in a study, or anybody in a relatively small study
that gets that sick, that's a huge potential red flag
for the medicine, and the fact that that was completely
being ignored was pretty shocking to me. And then the
last example I'll talk about with conflicts that occur among

(30:18):
our trusted agencies or our once trusted health agencies has
to do with the FDA and a medicine called AJU
Can you mab Has anybody heard in the last maybe
three years that there's a new medicine for Alzheimer's that
may be the first cure for Alzheimer's disease?

Speaker 3 (30:34):
This is so awesome.

Speaker 2 (30:36):
Well, that would be awesome, and I hope it turns
out to be true. But the story behind ajucany map
is pretty shocking. This there were two studies going on
that were halted midstream, just like that AIDS vaccine trial
for futility reasons, because the researchers could tell midstream there
was going to be no benefit to the aju canyu

(30:57):
mab in the trials, and they couldn't keep ethically. They
couldn't go on to the studies with their conclusion because
of that. So they stop the studies and they kind
of do a nevermind. They come back some months later,
maybe is about a year later, and they tell the FDA,
you know what we were wrong about that. We looked
at the partial data in the studies we never completed,

(31:21):
and looked at endpoints that we had never described in
the original plan, and we do see perhaps some kind
of benefit to this drug.

Speaker 3 (31:28):
Well, normally FDA.

Speaker 2 (31:30):
Under normal circumstances and its advisors would just say, well,
that doesn't count. You have to finish his study number one.
You can't redefine a study midway. That's not scientific just
to find the things that you want.

Speaker 3 (31:43):
But they didn't do that.

Speaker 2 (31:44):
The FDA called a meeting of their outside advisors, the
Advisory Committee. By the way, the advisory committees are usually
pretty pharmaceutical friendly because a lot of them are on
those committees because they consult for companies, and that's been
a little bit of a conflict. But if anything, they're
very friends usually to drugs being approved. And these advisors,
and I interviewed one of them on camera, were shocked

(32:07):
to find at the meeting, not only did the drug
company present its own glowing results supposedly of its unfinished studies,
but the FDA presented a joint presentation with the drug
company an FDA official, which had never been done before
that these advisors had seen where the FDA, instead of
being sort of a neutral observer asking logical questions, was

(32:30):
now promoting the medicine in front of the advisory committee.

Speaker 3 (32:33):
And talking about how great it is.

Speaker 2 (32:35):
Well, there, I believe twelve members of the advisory committee.
None of them said the drug should be approved, not
one of them. They thought that there were safety issues.
They didn't think there was proof of benefit for various
reasons which are detailed and follow the science if you're interested.
What happens the FDA proves the drug. So this is
over the advice of all of its advisors, with two

(32:56):
studies having been stopped before they were completed. And by
the way, the initial cost, if you want to look
aside from safety and effectiveness, was fifty seven thousand dollars
a year for this medicine which would be theoretically paid
by med Medicare and Medicaid all of us, and one
watchdog at Public Citizen did the calculation that said, if

(33:19):
just the people on Medicare who would want that medicine
and qualify for it got it, it would bankrupt Medicare
like in a couple of months because it's so expensive.
Long story short, it was such a scandal this drug.
Even the people in the industry that might normally be
looking for a new drug and the neurological societies and
so on, would not prescribe it or recommend it, and

(33:41):
it was pulled from the market. It was replaced by
a similar drug called la canamab by the same company
under similar circumstances, with advisors not thinking there was safety
and effectiveness proven, but FDA approved it anyway, and that
medicine is now covered by Medicare. So this is just
a way of tell telling you that things are going
on inside the public health agencies that I used to

(34:03):
accept or believe we're only watching out for our best interests,
but have conflicts and all kinds of things going on
internally that most Americans are unaware of. Last thing, I'll
say which I hope before I take some questions, is
a little bit of a bright spot is the fact
that more people are becoming aware of this sort of thing.

(34:23):
I think that if you're like me, for just has
never occurred to me decades ago, my child's fully vaccinated.
I didn't think medicine should be questioned. I still think
medicine and some vaccines for some people can be incredibly
life saving. So this is not trying to get people
to say, don't take medicine, don't take vaccines, nothing like that.
But the rational logical questions that needed to be asked

(34:46):
and the safety questions that needed to be explored for
too long have not been because of the co opting
of media, politicians, and medical establishment and so on. But
the COVID experience, as bad as it was, and the
information manment got so ridiculous and audacious, I think something
good came of that. It made people who never saw
themselves as activists become activists for their own health in

(35:10):
a way, because they started asking the logical questions, if
the government's not telling me the truth about this, what
else haven't they told me the truth about so? And
I urge everybody, and I believe this room is full
of people already doing this. To get your own information,

(35:31):
develop your own sources. I have ideas in the last
chapter of the book for how you can start on that.
But there are some wonderful independent doctors that broke away
from the mainstream, that were world renowned published doctors that
when they couldn't treat their own patients the way they
thought was best for them during COVID, they've broken away
and started new organizations and protocols that are even doing

(35:54):
independent studies. No one else will do that attack the
root cause of a lot of problems that we're having
that nobody's bothered to find out about. So I think
these are good things for us to look forward to
on the horizon and something positive to end with. And
if you have any questions, I'm happy to take them.

Speaker 3 (36:19):
Thank you, Miss Adkison. We now have time for Q
and A.

Speaker 4 (36:22):
If you have a question, please raise your hand and
wait for the microphone to be brought to you.

Speaker 5 (36:39):
Yeah, I have a quick question for you. Do you
have any allies? What about the customers of pharma like
Charles Hopkins and Mayo Clinic and MD Anderson and the

(37:01):
big hospitals in our country, and also any other rapport
investigative reporters like you five one hundred publishing on the
same problem.

Speaker 2 (37:16):
I'm sure there are some other reporters, not a lot
because they're not because they can't do it, but their institutions,
the networks will not publish this sort of thing. My
TV program is independent, so I publish it on fall measure.
There's some good substack writers. This is in my book too,
but Paul Thacker, the Disinformation Chronicle on Substack is fantastic,

(37:38):
writes about some of these things.

Speaker 3 (37:41):
The first thing you said.

Speaker 2 (37:42):
Though, oh about first part of your question, Oh, the
big hospitals. So it's it's when I talk about all
the information being perverted and corrupted, that includes what Mayo
Clinic publishes, will be in line with a lot of
false information I've seen on FDA and CDC website, what

(38:02):
web MD publishes. I'm not saying all of it's bad.
There's some helpful, decent general information, but when it comes
to medical controversies, a lot of completely false and disproven
information is being put out there on these sites.

Speaker 3 (38:15):
Also at the hospital.

Speaker 2 (38:17):
Children's Hospital of Philadelphia is a huge offender when it
comes to vaccine misinformation. They do not say on their
page that a lot of people refer to that they're
heavily funded by Mark and probably a lot of other
pharmaceutical industry industries as well. But one of their key doctors,
doctor Paul Offitt, was held out for decades as the

(38:39):
expert on vaccine safety, and I believe until I came
along in the early two thousands and asked the questions,
nobody reported that he sits in a chair called the
Hiliman Chair funded by Mark, and that he coinvented a
vaccine for Mark. And yet the press is putting him
on television defending the very same vaccine without disclosing he

(39:00):
he's the co inventor. So these are the kinds of
things that in the media on a daily basis that
happened that nobody was calling out or getting to the
bottom of that. I think I think that stuff is
still happening today.

Speaker 6 (39:14):
Yes, I just wanted to say, I have your book
and I'm I enjoyed recommend it to everyone. And also,
with Robert F. Kennedy Junior being our new Secretary of
Health and Human Services, what are your thoughts and what
do you have hopes that he might do as far
as future changes.

Speaker 2 (39:33):
First interviewed Robert F. Kennedy Junior maybe twenty years ago
when I was starting to cover all of these issues,
and he, I think it's safe to say, is the
political figure who is the most well informed on these
issues we're discussing, also our adulterated food. I don't know
if people know. He's a lawyer who is litigated in
court and one case is against the vaccine industry and others.

(39:57):
He totally understands the corruption of information and the corruption
sometimes of officials, and he told me in an interview or.

Speaker 3 (40:05):
A podcast I did.

Speaker 2 (40:06):
I reposted the podcast recently on I believe it's the
Cheryl Acxon podcast. I have too, But he said things
like this is going to just make their head spin off.
He said things like, if I'm elected he was running
for president at the time, I know exactly who to
fire when I walk down the halls of the CDC,
he said, I know the names of the people, and
he does. So this is a huge change I hope

(40:30):
coming when it comes to the corrupt and you know,
the corrupt officials that have been there for decades and
the misinformation that's put out on a daily basis by
the federal government. He knows better than anyone, but that's
of course why you will see I think the worst
kind of pushback. It's been really entertaining to see him
interviewed by reporters who clearly don't know the issue, but

(40:52):
they're too ignorant to understand they don't know it, and
they're debating with someone meeting him who knows this probably
better than almost anybody, and telling him he's wrong about
things they're wrong about. I even know that from my research,
and it's this whole must be a strange world for
him to be interviewed in a part of but I
do hope he does know more than other people who've

(41:14):
held that position about how to get to the bottom
of some of the things we've talked about, so hopefully
there'll be some changes.

Speaker 7 (41:22):
Thank you for your presentation. I'm doctor Dilomo, a retired
surgeon and investigator, and while there may be conflicts of
interest and unethical behavior, I think it's important for the
audience to know the safeguards that are built in the
clinical trials, and there are three that are critically important.

(41:45):
The first is the institutional review board at a hospital
that's going to conduct a trial. That board is composed
of regular people and one physician, and that does a
thorough searching of all potential complications of the involved trial

(42:06):
before the hospital says okay, we can do it. The
second is the Clinical Events Committee that reviews every event
poor event that occurs in the trial. Those complications are
then delivered to the third board, with which is the

(42:27):
Data Safety and Monitoring Board. That board has the ability
to say, we have too many complications in this trial,
we have to stop it. Or that board can also say, hey,
you know what, this trial is going better never, let's
not run the rest of it. Let's just go ahead
with the product. So I want everyone in this room

(42:49):
to understand that there is a great level of safety
build into these trials. But you can't legislate on FID behavior.

Speaker 8 (43:01):
That's all I have to say.

Speaker 2 (43:02):
A good point, thank you. Also to his point, I
think it used to be. I'll just say some of
the violations recorded in my book, the institutional review boards
should have caught and didn't, or should have flagged and
didn't or got thumped for. But yes, in theory, there
have been a great deal of practice is set up

(43:22):
to try to make sure there's proper oversight, so that
when you're talking about human experimentation in particular, that's you know,
rules are followed. Unfortunately, I think they're just more and
more falling down a little bit of figuring ways around that.

Speaker 4 (43:37):
Hi, my grandson was born three and a half years
ago and he got the COVID nineteen vaccinations. My daughter
got the COVID vaccinet vaccinations and he has been diagnosed
as autistic. So I can't you know, I'm not of
a no vaxer or anything, but I can't help but

(43:59):
think there's some connection there. I wonder if there's going
to be a thorough investigation into the side effects of
COVID nineteen vaccines.

Speaker 3 (44:06):
Well, I'm sorry to hear about that. You're sad news.
So I learned.

Speaker 2 (44:11):
I won't go into too much stepth although there is
more in the book about this. Autism is the name
we give a broad number of symptoms that have to
do with neurological and brain damage, and as the scientists
have explained to me over the years, it's sort of
an arbitrary thing. We've grouped together a bunch of things
we don't understand and we call it autism. Studies point

(44:32):
to multifaceted causes. It's true when you hear people say, oh,
all there is a genetic component according to scientists, But
what's left out of that is frequently people with vulnerabilities
are more likely to react to side effects from vaccines
and other medicines. So if you have a predisposition for
blood clots and then you take a medicine that can
cause blood clots, that might be harder for you.

Speaker 3 (44:54):
Same with.

Speaker 2 (44:56):
Children who might get brain damage after their vaccinations for
many different reasons, whether it's an immune response, whether it's
some kind of genetic predisposition. It's been documented in court
cases that kids with something called tubrius glerosis, which has
been described to me as sort of folds in the brain,
they get autism after vaccination. At times they've been compensated

(45:16):
in vaccine court for that association. Kids with mitochondrial disorder,
these are things you might even know your kid, not
know your kid has, although it could we could develop
tests for this so that before they're vaccinated, we could
understand if they have special vulnerabilities. Are there safer vaccines,
Is there a safer.

Speaker 3 (45:33):
Way to give them the vaccines?

Speaker 2 (45:34):
But kids with mitochondrial disorder, have been awarded money in
vaccine court after they've gotten autism from their vaccines, and
it's certainly possible we won't know the extent of the
side effects caused by COVID vaccines just by definition for
many years. Some adverse events aren't known until the general
population has been taking them for years and years. So

(45:56):
I do think now we have more hope that someone's
going to study those, not put a robust system in place,
despite what you may have heard, to gather adverse events
after these vaccines when they were experimental to begin with.
If you go to the doctor now or the hospital
and you're sick, in my opinion, the first thing they
should ask you, if they were really serious about collecting

(46:17):
data on all of this, is have you had COVID?
Have you had the COVID vaccines? Which ones and when?
Only if they start reporting every illness that has happened
after these things, and that's a big job, but entirely
possible with today's data management. Only if all these things
get reported are we going to start to really understand
the extent to which the vaccines may be causing things

(46:38):
separate from what COVID causes. And I've reported on this
sum on my show Full Measure. These are two separate tracks,
long COVID illnesses that can happen long after you have
COVID supposedly cleared from your system, and also long vacs
or whatever they're calling it, illnesses that come maybe years
after you were vaccinated that could still be affiliated with

(46:58):
a vaccine. These are really important questions I don't think
the government has really wanted to have answered before now.

Speaker 9 (47:08):
Thank you, Cheryl for your courage. I'm a retired nurse
practitioner and during the COVID pandemic was asked several times
to fill out paperwork for the veryr's system, the Vaccine
Adverse Events Reporting System.

Speaker 3 (47:24):
Can you speak to that system for us?

Speaker 2 (47:26):
So the last part of my book encourages everybody to
get familiar with the vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System and
the drug Adverse Event Reporting system. One's called Veayor's the
aer S, one's called Fayre's fa ERS. And there's a
great misunderstanding of the medical field. Doctors will tell you
and have told me, oh, I didn't report this side

(47:49):
effect this patient had after COVID vaccine because I don't
think it was connected. That's not their job. They're not
supposed to draw a conclusion. All the adverse events are
supposed to go into the database so that experts can
look for previously unknown patterns. How are you going to
find a new side effect? If a doctor only reports
the stuff he thinks might be caused by the medicine,

(48:09):
you're not going to unearth new side effects. The system
has not been well used to this date. It's doctors
have been discouraged from using it, Nurses have been discouraged
from filling out forms. Hospitals have told them to stop.
During the COVID vaccine era when so many forms they're
trying to fill out so many forms from adverse events,
they were told by their hospitals, and some cases cut

(48:29):
it out.

Speaker 3 (48:30):
And I think it's a.

Speaker 2 (48:31):
Very important database if only enough data goes in there,
and too much data there's misunderstanding. I think on purpose
of who's supposed to report, you can report yourself, and
that's what's how to do that in the book. And
don't worry if it's a double report, because if your
doctor does happen to report it and you report it too,
there's a way they will get out those double cases

(48:52):
if they look at the case and think it's something significant.
They cross reference STEF. They're not going to count it twice,
but it's a very important way. This is how I
broke the internet national news that viagra can cause blindness.
I looked at the adverse event database reports in conjunction
with some studies. Maybe people know that now, but at
the time, blindness was not on the label. This was

(49:13):
a new thing, and I think it was obvious when
I looked at the adverse Event report database. Not every
adverse event will be connected to a drug. But when
you can see this huge spike, like so many people
reporting something previously unknown and their studies to support it, well,
I broke that news because the FDA was on the
verge of adding mandatory warnings and they have since then

(49:34):
to the Viagara label about blindness as a result of that.
So the database can be very important, but I think
it's not well used and certainly not been well used
for the COVID vaccine.

Speaker 10 (49:46):
Thank you for your courageous reporting this book. My question
is on the campaign trail. I believe President Trump indicated
that he planned to put a limit or ban prescription
purnisements in the media. Is there anything to then.

Speaker 2 (50:04):
I never heard Trump say that, but Robert F. Kennedy
Junior said that maybe Trump did. I didn't hear him.
That was a position when Kennedy was running for president
that he said should happen. He said quite explicitly on
my podcast. I don't know how that will work or
if it can work, because the industry is so powerful.

Speaker 3 (50:24):
But Kennedy is right.

Speaker 2 (50:25):
This is the way, in my view, the pharmaceutical industry
has captured the media. The news media in the early
two thousand was reporting in a fair and pretty unbiased
way on all these topics we've discussed today. They stopped
around the two thousand and five time period, when the
partnerships between the media and the pharmaceutical industry for the
direct to consumer ads that you see on TV got

(50:47):
to be worth so much money. I started feeling the
chilling effect at CBS News.

Speaker 3 (50:52):
Now.

Speaker 2 (50:52):
I would argue reporters simply self censor because they understand
those stories will never make it on television. And I
think has been really harmful, because, yes, the companies are
supposed to advance their bottom line. I don't blame the
pharmaceutical companies for trying to have a fiduciary duty to
talk good about their medicine and maybe downplay things that

(51:13):
are bad. And political figures can be theoretically bought out
by contributions from the pharmaceutical industry. But the media used
to be sort of the great equalizer where we would
report on these things, so it wasn't something that went
completely unchecked. Once the pharmaceutical industry, in my view, became
so pervasively influential in the media, suddenly there was no

(51:37):
watchdog that was doing that look at the politicians and
look at the industries, and looking at our federal agencies
when it comes to these conflicts of interest. So removing
the advertising, I think would result in more honest reporting
for sure.

Speaker 3 (51:54):
I don't know if that'll happen.

Speaker 2 (51:56):
There's a gentleman, Can I take this question right up front?
Because he looks at me every time, he's so close
to me.

Speaker 3 (52:06):
Thank you, thank you so much.

Speaker 8 (52:09):
First, I have to compliment the clarity and the persuasiveness
and the simplicity and the force with which you share
your information. This relates to your keywords information management. And
forgive me if I'm cross wiring my memory, But would

(52:32):
it be would it be worth bringing up the government's uh,
surreptitious seizure of your computers when you annoyed them too much.
And do you perhaps have hope with the regime change
in Washington that more information about who who made that
happen might actually come out in public.

Speaker 2 (52:52):
Well, my first book, Stonewall, really went into this if
anyone should be so interested, so.

Speaker 3 (52:57):
I won't spend a lot of time.

Speaker 2 (52:58):
But yes, before we knew the government was spying on
a lot of journalists, members of Congress, American citizens, I
got tipped off as a correspondent CBS News that I
was likely being monitored by the government under the Obama administration.
I'd never heard of such a thing. Long story short,
I had sources, and the intelligence agencies who were able
to get my CBS computers looked at confirmed it. CBS

(53:22):
announced that the computers have been infiltrated. I've had probably
seven or eight independent forensics exam since then that have
gotten more and more information, including government IP addresses that
were used to get inside my computers, monitor my key strokes,
look into my files on controversies that I was covering
about the government monitoring my families computers, and so on.

(53:43):
No one wanted to do anything about it. I've been
suing for ten years. The suits hanging on.

Speaker 3 (53:49):
By a threat's probably going to go away.

Speaker 2 (53:51):
Because we did get a clerk's default against one agent
who acknowledged being part of the spying.

Speaker 3 (53:58):
It's hard to find.

Speaker 2 (53:59):
The court really want you to already prove everything before
you even get a case to a jury or get
it into court, which is next to impossible. We had
a guy who admitted it, and as soon as I
got a clerk's default against him about two years ago,
he supposedly died, so he's nowhere to be found and
he can't testify against anybody else. And then a second defendant,
former Secret Service agent who is said to be part

(54:21):
of one of the operations who serve time in prison
for other unrelated corruption. Literally after we deposed him, the
judge in the case dismissed the suit against him because
this was said in her order. He said he didn't
do it, so that part of the case is dismissed.
I actually wrote up sort of a summary of the

(54:44):
facts and planned to send that to this Department of
Justice to see if anything happens. I would just like
them to officially acknowledge I have investigative tips where they
can use to find out who is involved that they
certainly could if they wanted to.

Speaker 6 (54:59):
Know.

Speaker 3 (55:00):
I don't think I'm the most important person in the world.

Speaker 2 (55:02):
I just argue if this had been addressed more than
ten years ago when it first came up, we might
not have had all the spine since then on the
Trump administration and on other people, because this stuff's going
to keep happening until there's some accountability and admission of
what they did.

Speaker 3 (55:18):
So thanks for asking.

Speaker 11 (55:27):
I'm not medically trained, but I am constantly suspicious of
our government. It still blows me away that. And can
you explain how they got an experimental mRNA gene therapy
to be called a vaccine because a vaccine makes you

(55:50):
think that it's normal. But if you had marketed it
to the American public as experimental mRNA gene therapy, a
lot of light bulbs gone off.

Speaker 2 (56:01):
Well that's beyond something I've investigated. But I think you're
right about the notion of this vaccine, first of all,
being mismarketed to do something they knew off the front
that it wouldn't do. I reported very early in my
program from top experts with the government who had worked
on the vaccine, they understood this would not the words

(56:21):
were used to me, work very well or last very long,
because RNA vaccines don't. We'd never been able to make
one that did. That's why we don't have a vaccine
for AIDS. And it would be an mRNA vaccine, and
we've never found one that wouldn't handle that. So they
knew at the outset this vaccine when it finally came
out a year later, wouldn't last very long or work

(56:41):
very well, and that.

Speaker 3 (56:42):
Boosters would be needed.

Speaker 2 (56:44):
And yet if you look at which I've made a
list in the book, the promises from our public health
officials and media were one hundred percent effective. You know,
all these crazy things that were being said. We now
know it doesn't prevent infection, transmission, sickness. They still claim
there's a hospitalization benefit. You have to measure that against

(57:06):
the idea that you would get very sick in the
first place. Are you giving yourself something that's going to
make you potentially sick to possibly but maybe not prevent
something that wasn't going to make you very sick? So
I think you guys know that, but I don't know
the ins and outs of who pulled what strings to
get it approved the way it was.

Speaker 3 (57:26):
I do know.

Speaker 2 (57:26):
I believe it was September twenty first, the year after
it came out. Once we understood that it didn't prevent infection,
transmission or illness, someone went on the CDC website overnight
and changed the definition of vaccine so that this vaccine
would meet the definition even though it didn't do what
vaccines have been known or thought to do for two

(57:46):
hundred years. I think the government should find out who
changed that, because I don't think any single person at
CDC or anywhere else has the right to change a
medical definition of something understood without a public hearing or
vote or any consultation with anybody.

Speaker 3 (58:03):
We now have time for one more question.

Speaker 12 (58:06):
Hi, Cheryl rod Barbara from Connecticut. I first want to
acknowledge that, despite your tenure at CBS, I have no
idea what your politics are, and I really appreciate the
fact that you've not bent the news as you've reported it,
and perhaps that doesn't go notice as much, but thank
you for that. It was sort of my thunder was

(58:29):
a little bit stolen with the government stuff, but I
wondered if you were concerned about the impact of the
billion dollar industry, the multi billion dollar industry coming after
people that do expose this sort of corruption. You know,
they've made RFK Junior look like a lunatic. They've gone
after a lot of people personally to discredit them rather

(58:52):
than addressing the complaints that are being made. I don't
know if you can comment about that.

Speaker 2 (58:56):
Why would just say a lot of people are learning.
That's the tell whenever where the media is on message
with some campaign that everybody's using similar language and everybody's
promulgating the same view and telling you the other view
is totally debunked and don't listen to it, you can
almost count on that should cue you to say the

(59:16):
opposite may be true, like they've really overplayed their hand.
And now the tell is when they do that or
try to stop somebody from speaking, that leads me to think,
I need to find out what that person wants to say,
because that could be something worthy. It tells me there
are powerful interests that don't want that person to get
out the information of the facts they're trying to say.

(59:36):
So I just say, use that information to your advantage
and let them understand. You just cued me to something
that I'm now going to find out about by trying
to get me not to listen to it.

Speaker 3 (59:46):
Thank you everybody.

Speaker 1 (59:49):
If you like the Michael Berry Show in podcast, please
tell one friend, and if you're so inclined, write a
nice review of our podcast. Comments, questions, questions, and interest
in being a corporate sponsor and partner can be communicated
directly to the show at our email address, Michael at

(01:00:10):
Michael Berryshow dot com, or simply by clicking on our website,
Michael Berryshow dot com. The Michael Berry Show and Podcast
is produced by Ramon Roeblis, The King of Ding. Executive
producer is Chad Knakanishi. Jim Mudd is the creative director.

(01:00:35):
Voices Jingles, Tomfoolery, and Shenanigans are provided by Chance McLain.
Director of Research is Sandy Peterson. Emily Bull is our
assistant listener and superfan. Contributions are appreciated and often incorporated
into our production. Where possible, we give credit, Where not,

(01:00:57):
we take all the credit for ourselves. God bless the
memory of Rush Limbaugh. Long live Elvis, be a simple
man like Leonard Skinnard told you, And God bless America. Finally,
if you know a veteran suffering from PTSD, call Camp
Hope at eight seven seven seven one seven PTSD and

(01:01:22):
a combat veteran will answer the phone to provide free
counseling