July 30, 2025 • 26 mins
(July 30, 2025)
Ghislane Maxwell wants immunity before she will testify to Congress. EPA to revoke “endangerment finding,” landmark basis for regulating greenhouse gases. Dr. Jim Keany, Chief Medical Officer at Dignity Health St. Mary Medical Center in Long Beach, joins The Bill Handel Show for 'Medical News'! Dr. Keany talks with Bill about a study that has shown The Pandemic aged our brains faster, how many steps you need daily to combat diabetes, and prescription fluoride facing FDA scrutiny.
Ghislane Maxwell wants immunity before she will testify to Congress. EPA to revoke “endangerment finding,” landmark basis for regulating greenhouse gases. Dr. Jim Keany, Chief Medical Officer at Dignity Health St. Mary Medical Center in Long Beach, joins The Bill Handel Show for 'Medical News'! Dr. Keany talks with Bill about a study that has shown The Pandemic aged our brains faster, how many steps you need daily to combat diabetes, and prescription fluoride facing FDA scrutiny.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
You're listening to Bill Handle on demand from KFI AM
six forty. Hey, Am, I am six forty Go handle here.
Speaker 2 (00:09):
It's a day, July thirtieth, and it's gonna be another
well lovely day. In the meantime, the weather back east
is going crazy. They are under a heat spell in
New York and along the Eastern Seaboard. I mean, just
crazy stuff in the triple digits and in certain cities.
Speaker 1 (00:30):
What the heat index.
Speaker 2 (00:31):
You put together humidity and you put together the actual
heat it registers in your body one hundred and fifteen,
one hundred and twelve degrees and enough humidity so you
step outside and you feel like you've just got out
of a shower. I mean, it's just horrible stuff. So
welcome Southern California. This is why we live here, all right.
Story I want to share with you. We talked about
(00:53):
this during the news and that said Julaane Maxwell. And
she is in prison, as we know, for twenty years
for effectively pimping for Jeffrey Epstein and moving young girls
over to Epstein's island on his plane and grooming them
and bringing them to his place in New York. And
(01:17):
this was over the years and she was convicted for that,
and as I said, given twenty years now she is
up on the Supreme Court arguing, and it's the technical
argument because Jeffrey Epstein, in his conviction had pled and
part of the plea the first time out, we only
got one year in jail. Can you imagine that as
part of the plea he was granted immunity as to
(01:40):
anything else, and his cohorts were also granted immunity. She's
arguing that that protects her and therefore she should not
have been prosecuted and therefore the entire case should be
thrown out against her because she has protected under that arrangement.
(02:02):
We'll see what the Supreme Court has to say. So
what's the story here, Well, it all has to do
with that list, the Epstein list, and what's that about. Well,
this list, which does or does not exist, and the
political fallout on that one is insane. Has to do
with how many of the high rollers, major players were
(02:26):
hanging involved with the sexual escapades of Jeffrey Epstein. And
the big one of course is Donald Trump. How well
did Donald Trump know Epstein? We know he did, We
know they partied together because on the record that has
(02:47):
been said, Donald Trump admitted that. Now obviously not as
to parting with young girls. I don't think Donald Trump
ever did, just based on an interview that Stein's brother said,
because he was hanging out and he said that Epstein
and Trump would hang out together and go after women
(03:08):
and do all the womanizing that we all know Trump did.
But his thing was models, you know, models in their twenties.
It just wasn't his thing. And I believe that. But
how involved is Trump with Epstein or how involved was Trump?
Now here is the problem. The conspiracy theorists were going
(03:32):
crazy that there was this file, this Epstein file that
named major players, including Donald Trump, and it was hidden
by the government. The deep state was hiding a lot
of people that shouldn't be protected. Okay, well the deep
state now gets to be in power. Now they're the administration,
(03:56):
and all of a sudden, that conspiracy that the government
is holding onto that where is that stuff? Well now
the government says, ah, well, we really don't have it,
even though Pam Bondy, the Attorney General, had said, yeah,
it's on my desk, that file is on my desk.
Speaker 1 (04:12):
All right.
Speaker 2 (04:13):
Now we're talking about interest on a level that is
kind of crazy.
Speaker 1 (04:19):
Well, let's see it.
Speaker 2 (04:20):
It's on your desk. It's finally come out. And then
a few days later, no, it really doesn't exist.
Speaker 1 (04:27):
But wait a minute. You were the guys that said
it existed.
Speaker 2 (04:30):
You were the guys that said that the government was
hiding yet when it was a Biden administration, when it
was the Obama administration.
Speaker 1 (04:37):
You were the ones that said that, yeah, but it does.
It really doesn't exist.
Speaker 2 (04:41):
Now you've got the MAGA supporters that are going crazy
because they want to know and they want transparency, and
Donald Trump is getting nailed on this one.
Speaker 1 (04:52):
The Trump administration is getting nailed. So while all of.
Speaker 2 (04:55):
This is going on, you've got Glen Maxwell, who actually
knows everything, and they want her to testify.
Speaker 1 (05:04):
Congress wants her to testify.
Speaker 2 (05:07):
Well, she's saying, I'll be more than happy to testify,
but I have to have immunity and we have to
wait till after the Supreme Court makes a decision because
i have to know where I stand and I'm not
going to testify where I'm in jail down here. That
is not going to happen because sometimes they do testimony
on zoom whatever and she goes, that's not going to happen,
(05:29):
and those are the terms. It's one of those things
where everybody in prison, if the government wants something, you
cut a deal of some kind, even if it is horrific,
to the point where let's say you have a serial
killer who is obviously in max a maximum security prison
(05:50):
and has the information as to people that he has
killed and bodies that are out there. You can cut
a deal saying I'll tell you where those bodies are,
if you give me a better place to stay, if
you take me out of that prison and move to
another prison. In lesser cases is if you reduce my sentence.
(06:10):
It goes across the board. And what she is saying,
here's her deal, is I want immunity because whatever I say,
I don't want to be able to be you. She
was convicted in the Southern District in Florida. That doesn't
mean New York can't go after her for what she
did in New York. And she is saying, uh uh,
(06:32):
I want immunity, no matter what. Now, that's limited immunity.
Means what she says in front of Congress, that's the
limited immunity.
Speaker 1 (06:41):
You don't get total immunity.
Speaker 2 (06:43):
Well sometimes you do, but all she's asking for is
limited immunity. Happens all the time, so it's only what
you say here can't be used against you. And if
you say something else at the time before and you've
implicated or have been implicated, that doesn't mean you're going.
Speaker 1 (06:58):
To get off.
Speaker 2 (07:00):
So we're gonna see the number two at the Justice Apartment,
and that is Pam Beyond these second went down to
Tallahassee and interviewed her over two days, nine hours. What
did he talk about, We don't know. They're not releasing
that information. The only thing her attorney says is she
(07:21):
answered every single question and gave him every answer that
he asked for.
Speaker 1 (07:27):
Have no idea what's going on.
Speaker 2 (07:30):
But in the end, this is a political volcano with
this list, and it won't go away. It won't go away.
And here's another problem, is is she lying because we
know she's a liar. That's on the record. She wasn't
(07:50):
tried for perjury, by the way, because she was tried
for the sex crimes.
Speaker 1 (07:55):
But we know that she's a liar.
Speaker 2 (07:56):
So Mike Johnson, of course, in anticipation of her coming
out and an anti Trump statement, already said she's a liar.
Speaker 1 (08:05):
We can't believe her. Now, if she.
Speaker 2 (08:08):
Says that Donald Trump had nothing to do at all
with Jeff Epstein, then Mike Johnson will say she's telling
me the truth in this case. You know that's going
to happen. It is just crazy. So we'll see how
this pans out. I yeah, I don't even know, can't
even guess. All right, I've been talking about climate change now.
(08:31):
I'm a big believer in climate change, have been forever.
Truly believe that fossil fuels exacerbate climate change. Even with
the argument saying it's a natural reoccurrence.
Speaker 1 (08:44):
We go through cycles, that's fine.
Speaker 2 (08:46):
Fossil fuels exacerbate, exacerbate all it completely. So when you're
talking about this administration, one of two things is happening.
Either climate change doesn't exist it's a hoax, or if
it does exist, the regulatory functions the fossil fuels, the
(09:07):
allowance of fossil fuels, are not stopping them. Has nothing
to do with climate change. It's almost incidental. So with that,
the EPA has just done something and it is revoking
a finding published six years ago, sixteen years ago that
six greenhouse gases are a threat to public health. And
are regulated under the Clean Air Act. That's really important here.
(09:31):
So it's down as the endangerment finding two thousand and nine,
and since then, the EPA has regulated greenhouse gas emissions
for cars, also for power plants, I mean, just across
the board. In terms of fossil fuels, the EPA regulates that.
Speaker 1 (09:49):
That is gone finished.
Speaker 2 (09:53):
Administrator Lee Zelden announced the agency is revoking it, calling
it the largest deregulatory act in the history of America.
And the finding is being used by the EPA to
regulate all of it. The EPA will not be able
to use it because the EPA now has no function,
(10:13):
cannot use the proof that fossil fuels actually cause climate change,
can't use it doesn't exist, oh Man. Zelden criticized this
endangerment finding, where in two thousand and nine the EPA said, okay,
these are the six gases. A court case went all
(10:34):
the way up the Supreme Court said the EPA can
use these findings and can control under the Clean Air
Act the kind of pollution that is produced by power
plants and cars and transportation and oil drilling, all of it,
and he criticized. Zelden criticized that initial finding said it
(10:57):
put too many regulatory restrictions on transportation and stationary sources
of greenhouse gas pollution.
Speaker 1 (11:05):
And here's this quote.
Speaker 2 (11:07):
There are people who, in the name of climate change,
are willing to bankrupt the country to argue that there
is climate change and to reduce the level of fossil
fuels by law, which the EPA is able to do
based on that twenty sixteen finding and the Supreme Court, no,
(11:34):
not anymore. Zelden says it's going to bankrupt the country.
Has it been not particularly And he said that regulating
climate pollution costs Americans too much money. And he said
this proposed finding, if it is finalized, because it has
not yet been finalized, but they're on the way to
doing it, is expected to save Americans fifty four billion
(11:57):
dollars in costs annually. So let's go to the EPA
itself and their regulatorily Impact report.
Speaker 1 (12:07):
Here's what they say.
Speaker 2 (12:09):
Limiting emissions for cars and trucks is expected to generate
more than two point one trillion dollars in net benefits
over the next thirty years, eight and twenty billion dollars
just in fuel savings. Because, of course, Zelden didn't take
that into effect. He's only cost talking about the regulatory
(12:31):
aspects of it, having to build more efficient cars, having
to make fossil fuel plants far more efficient, moving over
to the ev world, one point eight trillion dollars in
public health and climate benefits according to the EPs EPA itself,
and he's the administrator. Well, that's going to change around
(12:55):
because all of those findings, the fact that we're going
to be able to buy gas without any restrictions going
to You're going to see all pollution controls gone because
they are controls, because they're regulatory. It's almost like saying,
(13:21):
and here's the analogy. I think every place where there
is a speed limit which restricts our ability to drive
one hundred miles an hour is too regulatory. We have
the right to drive one hundred miles an hour and
you can't restrict it because the government should not be involved.
(13:44):
It makes no sense that I can go on and
on because that I think that analogy goes. But you
know what, I'm not too thrilled with this obviously at all.
And so the release that is now coming out that
the EPA will update scientific data and challenge the assumptions
(14:05):
of that finding in two thousand and nine in an
upcoming study from the Department of Energy, and they're working
on their twenty twenty five Climate work Group not yet available.
And this upcoming study is coming from the Department of Energy,
which of course is part of the executive branch. And
(14:28):
all of this is part of this philosophy. Woke has
destroyed America. Pollution controls is are bankrupting the United States.
We're losing a fortune. Ignore the fact that pollution is
costing lives and it really hurts us in the health world.
Speaker 1 (14:47):
That doesn't matter. As a matter of fact. Let me
go beyond that.
Speaker 2 (14:50):
Climate change isn't real. It just doesn't exist. It's fake news.
And that's exactly what's being said by the EPA under
Zelden and their new philosophy. I got to tell you
the world is different now, I will. I'll also tell
you that the next administration, if it is a democratic administration,
(15:15):
they're going.
Speaker 1 (15:15):
To go the other way.
Speaker 2 (15:17):
UH. The EPA is going to do UH is going
to look at life a whole lot differently than it
does right now, all right, doctor Jim Keeney, We asked
Jim anything, Doctor Jim Keeney, notice that segue. See how
good I am chief medical officer for Dignity Saint Mary
Medical Center in Long Beach. So, Jim, let me throw
(15:41):
a couple questions at you open superating sores where you
have a flesh eating bacteria.
Speaker 1 (15:47):
You run across those a lot?
Speaker 3 (15:50):
Yeah, we actually do sometimes from time to time.
Speaker 2 (15:54):
Let me ask you, does ever get so crazy that
you go to other doctors on the floor, go, you
got to come in and see this one and this
one's a beauty.
Speaker 1 (16:02):
You ever say that?
Speaker 3 (16:02):
Yeah? Yeah, yeah, we actually do quite a bit. You know,
you got to you gotta enjoy your work.
Speaker 2 (16:09):
No, I completely agreed. Let's get serious just a moment.
See you took me for a loop on that one.
You know it's crazy. I go, yeah, yeah, we've done it.
I had said. When the pandemic started and it really
hit us, I said, we don't even begin to understand
how the pandemic has hit society. And that's with a
million people dying Americans, and how we had to basically
(16:37):
bunker down in place and restaurants of course we're closed.
Speaker 1 (16:42):
A study just came out. I want you to comment
comment on it.
Speaker 2 (16:45):
The pandemic actually aged our brains faster.
Speaker 1 (16:48):
Even if we didn't get COVID explained that. Please.
Speaker 3 (16:52):
Yeah, I mean, because let's face it, the pandemic, which
continues is has created all to stressors on us, you know,
social stress, disrupting our routines, you know, economic stress. So
it's not just the virus itself that's probably contributing to this.
Although people with that did have COVID and even mild
(17:16):
illness had additional cognitive declines compared to people you know,
who didn't have the virus, So we know that that
the whole thing. I mean, it's you know, it's going
to quickly get political and people are going to say, well,
let's shut down to this and that. And it's true
that being socially isolated, we know has a significant impact
on mental flexibility, processing speed, you know, just your whole
(17:40):
kind of cognitive abilities. But when we look at countries
where that didn't have lockdowns, like Sweden and elsewhere, they
also showed you know, increases in depression, increases in in anxiety,
and all other kinds of mental illness as well. So
you know, I'm sure being socially isolated made it absolutely worse.
Speaker 2 (18:04):
A question about longevity and in the United States, we
sort of, I think, hit a point that then has
started going south. I've heard because of the opiate crisis,
because of COVID, because of the fact that, as you say,
we're becoming more isolated, and I understand that our lifespan
(18:27):
has actually dropped a couple of years from its height.
Do you see us going back to where it was
and then increasing again, our our longevity increasing again.
Speaker 3 (18:40):
Yeah, So, I mean I think that's what you're asking here,
is like reversibility of this, right, Can we do anything
to reverse the effects of the stress that we experience
with modern life in general and with this COVID thing
that we just went through. And yeah, I think it
is possible to reverse it, because you know, we do
(19:02):
need to be aware of what's caused the problems and
what we need to do to correct it instead of
kind of doubling down on isolation and doubling down on
you know, spending more times on our phones and on
screens and inactive So definitely, I mean Number one, sleep
is you know, disruptive sleep is going to mess everything up.
That's kind of the foundation that you build everything on.
(19:25):
Number two is going to be exercised and good nutrition
and these hyper palatable foods are kind of killing us,
and so we need to get back to you know,
clean eating and then being active and just getting out.
And you know, it does lead into another article we're
going to talk about hopefully today about you know, getting
some getting your steps in, but just you know, not
(19:47):
crazy activity, not going out and doing you know, a
death workout, but just getting out and walking is really
been shown to be good enough to improve your health
and you're your mental hoping.
Speaker 2 (19:59):
Yeah, I'm I want to I want to talk about
that because as I've talked to you about this, we've
spoken I actually walk an hour a day now and
it increases my mental ability, cognitive abilities, even though I
always get lost and I'm walking the same circuit and
I never know what the hell I'm going.
Speaker 1 (20:18):
To I go left, do I go right?
Speaker 2 (20:20):
So for me it's not working, but realistically it's one
of the best things I can do. And I see,
I believe you on this one.
Speaker 1 (20:30):
I go to the gym.
Speaker 2 (20:31):
I have to tell you, when I go to the gym,
I insist on exercising near right next to fat old people.
Speaker 1 (20:39):
The last thing I need is those thirty year old
hard bodies.
Speaker 2 (20:42):
I can't stand that I'm going to blow my brains out,
all right, but that's different world, different time, all right, Jim,
back to well, what we were going to talk about
and are going to talk about, and that is combating
diabetes and heart disease by simply walking.
Speaker 1 (20:59):
And how much walking does it take for.
Speaker 2 (21:02):
Anybody to make some kind of you know, a real
hit on diabetes and heart disease.
Speaker 3 (21:10):
Yeah, So you know, there's a lot of people out
there now that track their steps, right, There's all kinds
of devices that do that. There's rings, there's phones, there's watches.
So people are doing it, and I hear a common
goal of ten thousand steps, which it's a pretty solid goal.
Speaker 1 (21:26):
You know.
Speaker 3 (21:26):
It's a great goal to have, but I think for
some people it maybe beyond what they can get in
in a day. And so I think this is important
because it can encourage people that any amount of steps
is good. They've noted by reviewing a bunch of articles
that they looked at this and said, look, this was
(21:47):
published by the Way in Lancet. They took thirty five
articles from twenty fourteen to twenty twenty five and involves
sixteen thousand adults and they looked at what the benefits are,
and even at four thousand steps a day, which is
less than half of what a lot of people's goals are,
they saw they saw a good benefit. They define low
(22:08):
activity as two thousand steps or lower, and so these
people benefited over people with low activity. But at seven
thousand it was a pretty impressive. I mean all clause
mortality was reduced by forty seven percent, curvaskisor disease by
twenty five percent, Dementia, depression, falls, cancer, and diabetes were
all reduced if you did seven thousand steps or more.
Speaker 2 (22:31):
So, you know, just good for people to know. Yeah,
I know, and that's good news, and I feel great
about it because I do. I don't know how many
steps I do. I know I walk fifty minutes to
an hour, so whatever that means. And I was thinking,
because we do these you come up with these stats
based on literature and based on news that has been published,
(22:52):
legitimate stuff, and you know, just said, for example, this
this is a forty seven percent drop in diabetes or
heart disease. And then if we follow all of those
where if we do a B and C or don't
do a B and C, we'll see a substantial drop
(23:13):
in insert name of every disease here. We're going to
lift one hundred and forty, aren't we, Jim. And if
we do some of that stuff, we're dying.
Speaker 3 (23:21):
Tomorrow exactly exactly, So you know, and it is it
sounds almost too good to be true with a lot
of these studies. If you start adding it all up,
you're right, it's like, you know, can we really live forever?
But it's just the significance of inactivity now there's not
you know, that level of activity is very harmful to
your health, it really is, and results in a lot
(23:44):
of problems just by being sedentary. So activity is super important. Now,
on the other side, you know this is a meta analysis.
Those have inherent flaws in them. Potentially they're super strong
because statistically you can say lot of good things. But
on the other hand, you know your mixing studies, you
don't know if you know their definition of a step
(24:06):
was the same in one study as the other. So
if we really get into the grow you know, analysis
of this no studies perfect, but you know this is
a very strong science, you know, scientific study with good
statistical significance.
Speaker 2 (24:21):
All right, one more thing I want to point out
or ask you about before we go when I have
a couple of minutes, and that is there is still
some discussion controversy about floride. I remember as a kid
they were going to Florida, Florida the drinking supply here
in Los Angeles, and it was hugely controversial. The Communists
(24:42):
are going to put in fluoride. It's it's a plot
to destroy our youth. Really, and now there's any kind
of controversy.
Speaker 1 (24:53):
Explain that to me. How you can say no to fluoride?
Speaker 3 (24:57):
Well, I mean, I think culturally right where we've made
this move, where paternalism is very much looked down on right,
it's not tolerated anymore. But public health is something where
you make decisions for large populations of people. And you know,
I don't see that as paternalistic, but some people do,
and so they're moving more towards this. Hey, we want
(25:18):
to we don't want to automatically make everyone take fluoride.
We want them to make that choice. Now, working in
Long Beach, I can tell you we have a lot
of people that are affected by social determinants of health,
which are things like their socio economic status. Can they
get to a doctor's appointment, Do they have insurance? Can
they pay for their medicines? You know, do they have transportation?
(25:40):
Do they have family members to support them if they
can't feed themselves, those types of things. So this, I
know what this is going to affect. It's going to
affect the population who can't afford to go out and
buy fluoride supplements. The rest of us, you know, rich
folks are going to say, oh no, we look at
the studies and fluoride reduces cavities, does not at these doses,
(26:01):
does not cause brain injury like they're suggesting, And it's
an overall benefit to your health and to your your
dental health as well, which is connected to overall health.
So this is going to impact poor people basically, people
are with pors socioeconomic status.
Speaker 1 (26:17):
Yeah, it's horrible.
Speaker 2 (26:18):
I'm hoping that at some point Robert Kennedy Junior is
giving a press conference and we actually see teeth falling
out of his mouth. That would be just tremendous. Jim,
A pleasure as always. We'll catch you next Wednesday. Go
kill someone, okay, all right, take care, all right, Jim,
Chief medical officer for Dignity Saint Mary Medical Center in
(26:41):
Long Beach.
Speaker 1 (26:42):
This is KFI AM sixty. You've been listening to the
Bill Handle Show.
Speaker 2 (26:47):
Catch my show Monday through Friday, six am to nine am,
and anytime on demand on the iHeartRadio app
You're listening to Bill Handle on demand from KFI AM
six forty. Hey, Am, I am six forty Go handle here.
Speaker 2 (00:09):
It's a day, July thirtieth, and it's gonna be another
well lovely day. In the meantime, the weather back east
is going crazy. They are under a heat spell in
New York and along the Eastern Seaboard. I mean, just
crazy stuff in the triple digits and in certain cities.
Speaker 1 (00:30):
What the heat index.
Speaker 2 (00:31):
You put together humidity and you put together the actual
heat it registers in your body one hundred and fifteen,
one hundred and twelve degrees and enough humidity so you
step outside and you feel like you've just got out
of a shower. I mean, it's just horrible stuff. So
welcome Southern California. This is why we live here, all right.
Story I want to share with you. We talked about
(00:53):
this during the news and that said Julaane Maxwell. And
she is in prison, as we know, for twenty years
for effectively pimping for Jeffrey Epstein and moving young girls
over to Epstein's island on his plane and grooming them
and bringing them to his place in New York. And
(01:17):
this was over the years and she was convicted for that,
and as I said, given twenty years now she is
up on the Supreme Court arguing, and it's the technical
argument because Jeffrey Epstein, in his conviction had pled and
part of the plea the first time out, we only
got one year in jail. Can you imagine that as
part of the plea he was granted immunity as to
(01:40):
anything else, and his cohorts were also granted immunity. She's
arguing that that protects her and therefore she should not
have been prosecuted and therefore the entire case should be
thrown out against her because she has protected under that arrangement.
(02:02):
We'll see what the Supreme Court has to say. So
what's the story here, Well, it all has to do
with that list, the Epstein list, and what's that about. Well,
this list, which does or does not exist, and the
political fallout on that one is insane. Has to do
with how many of the high rollers, major players were
(02:26):
hanging involved with the sexual escapades of Jeffrey Epstein. And
the big one of course is Donald Trump. How well
did Donald Trump know Epstein? We know he did, We
know they partied together because on the record that has
(02:47):
been said, Donald Trump admitted that. Now obviously not as
to parting with young girls. I don't think Donald Trump
ever did, just based on an interview that Stein's brother said,
because he was hanging out and he said that Epstein
and Trump would hang out together and go after women
(03:08):
and do all the womanizing that we all know Trump did.
But his thing was models, you know, models in their twenties.
It just wasn't his thing. And I believe that. But
how involved is Trump with Epstein or how involved was Trump?
Now here is the problem. The conspiracy theorists were going
(03:32):
crazy that there was this file, this Epstein file that
named major players, including Donald Trump, and it was hidden
by the government. The deep state was hiding a lot
of people that shouldn't be protected. Okay, well the deep
state now gets to be in power. Now they're the administration,
(03:56):
and all of a sudden, that conspiracy that the government
is holding onto that where is that stuff? Well now
the government says, ah, well, we really don't have it,
even though Pam Bondy, the Attorney General, had said, yeah,
it's on my desk, that file is on my desk.
Speaker 1 (04:12):
All right.
Speaker 2 (04:13):
Now we're talking about interest on a level that is
kind of crazy.
Speaker 1 (04:19):
Well, let's see it.
Speaker 2 (04:20):
It's on your desk. It's finally come out. And then
a few days later, no, it really doesn't exist.
Speaker 1 (04:27):
But wait a minute. You were the guys that said
it existed.
Speaker 2 (04:30):
You were the guys that said that the government was
hiding yet when it was a Biden administration, when it
was the Obama administration.
Speaker 1 (04:37):
You were the ones that said that, yeah, but it does.
It really doesn't exist.
Speaker 2 (04:41):
Now you've got the MAGA supporters that are going crazy
because they want to know and they want transparency, and
Donald Trump is getting nailed on this one.
Speaker 1 (04:52):
The Trump administration is getting nailed. So while all of.
Speaker 2 (04:55):
This is going on, you've got Glen Maxwell, who actually
knows everything, and they want her to testify.
Speaker 1 (05:04):
Congress wants her to testify.
Speaker 2 (05:07):
Well, she's saying, I'll be more than happy to testify,
but I have to have immunity and we have to
wait till after the Supreme Court makes a decision because
i have to know where I stand and I'm not
going to testify where I'm in jail down here. That
is not going to happen because sometimes they do testimony
on zoom whatever and she goes, that's not going to happen,
(05:29):
and those are the terms. It's one of those things
where everybody in prison, if the government wants something, you
cut a deal of some kind, even if it is horrific,
to the point where let's say you have a serial
killer who is obviously in max a maximum security prison
(05:50):
and has the information as to people that he has
killed and bodies that are out there. You can cut
a deal saying I'll tell you where those bodies are,
if you give me a better place to stay, if
you take me out of that prison and move to
another prison. In lesser cases is if you reduce my sentence.
(06:10):
It goes across the board. And what she is saying,
here's her deal, is I want immunity because whatever I say,
I don't want to be able to be you. She
was convicted in the Southern District in Florida. That doesn't
mean New York can't go after her for what she
did in New York. And she is saying, uh uh,
(06:32):
I want immunity, no matter what. Now, that's limited immunity.
Means what she says in front of Congress, that's the
limited immunity.
Speaker 1 (06:41):
You don't get total immunity.
Speaker 2 (06:43):
Well sometimes you do, but all she's asking for is
limited immunity. Happens all the time, so it's only what
you say here can't be used against you. And if
you say something else at the time before and you've
implicated or have been implicated, that doesn't mean you're going.
Speaker 1 (06:58):
To get off.
Speaker 2 (07:00):
So we're gonna see the number two at the Justice Apartment,
and that is Pam Beyond these second went down to
Tallahassee and interviewed her over two days, nine hours. What
did he talk about, We don't know. They're not releasing
that information. The only thing her attorney says is she
(07:21):
answered every single question and gave him every answer that
he asked for.
Speaker 1 (07:27):
Have no idea what's going on.
Speaker 2 (07:30):
But in the end, this is a political volcano with
this list, and it won't go away. It won't go away.
And here's another problem, is is she lying because we
know she's a liar. That's on the record. She wasn't
(07:50):
tried for perjury, by the way, because she was tried
for the sex crimes.
Speaker 1 (07:55):
But we know that she's a liar.
Speaker 2 (07:56):
So Mike Johnson, of course, in anticipation of her coming
out and an anti Trump statement, already said she's a liar.
Speaker 1 (08:05):
We can't believe her. Now, if she.
Speaker 2 (08:08):
Says that Donald Trump had nothing to do at all
with Jeff Epstein, then Mike Johnson will say she's telling
me the truth in this case. You know that's going
to happen. It is just crazy. So we'll see how
this pans out. I yeah, I don't even know, can't
even guess. All right, I've been talking about climate change now.
(08:31):
I'm a big believer in climate change, have been forever.
Truly believe that fossil fuels exacerbate climate change. Even with
the argument saying it's a natural reoccurrence.
Speaker 1 (08:44):
We go through cycles, that's fine.
Speaker 2 (08:46):
Fossil fuels exacerbate, exacerbate all it completely. So when you're
talking about this administration, one of two things is happening.
Either climate change doesn't exist it's a hoax, or if
it does exist, the regulatory functions the fossil fuels, the
(09:07):
allowance of fossil fuels, are not stopping them. Has nothing
to do with climate change. It's almost incidental. So with that,
the EPA has just done something and it is revoking
a finding published six years ago, sixteen years ago that
six greenhouse gases are a threat to public health. And
are regulated under the Clean Air Act. That's really important here.
(09:31):
So it's down as the endangerment finding two thousand and nine,
and since then, the EPA has regulated greenhouse gas emissions
for cars, also for power plants, I mean, just across
the board. In terms of fossil fuels, the EPA regulates that.
Speaker 1 (09:49):
That is gone finished.
Speaker 2 (09:53):
Administrator Lee Zelden announced the agency is revoking it, calling
it the largest deregulatory act in the history of America.
And the finding is being used by the EPA to
regulate all of it. The EPA will not be able
to use it because the EPA now has no function,
(10:13):
cannot use the proof that fossil fuels actually cause climate change,
can't use it doesn't exist, oh Man. Zelden criticized this
endangerment finding, where in two thousand and nine the EPA said, okay,
these are the six gases. A court case went all
(10:34):
the way up the Supreme Court said the EPA can
use these findings and can control under the Clean Air
Act the kind of pollution that is produced by power
plants and cars and transportation and oil drilling, all of it,
and he criticized. Zelden criticized that initial finding said it
(10:57):
put too many regulatory restrictions on transportation and stationary sources
of greenhouse gas pollution.
Speaker 1 (11:05):
And here's this quote.
Speaker 2 (11:07):
There are people who, in the name of climate change,
are willing to bankrupt the country to argue that there
is climate change and to reduce the level of fossil
fuels by law, which the EPA is able to do
based on that twenty sixteen finding and the Supreme Court, no,
(11:34):
not anymore. Zelden says it's going to bankrupt the country.
Has it been not particularly And he said that regulating
climate pollution costs Americans too much money. And he said
this proposed finding, if it is finalized, because it has
not yet been finalized, but they're on the way to
doing it, is expected to save Americans fifty four billion
(11:57):
dollars in costs annually. So let's go to the EPA
itself and their regulatorily Impact report.
Speaker 1 (12:07):
Here's what they say.
Speaker 2 (12:09):
Limiting emissions for cars and trucks is expected to generate
more than two point one trillion dollars in net benefits
over the next thirty years, eight and twenty billion dollars
just in fuel savings. Because, of course, Zelden didn't take
that into effect. He's only cost talking about the regulatory
(12:31):
aspects of it, having to build more efficient cars, having
to make fossil fuel plants far more efficient, moving over
to the ev world, one point eight trillion dollars in
public health and climate benefits according to the EPs EPA itself,
and he's the administrator. Well, that's going to change around
(12:55):
because all of those findings, the fact that we're going
to be able to buy gas without any restrictions going
to You're going to see all pollution controls gone because
they are controls, because they're regulatory. It's almost like saying,
(13:21):
and here's the analogy. I think every place where there
is a speed limit which restricts our ability to drive
one hundred miles an hour is too regulatory. We have
the right to drive one hundred miles an hour and
you can't restrict it because the government should not be involved.
(13:44):
It makes no sense that I can go on and
on because that I think that analogy goes. But you
know what, I'm not too thrilled with this obviously at all.
And so the release that is now coming out that
the EPA will update scientific data and challenge the assumptions
(14:05):
of that finding in two thousand and nine in an
upcoming study from the Department of Energy, and they're working
on their twenty twenty five Climate work Group not yet available.
And this upcoming study is coming from the Department of Energy,
which of course is part of the executive branch. And
(14:28):
all of this is part of this philosophy. Woke has
destroyed America. Pollution controls is are bankrupting the United States.
We're losing a fortune. Ignore the fact that pollution is
costing lives and it really hurts us in the health world.
Speaker 1 (14:47):
That doesn't matter. As a matter of fact. Let me
go beyond that.
Speaker 2 (14:50):
Climate change isn't real. It just doesn't exist. It's fake news.
And that's exactly what's being said by the EPA under
Zelden and their new philosophy. I got to tell you
the world is different now, I will. I'll also tell
you that the next administration, if it is a democratic administration,
(15:15):
they're going.
Speaker 1 (15:15):
To go the other way.
Speaker 2 (15:17):
UH. The EPA is going to do UH is going
to look at life a whole lot differently than it
does right now, all right, doctor Jim Keeney, We asked
Jim anything, Doctor Jim Keeney, notice that segue. See how
good I am chief medical officer for Dignity Saint Mary
Medical Center in Long Beach. So, Jim, let me throw
(15:41):
a couple questions at you open superating sores where you
have a flesh eating bacteria.
Speaker 1 (15:47):
You run across those a lot?
Speaker 3 (15:50):
Yeah, we actually do sometimes from time to time.
Speaker 2 (15:54):
Let me ask you, does ever get so crazy that
you go to other doctors on the floor, go, you
got to come in and see this one and this
one's a beauty.
Speaker 1 (16:02):
You ever say that?
Speaker 3 (16:02):
Yeah? Yeah, yeah, we actually do quite a bit. You know,
you got to you gotta enjoy your work.
Speaker 2 (16:09):
No, I completely agreed. Let's get serious just a moment.
See you took me for a loop on that one.
You know it's crazy. I go, yeah, yeah, we've done it.
I had said. When the pandemic started and it really
hit us, I said, we don't even begin to understand
how the pandemic has hit society. And that's with a
million people dying Americans, and how we had to basically
(16:37):
bunker down in place and restaurants of course we're closed.
Speaker 1 (16:42):
A study just came out. I want you to comment
comment on it.
Speaker 2 (16:45):
The pandemic actually aged our brains faster.
Speaker 1 (16:48):
Even if we didn't get COVID explained that. Please.
Speaker 3 (16:52):
Yeah, I mean, because let's face it, the pandemic, which
continues is has created all to stressors on us, you know,
social stress, disrupting our routines, you know, economic stress. So
it's not just the virus itself that's probably contributing to this.
Although people with that did have COVID and even mild
(17:16):
illness had additional cognitive declines compared to people you know,
who didn't have the virus, So we know that that
the whole thing. I mean, it's you know, it's going
to quickly get political and people are going to say, well,
let's shut down to this and that. And it's true
that being socially isolated, we know has a significant impact
on mental flexibility, processing speed, you know, just your whole
(17:40):
kind of cognitive abilities. But when we look at countries
where that didn't have lockdowns, like Sweden and elsewhere, they
also showed you know, increases in depression, increases in in anxiety,
and all other kinds of mental illness as well. So
you know, I'm sure being socially isolated made it absolutely worse.
Speaker 2 (18:04):
A question about longevity and in the United States, we
sort of, I think, hit a point that then has
started going south. I've heard because of the opiate crisis,
because of COVID, because of the fact that, as you say,
we're becoming more isolated, and I understand that our lifespan
(18:27):
has actually dropped a couple of years from its height.
Do you see us going back to where it was
and then increasing again, our our longevity increasing again.
Speaker 3 (18:40):
Yeah, So, I mean I think that's what you're asking here,
is like reversibility of this, right, Can we do anything
to reverse the effects of the stress that we experience
with modern life in general and with this COVID thing
that we just went through. And yeah, I think it
is possible to reverse it, because you know, we do
(19:02):
need to be aware of what's caused the problems and
what we need to do to correct it instead of
kind of doubling down on isolation and doubling down on
you know, spending more times on our phones and on
screens and inactive So definitely, I mean Number one, sleep
is you know, disruptive sleep is going to mess everything up.
That's kind of the foundation that you build everything on.
(19:25):
Number two is going to be exercised and good nutrition
and these hyper palatable foods are kind of killing us,
and so we need to get back to you know,
clean eating and then being active and just getting out.
And you know, it does lead into another article we're
going to talk about hopefully today about you know, getting
some getting your steps in, but just you know, not
(19:47):
crazy activity, not going out and doing you know, a
death workout, but just getting out and walking is really
been shown to be good enough to improve your health
and you're your mental hoping.
Speaker 2 (19:59):
Yeah, I'm I want to I want to talk about
that because as I've talked to you about this, we've
spoken I actually walk an hour a day now and
it increases my mental ability, cognitive abilities, even though I
always get lost and I'm walking the same circuit and
I never know what the hell I'm going.
Speaker 1 (20:18):
To I go left, do I go right?
Speaker 2 (20:20):
So for me it's not working, but realistically it's one
of the best things I can do. And I see,
I believe you on this one.
Speaker 1 (20:30):
I go to the gym.
Speaker 2 (20:31):
I have to tell you, when I go to the gym,
I insist on exercising near right next to fat old people.
Speaker 1 (20:39):
The last thing I need is those thirty year old
hard bodies.
Speaker 2 (20:42):
I can't stand that I'm going to blow my brains out,
all right, but that's different world, different time, all right, Jim,
back to well, what we were going to talk about
and are going to talk about, and that is combating
diabetes and heart disease by simply walking.
Speaker 1 (20:59):
And how much walking does it take for.
Speaker 2 (21:02):
Anybody to make some kind of you know, a real
hit on diabetes and heart disease.
Speaker 3 (21:10):
Yeah, So you know, there's a lot of people out
there now that track their steps, right, There's all kinds
of devices that do that. There's rings, there's phones, there's watches.
So people are doing it, and I hear a common
goal of ten thousand steps, which it's a pretty solid goal.
Speaker 1 (21:26):
You know.
Speaker 3 (21:26):
It's a great goal to have, but I think for
some people it maybe beyond what they can get in
in a day. And so I think this is important
because it can encourage people that any amount of steps
is good. They've noted by reviewing a bunch of articles
that they looked at this and said, look, this was
(21:47):
published by the Way in Lancet. They took thirty five
articles from twenty fourteen to twenty twenty five and involves
sixteen thousand adults and they looked at what the benefits are,
and even at four thousand steps a day, which is
less than half of what a lot of people's goals are,
they saw they saw a good benefit. They define low
(22:08):
activity as two thousand steps or lower, and so these
people benefited over people with low activity. But at seven
thousand it was a pretty impressive. I mean all clause
mortality was reduced by forty seven percent, curvaskisor disease by
twenty five percent, Dementia, depression, falls, cancer, and diabetes were
all reduced if you did seven thousand steps or more.
Speaker 2 (22:31):
So, you know, just good for people to know. Yeah,
I know, and that's good news, and I feel great
about it because I do. I don't know how many
steps I do. I know I walk fifty minutes to
an hour, so whatever that means. And I was thinking,
because we do these you come up with these stats
based on literature and based on news that has been published,
(22:52):
legitimate stuff, and you know, just said, for example, this
this is a forty seven percent drop in diabetes or
heart disease. And then if we follow all of those
where if we do a B and C or don't
do a B and C, we'll see a substantial drop
(23:13):
in insert name of every disease here. We're going to
lift one hundred and forty, aren't we, Jim. And if
we do some of that stuff, we're dying.
Speaker 3 (23:21):
Tomorrow exactly exactly, So you know, and it is it
sounds almost too good to be true with a lot
of these studies. If you start adding it all up,
you're right, it's like, you know, can we really live forever?
But it's just the significance of inactivity now there's not
you know, that level of activity is very harmful to
your health, it really is, and results in a lot
(23:44):
of problems just by being sedentary. So activity is super important. Now,
on the other side, you know this is a meta analysis.
Those have inherent flaws in them. Potentially they're super strong
because statistically you can say lot of good things. But
on the other hand, you know your mixing studies, you
don't know if you know their definition of a step
(24:06):
was the same in one study as the other. So
if we really get into the grow you know, analysis
of this no studies perfect, but you know this is
a very strong science, you know, scientific study with good
statistical significance.
Speaker 2 (24:21):
All right, one more thing I want to point out
or ask you about before we go when I have
a couple of minutes, and that is there is still
some discussion controversy about floride. I remember as a kid
they were going to Florida, Florida the drinking supply here
in Los Angeles, and it was hugely controversial. The Communists
(24:42):
are going to put in fluoride. It's it's a plot
to destroy our youth. Really, and now there's any kind
of controversy.
Speaker 1 (24:53):
Explain that to me. How you can say no to fluoride?
Speaker 3 (24:57):
Well, I mean, I think culturally right where we've made
this move, where paternalism is very much looked down on right,
it's not tolerated anymore. But public health is something where
you make decisions for large populations of people. And you know,
I don't see that as paternalistic, but some people do,
and so they're moving more towards this. Hey, we want
(25:18):
to we don't want to automatically make everyone take fluoride.
We want them to make that choice. Now, working in
Long Beach, I can tell you we have a lot
of people that are affected by social determinants of health,
which are things like their socio economic status. Can they
get to a doctor's appointment, Do they have insurance? Can
they pay for their medicines? You know, do they have transportation?
(25:40):
Do they have family members to support them if they
can't feed themselves, those types of things. So this, I
know what this is going to affect. It's going to
affect the population who can't afford to go out and
buy fluoride supplements. The rest of us, you know, rich
folks are going to say, oh no, we look at
the studies and fluoride reduces cavities, does not at these doses,
(26:01):
does not cause brain injury like they're suggesting, And it's
an overall benefit to your health and to your your
dental health as well, which is connected to overall health.
So this is going to impact poor people basically, people
are with pors socioeconomic status.
Speaker 1 (26:17):
Yeah, it's horrible.
Speaker 2 (26:18):
I'm hoping that at some point Robert Kennedy Junior is
giving a press conference and we actually see teeth falling
out of his mouth. That would be just tremendous. Jim,
A pleasure as always. We'll catch you next Wednesday. Go
kill someone, okay, all right, take care, all right, Jim,
Chief medical officer for Dignity Saint Mary Medical Center in
(26:41):
Long Beach.
Speaker 1 (26:42):
This is KFI AM sixty. You've been listening to the
Bill Handle Show.
Speaker 2 (26:47):
Catch my show Monday through Friday, six am to nine am,
and anytime on demand on the iHeartRadio app
The Bill Handel Show News
Popular 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.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Special Summer Offer: Exclusively on Apple Podcasts, try our Dateline Premium subscription completely free for one month! With Dateline Premium, you get every episode ad-free plus exclusive bonus content.