"Big Pharma Is Organized Crime" - Whistleblower Peter C. Gøtzsche REVEALS Pharma’s Dirty Secrets
Watch on YouTubeVideo summary
In this high-stakes interview, whistleblower Dr. Peter C. Gøtzsche argues that the business model of major pharmaceutical companies constitutes organized crime rather than legitimate commerce. Drawing on his background as a biologist who later became a doctor while working in the industry, he reveals how drug firms systematically manipulate clinical trials and bribe virtually every type of person they can reach, including FDA commissioners, health ministers, doctors, and politicians across both parties. Gøtzsche asserts that these companies have been convicted of more serious crimes than other industries because their profits rely on fraud, bribery, obstruction of justice, and embezzlement. He highlights the stark contrast between the United States and Europe, noting that while only New Zealand and the US allow direct advertising to consumers for prescription drugs—a practice he deems harmful—the Nordic countries maintain superior health outcomes through robust public healthcare systems focused on family doctors rather than specialists who drive overdiagnosis and overtreatment with expensive medications. The discussion delves deeply into the dangers of psychiatric medication, which Gøtzsche identifies as a primary cause of death in America, surpassing heart disease and cancer when adverse effects are comprehensively counted. He critiques the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) for pathologizing normal human behaviors like grief or high energy levels into disorders such as depression and ADHD to facilitate drug sales. Citing research on SSRIs, he warns that these "happy pills" often cause severe sexual dysfunction, increase suicide risk in both children and adults, and can induce hostility and aggression rather than healing. He further challenges the debunked theory of a chemical imbalance causing mental illness, explaining how this myth prevents patients from seeking non-drug solutions like therapy or lifestyle changes, effectively trapping them on lifelong medication regimens that may worsen their condition over time. Gøtzsche extends his critique to cancer screening and vaccination policies, arguing that routine mammography leads to significant harm through false positives, overdiagnosis of harmless cell changes (carcinoma in situ), and unnecessary mastectomies without extending overall life expectancy. He also addresses the HPV vaccine controversy involving Merck, alleging fraud where serious neurological adverse events were omitted from safety reports submitted to journals like *The New England Journal of Medicine*. While acknowledging that some vaccines like measles reduce mortality beyond their specific disease prevention effects, he expresses concern over live attenuated versus dead vaccines and criticizes aggressive mandates during the COVID-19 pandemic. He notes that while lockdowns increased deaths from other causes by preventing people with heart conditions from seeking care, face masks were ineffective based on randomized trials, yet censorship of scientific debate reached unprecedented levels globally. Despite these severe criticisms, Gøtzsche expresses cautious optimism for America's future under new leadership at the NIH and CDC, specifically mentioning figures like Jay Paracharia and Martin Kulldorff who prioritize science over politics. He points to Sweden as a model country that avoided lockdowns while maintaining low excess mortality by following scientific evidence rather than political mandates. The interview concludes with an emphasis on individual responsibility; Gøtzsche urges patients not to blindly trust doctors or pharmaceutical marketing but instead to investigate the risks and benefits of prescribed drugs themselves using available data online. He promotes his books, including *Deadly Medicines and Organized Crime*, *Survival in an Overmedicated World*, and the upcoming work on Merck's HPV vaccine fraud, as essential resources for navigating a healthcare system he describes as dangerously over-medicated and corrupt.
Read the full video transcript
I learned that the business model of
drug companies is organized crime.
>> Why do you call them organized crime?
>> Every type of person that can be bribed
has been bribed. FDA commissioners, the
top guys at the FDA and even ministers
of health. How did they get away with
it?
>> The corruption is huge in America. The
drug industry has been convicted of more
crimes than other industries. I found
out that they had committed serious
crimes repeatedly.
>> The trust in a lot of institutions went
down. The trust in the US government
down. The trust in mainstream media
down. The trust in doctors down. The
trust in CDC down. The trust in World
Health Organization down.
>> Don't compare me with the CDC. It it is
actually the most corrupt of all
industries.
>> Where are you getting that data from?
30 seconds.
>> Did you ever think you were
supposed
[Applause]
The future looks bright.
>> My handshake is better than anything I
ever sign. It's right here.
>> You are a 101.
>> My son's right. I don't think I've ever
said this before.
All right. So, we have Dr. Peter Gochce
with us, the author of Deadly Medicines
and Organized Crime, how big pharma has
corrupted
uh the healthc care industry. And he's
also got a new book coming out called
How Merc and Drug Regulators Hit Serious
Harm of the HPV vaccine. Uh Dr. uh
Gutch, it's great to have you on the
podcast.
>> Thank you. So, you know, the the more I
read into you and the more interviews I
watch of you, you're a whistleblower
from 2000, from early days. You know, a
lot of times during co we saw a lot of
new doctors coming out and what they
were saying and they were blowing the
whistle. But you've been doing this for
a minute and your background started off
of, you know, a master in science and bi
in biology, chemistry in 1974 and then
you go work in the industry. You
actually sell some of the uh products in
big pharma. Then you go become a doctor
and then later on you see what's going
on and you kind of start blowing the
whistle saying, "Wait a minute. Let's
take a timeout. I don't think we're
going the right direction here." So if
you don't mind, what prompted me wanting
to do this interview with you is a few
weeks ago I was at a show called Jubilee
where 20 folks are 20 kids are sitting
next to me around me and they're
debating me on different topics. And one
of the girls said something about that
she's mentally ill. And when I asked
her, "Who told you you're mentally she
said herself and her team of doctors and
I I kind of want to go into that space.
I'll show the clip here in a minute, but
before we get started with that, if you
don't mind taking a minute or two and
just kind of share with the audience
your background, that'd be great.
>> As you say, I became a biologist at
first and didn't know what to do. So my
grandfather who was a doctor suggested I
went into the drug industry and I hadn't
been there for long before I realized
that uh these people were cheating on
the doctors so I couldn't stay there. So
I took the worst way out by taking a
whole new education becoming a doctor
while I still worked in the drug
industry. So that was pretty hard but
that's that's what I did.
>> Got it. And so when you got in a after
how much longer after you got in, you
learned uh about you know how it had
become a business and what they were
doing maybe wasn't a best solution. It
was more of a business than an actual
solution for the patient.
>> Well, I have always asked questions
since I was a little boy. And uh even
though I was a biologist and didn't know
much about drugs, it didn't take me long
before I found out that uh the uh
clinical trials had been manipulated and
what salespeople were telling doctors
were not correct. It was pretty easy to
find this out actually.
>> So what did you learn?
Well, um, some years later, as you say,
I wrote this book about organized crime.
So, um, I learned that the business
model of drug companies is organized
crime. Uh, I wasn't allowed to use this
term when I published an article in the
British Medical Journal because they are
so afraid that they might be sued by big
farmers. So, they called it corporate
crime. But it it's far worse than this.
It is organized crime according to US
law. That is their business model.
>> Unpack that for me because that's a
strong statement and I've seen you in
other videos, but maybe for some people
that haven't heard it, why do you call
them organized crime?
>> Oh, it's pretty simple really. I I went
out on the internet and uh I Googled the
10 biggest drug companies in the world
and I found out that they had committed
serious crimes repeatedly and had been
fined sometimes billions of dollars. uh
but it's a tiny bit actually compared to
what they earn by their crimes which is
why the crime crimes just continue and
according to US law the recordering act
organized crime is about doing things
repeatedly which can be fraud and that
is all over the place both in research
and marketing bribery political
corruption
obstruction of justice is embezzlement.
So these are things that you can see the
big pharma companies do all the time.
>> How do they get away with it? If that's
what they do, how do they get away with
it?
>> Well, now I'm talking to an American.
I I will tell you that's pretty obvious
actually.
uh the big farmer companies, they bribe
your politicians, both Republicans and
Democrats, and it's therefore very
difficult to do something effectively
against the organized crime.
It's very difficult to do anything with
them with the organized crime. Okay. So,
Dr. Gochef, if you don't mind going a
little bit deeper because right now like
I want the audience I've seen you speak
eloquently with getting into details of
what things you found. This is surface
level. Would you mind getting a little
bit deeper for the audience to
understand what you're saying?
>> Yes. For example, I wrote in my book
that virtually every type of person that
can be bribed has been bribed, including
FDA commissioners, the top guys at the
FDA, and even ministers of health. So,
it is very widespread to bribe people.
And of course, doctors are some of those
who are bribed the most. And if you work
in the industry, you start by buying the
top doctors, the professors and
department chairs. So when you look at
how much money these people earn in the
United States by being on a drug
company's advisory board or whatever
they do, these are obscene amounts uh
according to European standards. So the
corruption is huge in America.
It it is actually um the most corrupt of
all industries. It uh even supersedes
big oil and other industries. Uh so the
drug industry has been convicted of more
crimes and more serious crimes than
other industries. And this is absurd
because they are dealing with our
survival, our health. So it shouldn't be
that that way.
Um, okay. So how different is it the the
way big pharma can get away with things?
Because while you're saying this, we we
know these numbers. I mean, I'll pull up
this number here, Rob, if you want to
pull it up. The amount of lobbying that
we do in America versus by industry
versus other industries is not even
close. If you zoom in a little bit in
2024 leading lobby in industry by
industry Rob I can't see the top
industry in the US big pharma 293 in
millions then it's electronics then it's
insurance then it's real estate
securities oil gas uh oil and gas is
onethird of what we do with big farmer
so that validates it but I guess maybe
open it up because one thing that you'll
typically hear is the only two countries
in the world that they allow for big
pharma to advertise is New Zealand and
US. We've heard about that before. How
different is big pharma managed and
handled in Europe in the Middle East
Asia versus the way it's handled in US?
>> Uh I would say very differently. Um I
know Bob Kennedy personally. I met him
for the first time six years ago and Bob
has many good ideas about how to improve
the health of Americans and and one of
his uh most important ideas is to ban
commercials on prescription drugs
because we know that this is very
harmful for the population. And not only
that, it is also very costly for our
national economies to allow all these
nauseiating TV ads on American
television for example.
Yeah. But but how different is it in
Europe, Asia, Middle East, South,
Central America? Have you studied how it
is done? Maybe even where you are right
now. You're right now in Are you in
Copenhagen? Are you in uh
>> are you in Denmark? Okay. How different
is big pharma managed and handled in
Europe and Denmark?
>> Well, in one way, big pharma does
business in the same way in the whole
world. But as you said, it's only New
Zealand and United States that allows
direct advertising of prescription drugs
to consumers. So this makes a huge
difference and um I believe we can see
the outcome of this in national
statistics.
Uh for example
uh the last time I looked at this uh the
United States uh uses 18%
of his its gross national product on
healthcare. This is about double as much
as we do in Europe. And part of this is
because you have many middlemen in
healthcare that we don't have in Europe.
But also uh that you use drugs to an
extreme extent in United States even
very expensive drugs. And yet the net
outcome of all this is that Americans
have a shorter life on average than
Europeans even wealthy Americans. So
it's not a question of some Americans
being poor and not able to afford a good
living. Uh it is very much because of
overdiagnosis
and overt treatment with drugs.
Overdiagnosis and overt treatment of
drugs. Yeah. Uh I can I mean that's not
you know uh disputable that that is the
the first thing they do when you go see
a doctor. Hey, your kids got a ADHD.
here's the medicine. Hey, I'm having a
hard time mental illness. Hey, you know,
take this medicine, take that medicine
instead of maybe you have financial
issues, maybe you have family, maybe you
have certain things that you got to
address. So, there's no question. But
who's doing it right? Is there a case
study of a country where you've studied
to say this country does it right, we
should model after XYZ?
Well, um,
the Nordic countries, Sweden, Denmark,
Norway, Finland, and Iceland,
uh, they have actually been mentioned by
US politicians as something that America
should live up to. Uh, for example, we
have a national healthcare where we take
care of everybody. We don't need
insurance that many people can't even
afford in America. So the public health
care system is u very I believe very
beneficial and I can give you one
example that comes from America. Uh
quite some years ago, a very famous
study was published that looked at over
3,000 counties in America.
And that study found that for every 20%
more family doctors there were in a
county total mortality dropped by 6%.
These are incredible revelations and
I'll try to explain how can this be.
Well, one reason is that a family doctor
knows
the patients they have.
So they are not so keen to overdiagnose
and overt treat as specialists are.
they might be more reluctant to follow
guidelines because they know that this
particular person in this case it would
actually not be beneficial to follow the
guidelines. So they actually don't
prescribe a drug that is called for in
the guidelines. So this is one reason
why it is of great benefit for a country
to have very many family doctors and so
to speak to keep the specialists at arm
length
>> but you do the opposite in the United
States. So this is also a problem.
>> So we have more specialists than uh uh
family doctors.
>> Well I don't know your numbers. I just
know that you focus a lot on the
specialist rather than family doctors in
America.
>> Is that because it pays better?
>> Well, I don't know what the reason is,
but it would be beneficial for your
population if you had more family
doctors and fewer specialists.
>> Okay. So if we look at these numbers
here, as of 2022, there were
approximately 279,000
active primary care physicians, which
represents 29.9% of all active US
physicians.
This implies that 70%
are physicians and specialists.
Huh. So it's a it's roughly a
3:1 ratio. A little bit higher that 2:1
ratio. little bit higher than a 2:1
ratio, 2 and a half to one ratio when
we're looking at that. And Rob, if you
can go back to the other number that you
had that was interesting, the 2019 study
with the 3,000 counties in the US found
a direct correlation between the supply
of primary care physicians and improved
life expectancy and lower mortality
rates. While the study didn't
specifically site a 20% in increase, it
did establish that an increase of 10
primary care physicians per 100,000
people was associated with a 51 12 day
increase in life expectancy.
So if you take that to say 100 per
thousand that would be 515 which is a
year and a half.
That's interesting. The same increase of
10 PCB was include drop in mortality
rates from conditions like
cardiovascular disease, cancer,
respiratory illness which are often
addressed in primary care. Can you go a
little bit deeper with this topic of
primary uh family doctor versus
specialists?
>> Well, um first of all, this uh study you
just showed, I'm impressed about how
quickly your people can find relevant
information while we're talking. But the
study I talked about is a lot older. Th
this is not the same study. So but but
actually they they tend to show about
the same pattern I can see. And um when
we talk about drugs there is one thing
that is very important for me to tell
you and the audience
>> please. I have I have done
uh investigations on uh how many
patients our prescription drugs kill
and I have concluded in a article I
published recently that our prescription
drugs are the most important cause of
death.
They even supersede heart disease and
cancer. This is deeply shocking and
tells you a lot about how dangerous our
drugs are and how much they are overused
because the main killers
are opioids,
arthritis medications like Motrin which
you can buy over the counter.
And surprisingly for many people,
psychiatric drugs are a very big killer.
And if you look at these drug
categories,
we could easily reduce the consumption
of of these drugs by
90% and yet have a more healthy
population that would live longer. So
this reflects how terribly harmful drug
marketing is.
>> You said the most important was
prescription drugs. Not you didn't say
the worst. most important uh cause of
death is prescription drugs.
>> Yes, that's the main cause of death.
>> No, I know. But it's it's not you didn't
say it's the most. You said it's the
most important one. Uh
>> no, no, it is it is uh number one cause
of death ahead of heart disease and
cancer.
>> Rob, can you ver verify that
prescription drugs are the number one
cause of death ahead of uh ahead of
cardiovascular and cancer?
Yeah, it is. And uh when Bob Kennedy uh
testified in Congress uh when he ran for
the U post as Secretary of Health, he
mentioned my research on both hearing
days. But that was an older version
where I said that our drugs were the
third leading cause of death. I have now
concluded it is the leading cause of
death which should tell everybody that
they should be careful if they go to
their doctor also their family doctor
and come home with a prescription. They
should investigate themselves what are
the benefits and the harms of this drug
and is it really necessary? Is it too
dangerous for me to use this drug? So I
wrote a whole book uh helping people to
find reliable information on the
internet. It is called survival in an
overmedicated world. Look up the
evidence yourself. And people would
think that this is too difficult for me.
I'm not educated as a doctor. But it's
actually more easy than you would think.
So I have a lot of examples in that book
that shows people it's not so difficult
as you might think. And then you might
not go to the pharmacy. And this might
help you survive actually.
>> So uh uh can you go back to the other
source? So here Rob asked the question
uh is prescription the leading cause of
death uh in the US. CDC came back and
said number one is heart disease, number
two is cancer and then it goes into
unintentional injuries which include
drug overdose, you know, fentinyl,
opioids, all that other stuff. But it
also says on the bottom that some
researchers and it quotes you and we
didn't put your name in here. It quotes
you and says some researchers like Peter
Gochce in deadly medicine organized
crime argued that adverse effects of
properly prescribed medications are
underestimated and could rank as the
third leading cause of death if counted
comprehensively. But this is debated and
not reflected in CDC's official leading
cause table. So, how how are you getting
the source to say it's the leading cause
of death? Now, if it was a third a few
years ago, now it's the leading cause.
Where are you getting that data from?
>> Well, let me first say that the CDC is
not a reliable source of information.
This has become abundantly clear
recently. Bob Kennedy fired the whole
vaccine committee because several
members uh received money from the
vaccine industry. So now they have a a
much better committee and uh that will
also help American health no doubt. And
for example I have written a book about
vaccines where I document that what the
CDC
writes on their homepage about influenza
vaccinations
uh is sometimes totally wrong. They
write that these vaccines can uh help
people survive. This has never been
documented that they can decrease
hospitalizations and so on. Uh in
reality the the flu shots are not very
effective. So uh don't compare me with
the CDC. I believe this is not a
reliable organization. This has been
documented many times. And now you ask
me where do my data come from? Well,
that's very simple. I looked at the drug
groups that I was very familiar with and
uh then I looked up uh systematic
reviews of the randomized trials. How
many deaths were there on drug? How many
deaths on placebo? And then I had usage
statistics. I could see how many people
were on these drugs. And in in some
cases there weren't good randomized
trials. But then I used the best
observational studies I could find where
there was a comparison group that was
very much alike the group that was
treated but which was untreated and then
you could could see what the mortality
was in these two groups and uh I will
give you one example that will uh be
surprising for people. Uh
anti-depressants are among the most used
drugs at all. oneif of all Americans are
on an anti-depressants
anti-depressants every day. Uh but when
you give drugs that affect brain
functions,
they become problematic when you get
older because you might lose your
balance and if you fall and break your
hip,
one fifth of the patients will be dead
within the next year. So one reason why
anti-depressants kill very many drugs uh
very many people is that it is being
used by very many elderly people and
some of these fall and die.
This will surprise many people but it
should not be surprising because I mean
if you drink alcohol you will also have
balance problems. Everything that
affects the brain can give you balance
problems.
>> Okay. So, let me be the devil's advocate
and just say, you know, uh uh then why
are people living longer? Cuz somebody
in medicine is going to sit there and
say, I totally understand what the, you
know, uh the Prozac, and we're going to
get into that because I'm going to show
you the clip here because I want to know
what you're going to say about this. But
some may say, well, doc, then why are
people living longer? Life expectancy,
you know, 100 years ago was not what it
is today. 50 years ago is not what it is
today. What is the cause of us living
longer? Oh, is it because of medicine?
Is it because of better advancement in
science? Is it because of why are we
living longer? What would you say to
that?
>> Well, this is not really my uh area of
research, but um what I have read is
that there is good agreement that the
increase in longevity
is not due to drugs.
It is due to uh social factors that
people have become more wealthy. They
eat better food generally. They exercise
a lot. If you compare people at my age
with my grandparents generation,
they were generally fat. They ate far
too much. And uh exercise,
they had partly heard of it. doing
sports, they didn't do that. Not even
when they were young, most of them. So,
uh, exercise is very helpful for our
longevity. We know that. So, there are
many factors that are not drugs that
help help us live much longer today.
Does that resonate with you?
>> Yeah. I don't know because when you said
that, you said your grandparents were
much fatter than you. I just typed in
right now. Are we fatter today or 100
years ago? just to kind of see what
numbers it it'll bring up. And it says
in the 1920s and 1930s, obesity was
rare. Estimates suggest that only about
one or 3% of adults were obese versus
today 42% are obese today. And that
number is uh uh astronomically increased
since then and a wider change. Food
supply, you know, shifted from uh fresh
and local to processed, high sugar, high
fat, you know, portion sizes. We eat a
lot more physical activity. It says it's
lowered a little bit because we're
behind the computer more. Uh so it's
interesting because I'm trying I I I
read a book one time by Ken Langon. He
is one of the original guys of Home
Depot. He's an he's a eight billion guy,
wealthy guy. He's made a lot of money
for himself, successful. He wrote a book
called I Love Capitalism. And in the
book, I love capitalism, he talks about
how his father died at 62 years old and
if blood thinners were around then, his
dad would have lived to 85. And he says,
"I've been on blood thinners for 30
years." That's what his claim is. So to
me, I I have a I'm trying to keep a
balance on where did they get it right
and where did the abuse come in. For
example, I'm going to show you this
clip. Rob, if you can pull up play this
clip. This last four weeks ago, I'm in a
room with 20 kids
politically. They're all, you know, uh
um socialists and some communists.
They're making the argument of
capitalism and anti- capitalism. I'm the
capitalist. They're the 20 capitalist
anti- capitalist. And they're debating
me. One of the girls I talked to, she
says she is mentally ill. And I want you
to see this exchange and you tell me how
we got here. Go ahead, Rob. mentally
ill. So, that was something I had to
deal with. But, um, I'm mainly mentally
ill because I am disabled in a
capitalist country.
>> Tell me more about mentally ill. Who
qualified you as somebody that's
mentally ill?
>> Um, me and my doctor team.
>> Who who who convinced you that you're
mentally ill?
>> Um, me and my doctor team.
>> What's the specific uh category of
mental illness? Is there one?
>> You know why I asked this question? Let
me explain why I asked this question.
>> I don't even like the psychological
industry. I don't really stand for like
sigman freudian politics or anything
like that. I don't have access to even a
result or a solution to my disability as
someone with a connective tissue
disorder. It's genetic.
>> Have you been able to go to different
doctors and get yourself tested and say
you have?
>> Yes.
>> And in California?
>> Yes. But not enough. I I can't find a
specialist.
>> You can't find a specialist.
>> Can't find a specialist.
>> Is there anyone in your life that's
willing to find a specialist?
>> Well, they could if or they would if
they had money, but Yeah.
>> Would you be okay if I pay for a
specialist for you to go see?
>> Yeah.
>> Would you take money from a capitalist
to help you go see specialist?
>> I mean, yeah, sure. Why not?
>> I'm going to have you go see two. Where
do you do you live in California?
>> Yeah.
>> I'm going to have you go see two
specialists. But would you also be open
to seeing somebody else? I choose as a
psychologist. That may you're not.
>> No. You choose as a psychologist. You're
choosing who gets to determine what my
mental health looks like. What? No. No.
>> Okay. Then I wish you nothing but the
best. So nowadays more than ever, the
brand you wear reflects and represent
who you are. So for us, if you wear a
future looks bright hat or a value
taming gear, you're telling the world,
I'm optimistic. I'm excited about what's
going to be happening, but you're a
freethinker. You question things. You
like debate. And by the way, last year
120,000 people got a piece of future
looks bright gear with value tamement.
We have so many new things. The cuff
links are here. New future looks bright.
This is my favorite, the green one. Just
yesterday, somebody placed an order for
a hundred of these. If you watch the PBD
podcast, you got a bunch to choose from.
White ones, black ones. I I if you if
you if you smoke cigars and you come to
our cigar lounge, we have this high
quality lighter cutter and a holder for
the cigars. We got sweaters with the Val
Tamement logo on it. We got mugs. We got
a bunch of different things. But if you
believe the future looks bright, if you
follow our content and what we represent
with Value Tamement with with PVD
podcast, go to vtmerch.com. And by the
way, if you order right now, there's
going to be a special VT gift insight
just for you. So again, go to
vtmerch.com, place your order, tell the
world that you believe the future looks
bright. There is this, you know,
immediate um link, and this is her
following up. Maybe we'll show this
afterwards, but there's this correlation
with the amount of people today that
want to say they're mentally ill. I
don't remember this when I was 16 years
old. I don't remember this when I was
I'm 46. It's not like that was 80 years
ago. That was 26 years ago. That was 30
years ago when kids were going to
school. I don't remember a lot of
mentally ill statements being said by
kids. We were fairly normal. What's
happened the last 30 year 30 years to
have so many kids saying they're
mentally ill? This is my concern where
big pharma is targeting kids and they're
easy candidates. What do you have to say
about this girl right here that you just
watched in the clip as well as what's
happening with young kids that are
saying they're mentally ill?
>> Oh, I have a lot to say about this
because now we are into psychiatry. But
before I go there,
>> I just want to tell you that you're
absolutely right about uh people have
become more obese and therefore it is
surprising that we live longer. It's the
same in Denmark. People are fatter today
than earlier and yet life expectancy
goes up. But if we had not become
fatter, I'm sure it would have gone up
even more. But let's leave that um and
and talk about psychiatry. Uh this is a
very tragic chapter of medicine.
It is the only medical specialty I know
of that definitely does more harm than
good to its patients.
And uh one reason is that
uh when psychiatrists were battling with
psychologist who were more popular in
the 50s and 60s than psychiatrist
then the psychiatrist invented a new
idea. We are doctors so we can prescribe
drugs which psych psychologists cannot.
So we have to focus on drugs. And then
they invented this uh uh disease manual
DSM, the American Psychiatric
Association, and it just became worse
and worse over the years. And what I
mean by this is that virtually
everything in life, normal conditions,
can now be defined as a psychiatric
disorder.
For example, you are not even allowed to
grieve more than two weeks if you have
lost your wife or husband because then
you might get a diagnosis of depression.
This is insane. You must have had a very
bad marriage if you are only unhappy for
two weeks after your spouse suddenly
died. But but this this is how it is now
that you get a diagnosis so easily. And
I can give you an example. One evening
we had dinner in my home and our
youngest daughter was there with her
very laidback boyfriend and we talked
about psychiatry and then I said, "Hey,
wait a minute. I will go and get the u
diagnostic chart for adult ADHD.
So I came in with it. We were four
people. We all tested positive for ADHD.
Even the very laidback boyfriend.
It is so totally ridiculous because ADHD
is not something that exists in nature.
You can find a giraffe or a lion. They
exist. But ADHD doesn't exist. It's just
a name. You have a normal distribution
of behavior. Most of us are in the
middle. And some of us are more
energetic and perhaps irritating and
gets annoyed if we listen to a boring
lecture. So we move our feet and uh
maybe we walk up, stand up and walk
around a little to signalize to the
lecturer, I'm tired of you. Please stop
this. And uh these are some of the
features that identify what you call
ADHD. So uh when I lecture I often find
that one quarter up to one half of the
audience test positive for adult ADHD. I
try this test on them and then I tell
them afterwards don't be unhappy. I I I
also got this uh foolish name and uh
some of the most interesting and dynamic
people I've ever met in the whole world,
they all test positive for ADHD because
they are energetic and sometimes
irritating.
And and for for some years I joked about
we also need a diagnosis for all those
who are too quiet.
And then it came ADD,
attention deficit disorder without
hyperactivity.
And then I started joking now we need a
diagnosis for people in the middle so
that we can medicate everybody.
What did they come up with for the
middle? I'm curious. I'm waiting.
>> I don't know. But it is so ridiculous
that it takes so little to get a
psychiatric diagnosis. it is very very
very harmful and that's why I agree with
uh American psychiatrist Peter Ban who
is now approaching 90 years of age uh he
once said I think it was on an Oprah
Winfrey show that
the worst mistake you can make in your
life could be to look up a psychiatrist
if you have a mental health problem
because you are virtually certain to get
one or more diagnosis and one or more
drugs and this is not the solution.
Peter almost did not use psychiatric
drugs at all in his clinical practice.
He used psychotherapy even for people
who are psychotic and schizophrenic and
there are now randomized trials that
show that psychotherapy even works in
these serious conditions.
>> Okay. So uh uh when you're talking about
when you saw that lady who's saying
she's mentally ill, what do you think is
causing an increase in that? Is it
education? Is it big pharma? Is it
victimhood mentality? Is it society?
What do you think is causing an increase
in that? I can give you one example. My
wife and I became very angry when a
so-called ADHD bus visited
our children's school. So the idea with
this bus which came from the Danish ADHD
association was to inform children about
that they might have ADHD. So perhaps it
would be a good idea to become tested
and and the material that was given to
the children had been worked out in
collaboration with the drug company.
My goodness, I call this corruption. So
um and there was a school teacher
somewhere who had sent most of her
pupils to being investigated for ADHD
and a lot of them came back positive. So
my conclusion was that the school
teacher was the problem not the children
because she couldn't keep order and
discipline in her classroom. So then it
must be the children's fault. So uh just
follow the money in psychiatry. It will
tell you what you want to know. And a
lot of the patient organizations like
the Danish ADHD association have been
corrupted by industry money.
>> Got it.
Yeah. you know, as you as you go through
this and you see this and you you see
how it's becoming normal uh with the
medication that they're handing out,
what's specific when you hear about
these SSRI
medicines, what can you say about them?
What's the research you've done and what
side effects they have specific to
SSRIs?
>> Yes. Uh what is most important perhaps
about uh these anti-depressants
is that when you study how good the
effect is on depression
compared to a placebo
then you get a result that is so small
that it is far below what you call the
least clinical significant difference. I
mean in order to make a difference for
people you need more than just what you
can barely detect in a randomized trial.
So the psychiatrists have themselves
shown that these drugs their effect is
way below what is clinically relevant.
So you might wonder why they have become
so popular. But that's all about money.
And then let's what are their main
effects? It's not to make depression
better because very few can feel any
difference. No, half of those who are
treated get sexual problems and in half
of those who get problems the problems
are severe. For example, males who
become impotent
or cannot get uh ejaculation and females
who cannot get orgasm and and uh these
effects can actually become permanent.
So that when people have stopped the
anti-depressants,
they might uh be incapac incapacitated
for life and in some cases this has
caused people to commit suicide. So uh
this is one of the very bad effects of
uh depression pills but there is another
one and that is that um they double not
only the risk of suicide they actually
double suicides and not only in children
but also in adults. This has been shown
for example by researchers who had
access to FDA data which are much more
reliable than what the drug companies
and their paid allies among
psychiatrists have published in journals
like the New England Journal of Medicine
and JAMA and JAMA psychiatry and Lancet
and so on. So uh and suicide prevention
programs all over the world. They
recommend anti-depressants if you are uh
uh suicidal.
I was invited to Washington DC in June
by a veterans group.
So we had a meeting in capital and also
a press conference and what has happened
was that when the veterans
administration introduced a suicide
prevention program it of course involved
anti-depressants because such programs
always recommend anti-depressants
and in the following years usage of
anti-depressants in war veterans went up
and what happened with suicides they
also went up because this This is what
the drugs do to people. It is so totally
insane. And I I actually become very sad
whenever I think about it. Particularly
when children are driven to suicide with
something that on top of this is even
called happy pills.
>> Yeah. It's interesting because just I
think this is a week ago or maybe is Rob
is this a week ago or two weeks ago?
Something like that.
>> I believe last week.
>> Yeah, last week. Here's what Bobby
Kennedy had to say about SSR rights. Go
ahead,
>> Rob.
One of the worst mass shootings in
history. The CDC has previously been
responsible for studying gun violence. A
lot of those programs have been cut now.
Would you still consider gun violence a
public health crisis? And who's going to
be
>> I I certainly
consider mass shootings a health crisis.
And we are doing for the first time real
studies to find out what the ideology of
that is. And we're looking for the first
time at psychiatric drugs. You know
these kind of matter shooting people
have have had guns in this country
forever. When I was a kid we had
shooting clubs at our school and people
kids my classmates other people would
bring a 22 rifle with their guns to
school and park it in the parking lot.
Nobody was shooting said there's never
been a time in America in the history of
humanity
when people walked into a crowd into a
church or a movie theater or a school or
crowd of standards and just started
randomly shooting. It's happening in our
country. It's not happening around the
world. And there are many other
countries that have comparable levels of
guns that we have in this country. We
had comparable levels in the 40s, 50s,
and 60s. And people weren't doing that.
Something changed and it dramatically
changed human behavior. And one of the
culprits we need to examine is whether
the fact that we are the most overmed
nation in the world and at a lot of
those are psychiatric drugs that have
blackbox warnings on them that warn of
suicidal and homicidal ideiation. So we
are doing those studies right now for
the first time and we will have an
answer.
>> So that kind of val, you know, validates
what you were saying. But uh uh what are
your thoughts about what Bobby just said
right there?
>> I believe Kennedy is absolutely right.
Uh it has been debated a lot whether
anti-depressants can cause homicide,
but we know also from animal experiments
that these drugs can make people hostile
and aggressive. And uh when my research
group got access to clinical study
reports uh from the European drug
regulator,
we could see in these voluminous reports
that there were uh cases where people
have become belligerent and hostile and
homicidal
when they came on these drugs. This is
not what the drug companies publish in
their clinical trials. They delete such
information. They even delete suicide
attempts. We have also shown this by
having access to confidential study
reports that uh two suicide attempts on
fuoxitin in children. Fluoxitin that's
Prozac. They didn't appear in the
published report but only in the
internal Eli Liy company report. This is
fraud and it kills people. The fraud
kills people there. When Proac was
marketed,
it became the most complained about drug
in America. There were an enormous
amount of reports on suicidality and
homicidality and so on. And of course,
you can't know in every single case
whether that person would have become
homicidal anyhow. But but there are
other uh research that uh shows that not
only anti-depressants
but also uh ADHD drugs can make people
hostile for example.
>> Yeah. Uh you know as you as you're going
through this I just think about my four
kids and you know when you're around
schools different schools not all
schools but different schools. We lived
in California for a while. So a couple
of our kids went to California. We have
two kids born in California, one born in
Texas and one born in Florida. And as
you're going through the the different
approaches they take medicine for kids,
I remember one day we're in California.
We can't have, you know, religious
exemptions and not have our kids take
the vaccines. They have to take the
vaccines. Whatever the mandates they
had, we had to take them. We're in
Texas. We're in Texas and, you know, our
kids went to a private school, Christian
private school. But one day I get a
call. My wife's like, "The kids are the
school's asking for vaccine card." I
said, "Yeah, but this is Texas and it's
religious exemption." No, we have to
give it to him. I said, "There's no way.
Let's call Bobby real quick." We call
Bobby at 11:00 at night. He calls me
back. We get on the phone for 45 minutes
to an hour. He's getting all these other
people on the call. And it's right.
Texas demands it. Then we come to
Florida. At least Florida allowed for
religious exemption. But as of
yesterday, I don't know if you heard the
news or not. The surgeon general of
Florida ends all vaccine mandates
for kids. It was announced yesterday.
Joseph Lapo, here's what he had to say.
Go ahead, Rob. What I'm most excited
about is is an announcement that we're
going to make that we're making now,
which is that the Florida Department of
Health in partnership with the governors
is going to be working to end all
vaccine mandates in Florida law. All of
them. All of them.
All of them.
[Applause]
Every last
>> amazing applause.
>> Yes.
>> That's unbelievable.
How many people does it sound like it's
in their ride?
>> Couple hundred.
>> Couple hundred. Yeah.
>> Every last one of them. All of them.
>> Is he saying anything else? This They've
been clapping for about a minute
already. So you can pause it. Th this
was a big deal, doc, because during
COVID, everybody was like, I don't want
to have my kids take it. And I don't
know what the number is today. 71% of
Americans took the COVID vaccine. This
is not even the COVID vaccine. This is
just vaccines, period, that are mandated
where parents don't have an option. And
Florida's the first state that's done
this. What are your thoughts on this?
>> It's great. I did see the news already
and I have been against vaccine mandates
all the time. There are some vaccines
that are just unbelievable. For example,
the measles vaccine has saved the lives
of countless number of people. So I get
sad when when some fundamentalists they
don't want to get the measles vaccine
and you had this outbreak in Texas not
so long ago and uh but uh when you
consider vaccine mandates you have to
balance benefits and harms and in Europe
politicians were generally against
vaccine mandates because they were
afraid that this would only increase uh
the numbers who would be vaccine
hesitant in the population. And I agree,
it's better with good arguments to try
to convince people that we have some
vaccines that every one of us should
take, but we also have vaccines that are
doubtful and and one concrete example is
the COVID 19 vaccines.
To me, it was a horrible decision in the
United States to re recommend these
vaccines from age 6 months and upwards
because they are harmful for young
children. Uh the risk that they get a
bad infection is extremely small.
Whereas uh one to two children out of
200
get inflammation in the heart when they
get an mRNA vaccine from Fiser or Mona
and when you get myocarditis which is
called some of these children die. These
vaccines have killed some children. So
to me it has always been insane to in
the United States recommend COVID
vaccines down to 6 months of age. And
not only that, but to recommend boosters
when you are already vaccinated twice
and you already had the COVID infection
despite being vaccinated. So you have a
good natural immunity.
Why on earth should you take booster
after booster? It is nonsensical. And
the European medicines agency even at
one time warned against all these
boosters because we know that too many
vaccinations can actually weaken the
immune system. So also on this I support
Bob Kennedy fully but he has received a
lot of flak for this in mainstream media
in the US. This is simply not fair and
it's not correct.
>> Yeah. I mean, and by the way, if if you
go back to that number, Rob, the the
CHAGBT report that you had pulled up.
So, right now, if you look at the
vaccine coverage, kindergarten students,
92 to 93%
for the MMR, the DTAP, the polio, and
the Vicella full vaccine series by age
three, 70 73% complete the recommended
seven series. And then on the bottom uh
you see what this means is vaccination
rates remain relatively high in the
states but many key vaccines are
slipping below 95% threshold which is
considered necessary to maintain her
immunity especially for measles. Rob if
you can go a little bit lower. Uh the
drop in full vaccination series
completion 73% signals that while many
children receive individual vaccines a
notable portion are not fully up to date
and the rising exemption rate now 3.6%
6% further underscores challenges of
maintaining widespread immunization
coverage. So you know some of them you
know and forget about the the co one out
of all the vaccines uh if you don't mind
going through it I know you said measles
where some of the parents the
fundamentalists are not really are going
a little too far and you're seeing a
little bit of the growth in Texas. What
other vaccines do you yourself feel a
little bit more comfortable with and
which ones do you not? Forget the vac uh
covid all the other ones.
>> I I have taken virtually any recommended
vaccine and so has my wife who is a
clinical microbiologist. So you can name
them uh polio, dtera, tetanus and so on.
But there is one thing about vaccines
that people usually don't know about. Uh
Danish vaccine researchers have found
out and uh this has been uh called a
milestone in an article in nature about
vaccines.
They have found out that live attenuated
vaccines like the measles vaccine they
actually decrease mortality
more than you would expect from its
specific effect on measles. So even if
there is no measel measles epidemic in a
country in Africa and the children get
vaccinated with the measles vaccine
their mortality drops. This is
incredibly important to know and we also
have the opposite result that uh dead
vaccines
they tend to increase total mortality.
So if you use these vaccines in an area
where the risk of getting infected is
very low you might actually increase
mortality. So vaccines are much more
complicated than people think and
therefore it was horribly disturbing
that the coid9 pandemic
aggravated scientific censorship and
lack of freedom of speech to an
unbelievable extent that I never thought
I should see in my lifetime. We need to
debate science. We need to debate
vaccines. They are much more complicated
than you think. We cannot have
censorship. This is detrimental for our
democracies. And look what we had during
COVID 19. It is so disgraceful.
>> Yeah. I mean, hopefully the the next
time something like that happens, we're
ready for it in ways where people will
remember how many doctors were silenced
and got strikes on you. I mean, I I I
got a couple strikes just for having
Bobby Kennedy on the podcast and videos
were taken down during that time, the
peak of co where they didn't want you to
talk about any of that stuff. So
hopefully that won't be the case in the
future. Let's continue with the next
part. Rob, can you do me a favor? Show
the clip. Do you remember when um when
uh Tom Cruz was uh on MSNBC talking to
Matt Lowauour and they were talking
about psychiatric medicine and as a
Scientologist he pushed back and at the
time he was criticized for it heavily
and later on a lot of people came back
and gave him credit for standing up but
it was pretty heated. I don't know if
you've seen this clip or not Rob if you
don't mind playing the clip. There's
>> no such thing as a chemical imbalance.
So postpartum depression to you is is
kind of a little psychological goo godly
goop.
>> No, no, I did not say that.
>> I'm just asking what you what would you
call it?
>> Abs that is that post now now you're
talking about two different things.
>> But that's what she went on the
anti-depressant for.
>> But what happens the anti-depressant all
it does is mask the problem. There's
ways of vitamins and through exercise
and various things. I'm not saying that
that isn't real.
>> But but aren't there examples where it
works?
>> Matt, you don't even you're glib. You
don't even know what Rland is. If you
start talking about chemical imbalance,
you have to evaluate and read the
research papers on how they came up with
these theories. Matt,
>> do you remember that clip between Matt
Lowour and Tom Cruz back in the days
with Matt Lowour?
>> Well, I'm not sure I remember the clip,
but uh the lie about a chemical
imbalance making you depressed is one of
the worst in psychiatry. This is simply
wrong and it is extremely harmful this
lie because if you're a patient and you
are told you have a chemical imbalance
and here is a drug that will fix your
imbalance,
why would you ever stop taking this
drug? Because if you have a deficit to
begin with, shouldn't you take it for
the last of your life? So this this has
been incredibly incredibly harmful and
it has never been shown in scientific
research that any psychiatric disorder
is caused by a chemical imbalance
perhaps with some extremely rare
exceptions. But now we are talking about
major conditions like depression and
psychosis and so on. And u I have
illustrated this with um an allegory.
If you come out to a house that has
burned down and you find ashes,
it was not the ashes that set the house
on fire. So, some of this research looks
into people who are depressed. And if
they can find any change in their
chemistry,
they cannot conclude that those changes
started it all. It could be like the
ashes in the house. And we know for
example that uh anti-depressants
they create a chemical imbalance. Other
psychiatric drugs create a chemical
imbalance because that's the whole
reason for using them. So
anti-depressants SSRI they increase
serotonin and this creates various
issues like sexual problems and uh
suicidality and so on.
So um
>> interesting
>> Scientology it's strange because
uh if you get associated with
Scientology people stop listening to
you. Uh but uh we should not look at who
people are. It's a bit like uh Bob
Kennedy. We should look at what they
say. Is it correct or not?
>> Yeah. Are are you a Scientologist
yourself? Because I've worked with many
of them and and they're extremely
hardwork.
Uh, of course I'm not a psych
scientologist. I'm a scientist. I don't
believe in any kind of religion. And I
see Scientology as a terrible sect that
I would never become a member of.
>> Well, I was just going to send you a
book if you were interested to as a form
of invitation if you wanted to read
Dynetics because I have a lot of them on
my house.
>> No thanks, please.
>> Okay. Well, it was just an offer, you
know, nothing more than that. I'm not a
Scientologist, but I just have a lot of
them in my house that that has been
given to me over the years. So, by the
way, last thing I want to talk about,
you you've spoken about mammograms, if
I'm not mistaken. Uh, you've you've said
some things about mammograms. You said
mamograph uh mammograms screening for
breast cancer screening does more harm
than good by leading to false positive,
overdiagnosis, and overt treatment. What
did you mean by that?
Well, I I made uh with a collaborator
the Cochran review on breast screening
which we published in 2001.
So we collected the randomized trials
where half of the women had been
screened and the other half had not and
we have updated this review over the
years.
Now uh mamography screening has been
sold to the public with two statements.
It saves lives and it saves breasts
because by uh coming earlier you can
spare women's breasts to a greater
extent.
>> And now the sad truth is that both these
statements are totally wrong. Women
don't live longer because they go to
mamography screening. Total cancer
mortality including breast cancer
mortality is exactly the same. Total
mortality all causes is the same. Then
what about breast cancer mortality? We
have documented that this is a biased
outcome. And this is a long story I
won't give you here. But you can't trust
when doctors decide did this woman die
from breast cancer or another cancer or
from a third reason. This decision is
has been proven to be biased. So we
should not look at breast cancer
mortality. After all people go to
mamography screening to live longer and
they don't live longer. And then when
you when you screen for cancer and I can
give prostate cancer as an example.
People of my age, most of us have
prostate cancer, but we should not get
screened because uh most of these
cancers are harmless. They will not
bother us for the rest of our lifetime.
But if you screen for breast cancer, for
example, you find a lot of cancers and
cell changes that you would never have
found if you had not gone to screening
for the rest of your life. Now, when you
have found this,
you treat it. And how the irony is that
the earliest cell changes, those we call
carcinoma incitu, it's not even cancer,
it's just cell changes, they are often
diffusely spread in not only one breast
but sometimes both breasts. So when you
find this very early cell change,
sometimes a woman loses both breasts and
um the net result of all this is that
more women lose a breast if they go to
screening than if they don't go to
screening. So I have argued for quite
some years that mimography screening
should be stopped but that hasn't made
me the most popular man in the world.
Yeah. Um, I can I can see that. Uh, I
can see that. I can see how some people
are not going to be happy with you. I I
don't think you're trying to make
friends. I don't think you're in the
business of trying to make friends
specifically in the in the medical field
or the pharmaceutical field. I don't
think you're trying to, you know, have
these lobbies calling you and asking you
to go to dinner with them. I don't see
that as a top 10 list, bucket list type
of things that you want to do. Uh, last
thing, you have a new book coming out.
This book is called um, how Merc and
Drug Regulators Hit Serious Harms of the
HPV vaccine. What can you say about
Merc? I think it's Merc and uh, yeah.
What can you say about this book and
specific to Merc?
Well, Merc as so many other companies is
widely known as committing fraud again
and again. And I start the book by
recalling the Vio affair. This arthritis
drug called Vio that killed people
because they got heart attacks. And Merc
hit this for many years and they
committed fraud several times by
omitting cases of heart attacks in their
clinical trials when they submitted
their manuscripts to New England Journal
of Medicine and Annals of Internal
Medicine. This was revealed later and
also by studying FDA data it became
obvious that Merc was committing fraud.
So we have a company that is used to
committing fraud and uh I documented my
book that Merc also committed fraud in
relation to Gardil its HPV vaccine.
There were some clear cases of very
serious neurological
adverse events from Denmark, for
example, I know about them that Danish
investigators tried to report to Merc
during a clinical trial. And Merc
refused that.
They they just blankly refused
and uh they did not appear in Merc's
reports. So this is outright fraud and I
read 112,000 pages of internal merc
reports. Not every single page because
some of them were laboratory values but
but when I had read all that I realized
that there were very many ways where
merc cheated with their safety data. It
was just unbelievable what Merc had
done. So um
uh
>> can you give some examples of it?
>> In my in my mind there is absolutely no
doubt that the HPV vaccines cause
serious neurological harms in rare cases
but when you look at the benefits
they are very modest.
For example, if people attend cervical
cancer screening regularly,
you can treat cell changes before they
become cancer.
>> So in in that case, the vaccine will
have no effect. So the and actually the
vaccines have also killed some people.
So you need to factor this in when you
decide whether you want your young girls
to get vaccinated.
Yeah, I'm looking up this scandal with
Vio. In 2004, they had to pay $4.85
billion in settlements to patients and
families.
And the case exposed challenges with
drug safety monitoring, FDA oversight,
and Merc's internal handling of safety
data. It's pretty wild when you think
about what types of fines some of these
pharmaceutical companies have had to
pay.
and HPV.
When you look at that, the challenge,
the criticism they get is how
aggressively they leverage lobbying and
marketing to make it a widespread
adoption.
Um,
what what numbers do we have with what
HPV did compared to Vio? Do we know?
No, it will be difficult to
uh exceed the vio scandal because I have
estimated that Merc killed over 100,000
patients with vio and and uh the the
risks with the HPV vaccines uh are not
at all in this league. They are far far
smaller. So this is a very different
situation.
>> Got it. You said something about Motrin
earlier. So, so what could you say about
the day-to-day basic stuff that a lot of
people take? Advil, Motrin, aspirin, you
know, Tylenol. What do you have to say
about those basic things that to us it's
like that's not a big deal. It's just
over the counter.
>> The fact that you can buy some of these
drugs over the counter make people
believe that they are safe.
>> That's exactly right.
But there is no drug in the world that
is safe because if a drug has a benefit,
it will also harm some people. This is
unavoidable.
And if you look at the uh benefits of uh
arthritis drugs, then doctors typically
tell you if you have pain somewhere,
take Tylenol and then an arthritis drug
as well. Take two drugs. But the
research actually shows that it is
enough to take Tylenol. You don't really
get any better pain relieving effect by
taking two drugs. But what you do is
that you increase your risk of dying
because uh arthritis drugs kill very
many people through heart attacks and
bleeding stomach ulcers. So
I I would never in my life take any of
these arthritis drugs and these were the
drugs that I did research on when I
worked in the drug industry. So I know a
lot about them and I I u defended a
doctoral thesis about them many years
ago.
>> Yeah. Very uh uh concerning when you
when you are not in this space. He said
something earlier when he said, "You
don't have to be a doctor to be able to
research some of this stuff and find out
for yourself, which is kind of a
challenge to the average person to say
do a little bit more research on your
own before you take any medicine that a
doctor prescribes to you." And I think
that's very good counsel uh to be giving
specifically when it's coming down to
kids. You know, sometimes we care more
about our kids health than we do of
ours, which is noble, but uh it's
important to go through and not just
take it just because somebody's a
doctor. Wow. They know what they're
doing. take anything they give you. I
think what happened postcoid, believe it
or not, and I don't know if this is a
good thing or a bad thing, the trust in
a lot of institutions uh uh went down.
The trust in, you know, the US
government down. The trust in mainstream
media down, the trust in doctors down,
the trust in CDC down, the trust in
World Health Organization down, the
trust in a lot of these things that we
used to uphold as the highest level of
credibility was lost and in many ways
exposed during COVID, which some say
it's a good thing, but to the average
person's like, who the hell do I now
trust? Who do I trust?
>> That's correct. But America has a unique
chance right now. Uh and I know several
of the people. I interviewed Jay
Paracharia in June when I was in
Washington, the new director of the NIH.
>> And it was like meeting an old school
friend uh for both of us. It was
fantastic and we agreed on virtually
everything. So to have Jay at the top of
the NIH is a huge step in the right
direction of uh uh regaining people's
trust in science and in the NIH and Bob
Kennedy's firing of the whole CDC
vaccine committee was a good step in the
right direction. Yeah, we haven't put up
the interview with Jay Paracharia yet on
our website because we have too much
work to do. So we have a big uh backlog.
I also know Martin Kulf whom I have also
interviewed on our broken medical
science channel. Actually the first one
I ever interviewed. Uh he now has a
central role in the CDC's new vaccine
committee and Martin was one of the
three people who wrote the great
Barington declaration
>> and Jay Baracharia was another one of
them and they have been proven right.
Sweden was the only country in the
world. Martin is Swedish even though he
was professor at Harvard.
Sweden was the only country in the world
that did not lock down because they
followed the science and not the
politics. And Sweden has had the lowest
excess mortality
practically in the whole western world
because they did not lock down. Because
what happens when you lock down? Well,
if you sit at home and you have pain in
your chest, you are not allowed to go
out because your society is locked down.
You're afraid of going to hospital
because my goodness, I might get COVID
if I go there. And then you stay at home
and then what? You might die from your
heart attack. So, mortality from other
races go up when we lock down our
societies.
And
what I mean it was so insane what we
were exposed to. Not to mention face
masks. They don't work. There have been
big randomized trials of face masks. And
why should we dress whole nations as
bank robbers if they don't work. That's
another big scandal in healthcare
recently. But with the people you now
have uh in the US in leading positions,
I am um I'm quite optimistic that
America has a better chance as I said in
the introduction in this program than in
my whole lifetime of doing better in
healthcare.
>> Well, I feel the same way. I'm I'm glad
you know these folks who have common
sense, logic, and actual science and are
not trying to be politicians are in
there. I just hope they do the right
they do what they said pre getting into
politics, which they are now. I hope
they complete it because we're not this
is not going to be the last pandemic
we're going to be dealing with. This is
not going to be the last time
politicians are going to try to control
the world. This is not going to be the
last time, you know, lobbyists are going
to try to push a vaccine or product
through that's going to make them
hundred billion dollars over a couple
years. This is this won't be the last
time. But we need better, stronger
guidelines in place where the average
individual who doesn't have access to
resources and money can protect
themselves.
Uh doctor, uh it's been great speaking
with you. We're going to put the link to
your both books below for the average
person if they want to order it. How
merc and drug regulators hit serious
harm of the HPV vaccine as well as
deadly medicines and organized crime.
How big pharma has corrupted healthc
care. Any final thoughts before we wrap
up the interview.
>> Don't forget deadly psychiatry.
This is also an important book.
>> Oh, you have another book called the
Okay. Can you go to that as well, Rob?
The deadly. Just go on Amazon where you
were at. Rob, go on his name. Yeah.
Two years after my book about organized
crime, I published a book called Deadly
Psychiatry and Organized Denial because
psychiatrists lie about what they can
achieve with their drugs all the time.
If they didn't lie, their specialty
could not survive. So, I have published
several books about psychiatry and some
of them are freely available on my
website. So, I hope people will just go
there and get them. We're going to put
the link to your website as well. Thank
you doc. Appreciate your time.
>> Thank you.
>> Take care everybody. Bye-bye. Bye-bye.
Nowadays, more than ever, the brand you
wear reflects and represent who you are.
So for us, if you wear a future looks
bright hat or a value taming gear,
you're telling the world, I'm
optimistic. I'm excited about what's
going to be happening. But you're a
freethinker. You question things. You
like debate. And by the way, last year
120,000 people got a piece of future
looks bright gear with value tamement.
We have so many new things. The cuff
links are here. New future looks bright.
This is my favorite, the green one. Just
yesterday, somebody placed an order for
a hundred of these. If you watch the PBD
podcast, you got a bunch to choose from.
White ones, black ones. I I if you if
you if you smoke cigars and you come to
our cigar lounge, we have this high
quality lighter cutter and a holder for
the cigars. We got sweaters with the
value tamement logo on it. We got mugs.
We got a bunch of different things. But
if you believe the future looks bright,
if you follow our content and what we
represent with Value Tamement with with
PBD podcast, go to vtmerch.com. And by
the way, if you order right now, there's
going to be a special VT gift insight
just for you. So again, go to
vtamemers.com, place your order, tell
the world that you believe the future
looks