September 9, 2025 • 47 mins
In this conversation, Nicole Saphier and Jennifer Galardi from the Heritage Foundation discuss the current state of public health, the political implications of health policies, and the need for transparency and trust in health agencies. They explore the importance of addressing root causes of health issues, the role of leadership in health policy, and the necessity of a unified health message. The discussion also touches on the future of vaccines, personal responsibility in health, and the role of government in promoting health awareness. Wellness Unmasked is part of the Clay Travis & Buck Sexton Podcast Network - new episodes debut every Tuesday & Friday.
Follow Clay & Buck on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/clayandbuck
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
Hello, everyone, Welcome to Wellness un Mass.
Speaker 2 (00:04):
I'm doctor Nicole Saffire and today we are going to
peel back the layers on something that has everyone talking.
Speaker 1 (00:10):
Recently, a group of former CDC directors.
Speaker 2 (00:13):
They've made headlines because they decided to put out a
joint opinion piece essentially rallying against RFK Junior after he
fired the newly appointed Susan Monrez from her position as
CDC director. This has made all the media outlets. People
are in an uproar. It's really interesting to see this
whole coordinated effort. It's not every day you kind of
(00:33):
see it, but it does raise some big questions about politics, power,
and just the entire direction of public health in this country.
So to dig into this, I am joined by Jennifer Gallardi.
She is the Senior Policy Analyst for Restoring American Wellness
at the Heritage Foundation. She's been at the forefront of
challenging how narratives and health policy are getting shaped and controlled,
(00:56):
and she's also involved in the MAHA movement. She has
her ear on the round to everything going on there,
and she's also been challenging.
Speaker 1 (01:03):
The role of institutions like the CDC and how.
Speaker 2 (01:06):
We're just working to reshape just ultimately how we think
about medicine and wellness in America.
Speaker 1 (01:12):
I'm so excited to have her with us. Let's bring
in Jennifer Galardy.
Speaker 2 (01:19):
Jennifer, I am so excited to have you on today
because there is so much going on in the world
of public health that it feels like, you know, every
day there's a new media headline and that New York
Times article by all of the former CDC and acting
CDC directors, I mean, that was pretty substantial.
Speaker 1 (01:37):
What's your take on all of that.
Speaker 3 (01:39):
Well, it does feel a little bit like as the
world turns every day here in the United States health agencies,
there's always something. You know, the news cycle is very
active regardless, and one of the things I try to
do is not ignore the news cycles, but understand that
they always have an agenda, particularly the New York Times,
and their agenda right now is to divide the MAHA
(02:02):
and the MAGA kind of base that elected Trump with
a lot of Kennedy's supporters, and to how to get
Kennedy out because they don't like what people wanted from him.
They don't like the agenda that that the people voted for.
And that was really to as Trump said in twenty
you know, fifteen drained the swamp. And I think what
(02:22):
Trump realized is that, Okay, maybe he can't drain it,
but he can clean it up a lot. He put
Kennedy in charge to do just that. And now there's
blowback because the institution has become so calcified and so
distrusted that the moment you try to change it, you
are going to see some strong backlash against it. You
(02:45):
know what's interesting to me is I reread that, reread
the article this morning in preparation to talk to you,
and there's really, you know there there there's no solid claims.
I think what I see with these some of these
people at the CDC, because they're very careful right in
the way they say, oh, these are CDC directors or
people that have worked at the CDC that are both
Democrat and Republican, trying to make it seem bipartisan. But
(03:08):
the thing they all have in common is the orthodoxy
that has gotten us into this public health disaster in
the first place.
Speaker 4 (03:17):
And it's kind of like COVID with the people that
got the shots. You know, I think about why are.
Speaker 3 (03:22):
People so religious about vaccines. Why are they so religious
about the science and CDC? Why can't they look at
alternative data and be open to maybe they were wrong?
And it is because it is their religion. So someone
that's the head of the CDC, or that's worked for
the CDC or given their lives to the CDC for
(03:43):
many years in service of what they think is public health,
it becomes their identity. So when you challenge the CDC,
you challenge their actual identity, and they have to say, well,
everything that I said is wrong. What else am I
wrong about? Can you make very valid in COVID? Yeah,
and I think we're seeing that here. It's like, I
(04:06):
don't know if it's a coordinated attack, but if I
were any of these people, right, any of these CDC
directors and basically Kennedy and some of the incoming asap,
the people on the board of governing vaccines questioning what
they've held is orthodoxy for so long, your whole world
(04:28):
can start to crumble.
Speaker 2 (04:31):
Well, so someone obviously I work in the medical professional,
and you're right. I mean, historically, when you think of
public health, it should be a political throughout COVID that
obviously changed all of a sudden you know.
Speaker 1 (04:42):
COVID with they're what you were at.
Speaker 2 (04:44):
Your talking points were if you followed the mainstream media
public health talking points that aligned you with the Democrats,
and if you said anything outside of that, even if
you agreed with ninety five percent of the mainstream talking points,
but you were just questioned a couple of things that
put you as a charlatan, as a Republican so to say.
But if you really look at the history of public health,
(05:06):
public health really aligns with it's for the greater good,
not the individual. So some would actually say that that
has always gone towards socialized care in a sense, right, it's.
Speaker 1 (05:17):
Good for the greater good.
Speaker 2 (05:19):
And so what President Trump has been saying, especially since COVID,
is we are going to be the disruptors and we
are finally going to look at things not just as
a dogma or in a vacuum, but we need to
start making sure that we are caring about the individual,
not just the greater good. And you know, I think
that rubs some people the wrong way, especially those who
(05:41):
have been ingrained and entrenched in that the greater good mentality,
and so this is becoming political.
Speaker 1 (05:47):
I think one of the concerns that I have a
little bit.
Speaker 2 (05:51):
I am a huge supporter of this reform and everything.
A lot of things that are coming out of the
White House right now. Some things that concern me is,
you know, the ousting of Susan Monrez, who you know,
was the CDC director. She had just been confirmed under
President Trump and then all of a sudden, we know
(06:12):
that she had meetings with RFK Junior, and all of
a sudden, she's gone. And one of the things that
we called for a lot during the Biden administration was transparency.
And although I see RFK Junior and doctor McCarey, FDA Commissioner,
and some other people doing a lot of media blitzes,
there is lack of transparency in what led to some
(06:34):
of these decisions, and that does concern me. Yes, I
like that changes are being made, but I don't know
how they're being made. And when you have Susan Monrez
saying that she was being asked to do things that
she deemed illegal or that she deemed went against science, like,
I want to hear more about that, but instead we're
not hearing about that.
Speaker 1 (06:55):
What do you make of that?
Speaker 3 (06:57):
Yeah, it's hard because I believe that when a new
administration comes in, you have to have people that are
aligned with your agenda and not subverting you. I mean
there was I did hear Callie means say there is
a very It's so hard because you want opposition, right,
but you want honest opposition. You don't want people that
(07:22):
are going to that are going to undermine the goal
at every turn. And so you know it happens with
every turn in an administration. You know, the Biden administration
put their people in, and Trump's putting his people in
and Kennedy's putting their people in. And it is an
(07:42):
appointed position, it's not a civil servant. So it should
be someone that aligns with Kennedy's agenda. And if you
are going to it's fine to have dissent. I don't
think Kennedy will quash dissent.
Speaker 1 (07:54):
We don't actually know what is.
Speaker 2 (07:57):
We don't know the conversation that led to to some
of this, and so like that's what I want to
hear about. I think a lot of the moves are right,
but just help us under help everyone understand, because when
you don't, doesn't that make it feel more partisan?
Speaker 1 (08:11):
Like how what should be.
Speaker 2 (08:12):
Their play forgetting all of America on board, because nobody
should be able to argue with making sure vaccines and
medications are safe and our food safe and kids are
exercising more like this should be every Americans should support this.
But it feels like some of the role out is
causing a greater divide. So what are they doing wrong?
Speaker 4 (08:35):
Yeah, I don't know.
Speaker 3 (08:37):
I think.
Speaker 4 (08:39):
There's concern.
Speaker 3 (08:40):
I know there was great concern in the MAHA movement
with Manaras about her understanding of vaccinations, about her decision
making process. So maybe it's just that, like she did
not have the MAHA support that I know from from
signal chats, and everybody kind of within the movement thought
(09:01):
that this was a terrible pick. So that is a
big support base for Kennedy and probably helped get Trump elected.
So I you know, I could I could probably agree
with you that maybe if they were more honest about
or more transparent. But at the same time, it's like
if the CEO of a company has to justify to
(09:21):
every employee in the company of why they fire somebody,
it would be a nightmare. It would be a train wreck.
If I have to give you an essay on every
reason I'm fired. You have to at some point, trust
the decision of the leaders that you've elected. And overwhelmingly
not only did they elect Trump, but they elected Kennedy
because of this kind of alliance. And so you know,
(09:42):
it's the same thing with Trump. I don't know why
he's making all his decisions on tariffs, on this and
on that, but he, for me, was the best option.
And at some point I have to say, I don't
know everything. I can never know everything, and I trust
the direction in which this is going. Now, if the
direction in which this is going lead two very malaligned
(10:02):
and negative outcomes, then I'll start to demand, like a
little bit more information. But for now, I trust McCarry,
I like one hundred percent trust Jay Badicharia, and I
trust mostly Kennedy because I feel that he.
Speaker 4 (10:21):
Does have honest intentions.
Speaker 3 (10:22):
I feel like his heart is really wanting to protect
people from the deleterious effects of vaccines, which are not negligible,
and so we need to have this debate out in
the open. I think he will keep people that are
willing to challenge him. I'm not sure how if Susan
Minars was just challenging or if she was undermining. I
(10:44):
think those are two different things, and maybe they should
have been more transparent about that.
Speaker 2 (10:49):
That is actually a valid, valid point because well as
you're saying that the Maha movement huge movement, I fully
agree they helped get Trump elected. Obviously that some conversations
were had to get RFK Junior to join Trump and
has made this you know, mega team that we're seeing
right now, and so they have to have that support.
Speaker 1 (11:11):
But the concern that.
Speaker 2 (11:13):
I have, as someone who again works in public health,
works in medicine, is that I need everyone to come
back together a little bit more. Since COVID, it is
incredibly fractured. And so while I understand RFK Junior putting
in his people to keep Mahan all that support because
that's what people voted for, but how that is not
(11:35):
going to bring that other half so by ousting anybody
who was originally there, and by the way, a lot
of them deserve to go.
Speaker 1 (11:43):
I was very hutspoken during.
Speaker 2 (11:45):
COVID about this bureaucracy. But my concern is if you
only bring in RFK Junior's tight circle, we're never going
to one we're never going to get the support of
the other half of the country. And two as soon
and as Trump is out of the White House. As
soon as another Democrat comes in, these people will all
be gone. They will not stay. So I would like
(12:08):
to see RFK Junior at all putting in members that
can last beyond the administration. I need them to get
to a point where these measures are going.
Speaker 1 (12:18):
To stay, because I think it truly is the good
of the nation.
Speaker 2 (12:23):
I'm not saying Manarez should have stayed. Actually, I didn't
think she was a great pick to begin with. I
was surprised you went through the confirmation hearing. I just
my concern is that they're going to continue to pick
their unilateral maha pics and not bring in someone else
who just might chip away at trying to unify the country.
Speaker 4 (12:43):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (12:43):
Well, I think what they'll do is they'll he's got
I saw this kind of the Dmitri.
Speaker 4 (12:51):
Dema what was his last name?
Speaker 3 (12:53):
All I know is it's a very Greek last name,
and on behalf of all three people. I'd like to
apologize because that man is. I mean, it's it's amazing
to me who the Democrats kind of parade out as
the pillars right of excellence.
Speaker 2 (13:07):
And about the guy who was at the outspoken gentleman
on monkey pox, who their pictures are voting exactly. I
thought they were all AI generated. I was like, there's
no way.
Speaker 1 (13:18):
Oh, well, to be real.
Speaker 4 (13:20):
I saw a video.
Speaker 3 (13:21):
I mean, I don't know enough about AI, but I
saw a video of him parading and some as regardless,
he did say. There was a straight up interview with
him saying that that public health priorities need to be
balanced with people's joy. Basically, homosexuals get a lot of
joy from having promiscuous sex habits, and we need to
consider that against the outbreak.
Speaker 4 (13:43):
Of monkey pocks.
Speaker 3 (13:44):
And I was like, Okay, this is the last person
regardless that I am taking health advice from anyway. It's
kind of like the Maryland man, like find your yes,
find your champions, but they're not picking very good champions.
So I'm seeing this what's happening at the CDC just
like an infection in the body. Right, it has been
infected with partisan people and you might see or someone
(14:06):
else might see it. Will now it's being infected with
partisan people on the other side.
Speaker 4 (14:10):
But that's my concern.
Speaker 3 (14:13):
Yeah, I think because those partisan people had messed up
COVID response so badly and it was so politicized that
I'm willing to say, let Kennedy put his people in,
let's see if they I mean, we have to experiment.
I'm not so concerned about the people he's putting in
(14:35):
as what policies will result from those people. If they're
good policies and if they seem to be moving that
he's got three years now. I think that's why it's
so important just to get people in place, and then
the proof will be in the pudding as to what
then we can judge them by their policies. But we
need to give those people a shot. Right just because
they like Kennedy and they agree with him, it doesn't
(14:58):
mean they're never going to, you know, voice and opposition
to his ideas.
Speaker 4 (15:02):
I don't believe that.
Speaker 3 (15:04):
I've looked at the people he's bringing in place, and
Badicharia McCarthy, these are not These people have never been
political in their lives. They got what they did get
all is silenced. And that's what I think you're seeing
from Trump. You are seeing people who got shut down
and canceled over the past five years actually now put
(15:24):
in positions and say, I know how this works. We
are going to undo this now. If they become too partisan,
we'll be we'll be able to see that, but I'd
like to give them a shot.
Speaker 2 (15:36):
And I think what happens when carry is when McCarry
is a good friend and colleague of Vine. We've written
many articles, paper stuff together throughout COVID, so I love
him in his role. I think Bodicharia is also incredibly qualified,
great person in that role too. And as you're saying
they're a political they are not RFK Junior Trump loyalists.
(15:58):
They are science loyalists, and they're great in their positions
and very well.
Speaker 4 (16:03):
And I think you make.
Speaker 3 (16:04):
A good point is they're not loyalists, but they they were.
They they joined forces to support Trump because he's giving
them the platform that that.
Speaker 4 (16:16):
Biden didn't give them.
Speaker 3 (16:18):
They were completely justified in having during COVID, right, and
so they know how it works. They want to kind
of restore this gold standard science. And what I was
going to say is when you start to restore the
health of the agency or the health of the body, right,
you restore the environment of the body that is conducive
to help the parasites will die. And I think that's
(16:41):
what we're seeing. Not everybody's leaving the CDC. There's a
handful of them.
Speaker 4 (16:46):
Right, there's it. It's not everybody.
Speaker 2 (16:50):
Well, and you remember, so people are making a huge
stink saying, well, we have these high level people leaving
the CDC and protests that because they feel it's beat
for the people and as anti American, can we just
remember that the FDA announced resignations of Marion Gruber and
Philip Krause, because these are the pair that led the
(17:11):
whole FDA Vaccine office in charge of approving vaccines. But
they resigned in protests because they were frustrated over Biden's
COVID nineteen booster. The White House essentially said We're going
to just keep boosting into perpetuity, regardless of what the
variant is, regardless what the data shows.
Speaker 1 (17:31):
And so these guys were like, I'm not going to
be part of this. We don't agree with it.
Speaker 2 (17:35):
But those headlines, those headlines were quick and they went
away quickly, and yet the boosters continued. But the media
handling of the two walkouts, I mean they're very different.
Speaker 4 (17:49):
Yeah, that's true.
Speaker 3 (17:50):
And again you can see a very coordinated attack right
now against Kennedy again, you know, trying to I think
Cally said, there's just they think are in this.
Speaker 4 (18:00):
They're gonna win. This is what they're saying.
Speaker 3 (18:02):
I'm like, there's no winning this. We just want good information,
we want good science. But they they think they're going
to outlast Kennedy. And if you've got someone vocally saying
I'm going to outlast him, that's not a that's not
a good starting point for unbiased scientific research. If that's
if that's your attitude, so fine, let them leave.
Speaker 4 (18:23):
I mean, everybody's got.
Speaker 3 (18:24):
Free will, right, and so if if if these people
want to walk out of the CDC, if those two
wanted to leave the FDA, that's that's up to them.
If it's if it goes against their conscience, fine, but
this is this is the agenda.
Speaker 4 (18:37):
This is what the people voted for. I'm happy. Most
people that I know are happy, at least in the
MOHA movement. So we'll see. We'll see what they do
and how they do.
Speaker 3 (18:47):
I think that if they're transparent with the data, you know,
and someone's always going to say, well, this data did
this and this date, but you do the best you
can and making sure the research that you disclose, any
conflicts of interest, that you disclose any limitations and studies
and and they they didn't do that at the at
(19:09):
the CDC, they didn't. Like Trump said in his tweet,
He's like, I want to see all this data. You
told me, Pfizer, you told me this was safe and effective.
This is this that It's interesting that he was so
umman about his Operation Worse Speed, and so many MAHA
people were like, if he would just tone that rhetoric down,
and he did in this election. He didn't go as
(19:32):
bulb like I did Operation War Speed. Now for him
to outright say I could have been wrong and I
got misled, I think it's huge and he wants to.
Speaker 1 (19:44):
See the data.
Speaker 2 (19:47):
I'm equally surprised that he did tone that down, and
that tells me that he is listening to the people
around him, which anybody who has met President Trump knows
that he does listen to those around him. I think
that's a great thing and it's a great sign of
a I will say one of the things moving forward
that I have a little bit of a concern about
is again the new ACIP SO RFK Junior fired all
(20:09):
the existing seventeen members.
Speaker 1 (20:11):
I think the majority of them probably could have gone.
Speaker 2 (20:13):
I would have liked him to have kept a few
of them again, just to just so it's not removing
one side and bringing in an entire other side, because
to me, that remains polarized. I would like it would
have been nice if he kept some of the original
just to create that conversation.
Speaker 4 (20:30):
He didn't.
Speaker 2 (20:31):
So now the next ACIP is meeting in a couple
of weeks, I believe, and they're talking about vaccines again,
and my concern is, unfortunately they're hopefully going to put
forth recommendations and it's not just going to be RFK
Junior making a media announcement, which is what it has been. Unfortunately,
we have to continue to have these conversations because that
is the transparency that we all need and we've been demanding.
(20:55):
But the problem is whatever comes out of this new ACIP,
whatever comes out of our immediately, half the people are
going to dissent. And like we just saw with the
American Academy of Pediatrics, which I am in complete disagreement
with them when it comes to the vaccines and kids.
But I'm just so gutterly concerned that people aren't just
(21:16):
going to listen and maybe some of the stuff coming
out of the new CDC are going to be for
the benefit, but people are going to want to reject
it so much.
Speaker 1 (21:25):
So I really think that Arka Jr. I know people
love him.
Speaker 2 (21:28):
There is a portion of this country that wants to
hear from nobody except him. They love him that much,
and anything he says goes. He's not the right messenger
for what's going on right now, not if we're trying
to unify. And I think that they need a CDC
spokesperson to deliver the message, to try and gain support
(21:49):
so that we can finally get to a place of peace.
I think part of that is also a surgeon general
who the current nominee. I don't think they're even scheduled
for hearing it. Probably soon, i'd hope so. But I
think that I.
Speaker 3 (22:03):
Was wondering about that too because I think it's because
she's pregnant.
Speaker 4 (22:06):
Maybe I know she's about to have a baby. I mean,
that shouldn't be the reason.
Speaker 2 (22:10):
But you need a surgeon general who's going to be
supported by MAHA. You absolutely obviously need that, you need
them to be more supported by MAGA, but the surgeon
general should also be someone who's respected amongst the medical community,
and I think the current nominee.
Speaker 1 (22:29):
Will not be and I think that will just cause
a lot more issues in terms of communication. I could
be wrong. I don't know or never metter.
Speaker 3 (22:37):
Who would you because you probably know these people more
personally and have scrutinized them more deeply than I have.
Who do you think should be that messenger of the
CDC regarding vaccines even if it's not? And then who
who do you think would be a good nominee for
Surgeon General?
Speaker 2 (22:57):
Excellent questions? And you know what I don't. I can't
listen name. I can tell you. I think the original
surgeon General nominee, Jeanette Nschwat in my opinion, she has
media presence, she knows how to be in front of
a camera.
Speaker 4 (23:10):
She was.
Speaker 1 (23:12):
Was she a perfect nominee?
Speaker 4 (23:14):
No?
Speaker 2 (23:14):
I think that a lot of politics were behind that.
You know, her brother in law is in the administration.
But that's really how politics works, right.
Speaker 1 (23:21):
It's kind of all about who you know. But I
think that works by.
Speaker 3 (23:25):
The way, Nicole, I think, yeah, you know, if she
was she's in practicing people get jobs because of networking
a lot of the time.
Speaker 2 (23:31):
So when people were like, well she only got it
because of I'm like, well, yeah, that's how most people
get these physitions, but she was a practicing physician, and
she devoted a lot of her spare time, a lot
of volunteer work. She did a lot of frontline work,
so she was respected in the medical community. And maybe
she wasn't MAHA's first pick, and I don't even think
(23:52):
MAGA she was their number one, but I think she
kind of touched on all three of those.
Speaker 1 (23:57):
Was she perfect nominee?
Speaker 4 (23:59):
Probably not.
Speaker 2 (23:59):
I don't I don't know if there is a perfect nominee.
My concern is about the current nominee. Is she fits
the Maha box, but I don't think she'll fit the magabox.
And I don't really think that she's going to be
widely accepted by establishment medical community.
Speaker 1 (24:16):
I don't have a name for you. I mean, I
could probably do some.
Speaker 2 (24:19):
Thinking, but I really hope it's not someone in RFK
Junior's inner circle and he tries to extend himself beyond
so that we could form a cohesive message. And in
terms of this CDC spokesperson doesn't need to be anyone
who has a name. It just someone who can be
in front of the camera who people don't see this
(24:42):
person and then have that knee jerk reflex to stop
listening or wanting to do opposite. They could be saying
exactly what RFK Junior would say in front of that camera, right,
But because it's a different messenger, people may actually listen
and support it more. And that's because we, as you've
pointed out in the beginning of we need them to
get their metrics so that when they leave the White
(25:04):
House they can say, look what we've done, right right.
Speaker 3 (25:09):
My concern is, though, that doesn't matter who it is,
because TDS is real. I mean again, it's been this
example has been given, like Trump, a member of Trump's
administration or Trump itself could cure cancer and they would say, oh, well,
there's positive things to cancer.
Speaker 4 (25:26):
We don't you know.
Speaker 3 (25:27):
I just think and I tend to have a good
pulse read on the culture because I lived in Los
Angeles for so long, on the political culture out there,
on the mindset.
Speaker 4 (25:41):
Of these people.
Speaker 3 (25:42):
It is their their knee jerk response of if it's
aligned with Trump, it's bad. And so I'm not so
sure that there's a way around what.
Speaker 4 (25:53):
You're talking about.
Speaker 3 (25:54):
I don't know if we're beyond the phase of unification,
if it is just to be a you know, he
with the most votes wins. You know we support this
more than you do. I understand politics is the power
of persuasion. It always should be in normal people's minds.
But most of the party of the Democrat Party is
(26:17):
that extreme progressive at least they're the loudest. It seems
to be who the media highlights. Like I said, this
Dimitri guy really is your This is the guy you're
going to parade around yeah and so and be your
standard bearer for the Democrat or for the left leaning position.
Speaker 4 (26:38):
It's the most progressive, radical thing ever. And when those
are the people that you're you're kind of highlighting. I
don't know.
Speaker 3 (26:51):
I don't know that the power of the typical power
of persuasion works.
Speaker 4 (26:55):
I see it on my Facebook page.
Speaker 3 (26:57):
I mean, people I used to be friends with have
gone crazy.
Speaker 1 (27:01):
You can't reason with crazy.
Speaker 2 (27:03):
I mean that is very true, and there's nothing you
could say to make them come around. I completely you
might be right. I really hope you're not right, that
we are beyond unification. I'm not anywhere near retiring, so
I really hope you're wrong. But so let's talk real quick.
What do you think looking back? What metrics are.
Speaker 1 (27:22):
You looking for out of RFK Junior's.
Speaker 2 (27:25):
Ajhs to say this was the right move, this is
a success, and they can leave here feeling confident in
their abilities.
Speaker 3 (27:35):
I think if we can simplify it, there's so many
niche discussions around vaccines, around autism, around environmental if we
can just get America less fat and less dependent on
pharmaceuticals and less dependent on the governess fat.
Speaker 1 (27:57):
That doesn't mean less fat onnozempic.
Speaker 4 (28:00):
Right, right, and less depend That's correct.
Speaker 3 (28:03):
Because I got into a little scuffle, as I do
on social media, this was actually LinkedIn, so it was
a little more People on LinkedIn tend to be like,
you're right here, you're wrong there. They tend to be
a little bit more rational because it is more of
a professional platform.
Speaker 4 (28:19):
Professional.
Speaker 3 (28:21):
But you know this one girl on ozempic saying some
people need drugs the rest of their life. I'm like, well,
that shouldn't be the goal, right, and especially when other
people are paying for it. So I'm fine if you
want to use some sort of crutch she was calling it,
many people need a crutch for the rest of their lives.
(28:41):
I'm like, go ahead, use the crutch. But I don't
want to pay for it. So until you figure out
a system where I'm not paying for your ozempic for
the rest of your life, I'm fine with it. But
as it is now, we need to find we need
to push healthy food solutions, you know. And the other
thing is is I get in stuff too with libertarians
and that.
Speaker 4 (29:02):
Are like, you know, get the government out of everything.
Speaker 3 (29:04):
I was like, well, no, Like, there is a moral
imperative to the government a little bit, right, It's not
just all economics. We see what happens when a cultural
and moral decline kind of what happens to everything, and
so we want to use some sort of government incentives
to do good things, to do right, Like we're moral
(29:27):
animals were fallen. So what is the government put in place?
I'm thinking particularly with agriculture here, like, how do we
incentivize small farmers to stay in the market to grow
healthier food. Yes, it's great to say, well, if organic
farmers want want to do it on their own, that's
up to them, because in the long run they will
be financially more stable, they won't be as reliant on
(29:52):
government subsidies and crop insurance and all that.
Speaker 4 (29:56):
But they might need.
Speaker 3 (29:57):
A little again, here's a crutch that hopefully won't last forever. Right,
you give some smaller farmers an incentive or a boost
to start farming with better tools and less toxic toxic
tools whatever. If they want to, you don't force them,
and then you say, okay, off you go. You're an adult,
(30:18):
now figure it out on your own. We've helped you, right,
that's what the government should be there for. So kind
of to go back to your discussion of benchmarks, I
would like to see less people dependent on the government
medical system. We are spending too much money on trying
to keep people on life support. And the other thing
is that's no life. To me, good health is not
(30:42):
the absence of disease is not just like none of
my systems or symptoms part of me.
Speaker 4 (30:49):
It's not like give me an SSRI. That's not good health.
Speaker 3 (30:53):
Being on a zembic the rest of your life is
not good health. You're just masking symptoms. Right to me, disease,
These are all signs the body's telling you like something
is wrong, change something, do something right.
Speaker 4 (31:08):
Depression, something's off. Right.
Speaker 3 (31:10):
Here's an SSRI to get you to stable. So we
can start to look deeper into some of these things,
So you can be functioning, but something's off. And I
think you know as woo wo as it sounds from
someone like Casey means and maybe Cali means, and this
(31:31):
is somewhat of a I think the health crisis is
at the point now where we can acknowledge it as
this is a little bit of a spiritual crisis. Americans
are turning to things as addictions, so I don't I
think we need to treat food as an addiction like
we treat marijuana as an addiction. At any pharmaceutical that
(31:53):
you're dependent on for the rest of your life.
Speaker 4 (31:55):
As an addiction.
Speaker 3 (31:56):
It's a drug, it's an outside resource, which is fine
as a temporary band aid. But the minute we see
this as a solution to just kind of cover up
what's really going on, whether it's metabolic dysfunction, spiritual crisis,
mental health crisis, we really need and this is what
(32:19):
you hear in the MAHA movement across the board, is
its root cause?
Speaker 4 (32:25):
What is at the root of your disease?
Speaker 2 (32:28):
I mean, these are very complex questions, but this is
the first time anyone's asking them instead of the band
aids to treat the illness, instead of looking at the
root causes. And I'm so grateful that they're having this conversation,
But do you think it's realistic that in three years
we are actually going to have data showing results from this.
Speaker 3 (32:48):
I think there might be some. I mean, I don't
need to see drastic results. I just need to see
the bars moving in the right direction. I just need
to see a decrease, even in the slightest I mean,
particularly with just.
Speaker 4 (33:00):
Run of the mill average American.
Speaker 3 (33:05):
Overweightness ob city right, like in the airports, right, I
just want to see you to Disneyland.
Speaker 1 (33:11):
Let me know who you see exactly, who in the
cards for the disabled?
Speaker 3 (33:16):
Yeah, I just want to see a little bit of
change in the right direction. You're right, And I've said
this over and over again. If we are depending on
Kennedy to carry this movement forward, it won't last. Part
of my goal at the Heritage Foundation is to convince
conservatives that this is as big a political item that
(33:39):
we should be voting on these issues, not these people necessarily,
but on these issues, and those who carry these issues
with as much diligence and passion as we voted on
the immigration standpoints we got immigration.
Speaker 4 (33:51):
Under we're getting it there.
Speaker 3 (33:53):
These need to be as a conservative for me and
by default a Republican. It might be an independent, but
it certainly it won't be a democrat. These need to
be cornerstones of their platform, of their political platform. And
if it has that much sway, then I think we
(34:13):
will start to see it out last any executive administration's
executive orders. I think people what you said, I think
the messaging is has been the biggest success.
Speaker 4 (34:28):
I'm sure you.
Speaker 3 (34:29):
Know six months ago, even maybe eight months just before
Kennedy came on the scene, no one was talking about
metabolic dysfunction, got microbiome wroot cause disease. I mean, we
are in this field somewhat, and so we hear it
all the time.
Speaker 4 (34:45):
I've been hearing it for ten years.
Speaker 3 (34:47):
But just the fact that people are starting to read labels.
This has to be consumer driven, right, because policy can't
fix everything. I think it has to be consumer driven.
Is the heightened awareness to all these things, and I
think if we can focus on that and the positive
aspects of that, will kind of.
Speaker 4 (35:10):
Be in this for the long haul. Well.
Speaker 1 (35:12):
I don't want to try.
Speaker 2 (35:13):
Too my own star, but I did write a book
in twenty twenty all about it's actually called Make America
Healthy Again, how bad behavior and big government caused a
trillion dollar crisis, And it was all about the leading
cause of illness and.
Speaker 1 (35:27):
The root causes.
Speaker 2 (35:28):
But it was a more of a policy driven book
as well, Affordable Care Act in that so you're right,
those topics were not picked up on, and it wasn't
until RFK came onto the scene that finally people are listening,
and it's just an incredible thing to witness. I just
hope that they can get there and some of the
(35:49):
politics can be checked at the door, because I think
a lot of what they're doing is truly for the
good of the nation.
Speaker 1 (35:55):
You know, one thing, one.
Speaker 2 (35:57):
Question I have for you, because you're plugged in, you're
on these signal chats with MAHA. Do you think you
know RFK Junior has vowed he's going to look into
vaccines and there are links to autism. I mean, that
is clearly something he has dedicated decades of his life
and career. Two recently he said the flu vaccines with
thy marisol are not going to be used here in
(36:19):
the United States. I mean, that was obviously a big announcement.
It's not huge in the sense that most kids here
in the United States don't have those multi dose files
that have thy marsol. But it's still a step towards
what people were asking of him. He says in September,
which we're now in, that he is going to, you know,
talk about some things that they have found that may
(36:41):
be linked to autism. They've already come out saying maybe
a stateominifin maternal use of it while pregnant. Will the
MOHA movement be satisfied if he does not come out
and say, you know, these vaccines.
Speaker 1 (36:56):
Are directly linked to autism.
Speaker 3 (36:59):
I think they need to. I think they put their
trust in him. He's done this research, you know, like
you said, he's that that was his primary fight and
kind of against his own will, like he didn't He's like, eh,
this is not really like these mothers came to him
and he was overwhelmed by it that he decided to
pick up this cause. So I think we need to
(37:19):
trust him. And and then he needs to provide the
data or if he wants to have the NIH and
and and put some funding, say okay, here's some descriptive analysis.
Speaker 4 (37:33):
This is this is this justifies.
Speaker 3 (37:36):
A more intense rigorous research that that will delve into.
But I'll trust him. I honestly think he wants what's best.
I mean, I also see like our kind of maternity practices.
I don't have children, so I was kind of shocked
when I learned that, like mothers didn't didn't breastfeed anymore,
(37:59):
they just did and think that I was like such
a natural process that I always viewed as like you know,
childbirth and breastfeeding. Then to find out like people are
having c sections because of convenience, like oh I want
to have not because of a medical emergency, but because
it's like, oh I just don't want to have the
baby on that data, I don't want to wait.
Speaker 4 (38:19):
Are my doctor's going on vacation.
Speaker 3 (38:21):
I was like, just common sense would tell me, like,
there is a natural birth process for a reason. There's
a benefit to the probably both the mother and the child,
to the national Yeah, and I know that, Yeah, but
common sense would just tell me. And now they say
it has a lot to do with the immune system, right,
like kind of dopamine that goes through are some some
(38:44):
more chemicals that when the child goes through the vaginal canal,
like all of these things and I'm like, I don't
know that that has anything to do with autism, but
I'd be curious to find out, right, And so I'm
very curious about this report that will come out. I'm
not willing to say it's all vaccines. I think it
could be a multiple of causes and kind of multi factorial,
(39:09):
and I think even Kennedy has alluded to that, Like,
it's really hard because so much has changed so quickly
in our culture, with our food supply, with the way
we do medical care for women women's health, which really
hasn't been studied that in depth. I think it's going
to be hard to pinpoint one thing. I think what's
interesting is though, the rapid increase in the number of
(39:32):
vaccinations within the childhood vaccine schedule. So again, to me,
it's not one thing. It could be all of these
things at one time. And that's my thought with the
childhood vaccine scene schedule, it's not one vaccine, it's you
are just loading these kids up with different things that
they've never been loaded with before.
Speaker 4 (39:50):
How are we supposed to pinpoint one thing?
Speaker 2 (39:53):
Well, I was actually pleasantly surprised when they mentioned just
the staminifin or tile and all for most people that
that's what they were looking at that with the autism,
because for me, if he was only looking at vaccines
right now, I think that would be a massive mistake
because there is an increase incidence in autism, and it's
(40:16):
not just expanding the diagnostic criteria. Like enough, that is
part of it, but you can't deny it. But if
you only focus on the vaccines, I think that would
have been a massive disservice to those children and the
families who are suffering from it as well, because I
think it's going to be much bigger and I don't
think it's going to be one thing. I think it's
gonna be a lot of things. So when he said
(40:37):
that they had looked at that, I'm like, that's great,
because this is what we need. We need someone who's
going to look at everything and not be stuck in
the back room or the microcosm. So, you know, I
think exciting times ahead. Cautiously optimistic, at least from my standpoint.
I hope we can get some more people in front
of the camera delivering some of these messages and milestones
(41:00):
just to try and decrease the partisanship, because ultimately I
think that what they are wanting to is to improve
the health of America and anybody who is against that
are anti American.
Speaker 3 (41:12):
Yeah, I'm interested as a practicing doctor, you know, I
think a lot of these things.
Speaker 4 (41:18):
Is what doctors do.
Speaker 3 (41:19):
We've put doctors on a pedestal to know the answer.
But part of the what I would think of doctor's
role is to ask questions of the patient and then
you're like, well, it might be this thing. Well, it
might be what you're eating, or it might be your
sleep habits, or it might be your gut, or it could.
Speaker 1 (41:37):
Be and all of the above.
Speaker 3 (41:40):
Yeah, and it could be all of the above. And
I think that's what good medicine is, whether it's just
in a patient doctor relationship or whether we're talking about
our agencies. Like you said, we should be looking at
everything and then tailoring broad recommendations. That's what I think
people also need to remember is the government is not
the end to all be all.
Speaker 2 (42:01):
These are not We're we're all in a world of
trouble if that's the case.
Speaker 4 (42:05):
But I think people have placed too much faith in
that as well.
Speaker 1 (42:10):
Well, Yes, I mean that's part of the big problem.
Speaker 2 (42:12):
I'm in a unique position in the sense that my
day job is diagnosing cancer, and so I tell people
they have cancer every single day.
Speaker 1 (42:21):
But when I have why my mission.
Speaker 2 (42:24):
And passion have gone to root causes a long time
ago and early detection of disease is because it often
takes when I tell someone they have cancer for them
to want to then live a healthier life, and I
wonder why they didn't want to live the healthier life
before the cancer diagnosis. And so that's kind of been
(42:46):
my impetus and my messaging. And one thing that I
say to people more than anyone else when they ask
my opinion on things, is that you know your body
better than anyone else. All I can do is tell
you everything I know. Ultimately, it's your choice and I'm
here to help guide you, and if I don't know
the answer, I'm going to be the first to admit it.
Speaker 3 (43:09):
It kind of just got chills because I think that's
really you know, people need to take back some sovereignty
over their own medical decisions. And the more the government
imposes on us and say says you have to get
the vaccine, I think you're seeing a natural rebellion because
inherently human dignity involves please don't tell me that you
(43:33):
know better than I know what's happening with me. Right anybody? Yeah, yeah,
anybody with a smidge of self reflection. And I think
anybody that's diagnosed with a disease as severe as cancer
will have I would think come to some point of
(43:54):
self reflection and say, how did it get here?
Speaker 4 (43:57):
What did I ignore?
Speaker 3 (43:59):
What can I do now to the best of my
ability to heal? And that doesn't involve necessarily the government.
You know, you have to do some soul searching when
I think you get to that point of severe chronic disease.
And that would be my message to everyone is take
back some sovereignty over your own life, over your own
medical decisions. Sure, these are guidelines that sit down and
(44:22):
talk with people you trust, get second opinions or remember
those second opinions, and right, I.
Speaker 1 (44:28):
Get a third opinion if they disagree.
Speaker 3 (44:31):
Yeah, yeah, and I did that with me, Like I
know people that do that with like an acl Tare
you know about the best treatment or the best way
to handle it? The best PT do I do PT
before and after just after you know those things. You
know who to trust, like you know who you resonate
with and what's going to align with your fundamental beliefs
(44:53):
about healing. So I just wish people would would stop
looking to the government. It's so I ironic that all
of a sudden, these institutions that completely failed us during
COVID are being held as the standard birds of gold
standard science, you know, or.
Speaker 1 (45:12):
The I think they still know what's best.
Speaker 2 (45:14):
Well, there's definitely a movement and everyone can feel it's
in the airs on the ground. So I'm so grateful
that you came on Wellness Unmasked to talk about this.
It's a really tough discussion, a difficult discussion, but we
have to keep having these discussions because ultimately all we
want is to make America healthy again.
Speaker 3 (45:36):
I agree, and I'm so happy to come on anytime.
I love discussing people with people I disagree with. I
think it's very helpful for the audience to hear and
hopefully inspires people to go read a little bit more
and open their mind a bit more.
Speaker 4 (45:50):
So thank you so much for having me on. Although
ultimately I think we agree on that, I don't.
Speaker 1 (45:54):
Know if we disagree on things. I think we agree
on a lot of the message.
Speaker 2 (45:58):
Yes, yes, sure, all right, Thanks more coming up on
Wellness Unmasked with doctor Nicole Saphire. Well, that's it for
today's episode of Wellness Unmass. Yes, there was some back
and forth, but at the end of the day, we
really agree on the big issues. We want what's best
for our children, what's best for our families, and ultimately
(46:20):
we just want to make America healthy again. So a
big thank you to Jennifer Gallardi and the Heritage Foundation
for joining us today. The fact that the former CDC
directors are publicly banding together to try and influence leadership
at AHHS, it just shows how high the stakes are
for the future of health policy. In my opinion, sometimes
(46:41):
the right messenger is just as important as the message
being delivered. So that is my hope for AHHS and
President Trump in the White House. Let's focus on who
is delivering the message because no one can argue with
the goal of making America healthy again. Thanks for listening
to Wellness Unmass on America's number one podcast network, iHeart.
(47:02):
Follow Wellness Unmasked with after Nicole Sapphire and start listening
on the free iHeartRadio app or wherever you get your podcasts,
and we will see you next time.
Hello, everyone, Welcome to Wellness un Mass.
Speaker 2 (00:04):
I'm doctor Nicole Saffire and today we are going to
peel back the layers on something that has everyone talking.
Speaker 1 (00:10):
Recently, a group of former CDC directors.
Speaker 2 (00:13):
They've made headlines because they decided to put out a
joint opinion piece essentially rallying against RFK Junior after he
fired the newly appointed Susan Monrez from her position as
CDC director. This has made all the media outlets. People
are in an uproar. It's really interesting to see this
whole coordinated effort. It's not every day you kind of
(00:33):
see it, but it does raise some big questions about politics, power,
and just the entire direction of public health in this country.
So to dig into this, I am joined by Jennifer Gallardi.
She is the Senior Policy Analyst for Restoring American Wellness
at the Heritage Foundation. She's been at the forefront of
challenging how narratives and health policy are getting shaped and controlled,
(00:56):
and she's also involved in the MAHA movement. She has
her ear on the round to everything going on there,
and she's also been challenging.
Speaker 1 (01:03):
The role of institutions like the CDC and how.
Speaker 2 (01:06):
We're just working to reshape just ultimately how we think
about medicine and wellness in America.
Speaker 1 (01:12):
I'm so excited to have her with us. Let's bring
in Jennifer Galardy.
Speaker 2 (01:19):
Jennifer, I am so excited to have you on today
because there is so much going on in the world
of public health that it feels like, you know, every
day there's a new media headline and that New York
Times article by all of the former CDC and acting
CDC directors, I mean, that was pretty substantial.
Speaker 1 (01:37):
What's your take on all of that.
Speaker 3 (01:39):
Well, it does feel a little bit like as the
world turns every day here in the United States health agencies,
there's always something. You know, the news cycle is very
active regardless, and one of the things I try to
do is not ignore the news cycles, but understand that
they always have an agenda, particularly the New York Times,
and their agenda right now is to divide the MAHA
(02:02):
and the MAGA kind of base that elected Trump with
a lot of Kennedy's supporters, and to how to get
Kennedy out because they don't like what people wanted from him.
They don't like the agenda that that the people voted for.
And that was really to as Trump said in twenty
you know, fifteen drained the swamp. And I think what
(02:22):
Trump realized is that, Okay, maybe he can't drain it,
but he can clean it up a lot. He put
Kennedy in charge to do just that. And now there's
blowback because the institution has become so calcified and so
distrusted that the moment you try to change it, you
are going to see some strong backlash against it. You
(02:45):
know what's interesting to me is I reread that, reread
the article this morning in preparation to talk to you,
and there's really, you know there there there's no solid claims.
I think what I see with these some of these
people at the CDC, because they're very careful right in
the way they say, oh, these are CDC directors or
people that have worked at the CDC that are both
Democrat and Republican, trying to make it seem bipartisan. But
(03:08):
the thing they all have in common is the orthodoxy
that has gotten us into this public health disaster in
the first place.
Speaker 4 (03:17):
And it's kind of like COVID with the people that
got the shots. You know, I think about why are.
Speaker 3 (03:22):
People so religious about vaccines. Why are they so religious
about the science and CDC? Why can't they look at
alternative data and be open to maybe they were wrong?
And it is because it is their religion. So someone
that's the head of the CDC, or that's worked for
the CDC or given their lives to the CDC for
(03:43):
many years in service of what they think is public health,
it becomes their identity. So when you challenge the CDC,
you challenge their actual identity, and they have to say, well,
everything that I said is wrong. What else am I
wrong about? Can you make very valid in COVID? Yeah,
and I think we're seeing that here. It's like, I
(04:06):
don't know if it's a coordinated attack, but if I
were any of these people, right, any of these CDC
directors and basically Kennedy and some of the incoming asap,
the people on the board of governing vaccines questioning what
they've held is orthodoxy for so long, your whole world
(04:28):
can start to crumble.
Speaker 2 (04:31):
Well, so someone obviously I work in the medical professional,
and you're right. I mean, historically, when you think of
public health, it should be a political throughout COVID that
obviously changed all of a sudden you know.
Speaker 1 (04:42):
COVID with they're what you were at.
Speaker 2 (04:44):
Your talking points were if you followed the mainstream media
public health talking points that aligned you with the Democrats,
and if you said anything outside of that, even if
you agreed with ninety five percent of the mainstream talking points,
but you were just questioned a couple of things that
put you as a charlatan, as a Republican so to say.
But if you really look at the history of public health,
(05:06):
public health really aligns with it's for the greater good,
not the individual. So some would actually say that that
has always gone towards socialized care in a sense, right, it's.
Speaker 1 (05:17):
Good for the greater good.
Speaker 2 (05:19):
And so what President Trump has been saying, especially since COVID,
is we are going to be the disruptors and we
are finally going to look at things not just as
a dogma or in a vacuum, but we need to
start making sure that we are caring about the individual,
not just the greater good. And you know, I think
that rubs some people the wrong way, especially those who
(05:41):
have been ingrained and entrenched in that the greater good mentality,
and so this is becoming political.
Speaker 1 (05:47):
I think one of the concerns that I have a
little bit.
Speaker 2 (05:51):
I am a huge supporter of this reform and everything.
A lot of things that are coming out of the
White House right now. Some things that concern me is,
you know, the ousting of Susan Monrez, who you know,
was the CDC director. She had just been confirmed under
President Trump and then all of a sudden, we know
(06:12):
that she had meetings with RFK Junior, and all of
a sudden, she's gone. And one of the things that
we called for a lot during the Biden administration was transparency.
And although I see RFK Junior and doctor McCarey, FDA Commissioner,
and some other people doing a lot of media blitzes,
there is lack of transparency in what led to some
(06:34):
of these decisions, and that does concern me. Yes, I
like that changes are being made, but I don't know
how they're being made. And when you have Susan Monrez
saying that she was being asked to do things that
she deemed illegal or that she deemed went against science, like,
I want to hear more about that, but instead we're
not hearing about that.
Speaker 1 (06:55):
What do you make of that?
Speaker 3 (06:57):
Yeah, it's hard because I believe that when a new
administration comes in, you have to have people that are
aligned with your agenda and not subverting you. I mean
there was I did hear Callie means say there is
a very It's so hard because you want opposition, right,
but you want honest opposition. You don't want people that
(07:22):
are going to that are going to undermine the goal
at every turn. And so you know it happens with
every turn in an administration. You know, the Biden administration
put their people in, and Trump's putting his people in
and Kennedy's putting their people in. And it is an
(07:42):
appointed position, it's not a civil servant. So it should
be someone that aligns with Kennedy's agenda. And if you
are going to it's fine to have dissent. I don't
think Kennedy will quash dissent.
Speaker 1 (07:54):
We don't actually know what is.
Speaker 2 (07:57):
We don't know the conversation that led to to some
of this, and so like that's what I want to
hear about. I think a lot of the moves are right,
but just help us under help everyone understand, because when
you don't, doesn't that make it feel more partisan?
Speaker 1 (08:11):
Like how what should be.
Speaker 2 (08:12):
Their play forgetting all of America on board, because nobody
should be able to argue with making sure vaccines and
medications are safe and our food safe and kids are
exercising more like this should be every Americans should support this.
But it feels like some of the role out is
causing a greater divide. So what are they doing wrong?
Speaker 4 (08:35):
Yeah, I don't know.
Speaker 3 (08:37):
I think.
Speaker 4 (08:39):
There's concern.
Speaker 3 (08:40):
I know there was great concern in the MAHA movement
with Manaras about her understanding of vaccinations, about her decision
making process. So maybe it's just that, like she did
not have the MAHA support that I know from from
signal chats, and everybody kind of within the movement thought
(09:01):
that this was a terrible pick. So that is a
big support base for Kennedy and probably helped get Trump elected.
So I you know, I could I could probably agree
with you that maybe if they were more honest about
or more transparent. But at the same time, it's like
if the CEO of a company has to justify to
(09:21):
every employee in the company of why they fire somebody,
it would be a nightmare. It would be a train wreck.
If I have to give you an essay on every
reason I'm fired. You have to at some point, trust
the decision of the leaders that you've elected. And overwhelmingly
not only did they elect Trump, but they elected Kennedy
because of this kind of alliance. And so you know,
(09:42):
it's the same thing with Trump. I don't know why
he's making all his decisions on tariffs, on this and
on that, but he, for me, was the best option.
And at some point I have to say, I don't
know everything. I can never know everything, and I trust
the direction in which this is going. Now, if the
direction in which this is going lead two very malaligned
(10:02):
and negative outcomes, then I'll start to demand, like a
little bit more information. But for now, I trust McCarry,
I like one hundred percent trust Jay Badicharia, and I
trust mostly Kennedy because I feel that he.
Speaker 4 (10:21):
Does have honest intentions.
Speaker 3 (10:22):
I feel like his heart is really wanting to protect
people from the deleterious effects of vaccines, which are not negligible,
and so we need to have this debate out in
the open. I think he will keep people that are
willing to challenge him. I'm not sure how if Susan
Minars was just challenging or if she was undermining. I
(10:44):
think those are two different things, and maybe they should
have been more transparent about that.
Speaker 2 (10:49):
That is actually a valid, valid point because well as
you're saying that the Maha movement huge movement, I fully
agree they helped get Trump elected. Obviously that some conversations
were had to get RFK Junior to join Trump and
has made this you know, mega team that we're seeing
right now, and so they have to have that support.
Speaker 1 (11:11):
But the concern that.
Speaker 2 (11:13):
I have, as someone who again works in public health,
works in medicine, is that I need everyone to come
back together a little bit more. Since COVID, it is
incredibly fractured. And so while I understand RFK Junior putting
in his people to keep Mahan all that support because
that's what people voted for, but how that is not
(11:35):
going to bring that other half so by ousting anybody
who was originally there, and by the way, a lot
of them deserve to go.
Speaker 1 (11:43):
I was very hutspoken during.
Speaker 2 (11:45):
COVID about this bureaucracy. But my concern is if you
only bring in RFK Junior's tight circle, we're never going
to one we're never going to get the support of
the other half of the country. And two as soon
and as Trump is out of the White House. As
soon as another Democrat comes in, these people will all
be gone. They will not stay. So I would like
(12:08):
to see RFK Junior at all putting in members that
can last beyond the administration. I need them to get
to a point where these measures are going.
Speaker 1 (12:18):
To stay, because I think it truly is the good
of the nation.
Speaker 2 (12:23):
I'm not saying Manarez should have stayed. Actually, I didn't
think she was a great pick to begin with. I
was surprised you went through the confirmation hearing. I just
my concern is that they're going to continue to pick
their unilateral maha pics and not bring in someone else
who just might chip away at trying to unify the country.
Speaker 4 (12:43):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (12:43):
Well, I think what they'll do is they'll he's got
I saw this kind of the Dmitri.
Speaker 4 (12:51):
Dema what was his last name?
Speaker 3 (12:53):
All I know is it's a very Greek last name,
and on behalf of all three people. I'd like to
apologize because that man is. I mean, it's it's amazing
to me who the Democrats kind of parade out as
the pillars right of excellence.
Speaker 2 (13:07):
And about the guy who was at the outspoken gentleman
on monkey pox, who their pictures are voting exactly. I
thought they were all AI generated. I was like, there's
no way.
Speaker 1 (13:18):
Oh, well, to be real.
Speaker 4 (13:20):
I saw a video.
Speaker 3 (13:21):
I mean, I don't know enough about AI, but I
saw a video of him parading and some as regardless,
he did say. There was a straight up interview with
him saying that that public health priorities need to be
balanced with people's joy. Basically, homosexuals get a lot of
joy from having promiscuous sex habits, and we need to
consider that against the outbreak.
Speaker 4 (13:43):
Of monkey pocks.
Speaker 3 (13:44):
And I was like, Okay, this is the last person
regardless that I am taking health advice from anyway. It's
kind of like the Maryland man, like find your yes,
find your champions, but they're not picking very good champions.
So I'm seeing this what's happening at the CDC just
like an infection in the body. Right, it has been
infected with partisan people and you might see or someone
(14:06):
else might see it. Will now it's being infected with
partisan people on the other side.
Speaker 4 (14:10):
But that's my concern.
Speaker 3 (14:13):
Yeah, I think because those partisan people had messed up
COVID response so badly and it was so politicized that
I'm willing to say, let Kennedy put his people in,
let's see if they I mean, we have to experiment.
I'm not so concerned about the people he's putting in
(14:35):
as what policies will result from those people. If they're
good policies and if they seem to be moving that
he's got three years now. I think that's why it's
so important just to get people in place, and then
the proof will be in the pudding as to what
then we can judge them by their policies. But we
need to give those people a shot. Right just because
they like Kennedy and they agree with him, it doesn't
(14:58):
mean they're never going to, you know, voice and opposition
to his ideas.
Speaker 4 (15:02):
I don't believe that.
Speaker 3 (15:04):
I've looked at the people he's bringing in place, and
Badicharia McCarthy, these are not These people have never been
political in their lives. They got what they did get
all is silenced. And that's what I think you're seeing
from Trump. You are seeing people who got shut down
and canceled over the past five years actually now put
(15:24):
in positions and say, I know how this works. We
are going to undo this now. If they become too partisan,
we'll be we'll be able to see that, but I'd
like to give them a shot.
Speaker 2 (15:36):
And I think what happens when carry is when McCarry
is a good friend and colleague of Vine. We've written
many articles, paper stuff together throughout COVID, so I love
him in his role. I think Bodicharia is also incredibly qualified,
great person in that role too. And as you're saying
they're a political they are not RFK Junior Trump loyalists.
(15:58):
They are science loyalists, and they're great in their positions
and very well.
Speaker 4 (16:03):
And I think you make.
Speaker 3 (16:04):
A good point is they're not loyalists, but they they were.
They they joined forces to support Trump because he's giving
them the platform that that.
Speaker 4 (16:16):
Biden didn't give them.
Speaker 3 (16:18):
They were completely justified in having during COVID, right, and
so they know how it works. They want to kind
of restore this gold standard science. And what I was
going to say is when you start to restore the
health of the agency or the health of the body, right,
you restore the environment of the body that is conducive
to help the parasites will die. And I think that's
(16:41):
what we're seeing. Not everybody's leaving the CDC. There's a
handful of them.
Speaker 4 (16:46):
Right, there's it. It's not everybody.
Speaker 2 (16:50):
Well, and you remember, so people are making a huge
stink saying, well, we have these high level people leaving
the CDC and protests that because they feel it's beat
for the people and as anti American, can we just
remember that the FDA announced resignations of Marion Gruber and
Philip Krause, because these are the pair that led the
(17:11):
whole FDA Vaccine office in charge of approving vaccines. But
they resigned in protests because they were frustrated over Biden's
COVID nineteen booster. The White House essentially said We're going
to just keep boosting into perpetuity, regardless of what the
variant is, regardless what the data shows.
Speaker 1 (17:31):
And so these guys were like, I'm not going to
be part of this. We don't agree with it.
Speaker 2 (17:35):
But those headlines, those headlines were quick and they went
away quickly, and yet the boosters continued. But the media
handling of the two walkouts, I mean they're very different.
Speaker 4 (17:49):
Yeah, that's true.
Speaker 3 (17:50):
And again you can see a very coordinated attack right
now against Kennedy again, you know, trying to I think
Cally said, there's just they think are in this.
Speaker 4 (18:00):
They're gonna win. This is what they're saying.
Speaker 3 (18:02):
I'm like, there's no winning this. We just want good information,
we want good science. But they they think they're going
to outlast Kennedy. And if you've got someone vocally saying
I'm going to outlast him, that's not a that's not
a good starting point for unbiased scientific research. If that's
if that's your attitude, so fine, let them leave.
Speaker 4 (18:23):
I mean, everybody's got.
Speaker 3 (18:24):
Free will, right, and so if if if these people
want to walk out of the CDC, if those two
wanted to leave the FDA, that's that's up to them.
If it's if it goes against their conscience, fine, but
this is this is the agenda.
Speaker 4 (18:37):
This is what the people voted for. I'm happy. Most
people that I know are happy, at least in the
MOHA movement. So we'll see. We'll see what they do
and how they do.
Speaker 3 (18:47):
I think that if they're transparent with the data, you know,
and someone's always going to say, well, this data did
this and this date, but you do the best you
can and making sure the research that you disclose, any
conflicts of interest, that you disclose any limitations and studies
and and they they didn't do that at the at
(19:09):
the CDC, they didn't. Like Trump said in his tweet,
He's like, I want to see all this data. You
told me, Pfizer, you told me this was safe and effective.
This is this that It's interesting that he was so
umman about his Operation Worse Speed, and so many MAHA
people were like, if he would just tone that rhetoric down,
and he did in this election. He didn't go as
(19:32):
bulb like I did Operation War Speed. Now for him
to outright say I could have been wrong and I
got misled, I think it's huge and he wants to.
Speaker 1 (19:44):
See the data.
Speaker 2 (19:47):
I'm equally surprised that he did tone that down, and
that tells me that he is listening to the people
around him, which anybody who has met President Trump knows
that he does listen to those around him. I think
that's a great thing and it's a great sign of
a I will say one of the things moving forward
that I have a little bit of a concern about
is again the new ACIP SO RFK Junior fired all
(20:09):
the existing seventeen members.
Speaker 1 (20:11):
I think the majority of them probably could have gone.
Speaker 2 (20:13):
I would have liked him to have kept a few
of them again, just to just so it's not removing
one side and bringing in an entire other side, because
to me, that remains polarized. I would like it would
have been nice if he kept some of the original
just to create that conversation.
Speaker 4 (20:30):
He didn't.
Speaker 2 (20:31):
So now the next ACIP is meeting in a couple
of weeks, I believe, and they're talking about vaccines again,
and my concern is, unfortunately they're hopefully going to put
forth recommendations and it's not just going to be RFK
Junior making a media announcement, which is what it has been. Unfortunately,
we have to continue to have these conversations because that
is the transparency that we all need and we've been demanding.
(20:55):
But the problem is whatever comes out of this new ACIP,
whatever comes out of our immediately, half the people are
going to dissent. And like we just saw with the
American Academy of Pediatrics, which I am in complete disagreement
with them when it comes to the vaccines and kids.
But I'm just so gutterly concerned that people aren't just
(21:16):
going to listen and maybe some of the stuff coming
out of the new CDC are going to be for
the benefit, but people are going to want to reject
it so much.
Speaker 1 (21:25):
So I really think that Arka Jr. I know people
love him.
Speaker 2 (21:28):
There is a portion of this country that wants to
hear from nobody except him. They love him that much,
and anything he says goes. He's not the right messenger
for what's going on right now, not if we're trying
to unify. And I think that they need a CDC
spokesperson to deliver the message, to try and gain support
(21:49):
so that we can finally get to a place of peace.
I think part of that is also a surgeon general
who the current nominee. I don't think they're even scheduled
for hearing it. Probably soon, i'd hope so. But I
think that I.
Speaker 3 (22:03):
Was wondering about that too because I think it's because
she's pregnant.
Speaker 4 (22:06):
Maybe I know she's about to have a baby. I mean,
that shouldn't be the reason.
Speaker 2 (22:10):
But you need a surgeon general who's going to be
supported by MAHA. You absolutely obviously need that, you need
them to be more supported by MAGA, but the surgeon
general should also be someone who's respected amongst the medical community,
and I think the current nominee.
Speaker 1 (22:29):
Will not be and I think that will just cause
a lot more issues in terms of communication. I could
be wrong. I don't know or never metter.
Speaker 3 (22:37):
Who would you because you probably know these people more
personally and have scrutinized them more deeply than I have.
Who do you think should be that messenger of the
CDC regarding vaccines even if it's not? And then who
who do you think would be a good nominee for
Surgeon General?
Speaker 2 (22:57):
Excellent questions? And you know what I don't. I can't
listen name. I can tell you. I think the original
surgeon General nominee, Jeanette Nschwat in my opinion, she has
media presence, she knows how to be in front of
a camera.
Speaker 4 (23:10):
She was.
Speaker 1 (23:12):
Was she a perfect nominee?
Speaker 4 (23:14):
No?
Speaker 2 (23:14):
I think that a lot of politics were behind that.
You know, her brother in law is in the administration.
But that's really how politics works, right.
Speaker 1 (23:21):
It's kind of all about who you know. But I
think that works by.
Speaker 3 (23:25):
The way, Nicole, I think, yeah, you know, if she
was she's in practicing people get jobs because of networking
a lot of the time.
Speaker 2 (23:31):
So when people were like, well she only got it
because of I'm like, well, yeah, that's how most people
get these physitions, but she was a practicing physician, and
she devoted a lot of her spare time, a lot
of volunteer work. She did a lot of frontline work,
so she was respected in the medical community. And maybe
she wasn't MAHA's first pick, and I don't even think
(23:52):
MAGA she was their number one, but I think she
kind of touched on all three of those.
Speaker 1 (23:57):
Was she perfect nominee?
Speaker 4 (23:59):
Probably not.
Speaker 2 (23:59):
I don't I don't know if there is a perfect nominee.
My concern is about the current nominee. Is she fits
the Maha box, but I don't think she'll fit the magabox.
And I don't really think that she's going to be
widely accepted by establishment medical community.
Speaker 1 (24:16):
I don't have a name for you. I mean, I
could probably do some.
Speaker 2 (24:19):
Thinking, but I really hope it's not someone in RFK
Junior's inner circle and he tries to extend himself beyond
so that we could form a cohesive message. And in
terms of this CDC spokesperson doesn't need to be anyone
who has a name. It just someone who can be
in front of the camera who people don't see this
(24:42):
person and then have that knee jerk reflex to stop
listening or wanting to do opposite. They could be saying
exactly what RFK Junior would say in front of that camera, right,
But because it's a different messenger, people may actually listen
and support it more. And that's because we, as you've
pointed out in the beginning of we need them to
get their metrics so that when they leave the White
(25:04):
House they can say, look what we've done, right right.
Speaker 3 (25:09):
My concern is, though, that doesn't matter who it is,
because TDS is real. I mean again, it's been this
example has been given, like Trump, a member of Trump's
administration or Trump itself could cure cancer and they would say, oh, well,
there's positive things to cancer.
Speaker 4 (25:26):
We don't you know.
Speaker 3 (25:27):
I just think and I tend to have a good
pulse read on the culture because I lived in Los
Angeles for so long, on the political culture out there,
on the mindset.
Speaker 4 (25:41):
Of these people.
Speaker 3 (25:42):
It is their their knee jerk response of if it's
aligned with Trump, it's bad. And so I'm not so
sure that there's a way around what.
Speaker 4 (25:53):
You're talking about.
Speaker 3 (25:54):
I don't know if we're beyond the phase of unification,
if it is just to be a you know, he
with the most votes wins. You know we support this
more than you do. I understand politics is the power
of persuasion. It always should be in normal people's minds.
But most of the party of the Democrat Party is
(26:17):
that extreme progressive at least they're the loudest. It seems
to be who the media highlights. Like I said, this
Dimitri guy really is your This is the guy you're
going to parade around yeah and so and be your
standard bearer for the Democrat or for the left leaning position.
Speaker 4 (26:38):
It's the most progressive, radical thing ever. And when those
are the people that you're you're kind of highlighting. I
don't know.
Speaker 3 (26:51):
I don't know that the power of the typical power
of persuasion works.
Speaker 4 (26:55):
I see it on my Facebook page.
Speaker 3 (26:57):
I mean, people I used to be friends with have
gone crazy.
Speaker 1 (27:01):
You can't reason with crazy.
Speaker 2 (27:03):
I mean that is very true, and there's nothing you
could say to make them come around. I completely you
might be right. I really hope you're not right, that
we are beyond unification. I'm not anywhere near retiring, so
I really hope you're wrong. But so let's talk real quick.
What do you think looking back? What metrics are.
Speaker 1 (27:22):
You looking for out of RFK Junior's.
Speaker 2 (27:25):
Ajhs to say this was the right move, this is
a success, and they can leave here feeling confident in
their abilities.
Speaker 3 (27:35):
I think if we can simplify it, there's so many
niche discussions around vaccines, around autism, around environmental if we
can just get America less fat and less dependent on
pharmaceuticals and less dependent on the governess fat.
Speaker 1 (27:57):
That doesn't mean less fat onnozempic.
Speaker 4 (28:00):
Right, right, and less depend That's correct.
Speaker 3 (28:03):
Because I got into a little scuffle, as I do
on social media, this was actually LinkedIn, so it was
a little more People on LinkedIn tend to be like,
you're right here, you're wrong there. They tend to be
a little bit more rational because it is more of
a professional platform.
Speaker 4 (28:19):
Professional.
Speaker 3 (28:21):
But you know this one girl on ozempic saying some
people need drugs the rest of their life. I'm like, well,
that shouldn't be the goal, right, and especially when other
people are paying for it. So I'm fine if you
want to use some sort of crutch she was calling it,
many people need a crutch for the rest of their lives.
(28:41):
I'm like, go ahead, use the crutch. But I don't
want to pay for it. So until you figure out
a system where I'm not paying for your ozempic for
the rest of your life, I'm fine with it. But
as it is now, we need to find we need
to push healthy food solutions, you know. And the other
thing is is I get in stuff too with libertarians
and that.
Speaker 4 (29:02):
Are like, you know, get the government out of everything.
Speaker 3 (29:04):
I was like, well, no, Like, there is a moral
imperative to the government a little bit, right, It's not
just all economics. We see what happens when a cultural
and moral decline kind of what happens to everything, and
so we want to use some sort of government incentives
to do good things, to do right, Like we're moral
(29:27):
animals were fallen. So what is the government put in place?
I'm thinking particularly with agriculture here, like, how do we
incentivize small farmers to stay in the market to grow
healthier food. Yes, it's great to say, well, if organic
farmers want want to do it on their own, that's
up to them, because in the long run they will
be financially more stable, they won't be as reliant on
(29:52):
government subsidies and crop insurance and all that.
Speaker 4 (29:56):
But they might need.
Speaker 3 (29:57):
A little again, here's a crutch that hopefully won't last forever. Right,
you give some smaller farmers an incentive or a boost
to start farming with better tools and less toxic toxic
tools whatever. If they want to, you don't force them,
and then you say, okay, off you go. You're an adult,
(30:18):
now figure it out on your own. We've helped you, right,
that's what the government should be there for. So kind
of to go back to your discussion of benchmarks, I
would like to see less people dependent on the government
medical system. We are spending too much money on trying
to keep people on life support. And the other thing
is that's no life. To me, good health is not
(30:42):
the absence of disease is not just like none of
my systems or symptoms part of me.
Speaker 4 (30:49):
It's not like give me an SSRI. That's not good health.
Speaker 3 (30:53):
Being on a zembic the rest of your life is
not good health. You're just masking symptoms. Right to me, disease,
These are all signs the body's telling you like something
is wrong, change something, do something right.
Speaker 4 (31:08):
Depression, something's off. Right.
Speaker 3 (31:10):
Here's an SSRI to get you to stable. So we
can start to look deeper into some of these things,
So you can be functioning, but something's off. And I
think you know as woo wo as it sounds from
someone like Casey means and maybe Cali means, and this
(31:31):
is somewhat of a I think the health crisis is
at the point now where we can acknowledge it as
this is a little bit of a spiritual crisis. Americans
are turning to things as addictions, so I don't I
think we need to treat food as an addiction like
we treat marijuana as an addiction. At any pharmaceutical that
(31:53):
you're dependent on for the rest of your life.
Speaker 4 (31:55):
As an addiction.
Speaker 3 (31:56):
It's a drug, it's an outside resource, which is fine
as a temporary band aid. But the minute we see
this as a solution to just kind of cover up
what's really going on, whether it's metabolic dysfunction, spiritual crisis,
mental health crisis, we really need and this is what
(32:19):
you hear in the MAHA movement across the board, is
its root cause?
Speaker 4 (32:25):
What is at the root of your disease?
Speaker 2 (32:28):
I mean, these are very complex questions, but this is
the first time anyone's asking them instead of the band
aids to treat the illness, instead of looking at the
root causes. And I'm so grateful that they're having this conversation,
But do you think it's realistic that in three years
we are actually going to have data showing results from this.
Speaker 3 (32:48):
I think there might be some. I mean, I don't
need to see drastic results. I just need to see
the bars moving in the right direction. I just need
to see a decrease, even in the slightest I mean,
particularly with just.
Speaker 4 (33:00):
Run of the mill average American.
Speaker 3 (33:05):
Overweightness ob city right, like in the airports, right, I
just want to see you to Disneyland.
Speaker 1 (33:11):
Let me know who you see exactly, who in the
cards for the disabled?
Speaker 3 (33:16):
Yeah, I just want to see a little bit of
change in the right direction. You're right, And I've said
this over and over again. If we are depending on
Kennedy to carry this movement forward, it won't last. Part
of my goal at the Heritage Foundation is to convince
conservatives that this is as big a political item that
(33:39):
we should be voting on these issues, not these people necessarily,
but on these issues, and those who carry these issues
with as much diligence and passion as we voted on
the immigration standpoints we got immigration.
Speaker 4 (33:51):
Under we're getting it there.
Speaker 3 (33:53):
These need to be as a conservative for me and
by default a Republican. It might be an independent, but
it certainly it won't be a democrat. These need to
be cornerstones of their platform, of their political platform. And
if it has that much sway, then I think we
(34:13):
will start to see it out last any executive administration's
executive orders. I think people what you said, I think
the messaging is has been the biggest success.
Speaker 4 (34:28):
I'm sure you.
Speaker 3 (34:29):
Know six months ago, even maybe eight months just before
Kennedy came on the scene, no one was talking about
metabolic dysfunction, got microbiome wroot cause disease. I mean, we
are in this field somewhat, and so we hear it
all the time.
Speaker 4 (34:45):
I've been hearing it for ten years.
Speaker 3 (34:47):
But just the fact that people are starting to read labels.
This has to be consumer driven, right, because policy can't
fix everything. I think it has to be consumer driven.
Is the heightened awareness to all these things, and I
think if we can focus on that and the positive
aspects of that, will kind of.
Speaker 4 (35:10):
Be in this for the long haul. Well.
Speaker 1 (35:12):
I don't want to try.
Speaker 2 (35:13):
Too my own star, but I did write a book
in twenty twenty all about it's actually called Make America
Healthy Again, how bad behavior and big government caused a
trillion dollar crisis, And it was all about the leading
cause of illness and.
Speaker 1 (35:27):
The root causes.
Speaker 2 (35:28):
But it was a more of a policy driven book
as well, Affordable Care Act in that so you're right,
those topics were not picked up on, and it wasn't
until RFK came onto the scene that finally people are listening,
and it's just an incredible thing to witness. I just
hope that they can get there and some of the
(35:49):
politics can be checked at the door, because I think
a lot of what they're doing is truly for the
good of the nation.
Speaker 1 (35:55):
You know, one thing, one.
Speaker 2 (35:57):
Question I have for you, because you're plugged in, you're
on these signal chats with MAHA. Do you think you
know RFK Junior has vowed he's going to look into
vaccines and there are links to autism. I mean, that
is clearly something he has dedicated decades of his life
and career. Two recently he said the flu vaccines with
thy marisol are not going to be used here in
(36:19):
the United States. I mean, that was obviously a big announcement.
It's not huge in the sense that most kids here
in the United States don't have those multi dose files
that have thy marsol. But it's still a step towards
what people were asking of him. He says in September,
which we're now in, that he is going to, you know,
talk about some things that they have found that may
(36:41):
be linked to autism. They've already come out saying maybe
a stateominifin maternal use of it while pregnant. Will the
MOHA movement be satisfied if he does not come out
and say, you know, these vaccines.
Speaker 1 (36:56):
Are directly linked to autism.
Speaker 3 (36:59):
I think they need to. I think they put their
trust in him. He's done this research, you know, like
you said, he's that that was his primary fight and
kind of against his own will, like he didn't He's like, eh,
this is not really like these mothers came to him
and he was overwhelmed by it that he decided to
pick up this cause. So I think we need to
(37:19):
trust him. And and then he needs to provide the
data or if he wants to have the NIH and
and and put some funding, say okay, here's some descriptive analysis.
Speaker 4 (37:33):
This is this is this justifies.
Speaker 3 (37:36):
A more intense rigorous research that that will delve into.
But I'll trust him. I honestly think he wants what's best.
I mean, I also see like our kind of maternity practices.
I don't have children, so I was kind of shocked
when I learned that, like mothers didn't didn't breastfeed anymore,
(37:59):
they just did and think that I was like such
a natural process that I always viewed as like you know,
childbirth and breastfeeding. Then to find out like people are
having c sections because of convenience, like oh I want
to have not because of a medical emergency, but because
it's like, oh I just don't want to have the
baby on that data, I don't want to wait.
Speaker 4 (38:19):
Are my doctor's going on vacation.
Speaker 3 (38:21):
I was like, just common sense would tell me, like,
there is a natural birth process for a reason. There's
a benefit to the probably both the mother and the child,
to the national Yeah, and I know that, Yeah, but
common sense would just tell me. And now they say
it has a lot to do with the immune system, right,
like kind of dopamine that goes through are some some
(38:44):
more chemicals that when the child goes through the vaginal canal,
like all of these things and I'm like, I don't
know that that has anything to do with autism, but
I'd be curious to find out, right, And so I'm
very curious about this report that will come out. I'm
not willing to say it's all vaccines. I think it
could be a multiple of causes and kind of multi factorial,
(39:09):
and I think even Kennedy has alluded to that, Like,
it's really hard because so much has changed so quickly
in our culture, with our food supply, with the way
we do medical care for women women's health, which really
hasn't been studied that in depth. I think it's going
to be hard to pinpoint one thing. I think what's
interesting is though, the rapid increase in the number of
(39:32):
vaccinations within the childhood vaccine schedule. So again, to me,
it's not one thing. It could be all of these
things at one time. And that's my thought with the
childhood vaccine scene schedule, it's not one vaccine, it's you
are just loading these kids up with different things that
they've never been loaded with before.
Speaker 4 (39:50):
How are we supposed to pinpoint one thing?
Speaker 2 (39:53):
Well, I was actually pleasantly surprised when they mentioned just
the staminifin or tile and all for most people that
that's what they were looking at that with the autism,
because for me, if he was only looking at vaccines
right now, I think that would be a massive mistake
because there is an increase incidence in autism, and it's
(40:16):
not just expanding the diagnostic criteria. Like enough, that is
part of it, but you can't deny it. But if
you only focus on the vaccines, I think that would
have been a massive disservice to those children and the
families who are suffering from it as well, because I
think it's going to be much bigger and I don't
think it's going to be one thing. I think it's
gonna be a lot of things. So when he said
(40:37):
that they had looked at that, I'm like, that's great,
because this is what we need. We need someone who's
going to look at everything and not be stuck in
the back room or the microcosm. So, you know, I
think exciting times ahead. Cautiously optimistic, at least from my standpoint.
I hope we can get some more people in front
of the camera delivering some of these messages and milestones
(41:00):
just to try and decrease the partisanship, because ultimately I
think that what they are wanting to is to improve
the health of America and anybody who is against that
are anti American.
Speaker 3 (41:12):
Yeah, I'm interested as a practicing doctor, you know, I
think a lot of these things.
Speaker 4 (41:18):
Is what doctors do.
Speaker 3 (41:19):
We've put doctors on a pedestal to know the answer.
But part of the what I would think of doctor's
role is to ask questions of the patient and then
you're like, well, it might be this thing. Well, it
might be what you're eating, or it might be your
sleep habits, or it might be your gut, or it could.
Speaker 1 (41:37):
Be and all of the above.
Speaker 3 (41:40):
Yeah, and it could be all of the above. And
I think that's what good medicine is, whether it's just
in a patient doctor relationship or whether we're talking about
our agencies. Like you said, we should be looking at
everything and then tailoring broad recommendations. That's what I think
people also need to remember is the government is not
the end to all be all.
Speaker 2 (42:01):
These are not We're we're all in a world of
trouble if that's the case.
Speaker 4 (42:05):
But I think people have placed too much faith in
that as well.
Speaker 1 (42:10):
Well, Yes, I mean that's part of the big problem.
Speaker 2 (42:12):
I'm in a unique position in the sense that my
day job is diagnosing cancer, and so I tell people
they have cancer every single day.
Speaker 1 (42:21):
But when I have why my mission.
Speaker 2 (42:24):
And passion have gone to root causes a long time
ago and early detection of disease is because it often
takes when I tell someone they have cancer for them
to want to then live a healthier life, and I
wonder why they didn't want to live the healthier life
before the cancer diagnosis. And so that's kind of been
(42:46):
my impetus and my messaging. And one thing that I
say to people more than anyone else when they ask
my opinion on things, is that you know your body
better than anyone else. All I can do is tell
you everything I know. Ultimately, it's your choice and I'm
here to help guide you, and if I don't know
the answer, I'm going to be the first to admit it.
Speaker 3 (43:09):
It kind of just got chills because I think that's
really you know, people need to take back some sovereignty
over their own medical decisions. And the more the government
imposes on us and say says you have to get
the vaccine, I think you're seeing a natural rebellion because
inherently human dignity involves please don't tell me that you
(43:33):
know better than I know what's happening with me. Right anybody? Yeah, yeah,
anybody with a smidge of self reflection. And I think
anybody that's diagnosed with a disease as severe as cancer
will have I would think come to some point of
(43:54):
self reflection and say, how did it get here?
Speaker 4 (43:57):
What did I ignore?
Speaker 3 (43:59):
What can I do now to the best of my
ability to heal? And that doesn't involve necessarily the government.
You know, you have to do some soul searching when
I think you get to that point of severe chronic disease.
And that would be my message to everyone is take
back some sovereignty over your own life, over your own
medical decisions. Sure, these are guidelines that sit down and
(44:22):
talk with people you trust, get second opinions or remember
those second opinions, and right, I.
Speaker 1 (44:28):
Get a third opinion if they disagree.
Speaker 3 (44:31):
Yeah, yeah, and I did that with me, Like I
know people that do that with like an acl Tare
you know about the best treatment or the best way
to handle it? The best PT do I do PT
before and after just after you know those things. You
know who to trust, like you know who you resonate
with and what's going to align with your fundamental beliefs
(44:53):
about healing. So I just wish people would would stop
looking to the government. It's so I ironic that all
of a sudden, these institutions that completely failed us during
COVID are being held as the standard birds of gold
standard science, you know, or.
Speaker 1 (45:12):
The I think they still know what's best.
Speaker 2 (45:14):
Well, there's definitely a movement and everyone can feel it's
in the airs on the ground. So I'm so grateful
that you came on Wellness Unmasked to talk about this.
It's a really tough discussion, a difficult discussion, but we
have to keep having these discussions because ultimately all we
want is to make America healthy again.
Speaker 3 (45:36):
I agree, and I'm so happy to come on anytime.
I love discussing people with people I disagree with. I
think it's very helpful for the audience to hear and
hopefully inspires people to go read a little bit more
and open their mind a bit more.
Speaker 4 (45:50):
So thank you so much for having me on. Although
ultimately I think we agree on that, I don't.
Speaker 1 (45:54):
Know if we disagree on things. I think we agree
on a lot of the message.
Speaker 2 (45:58):
Yes, yes, sure, all right, Thanks more coming up on
Wellness Unmasked with doctor Nicole Saphire. Well, that's it for
today's episode of Wellness Unmass. Yes, there was some back
and forth, but at the end of the day, we
really agree on the big issues. We want what's best
for our children, what's best for our families, and ultimately
(46:20):
we just want to make America healthy again. So a
big thank you to Jennifer Gallardi and the Heritage Foundation
for joining us today. The fact that the former CDC
directors are publicly banding together to try and influence leadership
at AHHS, it just shows how high the stakes are
for the future of health policy. In my opinion, sometimes
(46:41):
the right messenger is just as important as the message
being delivered. So that is my hope for AHHS and
President Trump in the White House. Let's focus on who
is delivering the message because no one can argue with
the goal of making America healthy again. Thanks for listening
to Wellness Unmass on America's number one podcast network, iHeart.
(47:02):
Follow Wellness Unmasked with after Nicole Sapphire and start listening
on the free iHeartRadio app or wherever you get your podcasts,
and we will see you next time.
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show News
Hosts And Creators
Clay Travis
Buck Sexton
Show Links
WebsiteNewsletterPopular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
The Herd with Colin Cowherd
The Herd with Colin Cowherd is a thought-provoking, opinionated, and topic-driven journey through the top sports stories of the day.