Meditation can change your microbiome, metabolites, and even blood, says Dr. Hemal Patel, a professor and vice-chair for research at the University of California San Diego Department of Anesthesiology. Patel has been at the forefront of studying how meditation creates profound physical changes in the human body. And the COVID-19 pandemic created the perfect testing ground for his research. “We have some interesting findings, where we discovered some factors that meditators elevate that helped to reduce COVID infectivity.” To further his research, Patel’s laboratory was recently awarded a $10 million grant by InnerScience. “The goal that InnerScience and our group … have is to really make this a core part of the traditional path of medicine,” said Patel. available data. Interview trailer: Watch the full interview: https://www.theepochtimes.com/how-this-10-million-study-will-probe-your-bodys-innate-healing-mechanisms-that-are-unlocked-during-meditation_5301984.html Medical Disclaimer: Frontline Health (the “Show”), its guests, and contributors provide the latest news on health and medical discoveries and it is meant for informational purposes only. The Show does not provide medical advice, diagnosis, treatment, cures, mitigation, or prevention for any type of disease or medical condition. Similarly, it is not intended for self-diagnosis or self-treating of any health-related condition. The information on the Show is gathered from reputable sources; however, neither Frontline Health nor The Epoch Times Association Inc. are responsible for errors or omissions in reporting or explanation and will not be liable for any direct, indirect, consequential, special, exemplary, or other damages arising therefrom. Patients should always consult with a doctor or other health care professional for medical advice or information about diagnosis and treatment. To get notifications about new Kash's Corner and American Thought Leaders episodes, please sign up for our newsletter! Here 👉 Get Alerts - PRE-ORDER "The Shadow State" DVD: https://www.epochtv.shop/product-page/the-shadow-state-dvd The Real Story of January 6 | Documentary BUY Jan 6 DVD: https://www.epochtv.shop/product-page/dvd-the-real-story-of-january-6, Promo Code “Jan” for 20% off. - Follow American Thought Leaders on social media: Twitter: https://twitter.com/AmThoughtLeader Truth Social: https://truthsocial.com/@AmThoughtLeader Gettr: https://gettr.com/user/amthoughtleader Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/AmericanThoughtLeaders Gab: https://gab.com/AmThoughtLeader Telegram: https://t.me/AmThoughtLeader

Watch live coverage of former President Donald Trump’s arraignment at a federal court in Miami, Florida. Trump is facing 37 counts of felony charges over his handling of classified documents after leaving office. This special program will feature real-time updates from reporters on the ground, bipartisan analysis from legal experts and political commentators, and reactions from lawmakers. -- LIVE: Trump Delivers Remarks in New Jersey After Court Appearance in Florida -- Trump Skyrockets in Polls After Indictment | Crossroads on EpochTV Former President Donald Trump may have sealed his spot as the nominee for the Republican Party, thanks to the indictment over allegations he took classified documents while president. Polling data shows Trump has jumped far ahead of his competition. __ Trump Says He’ll Never Leave, Even If Convicted | Crossroads on EpochTV 🔴 Get unlimited access to EpochTV for just $1: https://ept.ms/1For2Months-Josh - Epoch Original Documentary DVDs: 🔵 Check out 'The Real Story of January 6' documentary DVD here: https://ept.ms/3cxGVEO 🔵 'The Shadow State' documentary takes a deep dive into the environmental, social, and governance (ESG) industry. ORDER DVD: https://ept.ms/3XxcWir 🔵 'The Final War' Documentary DVD: https://bit.ly/41PTIWC

“It’s a tremendous danger when we have people who run institutions and who have jobs for life in the academies, they’re completely convinced they found the truth, they publish in their own journals, they teach those ‘truths’ to their students, and then they’ve indoctrinated generations of students.” Peter Boghossian is a former professor of philosophy and co-author of the Sokal Squared hoax papers. These were intentionally false and absurd intellectual papers that were accepted as legitimate in ostensibly prestigious academic journals. In 2021, Boghossian resigned from Portland State University. “In DEI [diversity, equity, and inclusion] bureaucracies, we have extraordinarily intolerant people. We have ideologues. They have a set, or a suite of propositions that they forward to the expense of all else,” says Boghossian. “You can either have free speech at a university or you can have DEI bureaucracies. It is literally impossible to have both.” Today, Boghossian, a champion of the Socratic method, goes around the world, teaching people how to speak across divides and to harness their humility and ability to ask the right questions. “We know where this problem comes from. It’s the academic institutions,” says Boghossian. “The places from which you graduated are not the same places today.” We speak about what he calls a “large-scale ideological capture” of institutions, and debate what the best path is moving forward toward genuine diversity of thought and expression. “To what extent should society tolerate illiberal, radical, intolerant people in the orthodoxies in which they bring to that society? That’s the paradox of tolerance in a nutshell,” says Boghossian. Interview trailer: Watch the full interview: https://www.theepochtimes.com/peter-boghossian-hiding-people-from-truth-does-not-protect-them-academic-institutions-dei-bureaucracies-and-ideological-capture_5300980.html FULL TRANSCRIPT Jan Jekielek: Peter Boghossian, such a pleasure to have you back on American Thought Leaders. Peter Boghossian: Thank you. It’s good to finally see you in real life. Mr. Jekielek: Absolutely. It’s almost two years to the day since we last spoke, and so much has happened in the last two years since April 2021. You told me that the educational system has been entirely captured and needs to be rebuilt from the ground up. There’s people out there looking to rebuild, and trying to facilitate change. There’s some significant action in Florida, for example. Mr. Boghossian: With Chris Rufo and DeSantis. Mr. Jekielek: Absolutely. I’m curious if you have rethought your position on this at all. Mr. Boghossian: We have more evidence for those two years than we did before. We know that there was large-scale, ideological capture of the institutions. There is one thing that Chris Rufo is doing, and I sincerely hope he’s successful, but I’m not going to sit around and wait for Chris Rufo to succeed. One of the things that he wants to do is he wants to extirpate the DEI bureaucracy from our academic institutions. The way to think about this is a paradox of tolerance. Have you heard that from Karl Popper who introduced it in 1945? How tolerant should we tolerant people be of intolerant people? In DEI bureaucracies, we have extraordinarily intolerant people. We have ideologues. They have a set or a suite of propositions that they forward at the expense of all else. It’s like they’re trying to rig the game. It would be like trying to go to a boxing match with a chainsaw. When you try to put the brakes on that so that you can have a more classical liberalism where ideas flourish, they accuse you of trying to halt free speech. Two years on, we now have more evidence for wide scale organizational institutional capture, but we also have people like Chris Rufo and Ron DeSantis trying to fight that from the inside. Mr. Jekielek: Popper’s paradox, just for the benefit of our audience, is this idea that you can’t tolerate intolerance too much or you will create an intolerant society. As I look back, it reminded me of Marcuse’s principle of repressive tolerance. Mr. Boghossian: Correct. James Lindsay has spoken about that. One way we can look at this, if the educational example is too abstract, or somebody isn’t in academia, you can look at this as radical Islam in Western Europe or the Jyllands post of pictures of the Muslim prophet Muhammad. To what extent should society tolerate illiberal, radical, intolerant people and the orthodoxies which they bring to the society? That’s the paradox of tolerance in a nutshell. It’s not only in an academic context. Marcuse writes about this in The One-Dimensional Man. My writing partner James Lindsay has written about this in, The Marxification of Education, on his podcast, and in other places. The criticism of people like Rufo is that you’re just replacing one intolerant orthodoxy for another intolerant orthodoxy. I don’t think that’s true. I certainly think it’s something to be mindful of. We don’t want to remove DEI bureaucrats and then place conservatives or liberals or libertarians or Marxists or anybody else in that situation. We want a kind of intellectual and ideological diversity to flourish. Getting back to your original question, we talked about the legitimacy crisis. There’s a crisis of legitimacy in our institutions. It’s spread far beyond academia at this point. We have choices about whether or not we’re going to build, which is what I’m doing, or whether they’re not going to be complacent or fight. Mr. Jekielek: I want to add that the legitimacy crisis is earned. Mr. Boghossian: One hundred percent earned. Let’s talk about that. Mr. Jekielek: Yes. Mr. Boghossian: The legitimacy crisis is that people do not trust institutions. They do not trust the CDC medicine. They will trust their own doctors interestingly. Self surveys report that people trust their own doctors, but they don’t trust the system. They don’t trust the HMOs. They don’t trust the CDC. They don’t trust any legacy media institutions. They don’t trust the ACLU. They don’t trust the SPLC, the Southern Poverty Law Center. They don’t trust the New York Times, and they don’t trust NPR. The reason they don’t trust those institutions is because those institutions have betrayed their trust. They’re no longer trustworthy. They have an ideological agenda that they forward above what’s true, and that compromises everybody as Americans. That’s the one commonality we should all share. Mr. Jekielek: You mentioned NPR. Let’s talk about this because this has been in the news recently. NPR got flagged on Twitter as state-funded media. Mr. Boghossian: I love that. Mr. Jekielek: What is your reaction to that? Mr. Boghossian: NPR is the paradigmatic example of a news venue that is not a news venue. It’s a propaganda outlet that has been ideologically captured. Let’s talk about that. Fox has a very specific ideology that they promote. Not only do they not hide that ideology, Sean Hannity and others are screaming about it from the rooftops. I have no problem with a news outlet that clearly states their bias right from the get go. Bill O’Reilly doesn’t work there anymore, but they have commentators and they say, “We’re conservatives.” This is why liberals are incorrect. The problem with NPR and other media organizations is that they fly their banner of neutrality, but they are clearly not neutral. I did a series on NPR with my friend Matt Thornton who wrote the book, The Gift of Violence. We did a series about conservatives and people that have said there’s a problem with NPR. But nobody has actually taken the time to look episode by episode exactly at the timestamps. What’s the problem? What are the fallacies? How is this reflective of ideological capture? That’s what we did, and this is what really contributes to the legitimacy crisis. Mr. Jekielek: What was the most profound thing you found in your analysis? Mr. Boghossian: Let’s say that I want to figure out why conservatives—and I want to be clear, I’m not a conservative, and I do not self-identify as a conservative— why conservatives want to build a wall on the Mexican border? NPR reporters will ask a liberal or somebody who’s not a conservative, as opposed to just asking somebody, and this is John Stuart Mill’s point, who actually believes that a wall should be built on the border, asking them for what their reasons are, and then, analyzing those reasons. They ask somebody who doesn’t believe it should be built, and they analyze those reasons, which are already shown to be fallacious, because they’re not good faith actors. Mr. Jekielek: The answer is probably because they’re racist. Mr. Boghossian: That’s embedded into the structure. If that’s the lens through which you see, critical race theory is embedded in the structure. If the lens through which you view the problem will always be the same—systemic racism, oppression, misogyny, bigotry, it’s baked into the system. It can be, as Helen Pluckrose says, “a conspiracy without any conspirators.” If that’s the starting assumption, then the natural manifestation of that assumption in terms of one’s belief is that, “We don’t want to build a wall because conservatives are racist.” Mr. Jekielek: You just said there has been an ideological capture of all these institutions. We’re talking about the media. That’s the term I tend to use, but you said, “No, this is corruption.” Mr. Boghossian: It is corruption. Mr. Jekielek: Okay. How is it corruption? Mr. Boghossian: It’s corruption because once truth stops being the North Star of the institution, something else has to take over. You can either have free speech at a university, or you can have DEI bureaucracies. It is literally impossible to have both. Harvard just put a free speech committee together. People like Robbie George from Princeton have been advocating for this. You cannot have both simultaneously. Ideological capture is by definition corruption because they forward an ideology. We’re forwarding equity. We’re forwarding inclusion as opposed to figuring out what’s true and we’re going to try to falsify or make false the claims that we’re looking at. The ideologues start the conversation with the assumption that they have the truth, and then, they look in their landscape to support the propositions they already have. They have mechanisms within the institution to weaponize the starting beliefs against people who oppose the orthodoxy. It’s truly sinister. The Overton window is now shifting. If I had said that two years ago it would sound conspiratorial. But now there’s just so much evidence. I just did a series with Charles Negy in Florida about professors this has happened to over and over again. It’s now irrefutable. Mr. Jekielek: Our regular viewers of American Thought Leaders will recognize that the scenario you just described isn’t restricted to the academy or to the media. Public health today can be described very much in a similar way. I’ll just give an example. The headline is, “CDC Partners with Social and Behavioral Change Initiative to Silence Vaccine Hesitancy.” What is happening here is that you have armies of people on social media harnessed through government-funded nonprofits stopping the proliferation of views of people who are sometimes highly credentialed and highly expert, and in fact, who later prove to be correct, in order to achieve a very particular view of seeing public health or knowing what you should be doing as a person in society. Mr. Boghossian: I would make one addition if I may, not just what you should be doing, but believing. Mr. Jekielek: Correct. Mr. Boghossian: That’s a key distinction. Mr. Jekielek: Correct. Typically when you’re looking at the whole public health sphere, we talk about the institutional capture of agencies by big pharma. Now, we’re seeing there’s a lot of evidence of that. What you just described is this kind of phenomenon of ideological capture. How does that connect with this? Because what you described earlier seems to be highly analogous. Mr. Boghossian: One of the things that’s really important is that we understand what expertise is. Tom Nichols has a book, The Death of Expertise. Nobody should listen to me in anything I have to say outside my area of expertise. I know I have no medical knowledge whatsoever. With that said, I think I can comment on the mechanisms of belief formation as they go through the system. We know on Twitter that there has been shadow banning. When Jack Dorsey went to Congress, they called it deboosting. You can call it whatever you want, but we know that there has been an orchestrated campaign. I would say the campaign is less around governments and more around an ideology, more around the suite of propositions or ideals that cohere within this broad woke ideology or critical social justice. That itself helps to form or helps to calcify public opinion around certain events. So again, the true seeking mission of the institution is gone, which gets back to what you asked me before of the legitimacy crisis. That’s what creates a crisis in confidence. People’s ideas on Twitter or YouTube are being promoted on the basis of the algorithm, as opposed to the marketplace of free ideas. Mr. Jekielek: The algorithm decides what you’re promoting, and what you’re supposed to believe. Mr. Boghossian: In the considerable debate about this, I’m very confident that the only reason those particular algorithms are in place at all is because of academia. It’s because that is the nucleation point. That is where the wellspring is, and that’s how it manifests itself in various platforms and channels and social media and organizations, and public institutions. Mr. Jekielek: The thing that I’ve observed watching public health messaging over the last three years, and understanding what the scientific realities were relative to that messaging, is that there was a huge distance between what the messaging was demanding and what the actual, reasonable understanding of the available scientific evidence was. Policy wasn’t being shaped by that. There was an interest in eliciting a particular behavioral outcome. For example, Dr. Fauci talked about changing his position on masks. Later he said, “I did that because I wanted to. I didn’t want people to make a run on the masks. So initially, I said that masks aren’t important.” That example illuminates this idea that we’re not necessarily being told the truth. We’re being told the thing which the authorities at large believe will get us to behave a particular way. Mr. Boghossian: Yes, it’s an interesting question. What if the lethality of the virus, instead of being 0.1 or 1 percent depending on death from Covid or death by Covid, what if the lethality of the virus was 50 percent. or bubonic plague level one and three? It’s more of a philosophical question, but would that justify lying to people for the greater good? There’s always a tension between the truth and what the policy line should be. I personally err on the side of truth. People are entitled to the truth, particularly in a democracy. We should know the truth, and hiding people from the truth doesn’t protect them. It just makes it so that they don’t develop the facility or the tools to figure out what’s true. Mr. Jekielek: There’s a kind of authoritarian impulse there. Mr. Boghossian: That’s the new axis. It’s not conservative-liberal, or Republican-Democrat. It’s authoritarian and non-authoritarian. It’s those people who believe in cognitive liberty and those people who believe that you ought not to believe whatever it is that you believe. There’s a party line. By sheer coincidence, of course, they happen to know what it is. We have a tension in this society, and I term it culture war 2.0, the axes have switched. Mr. Jekielek: Watching the response of different groups of people to these very authoritarian pandemic policies, I found a commonality in the people, and it certainly wasn’t Left-wing or Right-wing, although it tended to be more toward Right-wing. But it had to do with people who have some sense of the transcendent and some relationship with a higher power, versus people who are purely transactional in their behavior. This is the axis that I’ve come to. I’m very curious what you have to say about that. Mr. Boghossian: I don’t see that as a helpful heuristic. If someone has a sense of the transcendent and they have a profound commitment to that in their religious lives, they were more likely to go to church, especially during the beginning of the pandemic when there were lockdowns. But I don’t think that’s the axis upon which the discussion turns. Because you have wokism in every feature of society, and you have wokism in churches. It’s like a universal solvent that corrodes everything it touches. You have woke atheists, which are most atheists, and then, non-woke atheists or anti-woke atheists like me. You have woke Christians and anti-woke Christians. There’s more commonality between the woke Christians and woke atheists. There’s more commonality there, than between the woke atheists and the non-woke atheists. I have far more in common with an anti-woke Christian. It’s a new axis, but that doesn’t mean it’s because I have a sense of the transcendent. That means, among other reasons, I think there are fundamental goods worth preserving in our civilization. I believe in democracy. I believe in the enlightenment. I believe in free speech. I believe in freedom of the press. I believe in freedom of assembly. Those are the values that I share with many of my Christian friends, although I don’t share their metaphysics. I don’t believe Jesus was divine. I don’t believe he walked on water. I don’t believe any of it. The question to me is not about being transcendent. The question revolves around one’s attitude towards Western civilization and enlightenment values. Mr. Jekielek: I’m reminded of one of your Street Epistemology activities, which are actually really fascinating gamifications of what you believe. They really speak to me, because in the past, as an educator, I liked using gamification. Mr. Boghossian: Thank you. Mr. Jekielek: You’ve been doing this a lot with all sorts of topics. The one that jumped to mind was, “The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination,” which is Ibram Kendi’s assertion. We’ll show people what Street Epistemology looks like. How does it work? Then, we’ll get to this specific instance. Mr. Boghossian: In 2013, I developed Street Epistemology. Epistemology is how you know what you think you know. I originally did a proto-version of this in the prisons when I wrote my dissertation. It’s taking epistemology out of the academy as an academic discipline and giving it to people in the streets—taking the tools of professional philosophers and giving them to ordinary people. My friend, Reid Nicewonder and I go around the world. I have a nonprofit National Progress Alliance and donors fund me to do this. We go around the world. We were just in Australia and Puerto Rico and Florida, and we’re about to go to London. We put tape on sidewalks that says strongly agree, agree, slightly agree, and neutral. On the other side it’s the disagree. We’ll ask people what they want to talk about if they have a strong belief in something, and then we’ll make a claim out of it. For example, the only remedy to pass discrimination is present discrimination. We’ll put them on the neutral line. There are only two rules of the game. The first rule is don’t move until I say move. Because if there are multiple people on the line, we want to make sure that the person at the end of the line isn’t influenced by those persons. So we want everyone to make up their own minds. The other rule is you can move lines or change lines anytime you want, but you have to commit to a full line, one foot on the left, one foot on the right. And the reason for that is viewers or people who see it still not nudged, they’re actually moving from, for example, from the strongly agree to the agree. That’s how the game is played. I ask targeted Socratic questions to help people align or calibrate their confidence to what line they’re on. If they have X evidence, then they should have X confidence. But often people extend the warrant of the confidence beyond the evidence. We help them align that. And what’s fascinating to see is when people change their minds as a result of questions or other points that people bring up. It’s a way to teach people how to have impossible conversations. It’s the same in my book—so they can speak across divides, not to persuade, but to understand why would someone thoughtful believe this. Mr. Jekielek: What happened here in this particular instance? Mr. Boghossian: We did five or six Kendi videos. We asked that question, which has percolated throughout the entire society, and certainly in academic institutions. Kendi is a bestselling author. He says, “The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination.” Mr. Jekielek: You have to be anti-racist to deal with racism. Mr. Boghossian: Right. If somebody had historical oppression variables, for example if they were black, the only way to fix those problems of the past is to discriminate against people who do not have salient identity characteristics, like if you’re white, cis, or hetero-male, for example. So, we need to discriminate against those people, because the ancestors of other people have been discriminated against. Most people, when you ask them that question, particularly between the ages of 15 and 30 will agree with that, because they’ve never really thought about it. They haven’t drilled down on it. Again, my goal when I do this isn’t to get people to align with what I believe. In fact, this will only work if you’re a neutral facilitator. One of the things you see in that particular video is that through some pretty basic targeted questions, people will move once they understand what it means to actually discriminate against somebody, and what kind of a moral horror that is, independent of historical oppression variables that people have had because of their ancestors and their past. Mr. Jekielek: Our educational institutions are not teaching us to think. Mr. Boghossian: They’re corrupt. Mr. Jekielek: Yes, you’re using the word again. Mr. Boghossian: They are corrupt, right? There is a pervasive corruption in society. There is no other way we can function as a democracy. There’s no other way we can make better decisions for our community and institutionalize those than getting rid of the corruption. It’s the only way. Mr. Jekielek: I really like this method. Of course, you can’t replicate it. Mr. Boghossian: What do you mean by that? Because you can totally replicate it. Mr. Jekielek: Okay. Mr. Boghossian: Anybody can do it. That’s the other thing, it’s free. Anybody can do it. Ideally, you’d have a dollar or two for tape, but if you don’t have tape, you can use chalk. If you don’t have chalk, you can use sticks. It’s free. Anybody can do it. People have kids, and if they have a dispute between their kids, they can just set it up in their living room. Anybody can do it. It’s a way to help to not only make your own ideas clear, but to understand somebody else’s view. Mr. Jekielek: You have to be able to ask good questions to facilitate this, correct? Mr. Boghossian: Yes. We have videos about how to do that. One of the questions that I ask at the end, almost every time now, and we’re constantly changing and improving the method is, “What line do you think I’d be on?” My goal for that is for them to say, “I don’t know,” or “Put me on another line.” For example, the only remedy to pass discrimination is present discrimination. I strongly disagree with that, but it is ideal when I ask the participants, “What line do you think I’d be on?” They would either say that I don’t know or that I would strongly agree. Then, I know that I’ve been successful. Mr. Jekielek: There’s all these different fact checking organizations, but also media rating systems. It’s a media Left or Right that has proliferated. There’s one called NewsGuard, which recently has been exposed by Michael Shellenberger, who we mentioned earlier and others as not being very objective. I’ve had very serious issues with many of these. There’s one that struck me as very interesting because I felt it’s somewhat accurate. Actually, it’s called AllSides. And the way AllSides works, and this is very interesting, they remove all evidence of what media is actually presenting the information when they present the information itself. And they just give the text to people and people have to decide where they feel this lands on the spectrum. They replicate this over time. And in that situation, we’re defined as leaning right, which I think is fair. But the key is that the identity is removed, right? This is what you’re talking about. If the identity is removed, then people just have somewhat more of an objective view. People saw your picture and it said, I think the term you use is you’re not a right wing maniac, but if someone had seen your picture and it said right wing maniac, watch out for this guy. And when they saw you, they would treat you very differently than if you just came in and showed that you’re just trying to facilitate an intelligent discussion. Mr. Boghossian: Two things about that. I just had Winston Marshall on last night from Mumford and Sons, a former band member. He was telling me something and I said, “Are you Right-wing? He’s like, “No, I’m Left-wing”. So I think there is an attempt to actively smear people. Steven Pinker calls it the Left pole. Anybody who’s not far-Left is automatically on the Right. I haven’t seen AllSides, but the only thing is that you’d have to have some way of assuring there’s an equal distribution of people or to weigh their votes differently. Because if you have people coming in who are conservatives or liberals, that will skew the distribution or that will skew the results. But there are certainly ways to move more toward objectivity and analysis, and it’s not particularly difficult. These are not insurmountable problems. Mr. Jekielek: Well, no, the point is in most cases, the desire isn’t to actually assess how the media is doing. It’s more to label, right? Mr. Boghossian: Correct. I think the deeper point is, there is why. The reason that I would propose to you for why are not political or epistemic reasons. They’re moral reasons. Here’s the syllogism. Good people believe these things. I’m a good person. I believe this. Good people believe that whatever policy on abortion, whatever economic policy, whatever rate, the discrimination present—good people believe this. I am a good person. I believe this. Good people believe this. Epoch Times doesn’t assert this. I’m a good person. I don’t want to believe this. Epoch Times is the opposite of whatever my political leaning is. Right, left. So those are all ultimately moral claims that someone is making. One is a moral evaluation as a result of that. Those aren’t political. I mean, they’re political in a superficial way. Mr. Jekielek: Basically what you’re saying is that everything has been kind of pulled into this moral sphere. Mr. Boghossian: Correct. Mr. Jekielek: This is actually kind of what you’re fighting against in a way. Mr. Boghossian: Correct. It’s a tremendous danger when we have people who run institutions and who have jobs for life in the academies. They’re completely convinced they found the truth. They publish in their own journals. They teach those quote, unquote “truths” to their students, and then they’ve indoctrinated generations of students now. It’s a tremendous problem. And what do you do about it, is the question? Well, you either take Chris Rufo’s idea, which is there’s nothing wrong with that, or you build new things or you let it fester and get worse, which furthers the legitimacy crisis. But I can tell you, in no uncertain terms, China is not beholden to this. China is not beholden to equity mandates. China does not have diversity, equity, and inclusion, and they will limit speech to be sure, criticism of the government and have you, but they’re ultimately a meritocratic system. They have the gaokao for example. Mr. Jekielek: Well, so maybe I’ll push back a little bit on this with some obvious examples. They’re meritocratic unless you’re part of the wrong group. Mr. Boghossian: Like a Uyghur Muslim. Mr. Jekielek: Like a Uyghur Muslim or a Falun Gong practitioner or a Tibetan. Mr. Boghossian: That is also correct. They’re not hiding that. Mr. Jekielek: No, they’re not. In fact, the state propaganda explains to people why the correct moral position is to hate these people. Mr. Boghossian: That is correct. Mr. Jekielek: One of the untold stories, given everything we’ve talked about, is what Falun Gong practitioners have been doing in China, going one by one to people and giving them pamphlets and saying, “You should rethink what you’ve been told. Here’s some evidence that suggests otherwise.” In a Freedom House report from some years back, they list that this is being one of the most persecuted groups in the world and China. But they say that in some states in China, it’s actually been reduced. They believe that it’s because of this activity. Mr. Boghossian: What’s this in that sense? The handing out of the pamphlets? Mr. Jekielek: Yes, the one on one activity of handing out the material, talking to people, realizing everything the propaganda has told you. Mr. Boghossian: I can’t speak to that. But if I were to make a guess, it wouldn’t be any of the material they handed out. It would be the personal relationships made with the person who is handing out the material. Mr. Jekielek: You might be right. Mr. Boghossian: I don’t know. I’m not an expert. That’s my guess. People change their minds based upon, well, an atmosphere and environment of psychological safety and getting to know people, getting to know gay people, getting to know black people, getting to know white people, getting to know people who are different from them. That’s how they changed their mind. That’s the humanizing process. Data and evidence rarely changed people’s minds about the things that have a moral valence. Almost never. Mr. Jekielek: Two years ago, you told me institutions were captured. We have to rebuild from scratch. I think you mentioned Ralston College back in the day. That’s still being developed like- Mr. Boghossian: Correct, they’re in Savannah. Mr. Jekielek: … Stephen Blackwood in Savannah. Now, we’ve got the University of Austin where you’ve actually come on- Mr. Boghossian: Here in Austin. Mr. Jekielek: Right. Mr. Boghossian: They’re going gangbusters on a founding faculty member, and they have well over a hundred million dollars at this point. They use a facility in Dallas. And so they’ve constructed it. They have forbidden courses in the summer in which they bring in world-class public intellectuals to talk about things like sticky issues—like trans-ish sticky would be the most polite way to say it. They had Kathleen Stock and Deirdre McCloskey. Deirdre McCloskey is trans, having one of the first, if you want to frame it, debates or conversations. They’re bringing people together and the university has a truth seeking mission. So it’s scheduled to go online in 2024. Extremely excited about that. And again, I want to stress something so important. We’ve talked a lot in this interview about institutional capture. As the President Pano Kanelos says the remedy, this is an anti-Kendi quote in a sense, “The remedy to left wing ideological capture of our academic institutions is not to build right wing institutions.” That only polarizes and makes the situation worse. The solution to Left-wing organizational capture of the academy is to have a truth seeking institution where truth is the North Star, free inquirers are encouraged to speak their mind. That’s one of my jobs. I give people tools when they go in the forbidden classes program so they can have more productive conversations. How do we evaluate evidence? How do we have these conversations? And once that’s done, we have a framework in which students can engage ideas. Keep in mind that’s almost exactly the opposite of what the academy is now. We have people modeling the exact opposite behavior that they should be shouting people down, screaming, and freaking out. It happened at Stanford Law with judges. And again, if you notice, just to bring it back to something I said before, if you watch that video, it’s fascinating because they have a DEI bureaucrat who is basically fueling that. The University of Austin does not have a DEI bureaucracy. Oh, and admissions are merit based, purely merit based. Mr. Jekielek: One of the big issues that many institutions had over the last three years is severe restrictions on student life—would be one way to put it. So Hillsdale College comes to my mind as a clearly conservative institution, but also- Mr. Boghossian: Explicitly conservative. Mr. Jekielek: Explicitly conservative, but at the same time fostering, explicitly fostering free thinking, I think as being one that was able to navigate that somehow. Mr. Boghossian: Yes, I can’t speak to that. The way to figure out if that’s true, if they want to foster free thinking, then they should have a Marxist in their economics department. Mr. Jekielek: I would doubt they have one. Mr. Boghossian: Okay. Then, I would claim a kind of skepticism about that. I know Victor Davis Hanson is there who’s a major public intellectual. But what the University of Austin is building is different; is people from whom have different commitments or ideological commitments if they have any commitments at all. So students are given the tools. They’re shown people who actually believe, which is a key. It’s another emerging theme in our interview from John Stuart Mill and they are… So just take a step back. I taught atheism at Portland State University. I am an atheist, but when I taught the arguments for the existence of God, almost universally, I brought people in who believed those arguments. I would say, “Okay, what’s the best argument for the existence of God? You have 50 minutes, with a 10 minute break,” and then the students are going to ask you questions. I gave the students tools. They asked the questions. I’m not going to be effective in giving students, because I just don’t believe the arguments. So I think for Hillsdale or for Liberty or for other traditionally conservative institutions, that’s fine. You’re explicit. You’re honest about your mission. But I would question if they’re truly free thinking, unless they have people on the faculty who actually believe certain propositions within their domain of expertise, and then teach those to students and then give students a tool set to figure out what’s true. The only way it could be free thinking, right? Mr. Jekielek: You’re saying you think you should have someone on your faculty who teaches woke ideology. Mr. Boghossian: Correct. It is absolutely essential. That’s a prophylactic to falling into delusion. Mr. Jekielek: You told me, and I thought this was very interesting a couple of years ago, that you’re always seeking mechanisms of your own belief correction. Mr. Boghossian: Correct. Disconfirmation. Mr. Jekielek: Right. Please explain that. Mr. Boghossian: The lead physicist Feynman said, “The easiest person to fool is yourself.” Michael Shermer and others have written about this. Steven Pinker and Dan Dennet have written about this. So we have a moral impulse about something, and then we look to an epistemic landscape. So we feel something strongly, and then we look to facts and evidence. We pull the facts and evidence as it accords with our own moral impulse, and then we raise our confidence and say, I am sure of this. I’m very confident that this is true, because this piece of evidence, this piece of evidence, this piece of evidence, this piece of evidence. But what you should be doing is you should be engaging ideas that you find unpalatable or that you don’t like, or that maybe you’re offended by. In fact, probably that you’re offended by. That’s the other danger of the proponents of woke ideology. They discourage discourse and dialectic in conversation because they believe inherently rooted in those things is an oppressive power structure to keep minorities down. So they won’t even consider ideas or have conversations with people with whom they disagree. That’s a cognitive toxin that will almost guarantee you to lead into an epistemic sinkhole—almost guaranteed. Mr. Jekielek: There’s something that I call the megaphone. I see that the megaphone is the mechanism of manufacturing perceived consensus in society. The thing that struck me as bizarre, and I just didn’t fully grasp it as possible, there’s some portion of our population that is incredibly susceptible to being affected by this. In fact, they may change their minds 180 degrees overnight when that thing changes, when the information that megaphone is projecting changes. Mr. Boghossian: Correct. Mr. Jekielek: There’s some portion of the population who seems to be not susceptible. And I suspect that there’s a whole bunch of people that just kind of follow along. Hence the power of this machine, even though they don’t necessarily believe one way or the other, but they’re going to run with it because it’s the perceived consensus. Mr. Boghossian: Right. Let’s situate everything you said in the current context. So one of the belief changes that we’re currently seeing, the Overton window is shifting on. The trans issue is the testimonies of detransitioners are changing people’s minds. The Tavistock Clinic has been exposed. People are coming out and saying, almost universally, people with autism, young gay men, young gay women who are told you’re not really gay, you’re born in the wrong body. They’re giving what Abigail Shrier talks about irreversible damage: hormones, Lupron, breast binding, things that have literally irreversible damage. What should the response be to those situations? The response should be, “Well, I believe this. I thought it was the right thing based upon the evidence that I had. I realized maybe there’s something else there and maybe I was wrong.” That should be what a sane, reasonable, rational person says. Aristotle writes that a person shouldn’t do a bad thing to feel shame, but if you do a bad thing, you should feel shame. So bracketing the shame, the idea is that if you made a mistake, own up to it. Say that you made a mistake, don’t just do what’s morally fashionable. And my prediction, very explicit prediction to you, Jan, is that the people who have advocated for the sheer madness that has engulfed society in the last few years will not say, “You know what? I’m sorry, I was wrong. At the time, the same people, by the way, were screaming that they’re on the right side of history. At the time, I believed that, “I’m sorry, I made a mistake.” My prediction to you is that we will have epic gaslighting. In other words, these people say, I never believe that. I was never a proponent of it. The moment you do that, you compromise your integrity, not your intellectual integrity, although you compromise that as well, but you compromise your moral integrity. Mr. Jekielek: The people that come out and say they were wrong are very rare. I know. I look for them. Mr. Boghossian: And they should be respected independent of what they said they were wrong about. So we need to create a culture where we reward a few things. One of those things is saying, “I believe this. I was wrong. I’ve changed my mind.” The other thing is, when you ask someone a question and they say, “I don’t know.” Whenever I do the Spectrum Street Epistemology games, and people say, “I really don’t know.” When I ask them, I always say, “That’s a great answer.” And if I may just share a story with you briefly. I was asked once by my past employer if race was a valid biological category or a construct, and I said, “I don’t know. I’m not a biologist. Ask a biologist.” And for saying, I don’t know, I was reported to the office of Global Diversity. Think about that for a second, which is the other reason for the emerging theme in the interview that you cannot have both DEI offices and free speech. There cannot be a party line that you have to tow. And if you don’t tow it, you get into trouble. The fact that that’s always looming, that you think you should give certain answers to racial questions or trans questions or what have you. That is antithetical to having free speech in an institution. You can’t have both. Mr. Jekielek: There’s something incredibly attractive. There must be about Marxist or Marxian, or Marx related, maybe even Hegelian ideology, because despite the horrible realities it’s created repeatedly throughout history, people seem to keep gravitating back to it and swearing by it and believing it deeply. Mr. Boghossian: It’s like a cockroach. You stamp it out and it pops up again. Mr. Jekielek: Yes. I don’t want to be promoting that. I don’t want to be funding people who believe that. Mr. Boghossian: If you really don’t want to do that, I have a simple solution for you and for all your viewers here, stop donating to your alma mater. It should be the simplest ask in the world. My nonprofit National Progress Alliance has a whole campaign. Don’t donate to institutions that… Because we know where this problem comes from. It’s the academic institutions. This should be literally the easiest ask in the world. Not asking for money, asking you to not give money to your alma mater because the places from which you graduated are not the same places today. So if you want to make a dent, a small contribution, don’t give to your alma mater. Mr. Jekielek: That makes a ton of sense to me. What I’m referring to here is if I’m setting up my faculty, I’m not keen on hiring the Marxist ideologue who will then convince the next generation, right? Mr. Boghossian: I see. I misunderstood where you were going. Okay. The problem is that the only way people develop responses and an immune system to ideas is not to be separated from those ideas. Every new generation isn’t born with knowledge. We need to understand things. So let me give you a quick, very practical example, which I got crazy grief for. I taught a science and pseudoscience class, and I used to have people come into the class over Zoom at the time. This is before and during the pandemic, and I had Mark Sargent come into the class. Mark Sargent is a true believer, like an actual bona fide, true believer, has written a book about it, goes, saw conferences that the Earth is flat. The only way that my students could have understood Mark Sargent’s arguments is by asking him questions, listening to the response, and then responding to those responses. If not, what’s going to happen when my students get out and they encounter a guy like Mark Sargent, who’s incredibly versed in whatever it is he’s versed in? I don’t even know what it would be called. So that’s one aspect of it. But the other aspect of it is, what if these people are right? And I’m not necessarily saying about the flat Earth, but what if the beliefs that don’t comport with the dominant moral orthodoxy, what if those people who promulgate those beliefs happen to be correct? You want to know that. Now, in the case of Marxism, I would want to know that my students, I have a son and daughter, I would want to know that my students were exposed to Milton Friedman, Karl Marx, whoever they were exposed to. They were exposed to the widest range of ideas possible, given the tools to interact with those, understand the arguments pro and con. That’s how we make an educated citizenry. We don’t make an educated citizenry by removing entire domains of thought from a discipline. And that’s just parenthetically the problem with removing gender studies. We need people to study these ideas of race, class, well, less so class, but race, sexual orientation, “cis status” but we need them to do that in the most rigorous and robust ways. And when they aren’t done, we’re instead forwarding the narrative. That’s a problem. But even in that case, I would argue that we need to have a true believer of somebody who teaches our children or at least presents the material to our kids. And when I say kids, I’m not talking about K-12. That’s a different thing I’m talking about specifically in the universities. Mr. Jekielek: In principle, I’m fully in agreement with everything you’re saying. It’s just something specious about this particular ideology. Mr. Boghossian: Marxism. Mr. Jekielek: Yes. It somehow captures whole societies, again and again. Mr. Boghossian: So you are concerned about, and we’ll bracket for the moment, whether the concern is legitimate or not. You’re concerned about Marxism festering and growing in the United States? Mr. Jekielek: Deeply. Mr. Boghossian: The moment that you make an exception for an ideology, and we can talk about some horrific racial things, does that mean we have a lunatic in there who wants to throw people in ovens? Which is a totally reasonable question to be brought into the conversation. Mr. Jekielek: Or the flat-Earther… Mr. Boghossian: Or the flat Earth. Mr. Jekielek: But of course, those are very fringe. Mr. Boghossian: They’re very different because one is in the empirical realm, whether or not the Earth is flat. The other one is in the moral domain. It’s a kind of antibody. We’re exposing people to ideas. Marxism isn’t going to go away. It’s not going to go away if you don’t talk about it. But what’s going to happen is that people won’t be able to take what they learn in their class, go to the other professor, engage those ideas. So the price of an educated citizenry, you’re talking about exposing people to dangerous ideas. That’s what it means to live in a, not only necessarily to live in democracy, though it does, but that’s what it means to be an educated citizen. And if you want to propel the democracy, you have to have people who have engaged in a wide range of subjects and issues and developed counters and counters to those. That’s what being educated means. It’s Plato’s Book 7 of the Republic. It’s being led out of the cave, a state of ignorance and darkness and toward the light. Mr. Jekielek: Is there some age in the progression of development of a human being where ideas become appropriate or the human being is able to discern between good ideas and bad ideas, and make judgements? One of my observations is I feel like we live in a more infantilized society actually, right? And I think that might be deliberate. I think that people might be more susceptible to some of these really terrible ideas that sound good at a younger age. This strikes me as a very important dimension in the discussion. Mr. Boghossian: Let me throw something out too. This is the one of the most, if not the most important questions anybody could ever ask themselves in their whole lives. Here you go. Under what conditions would you be willing to change your mind? What facts would you have to hear? What evidence would you have to hear? If you institutionalize that process at a very, very young age, then the threshold for what is deemed appropriate will drop dramatically, because people will have the tools to engage those ideas. Now, what that threshold is, that’s still an open question, but if you give people a process or a way that they can think more clearly and develop a kind of skepticism about ideas, then that age range will lower significantly. Mr. Jekielek: That makes a lot of sense. But we have a society where this is not how children have been taught. And this is the argument that you’re making. In fact, kids have been kind of indoctrinated ideologically largely, right? Mr. Boghossian: Correct. That’s why we cannot have your example, Hamilton, or I think I brought up Liberty. That’s why you can’t have conservative or liberal institutions. You have to have a mix of ideas for people, a true intellectual diversity in which people can come and engage and try to falsify and use the tools that we have had since Socrates. We know that these tools are the best way. Philosopher Jurgen Habermas says, “You don’t have a conversation with someone to persuade. The goal should be to understand communication as understanding.” So we can understand your question. Marxism is a particularly pernicious thing. Why have people fallen? Well, that’s a simple question. You ask someone who believes it. Well, why do you believe this? And then that’s the kind of way that we cultivate an understanding. And once we do that, then there are downstream social effects. It’s socially salubrious. People are much less likely to rip down statues. People are much less likely to engage in acts of physical violence. People are much less likely to be uncivil towards each other because they understand why the other person believes what they believe because they’ve been exposed to those ideas. Mr. Jekielek: Peter, I enjoy speaking with you so much. I’ve hadn’t a chance yet to just get you to tell me, which I often do with guests, is where you come from. How is it that you ended up today being the Street Epistemologist? Give me a sense of how you’re thinking has evolved and where you actually come from. Mr. Boghossian: I was heavily influenced by Socrates. I love Socrates, without question, my favorite philosopher. I used to read the Republic, the Apology, the Laws, Meno, Crito, everything when I was a kid. It led me down a wonderful life path in a sense I’m curious about why people believe what they believe. I’m genuinely interested in what would lead someone to that belief. There are tools, the tools that I mentioned before in the interview, that I developed in prisons and that we’ve used in prisons. Many of these tools, like the Socratic method I mentioned, have been around. But when you add hosted negotiations, drug and alcohol counseling, cult exiting, the Socratic method is the skeleton. But when you add to that skeleton, the best available research data and evidence for the last 2,400 years, you come up with a remarkably powerful tool. I watched a movie when my dad was alive years ago about the gorillas, and it was just this horrific, truly ghastly slaughter of these gorillas. I was moved by this film and I said, “I’ve got to do something about the gorillas. This is just a terrible thing.” And my dad said, “What the hell are you going to do about the gorillas? You can’t do a single thing about the gorillas. Why don’t you do something about what you can do something about?” And I really started to think about that like, “Oh, wow.” Think globally, act locally. And so I started thinking, what can I do about that? Well, what contribution can I make? And it has to be free. That’s the other thing. I don’t sell any products. There’s no gimmicks. I can teach people how to ask themselves and other people better questions. I can teach people how to think more clearly about things in a non-threatening way. I can teach people how to speak across divides. I can teach people to understand that your ideas are not you, and you need to be merciless against your ideas and unbelievably kind and generous and loving to attributes of yourself and other people that you can’t change. So that’s the contribution that I wanted to make. That’s why I go around the world and I put tape on the sidewalk and I teach people how to do this. And then we release these videos to have a nonprofit, and now I’m pursuing my dream. That’s what I want to do. Mr. Jekielek: Somewhere along the way, you became a professor of philosophy. Of course, we discussed some of the people you brought into some of your classes. And then you resigned from Portland State University in a spectacular fashion, or at least a lot of people around the world knew about your resignation. What’s the future for you? Mr. Boghossian: Let me just go back to when I stopped doing my job, because it ties in with another theme from this interview. I would get summoned into the Office of Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, or people would file a complaint against me. More often than not, it was because I wanted to look at the other side of the issue because I challenged what was morally fashionable. And that challenge alone was problematic enough so that people were traumatized or they needed a trigger warning or it was considered a microaggression. So what’s next is I’m going to keep working on my nonprofit National Progress Alliance. I’m going to move toward exposing other instances of corruption. Wikipedia is one. I’m going to continue to move towards exposing corruption in academic institutions. And I’m going to keep going around the world and teaching people how to have impossible conversations. Mr. Jekielek: I want to finish with this. You mentioned something that I find very compelling and I believe to be true, but I don’t know if it’s necessarily obvious. You said your ideas are not you. Mr. Boghossian: Correct. Mr. Jekielek: Your ideas are not you. So what is you? Mr. Boghossian: At one level, what is you is a physical attribute or characteristic. I’m 56. You can’t change the things you can’t change. So if you can change it, it’s subject to attack. It’s reasonable. If you can’t change it, the color of your skin, your height, your age, it’s off-bound. Because by definition, you can’t change it. So what is you, what do you have at the end of the day? My mentor was in Buchenwald. And I remember reading Viktor Frankl’s Man’s Search For Meaning. Mr. Jekielek: One of my favorite books. Mr. Boghossian: It had a profound effect on me, and it actually completely changed the way that I raised my children. And the way it did that, and this answers your question, what is you? Viktor Frankl was in a line. He has a very wealthy wife, children, home, everything one could imagine. And then he’s in a loincloth, basically. And somebody’s deciding his fate. He goes to the gas chamber or he works himself to death. And in that moment, he didn’t have his education, his degrees, he didn’t have nothing. So what is you are the things that can’t be taken away from you. But what is more than that is what your integrity is. Whether or not you’re a person who lives to their ideals. Now the word is based whether you’re a person who’s based, whether you’re a person who’s willing to revise their beliefs. It’s what kind of intellectual and emotional and moral life you want to lead. And the other thing is these things don’t happen by accident. If you’ve been treating people poorly in your own life, in the relationships you build, even in that context, in Viktor Frankl’s Man’s Search for Meaning, he has no more relationships. He’s a guy. So you’re not even your relationships, but you are the culmination of the way you’ve treated people in the past. So a kind of integrity like a string through pearls that runs through various facets of your life. Mr. Jekielek: Right. Thankfully, there’s also redemption to be found from past misdeeds. Mr. Boghossian: Unless you subscribe to wokism, there’s no redemption, there’s no absolution, there’s the stain of original sin, which is privilege. There’s no way for you to work out of that horror that you are allegedly complicit in. That’s the other reason that we need to fight the ideology, because we’re creating entire swaths of people who hate themselves based upon their immutable characteristics or what their ancestors did. We’re creating a divisive society in which we stop looking at people as humans, and we look at them as oppressor or oppressed. Nobody benefits from that. Everybody is the loser. Let’s switch that narrative. Let’s change that. Let’s repudiate the ideology and let’s move forward and start talking to each other again. Mr. Jekielek: Peter Boghossian, and it’s such a pleasure to have you on. Mr. Boghossian: Thank you, and I appreciate it. Mr. Jekielek: Thank you all for joining Peter Boghossian and me on this episode of American Thought Leaders. I’m your host, Jan Jekielek. This interview has been edited for clarity and brevity. To get notifications about new Kash's Corner and American Thought Leaders episodes, please sign up for our newsletter! Here 👉 Get Alerts - PRE-ORDER "The Shadow State" DVD: https://www.epochtv.shop/product-page/the-shadow-state-dvd The Real Story of January 6 | Documentary BUY Jan 6 DVD: https://www.epochtv.shop/product-page/dvd-the-real-story-of-january-6, Promo Code “Jan” for 20% off. - Follow American Thought Leaders on social media: Twitter: https://twitter.com/AmThoughtLeader Truth Social: https://truthsocial.com/@AmThoughtLeader Gettr: https://gettr.com/user/amthoughtleader Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/AmericanThoughtLeaders Gab: https://gab.com/AmThoughtLeader Telegram: https://t.me/AmThoughtLeader

“This is the unraveling of civilization, if we allow for the full-scale corruption—political and ideological corruption—of our knowledge-producing sector,” says James Lindsay. Lindsay is the founder of the website New Discourses, author of “The Marxification of Education” and “Race Marxism,” and co-author of “Cynical Theories.” He’s also one of the minds behind the “Grievance Studies Affair” or “Sokal-squared Hoax,” in which they managed to get a number of fake papers published in critical-theory-based journals. The story is detailed in Mike Nayna’s new documentary “The Reformers.” We discuss the corruption of education and the evolution of Marxism to the new variants we see today. Interview trailer: Watch the full interview: https://www.theepochtimes.com/james-lindsay-the-marxist-underpinnings-of-modern-education-and-the-unraveling-of-civilization_5301101.html FULL TRANSCRIPT Jan Jekielek: James Lindsay, such a pleasure to have you back on American Thought Leaders. James Lindsay: I’m always excited to be here, Jan. Mr. Jekielek: James, there’s a whole bunch of reasons I want to have you in this seat right now. We have this new film by Mike Nayna about the Sokal Squared Hoax. You were one of the three who created it some years back. It opened my eyes to a whole crazy reality that I wasn’t fully aware of. You have a new book, The Marxification of Education, about Paulo Freire and his role in why our education system is the way it is. Finally, you gave this amazing presentation to an EU political party about the genus of Marxism. We’re going to talk about all this. Let’s start with the film and the Sokal Squared Hoax. People will remember there were these hoax papers. Please remind us what it was. Mr. Lindsay: Yes, 2017 to 2018 is the timeline, just to place everybody where we were in time. Peter Boghossian and Helen Pluckrose, two colleagues of mine and I decided that one of the best ways to expose the corruption academia and to credential ourselves as people who can criticize the corruption coming out of academia, would be to get a large number, as many as we could, of academic journal papers written and published in leading academic journals; feminist theory, feminist philosophy, gender studies, critical race theory, and education journals. We took a year, and we wrote 20. Seven of them were accepted for publication, and four of them actually got published. It’s a slow process. All of the seven would have been published. One of them was given an award for excellence in scholarship. The Wall Street Journal figured out what we were up to, caught us, and we came clean. In October of 2018, they broke the story. Our project came to a screeching halt. The final scoreboard is; seven accepted, seven still under peer review, and six that we decided we hadn’t succeeded with and retired. How many of those other seven would have been accepted? The sociologist suggested either four or five of them would have been. In other words, we cracked the code. We were aiming to expose that the scholarship, upon which we build our knowledge base, our public policy, our journalism, and what we think is real in society, is suffering from a tremendously fatal political corruption, to the extent that we could make up fake articles with just ridiculous conclusions that were, of course, politically fashionable. Some of these things were very funny, and some of them were very heinous, upsetting, and disturbing. We got them through the peer review process and they were regarded as genuine academic literature. Mr. Jekielek: You basically figured out that if you put certain keywords and structured the logic in a certain way, you would get in. Because basically anything with that logic, structure, and concepts that sounded good would get in. Is that the idea? Mr. Lindsay: Yes. The six that failed showed us that there’s a learning process. In fact, those were the first six that we wrote. At some point we started to get the hang of it and started asking, “What are the peer reviewers looking for? What do the journal editors believe is the way that the world actually operates? How do we phrase this? How do we dive into the existing body of sham literature to back up those ideas so that the scholars would consider it real?” We became very successful at this, to the point where, near the end of the project, apparently I’m on camera saying that we had in fact cracked the code and we could get anything we want published at that point. It’s not to say we could publish anything. It has to follow certain things. Some of the papers that didn’t get all the way through were under the review process. One of them is very prescient for our time because it was saying that we need to—and this is meant to be funny—be very wary of advanced artificial intelligence. Rather than allowing artificial intelligence to be guided by masculine bias, which will end a calamity that destroys the world, we need to make an interactional feminist. We argued for a feminist AI. We could dip into artificial intelligence research and just contribute nonsensical garbage based off of the book Frankenstein and other silly things, because we knew how to write it in a way that would flatter their stylistic and political biases. It’s really almost a culture, and a certain language that they speak. We convinced ourselves that we had actually succeeded in doing this. We can speak their language and articulate it their way. More than just replicating it, we can think the way that they think. Mr. Jekielek: Who are they? Mr. Lindsay: In this case, we’re talking about feminist theorists, gender studies scholars, and critical race theorists. But in more broad terms, we’re talking about what the kids call woke these days—the woke scholars and the critical theorists who have taken off into these various domains of identity politics. Mr. Jekielek: What you did was prescient, and it was remarkable. At the time, it was very valuable to me personally. Then, we met a few years after all this had happened. I remember seeing this, and realized there had been this very specific ideology that had even created entire disciplines of knowledge. Mr. Lindsay: Yes. Mr. Jekielek: It was a mind-blowing concept. Mr. Lindsay: That is the concept behind it, too. They call it constructed knowledge. This is why it’s so relevant. We had a filmmaker, Mike Nayna, who we told about this very early on. He started working with us about a month after we started. He’s following us around with cameras all the time, asking us impertinent questions. But they are actually probing questions, which is a better way to phrase it. He was getting inside of what was going on behind the scenes and trying to learn for himself the same thing that you’re asking, “What in the world is going on here?” It took him four years due to Covid delays and different issues that came up, plus the industry pushback. The film industry wouldn’t let the final product come out. He could get no support whatsoever within the industry. He had to figure out a different way to organize it and distribute it. Also, he had to recut it because he had been cutting it to satisfy the unsatisfiable editors, and now he was free to do what he wanted. It was delayed. But it’s almost fortuitous that it was delayed. Because honestly, the Grievance Studies Affair or the Sokal Squared Hoax Affair, the two names for it, have never been more relevant. I mentioned AI and that we saw this down the road, but every vein of relevant academic literature is now being touched by it. People are much more aware now than five years ago that this is an issue of the scale that it is. It’s one thing to say that we got a feminist theory journal to believe in feminist AI. But these same kinds of articles are now regularly being published in the New England Journal of Medicine. That’s a very concerning issue. We’ve talked in the past about the idea that our medical system is going toward this ideological capture, this medical Lysenkoism that I refer to, a kind of Sovietization of our knowledge production. There are the right answers and they say, “If you don’t agree with them, we’re going to get you out of the academy. We won’t publish you. You won’t be able to get tenure or a career, or worse, we’ll hound you out of your academic position if you have the wrong conclusions.” You might think, “That’s happening in all these stupid humanities journals.” I shouldn’t call them stupid, but they are in this case. But when it’s happening in medical journals, or if it starts creeping into engineering journals, we now have some serious things to consider. When we look at what the Biden administration and the Democrats and Congress are saying and doing repeatedly, they’re building off of this set of ideas. For example, the CDC will be informed by the things that are coming out of the New England Journal of Medicine, which has now imbibed this same political philosophy. I have zero doubt that I could have papers published in the New England Journal of Medicine. I’m not a doctor, and I don’t know three things about medicine. I could write these articles for the New England Journal of Medicine starting today. Other than checking my credentials at the door, there is nothing they could do to stop me from completely polluting that literature. That’s a very concerning problem. Mr. Jekielek: Because you understand how the ideology works? Mr. Lindsay: Yes. I also recognize that the gatekeepers at the journals who should have been keeping these fake things out are captured as well. Maybe they agree, or they know that they must flatter, or they must kowtow to this way of thinking about the world, this identity politics that is ultimately derived from neo-Marxist thought. It’s so overwhelmingly hegemonic within the academic universe now, that for whatever the reason, either agreement or fear, it’s certain that we could get these papers straight through the gate over and over and over again. Mr. Jekielek: I remember in 2020 when the virus was raging and the BLM riots had begun. Everyone is supposed to be at home and sheltering in place. Suddenly, there are 1200 medical professionals signing a letter saying, “The real health emergency is racism.” Mr. Lindsay: Racism, yes. Mr. Jekielek: People keep coming to me and saying, “This was the moment that a light bulb went off in my head and the world changed and I realized something really terrible was happening.” Mr. Lindsay: That’s easily the most common moment that I have pointed to. People tell me, “The moment I realized was,” and it was exactly that time you just mentioned. This is exactly what the Grievance Studies Affair was trying to throw up a red flag and warn about. We tried to do it by getting attention on how absurd these papers were. For example, the most famous of these papers chronicled this particular idea. The original idea behind it, and this is covered in Mike’s film, is that we were going to train men the way that we train dogs because of feminism. Men are bad behaving, they’re out causing rape culture and whatever else. If we get dog obedience manuals and train them like dogs with leashes and treats, then we can get them to desist from unwanted behaviors. This kind of just exploded from there. Peter and I were trying to figure out, “How do we structure this?” He goes to the dog park with his dogs every day in Portland. I said, “Just work in some of your stuff from the dog park.” He wrote me this draft that was mentally deranged with just insane stuff about things dogs were doing. The whole paper became focused on that rape culture is a serious problem in society. You could have an implicit bias test by seeing how people reacted to watching dogs have sex with each other at the dog park, or sexually assault one another. The peer reviewers were worried about things like, “How did you respect the dog’s privacy while you’re watching them do this? How do you know if the dogs are male or female?” We said that we inspected their genitals. They said, “How did you respect their privacy when you did that? We don’t want to get the dogs embarrassed or something. How do you know when a sexual assault with a dog is wanted or not wanted? You’re not a dog, so how do you know?” So, we put, “As humans and not as dogs,” in the paper. It is absurd that this is in academic literature. It really did get a lot of attention, because we said, “This proves that human beings act differently, depending on if the dogs are both male, or one dog is male and one dog is female. They react differently. This proves that men are homophobic. Somehow, that means there is rape culture, and that they condone rape, and therefore we have to train them like dogs.” This is the paper that was given an award. This is so absurd that it’s difficult to even sit here and describe to you this paper without thinking, “How on earth did anybody ever think that this was something real?” We famously wrote a chapter of Hitler’s Mein Kampf as intersectional feminism. In chapter 12 he says, “Our movement needs to do this 13 point plan.” He’s talking about the growth of Nazi party before it becomes the Nazi party and says, “Our movement needs to know half-measures,” this, that, and the other thing. Everywherethat it said “our movement” we would just scratch that out and put in intersectional feminism. We started making all the language work, and weaving in scholarship in between. We changed a lot of wording around without changing the meaning, so it wouldn’t get caught by a plagiarism detector. A feminist social work journal accepted this chapter of Mein Kampf. It’s obviously not Nazi ideology that it was being written about specifically, but it’s the totalitarian impulse that’s being written about and how to organize a movement for it. That’s what they saw in themselves, and we held that mirror up to them. They saw themselves reflected in totalitarian writing without realizing that’s what it was, and accepted it into a social work journal. What do we see today in 2022 and 2003? We defund the police and we send in the social workers, again and again. I can give you those examples. Peter and I talked about writing a paper for a medical journal. If we could figure out how to get through the credentialing, we were going to do a rewrite of the Hippocratic Oath, “Do no harm,” to actually say that we should redistribute harm. We should do harm selectively, so that we create health equity. Doing no harm is not possible at a level of first principles, so we’re going to throw that out. The origin of that phrasing, do no harm in medicine, we pinned it to a book that was written by a doctor in Britain in the 1850s, where he has a story in the book about how he dealt with the so-called savages when he went to India in the colonial times. We said, “Obviously, he’s racist. The whole program is racist. We have to get rid of the Hippocratic Oath and the whole concept of, do no harm.” What did we just see? It was big in the news where in a medical school admission process they had the students recite a new replacement to the Hippocratic oath, and it’s exactly the things that we were talking about. This is why that silly dog thing or this horrifying Mein Kampf thing is in social work, but now we also see this in medical journals. This is why this is so important. It’s zero surprise for people like me when they came out in 2020 and said, “Racism is a real public health threat,” because the critical race apparatus would say that. That’s exactly what they would say. They would say, “What do we have to do? We have to,” as we said in the paper that we never actually submitted anywhere, “redistribute harms. We’re going to stack the medical system to favor certain types of outcomes for certain types of people, whether it’s by race, by sex, or by gender.” With the transgender issue, you see the new standards of care coming for these so-called gender-affirming care surgeries. This is Lysenkoism. I invoke the name of Trofim Lysenko again. A lot of people don’t know who he was. He was an agriculturalist for the Soviet Union. He had an absolutely crackpot Soviet biology that he had more or less invented. It didn’t work, and was based on incorrect theories of genetics. It was based on Soviet ideology, in order to displace the western bourgeois ideology. He believed that you could convince seeds and plants to be comrades and to share resources and grow better, or to transform from a lower type of plant like oats, to a higher form of plant, like rye. He was famous for remarking that given enough time he could teach oranges to grow in Siberia for the people. Of course, this is all preposterous. But Stalin did not think he was preposterous, or maybe he did and didn’t care because he was a tool for power. Stalin implemented Lysenkoism in agriculture and starved tens of millions of people in the Soviet Union. Then, Mao comes along and says, “That’s Soviet biology, so that’s what we’re going to use,” even though it was a disaster in the Soviet Union. Mao starved tens of millions of people in China using these failed theories. When I say that we’re dealing with a Lysenkoism in the medical field, we have to start wondering about this reprioritization of care, the so-called affirming care that’s not actually care. It’s a very aggressive treatment protocol for an issue that we are not even clear what it is, a mental illness or otherwise. It’s not a conservative protocol to start people on puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, mastectomies, and genital surgeries. These are very serious interventions. It’s a very serious pathway of care to adopt. This is a Lysenkoist model though, because if you disagree with it, you will lose your medical license. If you wanted to prescribe ivermectin during Covid, you might lose your license to practice medicine. If you disagreed with the official word about Covid, you might lose your license to practice medicine. This is the same story. This is Lysenkoism in medicine. We’ll see it in other fields that get touched by this. It’s a very alarming problem. The reason I do what I do now, studying this Marxist or neo-Marxist phenomenon, telling people about it, traveling all over the world talking about it, is because in the middle of the Grievance Studies Affair, one of these papers we wrote got feedback from the peer reviewer. I was so shocked by the way they endorsed some of the worst ideas that we had written. They downplayed the idea of using compassion while applying the thumb screws, not literally, while abusing students in the classroom to overcome privilege. They said, “You can’t do it compassionately, because you’ll rescind the needs of the privileged.” I decided that this kind of logic unravels civilization. It ends in millions of deaths. I asked my wife, “Can I quit my job?” People say I’m a coward sometimes. Talk about courage, just go to your wife and ask if you can quit your job because you think that the world’s going to end if you don’t. Now, see what she says to you. See if you have the nerve to ask your wife that. I said, “Honey, I think that this ends in a genocide. Can I please quit my job and dedicate my life to telling people about this full-time?” A practical woman, she says, “Can you make money doing that?” I said, “Well, I don’t know.” She gave me an 18-month runway. She’s the hero of this story, really, because it took 16 months to write a modest check. But it’s that serious. At the time I was doing this to expose something and largely to have fun. It turned very serious because this is the unraveling of civilization if we allow for the full scale political and ideological corruption of our knowledge producing sector. Mr. Jekielek: You are actually a mathematician by training? Mr. Lindsay: Yes. It’s been a while, but yes. Mr. Jekielek: Do you know what this reminds me of? There are so many Babylon Bee joke articles that also seem to come true after a while. There’s something analogous in these hoax papers to those articles as well. Mr. Lindsay: Yes, Seth Dillon and I have actually spoken about that on a number of occasions. We have a camaraderie where we’re going to be a little nerdy like Legolas and Gimli saying, “How many stories have come true for you?” It’s like a competition, where they’re counting the Orcs they’re shooting in the Lord of the Rings, “Oh, you got one. Oh, I got one. Oh, you got one.” Because these things are coming true. We’re actually identifying the way they are processing information about the world and warping it to fit their ideological worldview, which is quite simplistic once you get past the complicated academic veneer. You can very easily see down the road as to what kinds of things that they will eventually think. This is a very common thing. Satire is effective because it stretches reality. We’re getting technical about a field that’s adopted a completely social constructivist view of reality. They think that everything is a political contrivance designed by the people in power to continue their own power. It’s not based in reality at all. It’s just a political contrivance built by the people in power to keep their power. When you’ve adopted that, the only reason not to stretch reality further is that you have a political reason for saying enough is enough, in other words, maintaining the status quo. Their slope is always slippery. With satire, if you stretch reality, all you’re doing is really telling what’s coming in some undetermined time in the future days, months, or maybe years. Mr. Jekielek: I love the film that Mike made, and it took me back to that time. I’ve thought about how much has changed since then, and how much came true since then. Is there a moment in the film that stands out for you? Maybe we’ll show a quick vignette, because this is a film that I want people to watch. Mr. Lindsay: Oh, gosh. It was an experience watching it, because Mike didn’t allow us to see any of this since back then. It’s been all these years and all of a sudden I’m thrown back there. There’s a moment that stands out with this very famous guy, Tim Pool. We did this event at Portland State University in February 2018. In February 2018, Tim Pool showed up at this event. He just happened to be in Portland and wanted to see what was going on and cover it for his little show. It was little back then, but it’s big now. He sat in the back quietly listening, and he asked this question, “They’ve captured all the institutions,” and this is more pertinent today, “They’ve got the government, they’ve got the media. They’ve got this, and they’ve got that. They got the universities and the institutions. They’ve got it all. How do you stand up to them?” I was shocked to see myself answer, “Galileo stood up to the church, didn’t he?” That’s exactly what I said. I said, “We have to stand up, we have to have that courage, and we have to take it on.” I said they were setting people on fire back then for standing up to the magisterium. They have erected a new, very woke academic magisterium that’s gone political and infested our institutions. The only thing we can do is stand up and drag it back toward truth. We’ve got to take the truth as our armor and take this moment. That scene is in the third part of the film. Ironically, within an hour of Tim Pool asking us that question, our first paper got accepted, unbeknownst to us. Tim Pool: Social media networks are siding against you. Mr. Lindsay: Yes. Tim Pool: They tend to err on the side of intersectionality. Mr. Lindsay: That’s true. Tim Pool: Businesses and brands tend to. It even seems that the school has also done this by shrinking the room you were given access to by not listing your event. How are you expecting to combat it at all? Mr. Lindsay: While we were doing that event, we were not thinking that the dog park paper I described earlier was being accepted, maybe not while Tim Pool was asking the question. But while we were in that room in that other scene, it turns out that’s exactly when our first paper got accepted. It proved to us, “Oh my gosh, we can do this.” It was really a pivotal moment, and a pivotal evening that was depicted. Mr. Jekielek: What is the big lesson of the Grievance Studies Affair or the whole Sokal Squared Hoax? Mr. Lindsay: Everyone has the keys to say, “This is what’s true and this is what’s false.” Everybody should be able to determine for themselves with their senses, their eyes, their ears, and their own experiments to say, “This is the scientific or enlightenment or liberal or free ideal.” Everybody has the keys to go out and understand the world around them and to offer their arguments and hash it out. But if those are locked behind an ideology, a catastrophe is coming. Undoubtedly, the lesson is that those at the highest level of the information and knowledge generating apparatus of Western civilization are now locked behind a door held by a very ideological contingent. They have a very clear agenda of transforming the world into what they want it to be, rather than what it is. Mr. Jekielek: I’ve been reading, The Marxification of Education. This is a stark reminder that Marx viewed ideology exactly as you just said, and that Marxism was the answer to getting rid of all of that. Marxism was the lack of ideology somehow. But ironically, it’s perhaps the most potent ideology. Mr. Lindsay: Right. That’s how Marx framed it. He said that this is the only non-i ideology. It is the end of ideology. We hear this argument all the time. Antifa is anti-fascist, how could it possibly act in a fascist way if it’s antifascist? Anti-racism is anti-racist, how could it possibly be racist if it’s anti-racist? Marxism is the end of ideology. How can it be an ideology itself if it’s meant to end ideology? But what if his ideology was actually something different, that it’s what the powerful in society create in order to maintain their power? I call this the iron law of woke projection. Because every time communists take power, what do they do? They create a bunch of ideological excuses for why they need to continue to keep power. I call this projection, and it’s very Freudian. That is what they’re doing when they say these things. They are confessing that this is how they believe the world works. They believe the world works by people taking power and shutting everybody else out of power. What do you think they’re going to do when they get power? They’re going to take power and they’re going to shut everybody else out, because they think that’s how it works. Then, they clothe that with good intentions. But at the end of history, as Lenin put it, when the dictatorship becomes absolute, the state will wither away. It will go away, and we won’t need it anymore. That’s the magic moment. If you look at the Greek Pygmalion myth, he carved this woman out of ivory because he saw the prostitutes and he got angry and said, “Women are awful.” He says, “I’m going to be a sculptor,” and he carves a woman out of ivory and he falls in love with his own statue. He asks Aphrodite to give him a woman like the statue. He comes home from his trip to the temple to the statue, he kisses it, and it comes to life. That’s the magic moment—when it comes to life. They carve away at the existing society to get to their ideal, by deciding which nitty-gritties of life they hate. They carve away at the existing society, just like carving Pygmalion from a block of ivory, carving it down into the image of a perfect woman. But that’s not a woman, it’s a rock. Then, God intervenes when it’s perfect, he satisfies his wish and it magically comes to life. This is what Lenin was actually talking about, “We’re going to carve away at the society by chipping away everything we don’t like. We’re going to chip and chip and chip away until everything is in ashes, except the perfect thing that we envision. When that becomes absolutely perfect, it will come to life. We’ll have communism and we don’t need a state anymore.” It’s the exact same belief in a magic that’s just not there. Lenin didn’t make it up. He got it from Marx. This is actually the idea. We see this repeated with the 20th century Western Marxists. Marcuse says, “We can criticize the parts of society we don’t like, and then the future that is contained within the present might emerge. The ideal future that’s contained within the contaminated present might emerge if we merely criticize away all the other parts.” But there’s that same issue, at what point does the idol become a God? Which is at the bottom of what this is. They’ve created an idol of what society is meant to look like. They believe that if they’re sufficiently pious or powerful they will attain it. Mr. Jekielek: Which is actually their version of pious. Mr. Lindsay: Yes, it is. Then, they will be rewarded by Aphrodite or God, and the idol will become God. This is the religious mind behind this whole program. It’s no surprise that it’s wholly negative. It’s chipping away and destroying what it doesn’t like, and supposed to create something positive out of that. It never works because it’s just destructive. What you’re left with is a mutilated idol that won’t come to life. There’s no magic that is going to make that happen. Mr. Jekielek: You’ve argued that this is the follow-up to the Gnostic heresy. Mr. Lindsay: It’s the same story, yes. This is the Gnostic heresy, where you have looked inside of yourself and understood your lived experience in a way that only you can understand. It’s hidden esoteric knowledge about the true meaning of you and your life that you can now actualize into the world, and by doing so, create salvation. But it’s an inherently collectivist ideology that Marx derived from Hegel before him, that the state is the perfect embodiment of the deity bestriding the earth. It is inherently collectivist in its nature. It works when we all agree on the social conventions of society, whether it’s from Rousseau, Hegel, or Marx. When the social conventions all accept this same idolatrous view of the perfected society, then we have our salvation. That’s when true communism, the true transcendence of private property, human self-estrangement, as Marx phrased it, that’s when that arises out of the iron fist of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Mr. Jekielek: When you gave your speech at Identity and Democracy, you explained that Marxism is really at the root or genus level, and then, it has its various species. It has the original Marxism, which focuses on class, but then there are all these other variants. Mr. Lindsay: Right. Mr. Jekielek: We can jump into talking about the education variant. Mr. Lindsay: Yes, the education variant. There’s every variant you can imagine. Mr. Jekielek: Please lay it out for me. Mr. Lindsay: I wanted people to understand, because it’s a very frequent discussion point that I have. I receive two primary arguments against my claim that what’s happening in the world is fundamentally, in the West at least, a communist revolution that has Western characteristics. I was thinking, “How can I communicate this?” One primary objection is, “It uses corporations, so it can’t be Marxism,” and I have an answer for that. The second one is, “I don’t think it’s Marxism at all, because it’s talking about race, it’s talking about sex, it’s talking about gender, and it’s talking about education. This is culture. It’s not talking about economic class and material conditions. It’s not Marxism at all.” I was trying to figure out how to explain this. The picture in my head while I was there in Brussels was that it has evolved. I was trying to work through, “How do I communicate that it’s evolved?” I said, “What happens in evolution is you have speciation, but a species is derived from a genus.” You have some earlier ancestor and then the ancestor speciates, and then all the things that came out of that ancestral at whichever level are within a single genus, and then, there’s families and orders and phylum above that. My taxonomy is limited, but I got the idea of the genus species picture. What I said is that somewhere there is a genus of cats. Maybe we have to go to Panthera, I don’t know where it’s, but there’s cats. We all know what cats are. We can do this kind of biblically with different kinds of cats. We know what cats are. Some cats are lions, some cats are tigers, some cats are house cats, and some cats are pumas or clouded leopards. But if you shine a laser pointer, it doesn’t matter if it’s a tiger or a house cat, it chases it. They have very similar characteristics, but they’re also very different. Lions and tigers are not the same animal. They’re distinct species from one single genus of animal. Marxism works the same way. We can take a step back and say that Marx was creating agnostic theology and a practice of that theology which applies very broadly. It’s the seizure of the means of production of man. If you say that’s at the heart of this, then it’s a seizure of the means of production of society and mankind. That’s the essence of Marxism, through conflict and the whole dialectical materialism, this whole thing. We could summarize it, but you can take a step back and say that’s what Marxism is at a big picture, genus level. Then, we start looking at different species. Marx believed that your economic conditions, looking at industrial capitalism in the 1800s, were not the best circumstances. Also, if you are not wanting to get a job and therefore conditioned by the idea that, “I could do whatever I want if I didn’t have to get a job,” it was that kind of mentality. “Economic conditions determine who you are as a person.” Man is produced by his economic conditions. Therefore, you get the species we call classical Marxism or materialism or economic Marxism. Mr. Jekielek: But now the oppressed have to seize the mechanism of production. Mr. Lindsay: Exactly. They seize the means of production and turn the system over to benefit themselves and to liberate everybody from the system of oppression. It’s Gnostic, by the way, because whoever has the means of production to begin with operates like a demiurge, the creator, the evil demon that actually structures the world and entraps human beings in the material reality, instead of freeing the divine spirit that we actually are. Marx sees it this way, and the underclass gains the Gnosis, which is socialism in his words. Man realizes that all along he has been a species who has the capacity to create history, to change history, and to be history. He seizes the means of production and produces man to become socialist man, at which point everything will become increasingly socialistic. But you could interchange out where you think the means of production are. If you’re a critical race theorist in the 70s or ’80s or ’90s in the United States, and you’re very obsessed with the ways that race has contoured life in America, you might say, “Race is actually the primary producer of the condition of man,” and the whole thing falls out. Critical race theory just lands in your lap. It’s an exact replication of this same idea. Now, you’ve gone from a lion to a tiger, two different species of the same kind of animal. But then, you could be a queer theorist, one of these feminists that started with the line of Simone de Beauvoir, “One is not born but becomes a woman.” In Hegelian German it would be, “a woman in herself.” What does it mean to be a woman outside of the patriarchal construct of women which forces women to be helpmates to men? She has this pathway that goes from her to Foucault, to Judith Butler and to these other queer theorists. They’re sitting there and thinking, “Who in the world gets to decide what’s normal? Not me. My life is not that good because I’m not a normal woman.” If you’re Judith Butler, you’re a bit of a butch lesbian. You say, “Okay, I don’t fit the mold, so I’m not normal. There’s a problem. Somebody else is in charge of that.” But it’s the same model though. If we seize the means of production of what’s considered normal versus queer, then we can have a revolution and liberate people in terms of sex, gender, sexuality, and other factors to have to do with their personal characteristics. Queer theory lands in your lap from the exact same architecture. The speciation is that maybe economic conditions produce what it means to be a person or who you are, maybe it’s race, maybe it’s normalcy, maybe it’s which they call normativity, maybe it’s fat status, ability status, maybe it’s whether or not you are considered valid as a knower. Maybe your interpretation of your lived experience should be considered more valid than whatever the knowledge producers at the university or the school say it is. That’s when we get to Freire. Mr. Jekielek: This is also what I found so fascinating reading The Marxification of Education, because I’ve been learning a lot over the past few years about this current very, very bizarre and intense cultural moment we’re in. This book is helping me put together a whole bunch of pieces of disparate knowledge. For example, this idea of lived experience and how this idea is core to Freire’s ideas, but it’s also core to so many of these other species. Mr. Lindsay: Yes. Freire thinks that’s the dynamic of this particular species—if you live in the world, you already know. You’re already a knower and your knowledge is the favorite word of the day. We hear this from the woke all the time. You notice they don’t talk very often about true and false, they say it’s valid. “Your knowledge is valid, your feelings are valid, your emotions are valid, and your anger is valid.” Mr. Jekielek: They don’t believe in true and false. Mr. Lindsay: Right. But they do believe valid and invalid is what gets counted. Mr. Jekielek: Correct. Mr. Lindsay: In this case, you already know things. You’re a peasant working in Brazil, you don’t necessarily have a good life, and you are fairly oppressed. Here in Brazil in the 1960s, the government is corrupt. You’ve been colonized and decolonized and recolonized and the government keeps going back and forth, from a Marxist thing to a proto-fascist reaction thing. It’s not great, and you’re probably uneducated. But then, South America starts to industrialize, starts to commercialize, and you know how to farm. All of a sudden, you’re just a hick. You’re just a redneck. You’re just a bumpkin from the peasant class in your knowledge. Yes, you think you know how the world works, but you don’t really know how the world works. You can’t even read. Freire is looking at this and he says, “There are people who have called themselves knowers, and these knowers are saying that other people’s knowledge doesn’t count. The lived experience that you have as a peasant living and working in the world, which Freire calls it the concrete knowledge of your experience and existence, doesn’t count. They’ve set up this aristocracy that has to be overthrown. They are the ones who know and, “You are the one who are absolutely ignorant,” as Freire phrases it. He says, “That’s crap. You are a knower, you are a historical figure, you are going to change history, you have the capacity to move history as a historical agent.” We need to awaken in you what he calls a critical consciousness, which is an idea of Gyorgy Lukacs, a Hungarian Marxist from the ’20s and ’30s. It is what Lukacs or Marx called class consciousness. We need to awaken in you a critical consciousness, which is an extension of class consciousness, into the idea that everything in society needs to be criticized, because it’s actually dehumanizing. As he says, it’s domesticating, and it keeps you in your lane. It keeps you submerged so that you have no possibility of understanding or rebelling. He says, “No, we’re going to help you understand the truth about this political context. We’re not going to teach you actual literacy until we teach you political literacy.” He teaches this literacy course in Brazil to get them to be politically literate, to understand the context in which they live, and to see themselves as knowers. Because he says, “If you’re a knower, then you can utter the word. When you can utter the word or speak the word, you can change or create the world,” and the religious overtones there are obvious. This is an obvious mimicry of God in the first Book of Genesis, who spoke the world into existence. Freire’s project is the same thing. It’s the dynamic of have versus have not, and oppressor versus oppressed. It is those who get to decide what counts as true knowledge, and those who don’t get to decide what counts as true knowledge. Lived experience is in fact not your truly lived experience—it’s not really your actual experience. You go down the street, and you have an experience, but it’s not lived experience until it’s been run through the critical consciousness filter. When somebody says, “It’s been my lived experience that I have racism,” what they mean is, “I’ve experienced things that may or may not have been racially tinged, that I’ve run through a racial consciousness filter, provided largely by CRT, critical race theory, that has led me to interpret a system of racism, and that has made me color that.” That is lived experience. It’s not of your actual real experience or knowledge. Lived experience is when it has been politically conscientized, as Freire calls it, and then it becomes king. That is better than the official knowledge, because it’s the knowledge that the powers that be in society don’t want you to know, and that they don’t want you to have. That’s your saving Gnosis, your being set free, or your salvific, really. It is the knowledge that gets you out of the trap of submersion and oppression. The Gnostic elements are very clear, and the Marxist flavor is very clear. But instead of it being material conditions now, it’s access to being considered a knowledgeable person, or to knowing, or to even setting the conditions of knowledge. When we look at the woke literature, when we talk about the Grievance Studies Affair that we just were discussing, immediately you see the primacy of lived experience, which is a phenomenologically interpreted coloring through the critical consciousness of experience. We immediately see, though, how it’s always whose knowledge is valid versus whose knowledge is invalid—your truth versus my truth. If you don’t understand the power dynamics behind the construction of truth, then you can’t possibly have anything to say. Everything we’ve experienced coming out of this woke movement in the past 10 to 15 years, longer than most people realize, is colored by this elevation of the oppressed. By virtue of their oppression, they hold a greater knowledge, a superior knowledge to what Hegel might have called first stand or understanding. Mr. Jekielek: You’ve provided a framework to understand something that undergirds all of these other critical theories, or cynical theories, as you call them in your book, theories. By the way, I’ll just comment on that. It was incredibly valuable to understand why you called your book with Helen Pluckrose, Cynical Theories, because the worldview is cynical. It imagines that everything is a power play. This is an incredibly important concept. Please reiterate that for me here. Mr. Lindsay: Yes, it is. When they say the world is socially constructed or race is socially constructed, or gender is socially constructed, what they’re saying is that there is a power dynamic that has set up our understanding of that concept in that particular way, and it has imposed it upon the lower class for the advantage of the upper class. This is intrinsically a conflict-oriented, stratified society kind of thinking, just like Marx adopted. But I also insist it’s intrinsically Gnostic, where you have the creator class, which is analogous to the demiurge of Gnostic philosophy or religion that sets up the terms of the world. You can literally take, as the Christian gnostics did, Yahweh in the Book of Genesis to be the demiurge, and that there’s a actual genuinely high God behind that who you can obtain knowledge of and save yourself from the trap of the evil imprisoning of mankind in garden, and then in the world. If you actually see that the people who own the means of production of society and man as a demiurge in the world, rather than one that’s spiritual, what you actually see is the transition. With Rousseau, Kant, Hegel, and Marx, this is really the big contribution that became romanticism and German idealism as mystical structure. The only way that they can interpret the world is through this negative thinking. The gnostic belief is that the demiurge is an evil demon posing as God who has created a holy, bad world to trap the holy, good spirit of man in a fallen world as a prison. Everything that you see is actually this horrible, sinful, mundane, impressed upon your truly glorious divine self. The goal is to be wholly negative about what you see, wholly negative about the world around you, and to constantly, as Marx phrased it, “Give ruthless criticism of all that exists.” This is exactly what you see being done. Then, if I have an interaction with you or somebody of another race or of another sex, there’s always some cynical interpretation for what went on. Maybe I would talk to a woman and we just have a conversation, then we go our way. Nothing happens. It’s just, “Hey, how are you? Oh, it’s good to see you, nice to have run into you.” But then, she goes off and has a cynical interpretation, “But he probably wanted to get me in bed,” or something like that. It’s very cynical. Perhaps I had no such idea. There’s even a meme about this. The man and the woman are lying in bed together, and she’s thinking, “He’s probably thinking about another woman.” He’s actually wondering, “What if I were to put ham and turkey on the same sandwich?” It is a very cynical interpretation. These philosophies feed the most cynical interpretations of the alleged empowered class, the demiurge class, and the bourgeois class—all synonymous with the oppressor class. It’s the most cynical interpretation of all of their motivations and actions possible. Thus, we call it cynical theories instead of critical theories, because when they’re doing their criticism, it is a ruthless criticism of all that exists. It is cynical criticism of the power motivations behind every possible thing that happens. Mr. Jekielek: It even allows you to hate. Mr. Lindsay: You must at the end, not necessarily at the beginning. The philosophy maybe doesn’t call for that, but eventually it will. The ideologues with enough power will openly call for it. For example, Mao openly taught the masses to hate the enemy. First, they’re the people, and then they’re the enemy. The enemy is not part of the people. He absolutely taught that you must find ways to support and help and be on the side of the people to resolve contradictions among the people. A very famous speech he gave in 1957 was on resolving the contradictions among the people. Then, he immediately gives the so-called friend-enemy distinction that is more famously attributed to the Nazi jurist, Carl Schmitt, which is getting a resurgence now in the reactionary right, tangentially speaking. He gives his friend-enemy distinction immediately. He openly taught that there is an enemy class. If you talk to Xi Van Fleet, Lily Tang Williams, or any of these survivors of the Cultural Revolution who are now speaking up here in America, they will tell you, “We were taught to hate the enemy class.” Maybe not at the beginning, when it’s just distrust, paranoia, and cynicism. At the end of the road, it’s going to be an absolute hatred of the people that you believe are holding you back from the liberation you feel like you’re entitled to receive. Mr. Jekielek: We saw something like this with the unvaccinated being demonized in all sorts of ways. Mr. Lindsay: Deplorables, unvaccinated. It’s always, “Those are the people preventing society from,” as Mao phrased it, “Achieving unity on a new basis.” Mr. Jekielek: It’s hard to imagine. There have been these clips compiled now of what people said, whether it’s about deplorables or the unvaccinated, people with full-throated denunciation. It is really reminiscent of the struggle sessions during the Cultural Revolution in China. Mr. Lindsay: Yes, virtually identical. That’s the model I just alluded to. Mao said, “Unity on a new basis.” That was actually the third part of his three-part formula to transform society. He bragged that he had created it in 1942. I’ve read, but I don’t know for sure and haven’t tracked it down, that it was actually an import from Stalin. Mao and Stalin actually didn’t like each other. Stalin didn’t trust him. Ironically, he thought he was a country bumpkin. As it turns out, Mao was a country bumpkin. At any rate, it may have been a program that he imported from the Soviet Union, or it may have been his own invention, but the formula was called; unity, criticism, unity. It’s a three-part strategy. The first unity means inculcating the desire for unity. “Don’t we all want to have a space where we feel like we belong? Don’t you want this to be a welcoming and inclusive environment?” That’s the modern parlance. The second stage is to enter into criticism, which then leads to self-criticism and struggle. He even says that the method of criticism is struggle. What that says is, “We can’t have a welcoming space if Jan is transphobic.” Trans people cannot feel welcomed and that they belong in a space where there is transphobia. Therefore, Jan has to change himself. Then, we’ll have unity on a new basis where transphobia is completely not allowed. This is actually his totalitarian formula of how we’re going to purge society of the undesirables and bring everybody into a new political basis. Those were his exact words, “Unity on a new basis,” which he called socialist discipline. Today, we use words like sustainability, equity, and inclusion. But this is the same model. This is why you see the same things. They say, “We all could have had unity. We could have ended Covid in two weeks, if we all just would have worn our masks and stayed home and everybody got vaccinated. It would’ve ended.” Joe Biden was standing up there saying, “It’s going to be a severe winter of sickness and death. We have a pandemic of the unvaccinated.” We would have been in unity, which was another campaign the Biden administration pushed right after the election. “We would be in unity, if not for all of you people who won’t get on the program, all you deplorables, and all you unvaccinated. If you would just do what you’re supposed to, we would have unity and we’d be able to move forward into a glorious new future.” “But you won’t, so you’re the ones who need to be criticized, and you are the ones who need to be denounced.” Mao and Freire both denounced that which they didn’t like, so they could have unity on a new basis and move forward together. They said, “You are the problem. You are the thing holding us back.” That’s the mentality, and that’s the message. That’s why you can see this carbon copy—whether it’s Covid, whether it’s critical race theory, whether it’s trans-affirmation, whether it’s environmentalism with fighting emissions, and the Green New Deal. It’s the exact same formula. It’s the formula to force everybody to scapegoat and attack and hate everybody who won’t get along with this new program that’s been proclaimed from on high as the only true path forward. Mr. Jekielek: Let’s jump back to Freire. You make a case that there is a Maoist impulse in Freire’s teachings. Mr. Lindsay: Just to be very clear, in Pedagogy of the Oppressed, which is Freire’s magnum opus from 1970, in a footnote at the beginning, he says his method of education is based on what he has observed in Mao’s revolutionary high schools and colleges in China. Yes, it’s derived from Mao’s educational program, or at least from the rumor Freire heard of how it was working. Mr. Jekielek: How important is Freire’s thinking to the current educational system? Mr. Lindsay: It’s central. There’s a book that was written in 1992, The Critical Turn in Education, by a Marxist professor, Isaac Gottesman, from Iowa State University. He gives a historical view from the mid-1960s up to 2015, and asks, “How did education change?” Literally, the first sentence of the book is, “Where did all the ’60s radicals go? Not to the religious cults, and not to yuppiedom, but to the classroom.” That’s his first sentence. He goes on to explain, and he says that Paulo Freire’s work is really the pivotal work. By 1992, it had achieved its place and could be found everywhere. By 1992, our colleges of education were completely enthralled with Paulo Freire’s work. I just had a discussion with some Brazilian academics, and they said that it’s been very impactful in Brazil, but it’s been much more successful in the West, and in particular, North America. Freiren education is about how we are taught. Actually, the child is going to lead the classroom. This whole thing about the young people being on top is like Mao’s Youth Revolution. “They are going to tell us what they need to know.” Because, of course, they’re pure, like Rousseau believed that they are born pure, and then society corrupts them. We’re going to let them decide what they need to learn and how they need to learn it. The teacher then subjugates themselves from the role of teacher to facilitator and co-learner. They learn from their students what the kids have going on in their life. We call this culturally-relevant teaching, which was created by Gloria Ladson-Billings in 1995. She said she was packaging Freire’s critical pedagogy into the critical race context. She wrote three papers in a single year, two on culturally-relevant teaching and one called, “Toward a Critical Race Theory of Education.” It’s just repackaging. We call it culturally-relevant teaching today, which says, “We’re going to find out where the kids are culturally, socially, and emotionally.” Social and emotional learning is the big rage now. “We’re going to use what we find to figure out what we’re going to teach them, but we’re really just going to facilitate them. But we will facilitate them,” as Freire indicates, “into political knowledge. The lesson, whether it’s mathematics, whether it’s reading, or whether it’s history, is a mediator,” he says, “to knowledge. And true knowledge is political knowledge.” If they become politically conscientized or awakened, or in today’s world, woke, then they will want to learn the math or the reading for the sake of being able to transform the world. We’re going to radicalize the kids first, and being radicalized, in theory, will make them want to learn enough to transform the world. That’s the model. But you ask, “How central is it?” Since 1992, according to their own internal historians, he has been the central figure in academic education theory. Virtually everything reflects off of him. Mr. Jekielek: Do you think most teachers; high school teachers, grade school teachers, and kindergarten teachers today, understand that their educational method has this logic? Mr. Lindsay: No, not at all. As a matter of fact, I can go back to Gloria Ladson-Billings. She wrote these three papers in 1995, including, “Toward a Critical Race Theory of Education.” The second one is something like, “Toward a Theory of a Culturally Relevant Pedagogy.” or something like that. With the third one, sometimes they give these cute, but very descriptive titles. Sometimes they give a quote or a cute title. In our Grievance Studies Affair papers, the title of the rewrite of Hitler’s Mein Kampf was, “Our Struggle is My Struggle.” That was the title of the paper. So, it was a cutesy kind of thing. For her, it was actually a quote that she took from one of the teachers she was studying. “But That’s Just Good Teaching,” is the title of the paper. Then, there is the subtitle, there are the descriptions, plus lots of academic words. The title of the paper is actually, “But That’s Just Good Teaching.” Your average person has gone through a program that at least since 1992, started to heavily infiltrate our colleges of education. This started in 1984, when Paulo Freire’s Politics of Education started to transform that space. There are other things preceding that as well. Certainly, since 1992, that has been called good teaching and best practices, just like we’re having doctors now learn that it’s just best practices to do gender-affirming care. No, I don’t think the vast majority of them have the slightest idea what ideology they’re supporting, what logic they’re participating in, and where it even comes from. Many of them have actually heard of Paulo Freire. But what they’re being taught is that this is the most sophisticated way to create engagement—that’s the buzzword—engagement with students. This is the big problem, the kids won’t learn because they’re not engaged. If we get engagement with students, then they’re going to have learning. This is just the best way to teach kids. They might hear some of the origins of the philosophy that are cited sometimes. But primarily, this is what it means to teach. If you actually read Freire, he very rarely cites anybody at all. He just gives his description of what he thinks teaching should be. Now, he does rely and lean on Lenin, Marx, and occasionally on Stalin quite explicitly. Che Guevara was a big hero of his. I don’t think your average teacher has the slightest idea that this logic of student-centered learning, this idea of using generative methods to increase engagement, or culturally relevant teaching is anything other than just the contemporary best practices in education. They believe that a century of the science of learning—another one of their buzzwords—has led us to realize it is the best way to teach kids. But that leaves them frustrated and puzzled, and thus radicalizable, because the kids aren’t learning to read, and they’re not learning to do math. In fact, their academic achievement scores are so abysmal that it’s shocking when you hear the percentages. Nationally, 40 percent of American students are achieving at grade level in math or reading. In certain districts, like I cite in the beginning of the book, Providence, Rhode Island, we’re talking about single digits. Six percent of the students are learning mathematics at grade level in Providence, but they are some of the most politically active students in the country. If something happens in Texas like a school shooting, every kid is out of the Providence schools and onto the State House steps doing a demonstration that afternoon. The teachers know that political activism is very engaging, and it’s just good teaching. Mr. Jekielek: You make the case that the teachers have been replaced by activists. That’s how you describe it in the book. But activist implies that the person knows what they’re doing, doesn’t it? Mr. Lindsay: The thing is, some of them do. Some of them do, but not all of them. But what they’re teaching is activism. They are actually facilitators of activism. If they’ve adopted the idea that we should be raising critical consciousness, whether they realize they’re doing activism or not, they actually are, in a sense. Because they’re bringing a particular political view of the world and actively trying to instill that in other people, so that they can see the world according to the political perspective. There are definitely some activists because we catch them sometimes. For example, sometimes we just know they go on TikTok. Our friend, Chaya at Libs of TikTok exposes them saying, “I’m going to transform the kids and I’m going to raise this, and I’m going to do that.” Sometimes we catch them explicitly. Sometimes there are hidden cameras. The South Carolina Freedom Caucus caught one of their large consultants. They did a secret little project, very tough old style, James O’Keefe-style sting on this consultant for the education department. They caught her saying, “One of the things we do is we get some of the teachers who are activists to become co-conspirators, to bring it in against the law, whether it’s CRT or whatever.” They know it’s against the law, but they’re going to bring it in anyway. We know there are some activists, and we know that there’s this ideological capture. Then, there’s this general, not exactly blameless, but mostly faultless ignorance of what’s being participated in. Those things all align in one direction. You can think of it like it’s a string and it’s being pulled by the deliberate activists, who can be very small in number, but their goal is to turn kids into activists. The goal in the more radical parts of colleges of education is to get the teachers to understand, in the phrasing of Paulo Freire, which is now an ubiquitous thing you hear in education circles, that teaching is a political act. If you have embraced the concept that teaching is a political act, you are an activist the second you set your foot in a classroom. If you actually believe teaching is a political act, you’re an activist the second you set foot in a classroom. They are making activists in the teacher’s colleges. Some of them are, and some of them aren’t. They’re making activists in the teaching trainings, and in the continuing education professional development courses. They’re emphasizing the importance and the necessity of this. Then, they’re using that to make activists out of the students. Most teachers are not actively complicit in this program, they’re just trying to do the best they can to teach. But some are, and it doesn’t take everybody to do this. Mr. Jekielek: In a sense, these other courses or classes are incidental to the true purpose. The true purpose is to create that activism and that conscientization, that consciousness of activism. Mr. Lindsay: Right. Mr. Jekielek: It’s no surprise that people can’t do things at that level, because indeed, that’s not the ultimate purpose. It’s a side purpose. Mr. Lindsay: Right. The teachers have been sold. If they are activists, they’re just going to do it. But if they’re not activists, they’ve been sold that this is the best way to increase student engagement. You’ve got to get the kids interested. You got to be them to learn it. I’ll give you an example of what Paulo Freire describes as generative themes, which is how you use a concept to generate the opportunity to have a political conversation that will conscientize, or awaken, or or wokify, or politically radicalize the kids. He said, “The content of the academic lesson itself is a mediator to the political conversation.” Here is a true example that shocks people. I put it out very often. If people have heard it before, my apologies. This is a real example from an Indiana teacher professional development training and social-emotional learning from just a couple of years ago. They were doing second grade mathematics as an example, and given a word problem. Johnny is riding in the car with his mom and dad on the way to the amusement park. The amusement park is 50 miles away from their home. They have already traveled 30 miles. How much further do they have to go? The students are panicking, and they don’t know if they can answer the math question. Obviously, the goal in a math pedagogy sense, as a former math instructor myself, would be to teach them to take the words to set up the subtraction problem, 50 minus 30, to arrive at the solution of 20, and to re-articulate the solution in words, 20 miles to go. That would be the goal of the exercise as a second grade problem. It’s subtraction, it’s not difficult, and it’s getting kids to be able to take a paragraph and turn it in. This isn’t what happens. In the teacher training professional development courses, they are taught this. With kids, you need to get them engaged. That’s just good teaching. You need engaged students. “Kids, raise your hand if you’ve ever been to an amusement park.” Of course, there’s seven who have. Some kids have, and some kids probably haven’t. Some raise their hands, and some kids don’t. The teacher says, “Some of you have and some of you haven’t. Why would that be?” Now, the mediator has happened. The generative theme is the amusement park. That’s the excuse to do what we’re going to do next. “Who’s been to an amusement park?” That’s the bridge. Once we’ve taken the bridge, that’s what Paulo Freire calls a codification of your conditions. Then, you can start to decodify it. “Why have some of you been to an amusement park and some haven’t?” They’re taught to continue to ask one kid after another until somebody says, “Some kids can’t afford it.” Now, you have an excuse to say, “Why is it that some people can’t afford it? What could we do about the fact that some kids haven’t gone because they can’t afford it? Let’s make it free. Maybe rich people could pay for it.” All of a sudden you have a dialogue about the concepts of socialism, doing it with second-graders, instead teaching them to set up and solve a math word problem. The word problem became a mediator to a political conversation. But there are dozens of opportunities in that one simple, completely innocuous word problem, the amusement park. You have the money thing. It might be a differential, and maybe more white kids than black kids raise their hand. Now, you’re going to have a CRT discussion through that correlation. But then, you have not just the amusement park. What about, “Do all families have a mom and a dad?” Now, you’re having a conversation about single parenthood or feminism, or now you’re having a conversation about same-sex parents, then on to sexuality. What about the idea of riding in the car? Now, you can have a conversation about environmentalism. “Is it really a good idea to ride in a car just to go have fun? Couldn’t we do it with public transit? Couldn’t we all ride on a train together?” You can see how you can create this primrose path, being a Pied Piper and leading them into a political conversation. You can facilitate the kids into thinking about political issues in a particular way. You took something very innocuous and used that as the mediator to create the opportunity for generating political knowledge. That’s the Freiren method actually put into practice. That’s a genuine example from a social-emotional learning teacher training. It was a professional development module that was being done in Indiana a few years ago. It’s a genuine example given to actual teachers in the profession. You can see how it works, and you can see how insidious it can be. You can see how invisible it would be. That’s why I wrote the book, because parents can’t figure it out. They know the school is doing CRT. They go to the school and say, “Don’t do critical race theory.” The school says, “Oh, we’re not.” Maybe they give you the curriculum, you look at it, and you can’t find it. Because that’s how they’re doing it, through Gloria Ladson-Billings’ culturally-relevant approach, “Let’s make the amusement park relevant. Why is it that some kids can go, and some kids can’t?” You get the picture. This is a very insidious method where they have stolen education by transforming its mechanism. The mechanism isn’t to set up a word problem to solve anymore. The mechanism is to use the word problem as an excuse to facilitate kids into a particular political understanding of the thing depicted in the word problem. It’s pretty amazing. Mr. Jekielek: We just didn’t realize that all this was happening. For the benefit of many, you have been combing through insane amounts of very difficult-to-read literature. Any final thoughts? We’ve covered this new film by Mike Nayna, and I want to encourage everyone to watch it. You’ll see a little more of James, Peter Boghossian, and Helen Pluckrose. Mr. Lindsay: The film is pretty funny, actually. Mr. Jekielek: Yes, that’s what I remember. Those initial videos that Mike published years ago caught my attention with you guys laughing and saying, “I can’t believe this.” We looked at this other presentation and we’re going to link to that, too. It’s such an amazing concept, the genus species distinction. There’s a whole bunch of great concepts there. Finally, who would have guessed that our whole education system has these Marxist underpinnings today? There were hints of it, but any final thoughts? Mr. Lindsay: The sad truth is when we have a high trust society where we feel like we can trust the teachers to do teaching things, and we can trust the police to do police things, and we can trust businessmen to do business things in the interest of their shareholders, we don’t need to keep our eye on everything with the vigilance that was referred to by the Founding Fathers, just to keep this as a very iconic American statement. In Russian, it’s closer to trust but verify. When you have a high trust society, sometimes you forget to verify. We went to sleep and stopped verifying. For those who are trying to subvert for whatever political end, and in particular communists are famous for this, subversion is their preferred methodology while they are not in power. They are not very subversive, and they don’t tolerate subversion after they get power. Hint, hint, hey woke kids, it’s up against the wall for you in a couple years when they won’t need you. I like to remind them of what the communist societies do with the subverters and the destabilizers after the revolution. Mao said, “There’s different needs at different stages of the revolution.” We needed a lot of destabilization with the youth. We got rid of Liu Shaoqi, my primary political opponent. The Red Guard was too radical, so off to the countryside with them.” The PLA chased them out of town. But it’s not going to go well. The fact of the matter is that when we have a high trust society, it’s easy to forget to verify, and we have forgotten to verify. We have to start verifying virtually everything, because our business people have been captured by this ideology through ESG [Environmental, Social, and Governance], literally an extortion racket. Maybe they’re just thinking, “This is corporate best practices, and this matters. We’re going to make a difference. I want to do good in the world, and not just make money.” Whatever it is. Our teachers have become corrupted by this political ideology because their schools got corrupted. The long march through the institutions laid out, and Rudi Dutschke articulated it in 1966, based off of what Mao did in the Cultural Revolution, and based off of what Gramsci described in his prison notebooks in the 1920s and ’30s. With this whole long march through the institutions, Marcuse explicitly called for it in 1972 in his Counterrevolution and Revolt. He says, “We have to go into the fields, and we have to bring the thought with us.” The one main point he makes is, “We have to go into education at all levels.” So, they have infiltrated the school. The teachers and the lawyers and the doctors are increasingly beholden to an ideology because, “That’s just good teaching, that’s just good engineering, and that’s what I learned in school.” They have corrupted that center of knowledge production, which brings us back to the film. The Grievance Studies Affair has never been more relevant. The academic scholarship is not particularly relevant to the average person on the average day, at least not in a way that they can recognize. It trickles out through the mechanisms of advanced societies to affect your life every day in meaningful ways, but you aren’t thinking about it. You are in a university. Courses are designed around the latest research, courses are designed around who’s publishing the courses, or the people who have strong publication records. The tenured professors, the admitted professors are the ones who have strong publication records. This corruption of scholarship creates an entire Lysenkoist artifice that poisons the whole enterprise. Let’s pretend the Biden demonstration is on the up and up. They’re on the straight and narrow, and they’re legitimate. They’re doing the best job they possibly could do for the American people, but they happen to be big believers in academic scholarships. They say, “What are we supposed to do about this issue or that issue, race, gender, sexuality, or trans?” They turn to the academic literature, and then it’s an executive order from the White House. It’s a rewrite of Title IX. It’s one policy after another to where now you have to tolerate a man swimming in a women’s swimming pool and in the locker room with the women changing before and after the meet, and beating them in the meet and taking the victory that they train their whole lives for in girls’ sports. But in fact, the girls that complain are now guilty of a Title IX violation and could be possibly expelled from school or lose their scholarships. This is the kind of twisted perversion you get when the knowledge generating enterprise gets completely corrupted. With the Grievance Studies Affair, the film about it is called, “The Reformers,” by Mike Nayna is a must watch. You have to understand that this has never been more relevant. As time goes on, and until the corruption goes away, it’s only going to get more relevant. This is a story that has happened before. We can point to Lysenko, we can point to Mao, we can point to these characters in the darkest chapters of the 20th century history, and we know where this story goes. We can make good predictions about where the story goes. I urge people to take it seriously and say, “We’ve got to start asking very hard questions. We can’t simply trust, it has to be verified.” Mr. Jekielek: James Lindsay, it’s such a pleasure to have you on again. Mr. Lindsay: Thank you, Jan. Mr. Jekielek: Thank you all for joining James Lindsay and me on this episode of American Thought Leaders. I’m your host, Jan Jekielek. This interview was edited for clarity and brevity. To get notifications about new Kash's Corner and American Thought Leaders episodes, please sign up for our newsletter! Here 👉 Get Alerts - PRE-ORDER "The Shadow State" DVD: https://www.epochtv.shop/product-page/the-shadow-state-dvd The Real Story of January 6 | Documentary BUY Jan 6 DVD: https://www.epochtv.shop/product-page/dvd-the-real-story-of-january-6, Promo Code “Jan” for 20% off. - Follow American Thought Leaders on social media: Twitter: https://twitter.com/AmThoughtLeader Truth Social: https://truthsocial.com/@AmThoughtLeader Gettr: https://gettr.com/user/amthoughtleader Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/AmericanThoughtLeaders Gab: https://gab.com/AmThoughtLeader Telegram: https://t.me/AmThoughtLeader

In this episode of Kash’s Corner, we take a look at the alarming pattern of retaliatory conduct across the DOJ, FBI, and IRS. IRS whistleblowers say their entire team was removed from the Hunter Biden tax fraud case. We also take a look at a letter from Senators Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) asking Special Counsel John Durham for more details about the former FBI officials who declined to cooperate with his investigation into the origins of the Russia probe. “We need to find out why John Durham failed to call in the likes of [James] Comey, [Peter] Strzok, [Bill] Priestap, [Kevin] Clinesmith, Glenn Simpson of Fusion GPS, and others,” Patel says. Sens. Grassley and Johnson should call John Durham to testify under oath in a publicized interview, according to Patel. Lastly, we take a look at recent reporting in The New York Times that the FBI’s investigation into the Clinton Foundation for alleged corruption was not only closed in 2021, but that all the evidence was “returned or otherwise destroyed,” the New York Times writes, citing the FBI. Interview trailer: Watch the full interview: https://www.theepochtimes.com/kashs-corner-fbi-irs-whistleblowers-detail-retaliation-grassley-johnson-should-ask-durham-questions-under-oath_5293608.html FULL TRANSCRIPT Kash Patel: Hey everybody, and welcome back to Kash’s Corner. We have a bunch of different topics to talk about this week. Jan, we are going to go with dealer’s choice. Where do you want to start? Jan Jekielek: We want to follow up on the Durham Report. It seems that Senators Grassley and Johnson are asking some questions of the DOJ. Perhaps it’s because they watch our show, or perhaps they just have the same ideas. We’ll talk about that. Let’s talk about whistleblowers. There are these pretty stark FBI whistleblower commentaries, and even your name came up in those testimonies. Also, there’s the IRS team that was investigating Hunter Biden that is being dismantled, and then, a second whistleblower coming out. Let’s talk about all of that. Let’s start with Durham, because that’s what we talked about last week. Let’s follow up on it. Mr. Patel: I like all those topics, Jan, and I’m looking forward to it. I want to add one more quick one at the very end, what happened to the Clinton Global Initiative investigation? We’ll get to that. Mr. Jekielek: That’s a very good point. Let’s make sure we cover that as well, a series of investigations that were dropped. Let’s jump into the Durham Report. We have Senators Grassley and Johnson asking questions of the DOJ, because there are certain people that just declined to testify for the Durham Report. How is that even possible? Mr. Patel: It’s shocking for a seasoned prosecutor like John Durham to just bend a knee and say, “A target witness or a target of our investigation doesn’t want to comply with our investigation, so we’re just going to take their word for it. They have politely told us, ‘No thanks.’” That’s it? That’s not how prosecutors work. We talked about it on the show last week. That is what compulsory process is for. That’s what subpoena power of the executive branch is for. I’m glad this letter has been written by Senators Johnson and Grassley, and let’s put it up for our audience to see. It’s very well done. It mirrors some of the aspects of our show last week, and I’m glad they’re on this analysis train. We need to find out why John Durham failed to call in Comey and Strzok and Priestap and Clinesmith and Glenn Simpson of Fusion GPS and others. These are critical players in the Russiagate investigation. A lot of them should have been targeted criminally for their unlawful conduct and lies under oath and for their conspiracy to commit Russiagate. It’s not like John Durham didn’t know this or didn’t have that information. That’s why this letter is a correct step to ascertain those answers. But if Senators Grassley and Johnson are listening, “Hey, you guys are United States senators, just ask John Durham to come in and sit down for an under oath publicized interview so the world can learn these answers.” Because here’s my worry, Jan. Remember, John Durham’s report is out. His investigation is completed. There is no moss. Now, he must consult with the DOJ and Merrick Garland before he does anything with Congress and gets their approval. Why not just invite him and shorten the window for more government malfeasance from the DOJ and FIB? Their pattern of doing that has been well established on this show. Let’s get to the truth. This is a critical step. You know how surprised and disappointed I was to find out that John Durham had basically bent the knee to whatever overlords he has in the U.S. government, especially at the DOJ and FBI. It’s saddening because he has allowed the two-tier system of justice to march. He had the chance to break that wheel and failed. Mr. Jekielek: I want to touch on one other thing here. We have this great piece from Jeff Carlson at The Epoch Times; “Analysis: How much did Brennan, Obama and Comey Actually Know Before FBI Opened the Investigation into Trump?” That’s the title. Basically Jeff is looking at the timeline, and this is an analysis in a similar vein to something you’ve been talking about for a few years now. Mr. Patel: Yes. I’m glad Jeff wrote that piece. It’s very well done, our audience should read it. As the chief investigator for Russiagate, we had said time and time again during our investigation and in our reports that it was a lie that senior intelligence and government officials at FBI and DOJ were saying, “It didn’t start until the fall of 2016.” We knew that Christopher Steele had met with the FBI in Rome in early July of 2016. That means someone had to pay Steele to put the Steele dossier together that he had handed off to the FBI in the beginning of July, 2016. That doesn’t happen overnight. We know who paid for it—the DNC and Hillary campaign, through Fusion GPS and their crooked lawyers at Perkins Coie, the law firm for the Hillary Clinton campaign and Democratic National Party, dropping millions of dollars to do so. Jan, all of that takes months. We’ve known this the whole time, but now Durham has at least helped us seal this one, that the Steele dossier is totally bogus, unverified, and fraudulent information. Steele had to come up with this fictional narrative and put it in a format that the FBI would accept. Here’s the kicker. As I always say, Jan, there are no coincidences in government. How is it that in July of 2016, Christopher Steele is handing over his dossier to the FBI? In the same month, July of 2016, John Brennan, then the head of the CIA, was receiving information and knew the Hillary Clinton campaign was up to a dirty trick? How is that possible, Jan? Of course it started beforehand. What Jeff’s piece highlights is the fact that we now know it happened months and months and months before July of 2016. That’s a whole separate series of questions that John Durham has to answer when he testifies under oath. Why didn’t he get to the bottom of this? More importantly, this Congress must subpoena everyone that John Durham should have subpoenaed, like the list we just had up. The House of Representatives, whether it’s Judiciary Committee, Weaponization Committee, Oversight Committee, it doesn’t matter to me. Have them testify under oath and ask these hard questions, “John Brennan, how did you know in July of 2016 about the Steele dossier? James Comey, how is it that you said FBI main headquarters didn’t receive the contents of the Steele dossier until the fall of 2016, when your agents were receiving it in live time in July of 2016?” It’s critical because it shatters whatever remaining these guys have. I don’t think they have any credibility—Comey, Brennan, McCabe, Strzok, Priestap, and everybody who tried to obfuscate and block our investigation from the beginning. They said, “No, we didn’t know anything up until the fall, and the Steele dossier wasn’t really even a thing. Then, they went into hyperdrive and lied to the FISA court. None of those things add up. Those are all lies in my opinion. This is a great expose on them, done succinctly by Jeff Carlson. Mr. Jekielek: We’ll see if there are further subpoenas sent out to bring some of these folks in for a chat under oath. Let’s go to a different series of testimonies that happened last week. I’m talking about the FBI whistleblowers. There were three of them talking under oath about the reprisals taken against them. What’s your reaction to that? Mr. Patel: These whistleblowers came in and provided credible information to the American people, in order to see waste, fraud, abuse, and corruption at the FBI and the DOJ. They each had methodically laid out credible pieces of evidence of different types of corruption, which we’ve covered in the past. And after submitting this information. Let’s remind the audience, with these whistleblowers who testified, it wasn’t the first revelation of this information. They had been on this path for months and months and months. They produced it to Congress under whistleblower protections and under the false auspices that Chris Wray had guaranteed Congress under oath that no whistleblowers would be retaliated against. He lied, and I’ll get to that later. When these whistleblowers came forth to Congress and swore under oath, with the information that they had provided Congress in a little more detail during their testimony, they were taking a very direct step towards executing the whole purpose of the whistleblowers’ statutes and regulations. It’s critical in government to have that. They did a very credible job of putting that information out there. True to form, certain members of Congress didn’t like the truthful narrative that was being advanced that the FBI was putting up a retaliatory system against whistleblowers, who were putting out information that showed the statistics related to January 6th and domestic violence extremists were false. This critically hurt the narrative that some on the radical Left want to push. You have some members of Congress attacking them personally, and somehow, making up wholesale allegations against me as well. But it’s not really surprising, given the member of Congress who did that. Mr. Jekielek: Let’s talk about that. We have Congressman Goldman bringing you into this whole scenario. Congressman Goldman: Mr. O’Boyle, do you know who Kash Patel is? Mr. O’Boyle: I do. Congressman Goldman: Have you received any money from Kash Patel or his organization? Mr. O’Boyle: I have. Congressman Goldman: When you previously met with the majority members and/or majority staff of this committee, was Kash Patel present for that meeting? Mr. O’Boyle: No. Congressman Goldman: To your knowledge, has Kash Patel ever spoken to the committee members on your behalf? Mr. O’Boyle: Not that I know of. Congressman Goldman: Not that you know of? Was anyone present for your previous meetings with committee members and staff on the majority that were not members of this committee or staff of this committee? Mr. O’Boyle: My counsel. Congressman Goldman: Your counsel? Anyone else? Mr. O’Boyle: I don’t think so, no. Congressman Goldman: Is Kash Patel helping you finance your counsel? Mr. O’Boyle: Not that I’m aware of. Congressman Goldman: Okay. Mr. Friend, what about you? Do you know Kash Patel as well? Mr. Friend: Yes. Congressman Goldman: And did you receive any money from Kash Patel? Mr. Friend: Yes, he gave me a donation last November. Congressman Goldman: A donation? Mr. Friend: Yes. Congressman Goldman: Are you a charitable organization? Mr. Friend: I was an unpaid, indefinitely suspended man trying to feed his family, and he reached out to me and said he wanted to give me a donation. Congressman Goldman: Was he present for any of your meetings with committee members or staff? Mr. Friend: No. Mr. Patel: I’ll just stay cool, calm and collected on this one, Jan, and give our audience the facts. Congressman Goldman, I should remind our audience, previously served as senior counsel for Adam Schiff in the January 6th investigative committee. Then, he was elected to Congress just this last election cycle. That’s the quick background on who he worked for and where he came from. For him to allege what he said in that video is an outright lie, and it’s absolutely disgusting. One, Kash Patel has never paid for testimony or individually funded any of these whistleblowers. Two, Mr. Goldman’s statement insinuates that I’m going out there and proactively looking for people in the United States government and giving them money ahead of time to come forth and bring out information. That is wholesale false. Three, when he brings in my charitable foundation, The Kash Foundation, which has a board which works as a 501(c)(3) and which abides by all the laws, he denigrates the foundation improperly and is hurting our charitable endeavors. Let me make this abundantly clear. After these whistleblowers came forth and provided testimony to Congress and information over the course of months, the Kash Foundation became aware of these individuals as did the rest of the world through the media. They were retaliated against improperly by the FBI—their salaries were taken, their homes were taken, and their livelihoods were put at stake for them and their families. Our foundation was specifically set up before these guys ever became whistleblowers to help anybody that became a whistleblower and produced credible information. Since they satisfied that criteria, as a foundation we reached out to them. The board made a decision and decided to help some of these individuals financially. That’s what happened. Kash Patel is not paying anyone’s legal bills. That’s another lie. The fact that you have a United States congressman who has such a personal vendetta against me that he would make up wholesale lies shows you the exact intent he had during these proceedings. It was to denigrate people personally, because they did not like the narrative that these whistleblowers were putting out, which was backed by facts. Maybe Mr. Goldman learned that from his former boss, Mr. Schiff. That’s for the rest of the world to decide. But I appreciate you letting me clarify that. Our foundation’s work won’t be stopped because Mr. Goldman stands before the well of Congress or in a testimony setting and lies about our charitable endeavors. Mr. Jekielek: Congressman Goldman also put out a tweet saying that you’re under some kind of investigation. This was news to me, and I think you would’ve told me. Mr. Patel: Let’s put the tweet up, Jan, because it speaks for itself. Let’s remind our audience, this tweet was put up almost immediately after these whistleblower hearings ended. Obviously, this was something that was lingering in his head. Many of my friends have called me and said, “Kash, it looks like you’re living rent-free in Representative Goldman’s head.” In the 24-hour cycle after that, I was the number one trending name on Twitter, which is surprising, since I’m not even on Twitter. That doesn’t show you anything about me, but it shows how much people are focused on these whistleblower investigations. To me, that’s a good thing. Returning to that tweet, Jan, I’ve never been under DOJ investigation. They’ve never told me that. I’ve spoken with the DOJ through counsel many times, and I have not ever leaked classified information, nor would I. That’s another false insinuation and narrative. Unfortunately, some individuals in the House and many in the media have tried to put it forth, such as David Ignatius of the Washington Post, when he did his expose on me with the cheeky headline which suggested that I might be under investigation. Because that’s what the radical Left wants. They want the headline, “Kash Patel is under investigation by the DOJ.” It’s totally false. But let’s just play this out, Jan. As a former federal prosecutor and a former national security prosecutor, with any individual under investigation involving classified information, that investigation is by law classified. Let’s just play out Mr. Goldman’s tweet. Either he’s lying, which I believe he is, or he just disclosed that he, Representative Goldman in the United States Congress, in a live setting before the world to see, just disclosed lawfully classified information. The question is, how did he get that information? Who at the DOJ or the FBI, if anyone, unlawfully and improperly, gave it to him? Through my counsel, I’m going to refer Representative Goldman for investigation by the DOJ and FBI for his possible leak of classified information. Although he may think he has the ability to lie in the well of the United States Congress without any recourse, since he is a member of the House of Representatives, I will also be sending a letter and referring him for investigation by the House Ethics Committee. As with the DOJ and the FBI, I will ask, “Did he disclose classified information?” Here’s the thing, Jan, when the DOJ and FBI tells him there is no investigation on me, then the Ethics Committee can investigate the fact that he blatantly lied from the well of the United States Congress to the world and attacked me. If he wasn’t hiding behind the same thing Adam Schiff has hidden behind, which is a speech and debate clause, that is a defamatory statement that’s actionable by me as a private citizen against Mr. Goldman. We will be making those referrals because we will not sit by and allow such egregious and unlawful and improper conduct by a member of the United States Congress. Mr. Jekielek: We’ll see how all this plays out, Kash. I was also surprised to see your name trending on Twitter all of a sudden. Mr. Patel: I do want to thank Mr. Goldman for one thing. Thanks to your political stunt, the Kash Foundation has received an overwhelming amount of support, so we will be able to continue our charitable endeavors, allowing us to help financially active duty soldiers, veterans, children, whistleblowers, and so many others in need. So, thank you. Mr. Jekielek: Kash, we’ll see how all this plays out. Maybe there will indeed be other whistleblowers that do come out. Let’s jump to this situation with the IRS investigation into Hunter Biden being dropped, and it looks like the whole team, from what I understand. Now, we have a second whistleblower giving us some more details. Give me the breakdown of what happened. Mr. Patel: Yes, we continue with the theme of this show, which is the importance of whistleblower testimony. But unfortunately, we’re also continuing with the theme that the United States government retaliates against whistleblowers who provide credible information if it helps advance a narrative they don’t like. Just a reminder, we’re not fully sure if the entire investigation was shut down or dropped or not. I haven’t seen anything publicly from the IRS or DOJ on that side of it. Let’s just remind the audience, we are only talking about the IRS side of Hunter Biden’s investigation, whether or not he’s liable for taxes or fraud related to taxes or possibly far related to all that stuff. That is handled by the IRS Criminal Division and the DOJ Tax Division together. We’re not talking about Hunter Biden’s laptop. We might be talking about documents on it, but we’re not talking about other criminal activity that is maybe being analyzed by the U.S. attorney in the District of Delaware. With the IRS, just to get everybody up to speed, they had one whistleblower and we’ll call him the supervisor, because that’s how he’s labeled in these media reports. He came out and said there has been, for a number of years, a throttling of the IRS’s ability to investigate Hunter Biden related to the tax and tax fraud schemes that they were looking at. That’s pretty chilling, Jan. That is no longer just an allegation. You have the second whistleblower that has come forward. This is an individual who worked on the Hunter Biden IRS investigation for five years. He’s just come forward and used to work under the supervisor. He has laid out with detail the fact that his entire unit was shut down at the request of the DOJ. The DOJ has essentially confirmed that to the media. Jan, how is it that an entire investigative team conducting a lawful investigation can be shut down by the Department of Justice? That question can’t be answered today, but it’s going to have to be asked of Merrick Garland. Another interesting point about this second IRS whistleblower is that due to the retaliation against the investigative unit at the IRS Tax Division at the behest of the DOJ, he alleges that Attorney General Merrick Garland lied to Congress when he said that he would not allow any interference in the investigations into Hunter Biden. That puts the AG in the direct crosshairs with this whistleblower. We’re going to see how all this hashes out Jan. According to the press reports, through their lawyers they have provided documented information to Congress as whistleblowers, and they’ve been retaliated against. Unfortunately, that’s the way it goes if you provide information about FBI and DOJ waste, fraud and abuse that cuts against a political narrative. The people in charge of those agencies don’t want it out there. It’s just shocking that we have so much corruption at the DOJ and FBI and we have to jam it into one episode. Usually, this would be the story of the year, or the story of the years, plural. As a former federal prosecutor and public defender and the guy who’s been in government for 16 years, I’m not excited about this. It shows how much further we have to go to fix these agencies and departments. It highlights why so many Americans have distrust in them. Mr. Jekielek: Kash, before we continue, I want you to tell me about this whistleblowing process. On one end you just imagine someone coming out saying, “Hey guys, I know something,” by going to the media, going public, and posting something on social media these days. But this whistleblowing process is actually quite an involved process. Could you give us a breakdown? Mr. Patel: I will. I want to add one thing, Jan, that is important and directly ties into your question. The leadership at the head of the IRS, Commissioner Werfel and his team, had an interesting response to the whistleblowers’ lawyers. The IRS notified the whistleblowers directly and said that while they were providing the information to the government, it was improper for the whistleblowers to break the chain of command and provide this information to others. But Jan, that’s the contradiction. How can you provide evidence of corruption that your superiors are committing to your superiors and then say, “Hey, I’m going to blow the whistle on you guys?” Who else are they supposed to give it to? Do you see the conundrum that the IRS leadership team has set up here? They’ve done it intentionally. They want a narrative out there saying, “These guys broke the chain of command. They’re bad actors.” They’re saying that they are bad actors and they went around the chain of command because actually, the whistleblower protection statute and regulations affords these individuals and any whistleblower in the United States government the right to A; call whistleblower hotlines, or B; provide that information directly to Congress themselves or through counsel. In this instance, they’ve chosen to do it through counsel for the most part. They have followed the whistleblower process. Before the information is even adjudicated, the very people that are saying they are corrupted and possibly broke the law and regulations regarding the Hunter Biden investigation are coming out in the public and saying, “You broke the chain of command.” That’s not how the whistleblower program works. That’s the whole purpose of the whistleblower program. Because if you’re at the top, you can act downwards. But if you’re at the bottom, you can’t act upwards and fire your superior, hence the whistleblower program. Between the FBI whistleblowers and the IRS whistleblowers that we’ve talked about today, you’ve seen how it’s supposed to work in some fashion. They take information, they give it to Congress, they use their attorney and they give it to the right committees in Congress, or there’s a whistleblower hotline. Sometimes, they can go to the Office of the Inspector General, which some of these individuals did, and get this information out there. Then, they can come in and testify like the FBI folks have done. What’s been put out in the media is that these two IRS whistleblowers are going to be testifying behind closed doors on Friday, the same day this episode airs. It’s going to be interesting to see the more detailed information that Congress collects from these individuals. That’s how the whistleblower program works. It’s not rocket science. It’s pretty simple. To see the established pattern of retaliatory conduct, be it at the DOJ, the FBI, the IRS, or elsewhere against individuals who are bringing forth credible reporting, that in and of itself to me is grounds for dismissal of the superiors participating in this process, and possibly even launching a criminal investigation. But that’s going to have to be left to Congress, because you can’t have this DOJ, FBI, IRS investigate itself. We’ve seen what happens when they do that. Mr. Jekielek: When it comes to these three FBI whistleblowers who are testifying under oath, they are making some pretty serious allegations. You believe they’re credible, but what would be the cost to them if they were lying in this situation? Mr. Patel: If any one of these folks comes into Congress and lies, then they should be prosecuted and investigated like anyone else. These guys know that. They’re actual law enforcement agents. They’re actual employees of the IRS and investigative criminal agents at the IRS. They know the consequences. There should be consequences for anyone who acts unlawfully, Jan. They are well aware of it. We’ll see if one of these agencies or departments uses that as a missive fraudulently, to continue to personally attack the whistleblowers. Mr. Jekielek: This is the point. There’s something very significant about testifying in front of Congress. There’s severe penalties if you’re lying, at least in theory. Although we have seen that contravened when it comes to certain high level people. Mr. Patel: Absolutely. Brennan, Clapper, McCabe, Strzok, and the list goes on. Mr. Jekielek: Do you think that with this whole testifying in Congress under oath, the gravity of that is somehow being compromised? Mr. Patel: It’s not only been compromised, Jan, it shows you that the two-tier system of justice operates in the legislative branch. When the radical Left had credible whistleblowers that came forth that supported their narrative, they loved them. But when they have whistleblowers that hurt their narrative, they denigrate them and attack them personally and lie about them. You see it not just in the courts of law, but you see it in the halls of Congress. There’s a lot of remedies that need to be put in place. It’s going to take a long time for us to get back on the level, and I’m not sure that’s happening any time in the near future. Mr. Jekielek: Kash, as we finish up, I do want to jump to something that you mentioned at the outset. You want to talk about these investigations into potential misdeeds by Hillary Clinton prior to 2016. Those investigations were canceled, and that evidence was destroyed. You wanted to mention this. Mr. Patel: Yes. The Clinton Global Initiative, the charitable arm of the Clinton family, Bill and Hillary Clinton, has been under investigation for years for fraudulent activity. I’m not saying they did it. Now we know, Jan, that there was an ongoing investigation for years. What we also know, since we’re talking about investigations during this episode, is that this investigation was shut down by the Biden administration. Not only was it shut down, but all the evidence that was unearthed was destroyed or returned to the Clinton Global Initiative. That calls for the question, “What happened? Congress, maybe you want to act. Why did the Biden administration shut down a year’s long investigation and destroy the evidence it had collected?” Those are going to be some stern questions going forward. Again, I don’t know what they did, if anything. But it’s not a normal practice for an investigation of that magnitude to not only be shut down, but to have the evidence destroyed. That will not sit well with many who already know that Hillary Clinton had a habit of destroying evidence when it came to her emails, with that investigation of her personal server and the classified information therein. The media’s going to end up covering this. Congress does need to take a look at it. Again, maybe nothing bad happened, and maybe there were no crimes committed. But those actions taken together don’t add up. Mr. Jekielek: Are there any circumstances where evidence would be destroyed? There is the implication, and people might say, “There was nothing here, and so we ended it.” But this destruction of evidence I find confusing. Mr. Patel: Yes, files are closed, and investigations are shut down. I used to do that all the time as a federal prosecutor. But I never heard of evidence being destroyed. You know why, Jan? Because you use supposedly lawful investigative tactics to collect information, and then you might use that years later for another investigation, or some investigation might spawn out of that six months to a year later with new intelligence you received about the old investigation. You don’t go and destroy it. That is literally why the FBI has files and rooms full of evidence and intelligence, and the same with the DOJ, and the same with any investigative agency. They’re not out there having a bonfire with the intelligence they have collected and information they have collected. That piece, as reported, is very troubling. I know Congress is already doing a lot, but maybe they can start asking questions about that. Mr. Jekielek: Kash, it’s time for our shout-out. Mr. Patel: This week’s shout out goes to Raelyn Mathis. I’m going to borrow a word from her comments on the board for Kash’s Corner. She used the word honest, and that’s exactly how we try to be with you each and every week. We try to do credible reporting based on facts and leave the hyperbole for everybody else. Thank you, Raelyn for noticing that. We really appreciate everybody’s comment and participation in the live chat, and we’ll see you next week on Kash’s Corner. This interview has been edited for clarity and brevity. To get notifications about new Kash's Corner and American Thought Leaders episodes, please sign up for our newsletter! Here 👉 Get Alerts - PRE-ORDER "The Shadow State" DVD: https://www.epochtv.shop/product-page/the-shadow-state-dvd The Real Story of January 6 | Documentary BUY Jan 6 DVD: https://www.epochtv.shop/product-page/dvd-the-real-story-of-january-6, Promo Code “Jan” for 20% off. - Follow American Thought Leaders on social media: Twitter: https://twitter.com/AmThoughtLeader Truth Social: https://truthsocial.com/@AmThoughtLeader Gettr: https://gettr.com/user/amthoughtleader Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/AmericanThoughtLeaders Gab: https://gab.com/AmThoughtLeader Telegram: https://t.me/AmThoughtLeader

The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) treats people of faith “as though they carry an infectious disease [that] needs to be cured … ‘Reeducation’ is a code word for human reengineering,” says Nury Turkel, chair of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF). He was born in a reeducation camp in China during the Cultural Revolution. It’s been 19 years since he last saw his mother, who remains in China. We discuss the CCP’s high-tech tyranny, its war on religious faiths—detailed in a new USCIRF report—and the influence of Chinese lobbying in America. What was America’s greatest strategic blunder in its relationship with the CCP? And how can it be rectified now? Interview trailer: Watch the full interview: https://www.theepochtimes.com/reeducation-is-a-code-word-for-human-reengineering-nury-turkel-on-the-ccps-war-on-faith_5295706.html FULL TRANSCRIPT Jan Jekielek: Nury Turkel, such a pleasure to have you back on American Thought Leaders. Nury Turkel: Thank you very much for having me. Mr. Jekielek: When you were last on, we were talking about your book, No Escape, about being born in communist China in a camp and making it to America and becoming a Foreign Corrupt Practices Act lawyer in the process, an unbelievable journey. Lately, you’ve been doing something very topical, which is you took on running the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom. It’s annual report time and let’s start there. Please tell me what this organization is, because we have to keep reminding folks, and also, what you found. Mr. Turkel: The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom [USCIRF] was established in 1999. The commission is an independent federal government agency that reports religious freedom violations around the world and makes policy recommendations to the U.S. President, Secretary of State and Congress. We have nine commissioners appointed by party leadership, and president and congressional leadership. In this year’s report, we highlighted China again. Since 1999, USCIRF has been recommending with the support of the U.S. State Department designating China as a country of particular concern. You know what happened in 1998 onward, instead of making it better for people of faith in China, China has been waging war on people of faith. As a result, the CCP has turned itself into a genocidal regime today. Mr. Jekielek: It’s unbelievable. Of course, in 1999, the CCP began persecuting the Falun Gong practitioners, 70 to 100 million people became illegal overnight. Mr. Turkel: Yes. Mr. Jekielek: It can be hard for people to grasp. This is something like one in 13 Chinese suddenly becoming illegal, and suddenly being eradicated according to the words of the dictator at the time. It seems to make no sense. In fact, I often get asked that question, “Why do you think they did it”? Mr. Turkel: It’s a great question and a legitimate question. It’s an important question for the American people to understand. In the 1990s, our government made a huge mistake delinking human rights from the trade negotiations or discussions, and helped to get China into the WTO [World Trade Organization]. That paved the way for human rights and religious freedom issues being pushed to the side. As a result, the business interests, America and global, had a much more important role with China, with influence over Chinese practices. That made it even more difficult to advocate religious freedom for oppressed religious groups like the Falun Gong practitioners, Tibetan Buddhists, Chinese Catholics, and the Muslims. The key question is why do they hate people of faith so much? The short answer is that the Chinese communist leadership sees people of faith as a potential threat for political upheaval. The second reason is the Chinese Communist Party sees or perceives religious practitioners as a group of people showing signs of disloyalty to the party. That eventually they believe will undermine communist party power. They don’t say it publicly. They have rosy pictures. They have a nicely written constitution. They have religious affairs regulations, but that has been only on paper. The international community bears some responsibility helping the Chinese to take it from religious persecution and human rights abuse to today’s nightmare that is a genocidal regime. Mr. Jekielek: Let’s talk about this very briefly. You mentioned something really important —the consequences of delinking trade from human rights. Mr. Turkel: It’s a strategic blunder. Even though some people starting from Bush 41, had a good intention to help the Chinese people, thinking that helping China to become economically prosperous, helping them with the technology, and helping them with education. The policymakers thought that China would become one of us, or a member of the free world. The opposite has happened. Instead of us changing them, they are changing us. That’s something that we need to be reminded of, the American policy makers, and the public in general. Even though some people initiated, promoted, and pushed for that policy agenda, we have to recognize that it has been a miserable failure. To China’s Communist Party two things are very important. One, their economic development. The other is the public perception of the regime. When you take that one important factor off the table, of course they will continue the abuses and persecution with impunity. What is the cost to them? It is not only for the United States to think about or revisit, but also to come up with coherent strategic policy responses today. The same thing is true with countries in Asia, Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, and also the European Union. Thank God we live in a country that has figured out there are problems with our relationship with the communist China in the last three or four years, starting with the Trump administration. We are looking at different ways of dealing with the communist China. People talk about finding the symptoms, but there has not been a prescription to cure the problem. We’re still debating and discussing. I would call it a strategic blunder. Mr. Jekielek: You actually have a proposal 0f where to start things off in a letter that the group of commissioners wrote recently. It’s a very good idea and I want to touch on that in a moment. But I want to go back to this intrinsic hostility of the Communist Party to faith and religion. You were saying they’re afraid that people of faith can undermine the legitimacy of the regime. They’re probably right about that. Mr. Turkel: I agree. They’re right about this. Our policy makers are not recognizing they have figured this out, whereas we have not figured out how to deal with it. We’ve been very shy pushing the freedom agenda. When you listen to the Chinese, this has been very clear and loudly telegraphed by Xi Jinping since 2012, that the country is facing two problems, foreign encirclement and slow growth. This is why they have been coming up with various actions and responses to tackle the sanctions imposed by the United States government, including the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act. Regarding the foreign encirclement, this is very important for the purposes of our discussion. That foreign encirclement to the Chinese means foreign influence. The foreign influence includes all the freedoms that are dear and near to us. That includes religious freedom, freedom to assembly, freedom of worship, and to be able to teach your faith to the next generation. All of this is perceived by the Chinese leadership to be a national security threat. Today in China’s leadership’s mindset, they’re focusing on two things. One, they try to push back on foreign encirclement. If you listen to Xi Jinping’s speech several weeks ago, he specifically mentioned foreign encirclement. That’s a code word for their effort to push back against freedom that includes religious freedom. The other aspect, and this is also equally important. The Chinese have something new since Xi Jinping took office, specifically since late 2014, with the announcement of a national security strategy. It specifically said, “We have to take preemptive action with or without justification, and if necessary with brutal methods. We have seen this. What do they do? They treat people of faith as though they have a mental illness, and as though they carry infectious disease. They have also been loudly and clearly saying that in order to prevent that infectious disease from spreading and metastasizing to the general population, it needs to be cured. This is how they label Falun Gong practitioners and they often send them to a mental hospital. This is why they rounded up close to 3 million Uyghurs that includes religious leaders in modern day concentration camps, subjecting them to day in-day out political indoctrination and forcing them to denounce their God. The same thing is happening in Tibet. Reeducation is a code word for human re-engineering. This is how they’ve been accomplishing that preemptive treatment method that has been articulated by the Chinese leadership. Mr. Jekielek: When we talk about extreme Left-wing ideologies, there is projection. The thing they kind of accuse you of is really the thing they are doing. When I hear this term foreign encirclement, I think of the Belt and Road Initiative [BRI] which sounds like some pretty serious encirclement. Mr. Turkel: Yes. The strategy that had been announced and implemented since 2014 had a very strong foreign context. The way that they have been using this project initiated by Xi Jinping is to expand their influence through investment. We’re talking about $1 billion in investments, and also making smaller, weaker countries potentially client states, forcing them to take a position similar to Beijing. We saw this at the UN Human Rights Council several months ago. There was a proposal being put to vote, which was to debate on the former high commissioner’s report on the Uyghur genocide. We got only 17 votes, and the Chinese got 19 votes. They’re using the investment that they have made in developing countries to gain momentum in international organizations. The Deputy Director for China at the NSC [National Security Council], Dr. Rush Doshi, wrote a book called, The Long Game. In it, he makes a very simple point. China has been blunting U.S. influence while building their own. This Belt and Road Initiative fits perfectly into that narrative. The other thing they’re doing is using technology. This is nicely folded into China’s soft power projection. They are exporting the most sophisticated surveillance technology which has been perfected in China proper. Today in China, you cannot do anything without the government monitoring your activity. We’re talking about 400 million heat vision cameras. Every aspect of your life, your communication with your family, your business associates, your friends, your children, everything has been documented and stored in Chinese government data storage. The same methods are in the process of being exported. The United States government believes that over 80 countries have already adopted or are in the process of adopting Chinese digital authoritarianism. What does this mean? This should give a chill to the people who chant freedom slogans every day. This will threaten democratic norms. This definitely negatively affects our privacy. Eventually, this will also be used for blackmail. In some countries like Zimbabwe, the opposition leader cannot plan on running for office again, because the sitting president has been able to get help from Huawei and China’s other tech giants. It’s been taking place in two ways. But there’s a positive side of this whole story as well. As we have been seeing in the news, some client states under the BRI agreement are defaulting their loan payment. This will make the Chinese very unpopular in some corners of the world. Time will tell, but we can start seeing the potential fallout of this investment that China has made around the world. Mr. Jekielek: Those defaults are the Chinese regime seizing land holdings or the technology that’s been developed. Mr. Turkel: Absolutely. We often focus on developing countries. Look at the southern European countries. The European Union today is a 27-member organization. Some countries, like Germany and France, are not leading on what is right with respect to China, and some countries are dragging. The European Union has a Greece problem, Portugal problem, and a Spain problem. Those are the countries that have signed on to the BRI. In some instances, the Chinese are running their ports. We know based on the recent report published by the House Select Committee on China, that they are also using ports for surveillance using their equipment. This is just a whole package. I’m sure that you’re not surprised seeing and hearing these kinds of acts. That’s what they do. That’s what the CCP does. What is disturbing is that even with the backdrop of all the things we know, the policy makers are not being bold and strategic. Mr. Jekielek: Let’s bookmark this. Now, we’re going to talk about this letter that you and the commissioners wrote to Congress about…I’ll leave that as a surprise. Before we go there, I want to highlight that the mandate of USCIRF is international. It doesn’t just focus on America. It focuses on everywhere, which is one of the reasons we’re talking about outside countries. Please give us a quick overview of what the report found. China is by far the largest violator of religious freedom and that’s why we’re going to focus on this. But there are other areas too. When you gave your speech at the announcement of the report, you mentioned Nigeria. We have covered these massacres of Nigerian Christians quite extensively in The Epoch Times. Please tell us about that and some of the general findings that are of particular concern. Mr. Turkel: China, of course, has been the focus, and the trend line in China is disturbing. In 2022, we find that China has ratcheted up its repressive policies, specifically on four groups. With the Uyghur Muslims, the genocide is still underway. With the Tibetan Buddhists, they are forcing them to go through forced brainwashing sessions. We still don’t know the whereabouts of the Panchen Lama. With the Falun Gong practitioners we have reports of over 170 deaths within that community. The Chinese have never loosen up. This has been a decades-long oppression that the Falun Gong community has been enduring in China. Another one is equally important, which is China’s targeted attack on the Catholic community. The Catholic Church around the world, including the Vatican, has not shown a willingness to make it better for the Catholics in China. The Chinese bishops in China have not been approved and endorsed by the Vatican, even though there is an agreement between China and the Vatican that has been renewed. We only know one provision, which is that China agrees with the Vatican’s involvement in the bishop appointment. Instead, they’re forcing the Chinese bishops to sign a pledge of allegiance to the Patriotic Catholic Association. Those are the four key findings that we reported. In addition to China, we have also reported some disturbing developments in Nigeria and India. In the case of Nigeria, as a result of government inaction, the Christian community, and in some instances the Muslim community has been subject to atrocity crimes. We have been recommending the State Department to designate Nigeria as a CPC [Country of Particular Concern]. We have not been successful. Mr. Jekielek: A country of particular concern. That’s right. Mr. Turkel: The next one is the special watch list. India is another interesting case with some concerning developments being identified and reported in this year’s report. That includes the Indian government’s Hindu nationalism-oriented policy with respect to Christians, and specifically to Muslims. Outside of Indonesia, by population, India has the largest Muslim population. This is Mahatma Gandhi’s India. Today, a country that not too long ago had a Muslim president, bans intermarriage between Hindus and Muslims, at least in one region. These are the two important examples that we have been publicly disagreeing on with the United States government, specifically our counterparts at the State Department, that we should call it what it is, while still trying to maintain a diplomatic relationship. We have strategic partnership in the case of India. Of course, India is an important country in our strategic approach to China. But at the end of the day, friends are supposed to be honest with each other. We should be able to talk about the problem. The responses that we often get from India are quite ugly. The commissioners and policy team have been subject to attacks. Instead of doing that, they should look at where they can make improvements. We have also called out the persecution of religious minorities in Afghanistan, Syria, Nicaragua, and Cuba. Those are the countries, but especially Afghanistan. It’s kind of unique. We recommend it for an entity of particular concern designation [EPC]. I also like to report that in some countries we are seeing some positive developments. I cover Central Asia as well. We’ve been involved and very engaged with the diplomatic corps in those countries. They have been willing to sit down with us and listen to our concerns. I even visited Central Asia last April. I’m about to make another trip at some point this year. At the end of the day, this is something very important for countries to know that we’ve been highlighting. When you see simple respect for religious groups, and if you leave people alone to practice their religion or adhere to their spiritual life, you naturally achieve social stability, harmony and peace. Whenever you suppress, you end up spending more money on domestic security than the national defense, much like China does. Beefing up the police force, rounding up religious practitioners, sending them to mental hospitals, or engaging in organ harvesting is not the way to deal with your own population. Mr. Jekielek: There is a new bill that Congressman Chris Smith sponsored related to the organ harvesting that actually has some teeth, and attempts to stop that. Let’s go to your letter first. You’re proposing that people not be allowed to lobby on behalf of communist China. You noted that it was unthinkable to do that on behalf of the Soviet Union back in the day. What’s going on here? Probably the single, largest source of dollars these days is the Chinese Communist Party. Mr. Turkel: In our government system, lobbying is permitted and is constitutionally allowed. We have a constitutional right to petition our government. But this lobbying became so toxic, that the term is not even popular. People now call it legislative advocacy and government relations. But it’s the same thing—lobbying. But who are they lobbying for? If you are lobbying for a legitimate cause, if you are lobbying for your own trade association, that’s one thing. But foreign governments doing the bidding for Beijing is something that I personally condemn. It’s unconscionable, and it should stop. When you look around in Washington, let me start with something that I am personally familiar with. When we are lobbying Congress with zero monetary investment on the Uyghur bills, specifically the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, we faced unbelievable challenges. We’re talking about multinational corporations having no problem funding the lobbying firms and the law firms. They were busy. We’re talking about all the big names, as reported in the New York Times. Nike, Apple, and all those big guys who have made a ton of money in China trying to stop our government from making it illegal to consume slave labor-produced products. It’s perfectly acceptable and reasonable for former government officials to engage in government relations lobbying activities, but they have to watch out who their client is. You may end up representing all the Chinese Big Techs. In one case, former Senator Barbara Boxer ended up returning the money that she contributed to the Biden inauguration committee because of her work for ZTE. People should do their due diligence, and there have been attempts. Our intention is to hopefully stop our government officials, policy experts, and government relations experts from doing the bidding of a hostile regime like the one in Beijing. Mr. Jekielek: This is something that hits very close to home because you are Uyghur yourself. Your mother is being persecuted as we speak. What is happening with her? It’s a terrible situation. Mr. Turkel: Thank you for asking. I haven’t seen my mother since my law school graduation 19 years ago. I lost my father last April. Because I have been sanctioned by Xi Jinping’s China, I could not even go home to pay my respects to my late father and hold my mom while we were mourning. That in of itself can explain what kind of personal sacrifice one needs to make in order to advocate for the freedom of the people of China. In my own case, China retaliated against me because of my service for the American people in my current role. The retaliation was very specific. The U.S. government sanctioned four Chinese officials under the Global Magnitsky Act. They are retaliating by sanctioning me and three other USCIRF commissioners. What did we do? We issued a press statement. That’s it. If you don’t respond as strongly with a sharp language or even potential consequences, we will continue to see this. I feel very strongly about the hostile government sanctioning of our government officials. I don’t think anyone disputes, those of us who have been sanctioned, former Ambassador Sam Brownback, former Secretary of State Pompeo, and Matt Pottinger, former Deputy National Security Advisor, we all been sanctioned because of our work to defend freedom, defend human rights, defend American values, and defend our national interests. Whereas, we have been sanctioning the Chinese officials, the Russian oligarchs, and the Russian cohorts of Putin for their crimes against humanity and genocide. There’s a fundamental difference. Therefore, the individuals who have been sanctioned by communist China always said it’s a badge of honor, which is true to some extent. But in my own case, it’s not that easy. What we’re talking about is a hostile regime in Beijing cutting me off from my family and all of my childhood memories. I will never be able to see or enjoy them again, because I am permanently banned from re-entering. I have not been back to China since I left in 1995. And also, it will make it very difficult for those who are in a business environment. We always joke, “Yes, I was really not planning to go to Beijing Zoo on the summer vacation with my kids.” But we have to condemn it and we have to call it what it is when the Chinese take this kind of retaliatory action.” It is meaningless when you look at it on its face, but the consequences cannot be ignored. We need to push back. We need to say, “This has to stop. You either make an improvement, stop this genocide, stop misusing the technology, stop enslaving people, stop engaging in organ harvesting, or we’ll continue to go after you, your family, your finances, your travel, and your freedom of movement. But you cannot do the same thing to us.” That kind of strong message needs to be conveyed. Mr. Jekielek: That’s interesting, because in general, it doesn’t feel like very often anything that is done on this side really forces the regime to change its behavior. Mr. Turkel: If you don’t press hard, if you let this kind of behavior be normalized, not only will you fail to stop it, but you will keep seeing it happen. Allowing it to become a normal behavior is acceptance. Holding bad actors and perpetrators to account is a very effective way of deterring the same acts from being repeated again. I’ll give you one example. In the last 10 to 12 years, or maybe the last 50 years, all of the human rights abuses, religious persecution, crimes against humanity, genocide, and ethnic cleansing have been committed on the religious groups because we keep failing. We keep breaking our promise of, “Never again.” Since 1945, the criminal regimes and bad actors have not been dissuaded and discouraged from repeating the same crimes. It’s on us, because we’ve been failing and we continue to believe that we cannot change. But we can change. There are also good instances. Look at the Balkans during the post-Yugoslavia War. It’s a different world. It’s not a perfect world, but it’s a different world. We were able to hold some bad actors to account. Sudan’s former dictator, Bashir, was charged and delivered justice. We have to be bold and we have to be courageous. When we take a strong, conscionable moral action, and when we show leadership, we will be rewarded. But when we fail to do that, we will be despised. History shows that strong leadership has always been rewarded. Moral leadership has always been rewarded. This country is in a very unique position. Borrowing Secretary Blinken’s line, “That the world does not organize itself,” means that we have to lead by example. We also have to lead by showing courage. Mr. Jekielek: I was on a Twitter space recently talking about China related to Taiwan. Is the Taiwan invasion something that might happen in the near future? What are the realities with China and Taiwan? Basically we’re dealing with China, and we’re dealing with a regime that has absolutely no guardrails. There are no moral restrictions. I was using the Uyghur genocide, and the persecution of the Tibetans and Falun Gong as examples. Some people pushed back, and even here in America said, “No. This is U.S. propaganda against China.” Because we have all these quite substantial internal problems, there are a lot of people saying, “Listen, we have to focus on ourselves. We have our massive problems here.” How do you square this kind of response? I’m talking about well-meaning people here that aren’t specifically looking to dissuade. Mr. Turkel: I’ve engaged with some of those people as well, both at home and abroad. I do a fair amount of travel both within the United States and around the world, and that’s one of the common questions, even when you make a compelling argument that is supported with facts and evidence. They say, “Yes. This is the U.S. government’s game plan—to hamper China’s rise.” That is how poorly we have done with public diplomacy and public education. The United States has its own problems and I don’t think we should be shied away. We should also be free to recognize and acknowledge our own problems. Specifically, by investing in Chinese high-tech, we know that we are aiding this genocide. We also need to acknowledge that purchasing goods made with slave labor fuels the Chinese economy and fuels this genocide. We are complicit. This is something that I never hesitate to say. At the same time, we cannot continue to self-examine while ignoring our global challenges. Americans are good at self-correction. We need to work on our problems. But we should never shy away from calling out bad actors, and criticizing a regime committing genocide and crimes against humanity. My response to those people is that you can have a healthy debate. This is what America is about. But at the same time, don’t lose sight of the major problems coming our way. Actually, we are a little too late, when you think of the magnitude and the sheer scope of the problem that we are dealing with in respect to China. I feel that we are a little late. It’s good to have a debate. It’s good to have a healthy conversation, but we have to show leadership. We have to do what we can to at least make improvements. In one area specifically, we should never hesitate to talk about human rights when we are dealing with countries like China. Because of China’s pressuring our policy makers, our government officials try to put human rights on the back burner. They think by not criticizing China and toning down on human rights, we’ll get China’s cooperation on public health issues like the fentanyl crisis and climate crisis. Guess what? That’s not how the Chinese government operates. The Chinese leadership and the Communist Party do what is good for the party and what is good for the leadership. They will not do things one way or the other because of our willingness to not criticize them on the human rights issue. As a global leader, and as a country with a long history defending human rights and religious freedom, we should be bold and courageous, speaking out whenever we see abuses. Mr. Jekielek: You mentioned earlier how we thought we were going to change them, and they’ve actually ended up changing us more. I’m very concerned they have changed us into becoming more like them in this moral area as well, which is the reason for some of this complicity. It’s almost a kind of vicious circle. Yes, maybe you have been compromised. Yes, maybe things have gotten worse. Yes, maybe we have done things that are worse than before and we need to deal with them. But we can’t just get into the vicious downward spiral of thinking that way, because then we can never get back our moral high ground. Mr. Turkel: Yes. I disagree with this notion in public discussion and in our educational system that America is inherently bad and racist. That is a bad idea, and that has to stop. The other point is that America has gotten to the point of being almost unrecognizable in the case of high-tech firms, in the case of Hollywood, in the case of the sports world, and in the case of academia. Today, you will be hard-pressed to find anyone in those four areas who is willing to call out the CCP. Recently, the Apple CEO said that Apple and Chinese people have a symbiotic relationship. And also, we know that the NBA never criticizes China. In fact, the NBA punishes people who criticize the CCP. Hollywood never does anything that remotely annoys the CCP, because the Chinese have managed to make Hollywood believe that it will hurt Chinese people’s feelings. Academia is the most dishonest corner of American society today. Some professors, afraid of being cut off from access to China, will not be truthful to their students, will not be truthful to the American people, and not be truthful to their conscience. They still think that wishful China still exists. That China does not exist. That China is borrowing what former Deputy National Security Advisor, Matt Pottinger, just put out today through his interview. Because we have been feeding them repeatedly for so many years, a baby shark can become a big whale that we have to grapple with. It’s a very, very, very useful metaphor to illustrate how big of a problem we have. We have to wake up. It’s unconscionable, specifically in the academic community. It’s fine if you won’t be able to publish a book, or have a book trip to China. It’s fine if you may not be able to make a tenureship. But self-censorship is not okay. That’s what we are starting to see, and it deserves a lot of attention. One other point is the American investment in Chinese high tech. As I alluded to earlier, this has been one of the key topics in the recent hearings where I testified at the House Select Committee. The American people need to stop investing in self-destruction. Continuing to invest in high-tech and China’s businesses will help fuel China’s economy, and they’ve been using that against us. Mr. Jekielek: Very briefly, so what is happening with your mom? Mr. Turkel: My ailing, aging, 73-year-old mother who lost her husband of 53 years last April, is stuck in China. The Chinese Communist Party won’t let her leave and reunite with her American family. My mom has two American sons and five US-born grandchildren whom she has not met yet. China is preventing her from reuniting with her American family, because of their retaliation against what I do, advocating human rights for people that I represent. Disturbingly, the Chinese think that holding my mom or taking hostage the mother of an American citizen will eventually silence me. It will not work. This is something very important. I have a historical task assigned to me, and I will continue to speak out through my tears. Mr. Jekielek: Yes, and you think she’ll understand. Mr. Turkel: I put this in my book. To this day, neither my late father, nor my mother, ever expressed the slightest disapproval of my human rights advocacy work. To this day, neither my late father, nor my mother, ever raised any concerns, let alone criticized me for my human rights advocacy work, even though my work caused them dearly, and caused this family separation. Think about this, I have not seen my mother who brought me into this world in such horrific circumstances. We have been forcibly separated by CCP. I would love to visit my mom as much as I can, just like anyone else in our society. I want to be able to attend to my mother, which is a very normal thing for any child. These retaliatory actions by the Chinese made me feel that we will meet in the life thereafter. We said goodbye a long time ago, knowing that the Chinese would retaliate. We have to be realistic. We are dealing with a very brutal regime, and they will not hesitate to punish you. At the end of the day, we are free people. I’m free to say anything, and I’m free to do anything. We are American. I’m an American, so they’re not going to be able to silence me. Mr. Jekielek: Let’s talk about what the folks in that building behind you can actually do at this point. One of these things is that very promising legislative bill, and I’d like to get your commentary on it. This is the Countering Forced Organ Harvesting Bill sponsored by Congressman Chris Smith. It passed the House, and it’s going to the Senate. It’s the first thing that actually has some teeth to potentially hit back at this horrific practice. Mr. Turkel: This particular issue, organ harvesting, is something that deserves a lot of attention. This is also something where the American people should feel complicit. Why am I saying this? For years and years, Falun Gong practitioners and the Uyghurs have been crying out loud, asking for attention, and asking for action by our government to address this horrific crime. We’re talking about Chinese acknowledging that the ideal organ is from a 28-year-old male. When you look at today’s concentration camps, that’s the age group that has been targeted. It sounds speculative, but the facts support that when you look at the population. This is something that the Falun Gong community has been suffering for so long. We are talking about a country where the wait time for vital organs is significantly short. I participated in a panel discussion in 2019 at CSIS. One of my co-panelists said that it’s short as weeks, three days, or 48 hours. That means that they have organs available for the Chinese to engage in this organ transplant business. One instance that I’ve seen myself is a hospital in Beijing advertising medical tourism for potential organ recipients, and the language was in Arabic. They are even marketing the organs to the Muslim societies. That makes me believe that you are trying to lure medical tourists to China and have them receive the organs from the Uyghur people, the Uyghur youth. What are we doing? We haven’t done much, and this is not being widely discussed. A few things will be mandated under this bill, and we have to do a number of things. For example, we need to cut off medical tourism to China. The American people need to stop going to China for organ transplants. Number two, we need to focus on the Chinese medical community. They are facilitating this horrific practice by being doctors in the operating room. They have an ongoing relationship with our medical schools and our medical professionals. We need to impose visa sanctions. Our government is able to identify who those people are. It’s not that difficult. Three, we need to impose economic sanctions on the officials that have been orchestrating this horrific practice. It has to be tackled by the government and society together. It is past time for action. Mr. Jekielek: As we finish up, you’re this Foreign Corrupt Practices Act lawyer yourself. This is what you’ve been doing to make a living. The religious freedom advocacy area isn’t particularly lucrative. I’m saying that glibly, but you actually had some ideas how to use the principles from these legal provisions on the human rights side. Please tell us what you’re thinking. Mr. Turkel: The United States has this amazing tool or legislative mandate called the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which makes it illegal for global companies and multinational corporations to engage in corrupt practices or unethical business practices in other countries. We have the accounting provision that is enforced by the SEC. We have the anti-bribery provision that is enforced by the Justice Department. Because we don’t have effective, strong legal tools, the genocidal regime, like the one that we have in Beijing, has been engaging in acts of genocide or committing atrocity crimes that are supported by either entities or individuals. There have not been criminal consequences, there have not been strong legal consequences, and this has not been subject to law enforcement measures. The idea is to make it a criminal act, and make these individuals and entities subject to criminal consequences. Making, supporting, engaging, and carrying out atrocity crimes or the worst forms of human rights abuses should be a law enforcement matter. Today, for example, we have the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act. We have pushed the responsibilities over to the businesses telling them everything that you bring to the United States is negative. In order to make it positive, you have to prove it. Those companies will not and have not been effectively proving it. The newly enacted anti-espionage law in China will even make it more difficult for auditing firms to engage in auditing or due diligence. What do we do? We have to make it a criminal offense for any entity, or any individuals to facilitate or help carry out atrocity crimes. If you make it a law enforcement instead of an administrative proceeding, you will see tangible results. This is what we have in mind and we’ve been advocating for the United States Congress to put in place something similar to FCPA. Mr. Jekielek: Nury, I wish you godspeed in that, this very important work. It’s such a pleasure to have you on the show. Mr. Turkel: Thank you very much for having me back on. Mr. Jekielek: Thank you all for joining, Nury Turkel and me on this episode of American Thought Leaders. I’m your host, Jan Jekielek. This interview has been edited for clarity and brevity. To get notifications about new Kash's Corner and American Thought Leaders episodes, please sign up for our newsletter! Here 👉 Get Alerts - PRE-ORDER "The Shadow State" DVD: https://www.epochtv.shop/product-page/the-shadow-state-dvd The Real Story of January 6 | Documentary BUY Jan 6 DVD: https://www.epochtv.shop/product-page/dvd-the-real-story-of-january-6, Promo Code “Jan” for 20% off. - Follow American Thought Leaders on social media: Twitter: https://twitter.com/AmThoughtLeader Truth Social: https://truthsocial.com/@AmThoughtLeader Gettr: https://gettr.com/user/amthoughtleader Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/AmericanThoughtLeaders Gab: https://gab.com/AmThoughtLeader Telegram: https://t.me/AmThoughtLeader

Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines seem to have four levels of harm intensity that are based on batch number, says former pharmaceutical executive, Sasha Latypova. “They’re dependent on the letters used in the alphanumeric numbering, which should be just random,” Latypova told The Epoch Times. “We have variability of toxicity, but it’s also aligned in three patterns—high, medium, and low. And the fourth one, something as apparent as placebo.” She cited two publications that point to this conclusion. One was a research letter submitted by Danish scientists to the peer-reviewed European Journal of Clinical Investigation. Max Schmeling, lead author of the letter, used data obtained from the Danish government to map out Pfizer’s mRNA COVID-19 vaccine batches versus the adverse events they caused. Schmeling found that the batches fell into three distinct levels of harm. There were nine “high” batches in Denmark that caused thousands of suspected adverse events per batch (blue). There were 25 “medium” batches that were less toxic (green). And there were 12 “low” batches that seemed to cause very few adverse events (yellow). A French genomics statistician, Herve Seligmann, tried to reproduce this study using a grassroots database that matched adverse events to batch numbers. He got similar results. The Danish scientists also noted that some batches caused adverse events that were severe, while other batches had milder adverse events. Larger vaccine batches tended to have lower rates of adverse effects than smaller batches. So when more doses were produced in a single batch, the rate of adverse effects per 1,000 doses was generally lower. This is a highly unusual situation. According to the standards set by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, a pharmaceutical product should not have a high variation of adverse events from batch to batch. Both Moderna and Pfizer COVID-19 vaccines have failed to meet this safety standard, said Latypova. In addition to all this, the figure above shows three clean trendlines, with no noise in between. “Meaning that this is not actually random, it’s by design,” said Latypova. In other words, the differences in the rates of adverse events are not likely to be random, but rather point to underlying factors related to the vaccine batches themselves. Latypova is an expert in drug safety and manufacturing. She has been independently monitoring COVID-19 vaccines since their rollout using publicly available data. Interview trailer: Watch the full interview: https://www.theepochtimes.com/do-patterns-among-covid-19-vaccine-batches-reveal-intentional-design-to-harm_5284038.html INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT: Editor’s note: Current Good Manufacturing Practice (CGMP) is a set of standards and regulations enforced by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to ensure the quality, safety, and efficacy of pharmaceutical products. Sasha Latypova: I looked at the data, not just the total number of adverse events or deaths, but also [at] the pattern of the data across manufacturing lots or batches. So all pharmaceutical products are manufactured in lots of batches. The lots are numbered. If you go to the pharmacy and buy Advil, you can look at the box, it has a lot number. So those are the lot numbers that can be recorded in the [Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS)] reports—when people submit their VAERS reports. And they’re not always there, because people who are submitting the reports—which are either patients, their relatives, pharmacists or doctors, healthcare professionals or nurses—they don’t always have that information. So you may not remember what was the batch number you were injected with—you don’t have your card with you, or the physician doesn’t know. But in about 50 percent of the reports, those numbers are there. And so I was able to match those lot numbers with the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) lot numbers—I have a list of them. And I was able to see that not only the adverse events were high, but the variability of them by batch was extreme. Absolutely extreme. Jan Jekielek: Explain that to me, the variability among them. Variability of Toxicity Ms. Latypova: So the variability … meaning how many total reports are submitted for a particular batch number. Some batch numbers had two or three reports. And some had five or six thousand. That should never happen. If you think about it, if you’re buying Advil today, and you’re buying it a month from now, your experience a month from now shouldn’t be 1,000 percent different, because that’s really dangerous. Even if you think Advil is a safe medication or aspirin is a safe medication, or even if you’re buying orange juice, and your experience today and a week from now is 1,000 percent different—that’s going to be very dangerous. In one of those instances it is very dangerous. So when you see a variability like this, between batches of what is supposed to be a consistently produced, Good Manufacturing Practice-compliant product—it means the product is not CGMP compliant. And as a comparator—because I didn’t have a baseline for this, I didn’t have information, for example, of the batch sizes at the time. I do now, and the story doesn’t change—but at the time I didn’t, so I thought I should compare it to something known. That something known was the flu vaccines. So I extracted all the data for flu vaccines from VAERS, and I looked at how flu vaccine data looks from batch to batch over a long period of time. And by the way, there’s more variety of producers making different sizes of batches. There are dozens of manufacturers of flu vaccines historically, and different sizes of batches. And for flu vaccines, it looks as expected for a CGMP-compliant product, which is a straight line, very close to zero—all the batches line up and there’s very little variability, just a tiny bit. And then when you compare them to these COVID shots—you can’t even put them on the same graph! Flu vaccine data disappears, because the COVID shots variability is huge. Absolutely huge, enormous. Four Levels of Harm Mr. Jekielek: You also have talked about how there’s variation between the batches. In some interpretations it might almost look deliberate. I found that to be very strange. Ms. Latypova: In addition to seeing, first of all, huge adverse events and death rates overall, we saw huge variability batch to batch. But that variability was also not random. Meaning, it’s not that they don’t control their process and they’re producing random outputs. They’re also producing something not random. There’s some sort of a design going on as far as what’s in those vials and different batches, because we saw clusterings, for example, by alphanumeric codes—both in Pfizer and Moderna. Depending on the letters used in the alphanumeric numbering—which should be just random, it should be just some sort of a manufacturing scheme to keep track of things—but depending on the letters, we knew that this set of letters would produce higher toxicity, and this set of letters would produce lower toxicity. That should never happen. We also had clusterings by dates of manufacture. [That] also should not happen—you should not have a difference between the product on the first of the month or on the thirtieth of the month. A colleague of mine from Denmark—this was recently published in a peer-reviewed journal, the European Journal of Clinical Investigation. He obtained data from the Danish government—Denmark was Pfizer-exclusive. They got all the batch numbers for Pfizer, and the adverse event data. And he was able to find three different patterns of toxicity. And they’re cleanly separated from each other. Again, we have the variability of toxicity, but it also aligns in three patterns. And there’s nothing in between, meaning that this is not actually random, it’s by design. By design they have three different levels—high, medium, and low. And the fourth one—something as apparent as placebo, because those people who were injected and don’t submit any reports, they don’t have any adverse events. So we have at least four different levels of toxicity detected in the data from adverse events. And again, this should not happen—this should be explained, there should be an investigation. No Consumer Protection Protocols Were Triggered And by the way, everything I’m seeing—once you see some variability of data like this, this huge variability of the clusterings of data by various parameters—there are numerous different safety protocols that should be triggered at the manufacturer [level]. The manufacturers themselves should detect it, the manufacturers should recall these products, they should stop the production lines and start investigations. That’s what they do normally. If the manufacturer is not doing anything about it, then the FDA has all sorts of enforcement powers. They can also force a recall, force investigations—we have all kinds of levels of protections, consumer protections, that should be triggered with this picture, long before this extent of injury has occurred. Yet none of them were triggered, none of them worked. So all of them fell apart simultaneously. And that kind of kills me. I feel like I’ve been screaming for the last two years at the empty space and nobody’s paying attention to this. Sasha Latypova will return in Part 2 of this interview. This transcript has been edited for brevity and clarity by Anna Varavva. ———– Medical Disclaimer: Frontline Health (the “Show”), its guests, and contributors provide the latest news on health and medical discoveries, and it is meant for informational purposes only. The Show does not provide medical advice, diagnosis, treatment, cures, mitigation, or prevention for any type of disease or medical condition. Similarly, it is not intended for self-diagnosis or self-treatment of any health-related condition. The information on the Show is gathered from reputable sources; however, neither Frontline Health nor The Epoch Times Association Inc. are responsible for errors or omissions in reporting or explanation, and will not be liable for any direct, indirect, consequential, special, exemplary, or other damages arising therefrom. Patients should always consult with a doctor or other health care professional for medical advice or information about diagnosis and treatment. To get notifications about new Kash's Corner and American Thought Leaders episodes, please sign up for our newsletter! Here 👉 Get Alerts - PRE-ORDER "The Shadow State" DVD: https://www.epochtv.shop/product-page/the-shadow-state-dvd The Real Story of January 6 | Documentary BUY Jan 6 DVD: https://www.epochtv.shop/product-page/dvd-the-real-story-of-january-6, Promo Code “Jan” for 20% off. - Follow American Thought Leaders on social media: Twitter: https://twitter.com/AmThoughtLeader Truth Social: https://truthsocial.com/@AmThoughtLeader Gettr: https://gettr.com/user/amthoughtleader Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/AmericanThoughtLeaders Gab: https://gab.com/AmThoughtLeader Telegram: https://t.me/AmThoughtLeader

“We make up about 4 percent of the global population in America, yet we consume 55 percent of prescription drugs. How is that possible? 80 percent of prescription opiates are [prescribed] in this country. So this tells you the stranglehold that Big Pharma has.” At the FLCCC Conference last month, I sat down with critical care physician and FLCCC co-founder Dr. Paul Marik to get an update on what we currently know about spike protein-induced diseases in people who’ve contracted COVID-19, versus those who’ve gotten the vaccine. “When you get the jab, the amount of spike protein is exponentially higher than with natural infection. And that’s why we see all these complications from the vaccine,” explains Dr. Marik. We discuss the best treatments for ridding the body of spike protein, and how patients can embrace and enhance their ability to heal themselves. “We have enormous potential [for] self-repair, self-healing, and so many of the drugs patients take are toxic,” says Dr. Marik. We also dive into the battle he has been fighting to legitimize the use of vitamins, lifestyle changes, and cheap and effective repurposed drugs in healthcare. “The amount of data supporting the concept that vitamin D deficiency causes cancer, and that supplementing with vitamin D reduces your risk of cancer, is overwhelming. And yet, nobody knows about it, and nobody cares,” says Dr. Marik. Interview trailer: Watch the full interview: https://www.theepochtimes.com/the-spike-goes-to-every-organ-system-dr-paul-marik-on-mrna-in-the-covid-19-vaccine-vs-natural-infection-cheap-and-effective-treatments-and-interventions_5281130.html FULL TRANSCRIPT Jan Jekielek: Dr. Paul Marik, such a pleasure to have you back on American Thought Leaders. Dr. Paul Marik: Thank you, Jan. It’s a pleasure and wonderful to be here today. Mr. Jekielek: You have been doing some incredibly fascinating research on a range of things beyond Covid. I want to start with Covid, and I want to understand what is the current state of spike-related disease. What do we understand about it now? How does it work, and what are the best treatments? Dr. Marik: Yes, that’s a good question. Our understanding is evolving and continues to evolve. The truth of the matter is that spike protein is probably one of the most toxic compounds that human beings can be exposed to. Its toxicity is through multiple different pathways that we’re just beginning to understand. Spike protein causes profound inflammation. It activates clotting. It activates a clotting cascade. It activates platelets. It causes auto-antibodies. It causes damage to the endothelium of blood vessels. It causes auto-antibodies. Then, it has some really bad effects on genes and many of the genes involved in cancer suppression. We now know that spike protein, although people want to ignore and deny it, actually activates many genetic pathways which lead to cancer. It’s a form of cancer called turbocancer. This is related to the spike protein. It does all kinds of really weird stuff. We know the spike protein itself gets into the nucleus, and whether or not it affects DNA is a contentious issue. But it appears that it goes into the nucleus and does stuff in the nucleus. We know it affects fertility. Probably the best study is done by this really brave pathologist in Germany. In the U.S., if someone dies unexpectedly, you can’t look for spike protein. It’s not allowed. Dr. Arne Burkhadt in Germany has done over 75 autopsies on patients who have died post-vaccination. The findings are astonishing, and to be truthful, they are scary because the body is packed with spike protein in a way that’s completely unbelievable. There’s spike protein in the brain, spike protein in the heart, and spike protein in the vasculature. It actually causes a disease in the blood vessels, which you see with syphilis. It causes necrosis, which is death of the wall of the blood vessel. It’s called medial necrosis, and the blood vessel ruptures. There are not many diseases that do that. Syphilis is one of them. Cyanide kills you quickly. Spike protein kills you slowly. It’s as toxic as cyanide, but this is a slow progressive organ dysfunction leading to death. It’s really interesting how if you were to design a drug for the treatment of Covid, it could be called ivermectin. That’s not a joke, just because it has all the properties that you would want in a drug to treat Covid. This was a gift of nature. It was not manufactured in a lab. This was found in a golf course in Japan made by bacteria. If you kill someone quickly, they die. But if they suffer and have chronic disease and then die, the health implications and the effect on the population are enormous. If you were to design a toxic protein which would disable people, it would look like spike protein. It has 1700 amino acids, it’s not a very long protein, but it is an astonishingly toxic protein. Mr. Jekielek: The question is being able to distinguish between the spike that comes from Covid and the spike that comes from the vaccine. This would be the variant of spike which creates these diseases. Is that primarily in the vaccine or does that also happen with natural Covid? Dr. Marik: That’s a good question and it took me a while to figure this out. When you get natural infection with SARS-CoV-2—and we know this, there’s really good data—the active replicating virus lasts for about five days. After five days, the messenger RNA, which the virus makes to make all these proteins, is destroyed by the body. If you’re immunocompetent, within five days the messenger RNA is gone, and you continue to make new spike protein. However, the messenger RNA that is in these jab things, they’re not really vaccines. It’s a misnomer to call it a vaccine. This is synthetic, artificially-manufactured mRNA. When you inject the mRNA, it doesn’t stay in the arm. It actually circulates and goes to the lymph nodes and organs. We don’t know for how long, because the longest study was for 60 days. After 60 days there is still messenger RNA in the lymph nodes. What that means is that this messenger RNA is making spike protein. The bottom line of all of that is with this load of spike protein, it’s like it’s a toxin. It’s like cyanide. A little bit of cyanide may not kill you, but a lot of cyanide is going to do some really bad damage. When you get the jab, the amount of spike protein is exponentially higher than with natural infection. That’s why we’re seeing all these complications from the vaccine. For example, with long Covid, and you don’t want to minimize it, but it is a self-limiting disease. Because of the amount of spike protein that’s produced with most people who get long Covid, the average is four months, and then they get better. We know with the vaccine injured, these people have such a load of spike protein that two to three years after the jab they’re still highly symptomatic. It’s related to the load of spike protein. Mr. Jekielek: Yesterday we saw some presentations from React19 showing the most common types of symptoms that come with the vaccine injury. The most common ones seem to be more neurological, then followed by the heart-related ones. Can you speak to that, and why would that be? Dr. Marik: These patients have multiple systems which involve multiple organ systems. The average number of symptoms of a vaccine injury is about 20 to 23. They run a spectrum. When these patients present to the physician, the physicians use pattern recognition to make a diagnosis. Because these patients have such diverse symptoms that really don’t fit in with a pattern that the physicians have been taught, almost always they say, “This is stress, this is anxiety, this is a functional disorder, this is in your head, this isn’t real.” But it is real. It’s because the spike goes to every organ system, and every organ system is involved. Unlike the natural infection, the mRNA is placed in a lipid nanoparticle and the lipid nanoparticle is actually designed to deliver chemotherapy to the brain. It crosses the blood brain barrier. You’re absolutely right, more than 80 per cent of patients post-vaccine have neurological symptoms, and it’s a very characteristic finding. While you find it with long Covid, it’s much more extreme and the symptoms are much more severe within the vaccine injured. The neurological symptoms are brain fog, cognitive dysfunction, and memory dysfunction, which is very disabling to most people. If you can’t think, you would lose your ability to remember things. Then, there are some other disabling things. It sounds absurd, but tinnitus, which is ringing in the ears, is quite common and quite distinct with the spike protein. We are not sure why it happens, but it’s common and exceedingly disabling because these people have ringing in their ears 24/7. They can’t sleep. In fact, many actually consider suicide because it’s such a troubling symptom. That’s a neurological symptom. Then, the one which is probably the most disabling is neuropathy. That’s the involvement of the small nerve fibers. It seems to be a classic feature of spike protein-induced disease, particularly with the vaccine. They get this small fiber neuropathy, which is profoundly disabling because it interferes with the small fibers involved in pain sensation. They have burning sensations. They complain that their limbs are on fire, so they have a severe, burning itching. If you ask the vaccine injured patient, if there’s one symptom that they want to get rid of, what is the most troubling? What is the most disabling? Without question, it’s the small fiber neuropathy, which is profoundly disabling. Mr. Jekielek: I don’t know if this is the same thing, but do they call it paresthesia? Dr. Marik: Yes. Mr. Jekielek: Is that right? Some weirdness or numbness. Dr. Marik: Exactly, it’s on a spectrum of paresthesia, which means numbness and tingling. Then, it can progress to burning and a sensation of fire. Basically, it’s a progressive disease related to damage to the nerve fibers. Mr. Jekielek: Where are we at now in terms of treatment? You’ve had multiple iterations of a general protocol, but then, there’s specific treatments for different people. Bri Dressen was on the show and said she was actually treated at NIH with something that would calm the immune system. It helped her profoundly, although it’s not something that’s offered to most people. Dr. Marik: The problem with the vaccine is the people who invented and developed the vaccine didn’t develop an antidote for the product that they made. They made this toxin, but they left it for us to try and figure out how to deal with this toxin. Most medicines that we know have toxicity, and we have a good idea how to deal with the toxicity. This was a black box. We had to really start from scratch figuring out how spike protein damages the patient. As we’ve learned about spike, we’ve learned about ways to deal with spike. The more spike protein you have, the worse the disease. That’s really important. You can look at how many times they’ve had Covid, and how many shots they’ve had. It gives you an index of how much spike they have. Mr. Jekielek: Let’s go to treatment. You’re saying the less spike you have in you, the better. That’s number one. Then, somehow the lipid nanoparticles play into this as well. What is the state of the knowledge on the treatment? Dr. Marik: The first thing is to avoid being spiked. If you’ve been vaccinated, don’t get boosters. You want to further limit exposure to spike, no more jabs. Secondly, if you get Covid, you want to be treated early, because the longer you allow it to linger, the more spike protein. That’s just a basic common sense principle. Then, what you need to do is get rid of the spike. One has to be careful of these so-called detoxification protocols, potions, and devices. I call it the Barbie detox device, where you put Barbie into a container with water with electrodes, and somehow it detoxes Barbie. You have to be careful, because there are unscrupulous people who will take advantage of people who are suffering and desperate. There is no such thing as detoxification potions or devices. What you need to do is help the body get rid of the spike protein. The body has an evolutionary process which was discovered in yeast called autophagy. It’s a truly astonishing process. What the body does is when it detects foreign protein, misfolded protein, or dysfunctional protein, it destroys it, because it figures out that this is not good and wants to get rid of it. It goes through this autophagy process. It’s like the garbage collection system of the cell. Mr. Jekielek: It’s the phagocytes, if I recall correctly. Dr. Marik: Yes. It causes these phagosomes. It invaginates the foreign protein into a vesicle, which then fuses with a lysosome which has enzymes which break down the contents. It’s the garbage disposal system. It collects the garbage and then puts the garbage through this garbage slicing machine and trashes the garbage. It’s an ingenious system and it has evolved over millions of years. It’s how the cell deals with these toxic proteins. What you really want to do is embrace it and enhance the ability of the cell to break down these proteins. So much of what I’ve learned and we’ve learned is that we have the enormous potential of self-repair and self-healing. Many of the drugs patients take are toxic. What we really want to do is embrace the ability of the host to heal itself. We want to enhance that ability. You want to activate autophagy, the most potent method of activating autophagy is called intermittent fasting, or time-related feeding. Because there is this biological switch called the mTOR switch. Whenever you eat, you switch off autophagy. It just switches it off through the mTOR pathway. Glucose and insulin and protein switch off this process. However, when you deprive the cell of glucose and protein, it switches on autophagy and it breaks down protein. This is the way we were designed. The Neanderthal man, our cousin, didn’t eat all the time. This is a reasonably new phenomenon with our processed foods and supermarkets and 7-Elevens down the road. People eat all the time, and they snack. Snacking is a Western phenomenon. What’s even worse, they will sit in front of the TV after dinner. They’ve had dinner, and then, they’ll sit in front of the TV and snack on processed food and carbohydrates, which is terrible. Because first of all, it never allows autophagy to switch on. More importantly, autophagy is really important for brain recovery when you sleep. You have to consider, why do we sleep? It’s not an accident. For brain regeneration, it’s really important to clear out all the metabolic products and allow the synapses to regenerate. We know that sleep is vital. During sleep, you undergo autophagy. If you eat before you go to sleep, it does two really bad things. The one is it switches off autophagy, so you don’t do it. Then secondly, there’s a remarkable system in the brain called the glymphatic system. This is the lymphatic system of the brain, and it does the same thing. It washes out the metabolic byproducts from metabolism to get rid of them. Impaired glymphatic flow is linked to many neurodegenerative diseases as is deficient autophagy.If you eat before you go to sleep, you limit autophagy and you limit this glymphatic flow. The other thing that’s really good for lymphatics and autophagy is exercise. Imagine such a thing—exercise. Of course, alcohol is bad. There are very simple maneuvers that people can do to improve autophagy and improve glymphatic flow. This is really important for getting rid of spike protein, but the implications go much further, because we now know that it prevents aging, and it prevents Alzheimer’s disease. It likely reduces the risk of cancer. It reduces the risk of metabolic syndrome and diabetes. We started this journey looking at intermittent fasting to get rid of spike protein. But as you know, the implications are now far, far reaching and that’s why we’ve gone on this new journey. Getting back to spike, it’s essential that people change their diet. You don’t have to do strict intermittent fasting like I do, where you eat within a six to eight hour window, and then the rest of the time you don’t eat. It’s different from starvation. It’s important to distinguish, this is not starving human beings. Metabolically, they act very differently. If you starve someone, the body adapts by decreasing the basal metabolic rate and decreasing growth hormone to switch things off. Paradoxically, with time-restricted eating, you actually maintain or increase basal metabolic rate and you increase growth hormone. It’s a fascinating phenomenon. People pay tens of thousands of dollars to get growth hormone. You don’t need to do that. You need to just do periodic feeding and your body naturally makes growth hormone. It has truly astonishing benefits. Mr. Jekielek: It sounds like there’s a simple recipe here. How do you activate the time-restricted eating versus starvation? Dr. Marik: The first step is to start eating food. It sounds absurd, but concentrate on eating real food and not processed food. That’s step one. What you need to do in your pantry at home is get rid of all the bad food, so you don’t have an opportunity to snack on bad food. Then, what you want to do is miss one meal, and breakfast is probably the best meal to miss. You still have lunch and you still have an early dinner, but it must be early. You can see how that differs from starving, where you’re not eating food. Then, what you gradually do is increase the window of time-restricted eating. Maybe you start off where you eat within a window of 12 hours, then 10 hours, then eight hours, and then six hours. But it’s really important that when you eat, you actually have real food that is good food. Then, during the periods where you’re fasting, you can have liquids, and it’s really important not to get dehydrated. Water is fine, but no juices, and coffee is fine. Coffee actually activates autophagy and has really important phytochemicals that are important. Don’t add artificial sweeteners, and don’t add milk to it. If you want to, add thick cream. You want to prevent adding glucose which will break your ketosis. There is an important difference between someone who’s starved and someone who’s doing intermittent feeding, or time-restricted eating. With time-restricted eating, you should not lose lean body mass, you should lose fat mass. That’s really important. Whereas, with starvation, you break down muscle as a source of fuel, and that you don’t want to happen. With time-restricted feeding, you utilize the excess fat stores. You break down the fat, but you prevent breaking down muscle. That’s really important. You actually release ketone bodies from your fat store. You’re breaking down the fat stores. You have to not eat for a number of hours. First, what will happen is you’ll use glucose which is stored in the liver as glycogen. Once that is depleted, you’ll start breaking down and converting the visceral fat, your belly fat, into ketone bodies, so you will be breaking down fatty tissue. Mr. Jekielek: My impression had been that to be in ketosis, you can only eat a very small amount of carbohydrate over time. Dr. Marik: Yes. Mr. Jekielek: Here you’re saying that if you’re not eating for 12 hours or longer, you can actually eat anything that’s wholesome and you’ll still achieve that same state. Dr. Marik: There are various phases of this. In fact, there’s no human requirement to eat carbohydrates. Unlike proteins and fats which you need, humans can survive without carbohydrates. If you have a diet which is low in carbohydrates or has no carbohydrates, you’re going to start making ketone bodies. Both the brain and the body use ketone bodies as a source of energy. Instead of using glucose, you use ketones. In fact, the heart functions much better using ketones, as opposed to using glucose or fatty acids. You can get into ketosis without doing time-restricted feeding. The two are related. Time-restricted eating basically means you don’t eat for a period of time, but ketosis means you just have a low carbohydrate intake. You can be in ketosis eating three meals a day. All you’re doing is restricting carbohydrate intake, so you can be in ketosis without doing time-restricted feeding. There are some really interesting tricks that they play. When you go to a restaurant, they start the meal off with bread. Why do they do that? It’s nice, it’s tasty, and it’s warm. You have the bread, which is high in starch and processed. It causes a big spike in glucose, which then causes a big spike in insulin. What does insulin do? It activates your hunger center, so it makes you hungry. Then, you’re going to order more food and you’re going to eat more. They do it on purpose. What you want to do is actually have the salad first, have greens first, and have the bread at the end of the meal. What the greens do is slow down the absorption of glucose. It forms this mucus lining in the small intestine to slow absorption of glucose. You can have the same meal, and it’s fascinating. Studies have done this. There’s this very nice Swedish woman called the Glucose Goddess. Basically, what she says is the order in which you eat food makes an enormous difference. She looks at the glucose profile. If you eat pasta or starch at the beginning of the meal, you get this big spike. But if you leave it towards the end of the meal, you get a flat curve. These are really basic things about how to prepare food and how to eat food. Don’t start a meal with starch. It’s the worst thing. The other thing which is really cool is, if you’re going to eat birthday cake, take some apple cider vinegar before you do the starch, because it flattens the curve. Somehow the apple cider vinegar acts on the GI [gastrointestinal] tract. It releases hormones that flatten the curve. Have some apple cider vinegar before you have a bad meal. The bottom line is that you are linking two things. One is time-restricted eating, which means you eat during a particular window. Then, you want to eat real food. You couple the two. Starvation is basically when you restrict all nutrients to the human body. This is not happening, because basically you have a period of time-restricted eating. You eat during a particular window, but you eat nutrient-dense foods. You eat foods that are high in nutritional value. These are not processed foods, these are real foods. We know that for Americans, 80 percent of what they eat is processed food. You may ask, what’s the difference? If it looks like food, it likely is food. If it comes in a box, has a package and a label, it’s probably not food. We know that food can have all kinds of preservatives, chemicals, and additives that are already toxic. I read a fascinating paper recently. It actually got the Banting award from the American Diabetes Association. That’s one of their highest honors, which was bestowed upon this researcher. She has shown that it’s these chemicals and additives and flavorants and preservatives in food that actually act on the pancreas to cause oxidative injury and insulin release. The insulin release then causes obesity. Rather than obesity causing insulin resistance, she’s postulating that it’s this toxic diet that’s causing insulin release and causing obesity. The truth of the matter is that probably both are operative, but we don’t realize the profound toxicity of the food we eat. It’s nutritionally devoid. It’s essentially processed as high glucose and most importantly, fructose. Fructose is different from glucose, and most of these things have high levels of corn fructose. Fructose is metabolized into fat in the liver. It causes the fatty liver, which causes this process of insulin resistance. Fructose is really toxic. Obviously, there’s a lot of fructose in fruit. One has to be careful about how much fruit you eat. Fruit is okay, but you really want to limit the amount of fruit. The best fruits are berries; blueberries, strawberries, and blackberries, because they have the lowest glycemic index. They have fructose, but they also have fiber. Fruit juices are probably as toxic as it comes, because it’s fructose without the fiber, it causes a rapid spike in blood glucose. Basically, what I’m saying is that by very simple changes in the way we eat, we can have a profound metabolic effect. This has another implication, because it is estimated that 40 percent of cancers are caused by insulin resistance. Insulin resistance causes high insulin, which causes insulin growth factor, which activates cancer. There’s a direct correlation between metabolic syndrome, insulin resistance, and cancer. Coronary disease is not due to cholesterol. That’s a myth. That was a myth perpetuated by the food industry going back to the 1960s. Coronary disease is caused by insulin resistance. It’s as simple as that. Mr. Jekielek: Paul, you say this with such conviction. How is everything that we know about the role of cholesterol wrong? Dr. Marik: It’s called a hoax, much like Covid is a hoax. This is called the saturated fat-cholesterol hoax. This was started in the 1960s by a physician, Ancel Keys, who postulated that saturated fats were bad. They actually did studies, and they had a group that had saturated fat. Then, they changed the diet to vegetable oils; corn oil, soy oil, canola oil, and flaxseed oil. What you may want to know is that Proctor & Gamble actually bought the American Heart Association who promoted this diet. There have been five randomized studies and all have shown exactly the same thing. What such a diet does is cause the cholesterol to stay the same. Cardiac disease stays the same or goes up, but your risk of cancer goes up exponentially. This obsession with cholesterol and saturated fat is a hoax. It was a hoax perpetuated by the food industry. The USDA is part of this hoax, and they continue to advise a diet low in saturated fat and high in vegetable oils. They are captured. We think the NIH and CDC are captured. We know that probably all the agencies are captured. The USDA is captured because the food pyramid is completely upside down. There’s nothing wrong with saturated fat. In fact, there was a really good paper in the Lancet, this ivory tower journal. They’ve looked epidemiologically and found that the more fat you eat, the lower your risk of cardiac disease. It’s not saturated fat that’s the enemy. It is these polyunsaturated, synthetic, manufactured vegetable oils. The use of soy vegetable oil in this country has gone up exponentially, in terms of tons. Tons are used. There is this low-fat hoax. You go to the supermarket, everything is low-fat. That’s actually what you don’t want. Because if it’s low in fat, it’s high in carbohydrates and glucose. When you shop, you actually want to look for high-fat, not low-fat. That’s how completely upside down this hoax is. There was this campaign that said eggs were bad and said, “Don’t eat eggs.” Eggs are wonderful. They are one of the most nutritious sources of nutrient-dense food, and eggs do not increase your cholesterol. Maybe it does if you have 30 or 40 eggs a day, but one or two eggs a day is perfectly fine. It’s a highly dense, nutritional food. You can see how deep this hoax and corruption and this fraud goes. Mr. Jekielek: Let’s just jump back. You might have had multiple jabs, you have this spike protein being created in your body potentially causing problems. Is the number one thing you can do right now is induce autophagy? Dr. Marik: Yes, it sounds so simple, but that’s what I have realized. It’s the simple things in life that have the most profound effect. It is the simple things in life. The more complicated it is, the less likely it is to succeed. Just by altering your diet, you can have a profound effect on getting rid of the spike protein, reducing insulin resistance, and improving your overall health. There are also some other things you can do. There is a product called nattokinase. Nattokinase is an enzyme made from a bad bacteria when you ferment soy. Again, this is a product of nature. This is not a pharmaceutical invention. Japanese people have been taking natto for hundreds or thousands of years. What’s truly astonishing about nattokinase, is that it has a number of really very important effects on people who’ve been spiked. The one thing it does is break down extracellular spike. What autophagy does is break down spike within the cell. What nattokinase does, it breaks down spike outside the cell. The other thing that nattokinase does, which is truly astonishing, is that it activates clotting, and it completely deranges the clotting system. Essentially, spike creates these fibrinous clots, which you can’t break down. Nattokinase, via a number of pathways, breaks down these fibrinous clots. Again, we have a simple intervention through multiple pathways. It can be profoundly advantageous in people who’ve been spiked, because it deals with the clotting and it deals with breaking down the spike. But of course, it’s generic. You can’t patent it. Therefore, you can’t make a lot of money on it, so no one is interested. That’s the common theme we talk about. There are these wonderful products of nature that have profound biological effects that were given to us. It was a gift of nature that has these enormous properties of self-healing. This is not Paxlovid or one of these other toxic medications that you spent hundreds of dollars on. Mr. Jekielek: You’re not sounding like the typical ICU doctor. Dr. Marik: I worked in the ICU, and I swallowed the Kool-Aid. I followed conventional medicine. That’s what I did. Fortunately, in the ICU, most of our therapies were based on a good understanding of physiology, and then how to deal with physiology, rather than corrupt medications. But it has started me on this journey and I’ve realized how completely corrupt and fraudulent traditional medicine is. I was a traditional physician. I believe what they told us. I believe what was published in the journals. I believe the agencies, but you can’t trust them. You really have to think about getting back to basics. The human body has enormous capacity for self-renewal and self-healing, and there are natural ways to embrace that. There are natural products that can help the body restore itself. That makes so much sense. With intermittent fasting, you buy less food, so you are saving money. No one’s making money on this. If we actually adopted this across the country, we could reduce our expenditure on healthcare by at least 50 percent. Mr. Jekielek: This is an unfathomable claim, almost. It seems so simple. Dr. Marik: Yes. More recently, I’ve become interested in Vitamin D. We used to live indoors in our little caves, and we would sleep with no artificial light. That is really important because having darkness at night is really important in making melatonin. That’s what the pineal gland does. If your pineal gland is not functioning optimally, you don’t make melatonin, which significantly increases your risk of cancer, particularly breast cancer. Night shift work is actually classified by the EPA as a type-two carcinogen, because these synthetic lights switch off melatonin. They don’t contain infrared light. During the night, we were in the cave. During the day, we went outdoors, we went hunting, we got sunshine, and we got blue light. Blue light is important during the day to switch off the pineal gland and it makes infrared. We’ve disturbed that natural cycle of life. We need to get back to the basics; walk outdoors, get sunshine, eat once or twice a day, and reestablish our circadian rhythm where you have darkness at night and light during the day. It’s just common sense. Vitamin D is so critical. There’s overwhelming data. This is not fringe. There’s overwhelming data that with people who have low Vitamin D levels, their risk of cancer has increased exponentially. Interestingly enough, if you live in a high latitude, closer to the north or south pole, you get less ultraviolet B. You make less Vitamin D, and you have a higher risk of cancer. In fact, there was a study recently published in a peer reviewed journal, in which they looked at three simple interventions to reduce cancer. It was a prospective randomized study. They gave patients 4,000 units of Vitamin D, one gram of omega-3, plus a simple home exercise program. They reduced the risk of cancer by 50 percent. Just think of the implications. I would add one or two other compounds. I would probably add melatonin to that. I would probably add metformin and treat insulin resistance. You could eliminate cancer from this planet. You would save enormously, our healthcare expenditure would go down, but the pharmaceutical profits would go down too. Obviously, that’s the issue. It goes against the pharma narrative, which is to sell them drugs that don’t cure them. They want you to take drugs forever that don’t cure disease. They just suppress symptoms. It’s a very sobering thought and people need to take matters into their own hands. People don’t want to get cancer, and they don’t want to get metabolic syndrome. There are simple common sense things you can do to reduce your risk; take Vitamin D, take melatonin, get some exercise, and get some sunshine. We are not talking about high-tech interventions here. Then, obviously, we need to get more in tune with ourselves. With the current level of stress and anxiety and depression, this society is out of control with the number of people addicted to substances. Through lifestyle changes that are just common sense, we can improve our health, our wellbeing, our longevity, and our happiness. Mr. Jekielek: I do want to talk about one ICU intervention that you developed, an intravenous Vitamin C protocol that was highly effective. That’s why you published it. You came to adopt an unorthodox view on dealing with COVID and were attacked for it, and even your sepsis protocol came under very serious attack. It’s something that’s very cheap and can be easily adapted in the developing world and save lives. It’s just a wonderful thing on the face of it. Please tell me about this. A lot of people were thrilled with this protocol at one point, then suddenly, it became toxic, metaphorically. Dr. Marik: This was a repurposed drug, which was challenging the narrative and the status quo, because clearly cheap off-label repurposed drugs need to be banned. What people may not know is that Vitamin C is really a hormone rather than a vitamin. All species on this planet, except for humans and guinea pigs, make Vitamin C. When your little puppy dog or your cat or your goat gets stressed, it actually makes Vitamin C. It’s a stress hormone. It’s very important for dealing with stressful reactions. Humans have lost their ability to make Vitamin C. We have a fatal mutation in the biosynthetic pathway, so we can’t make Vitamin C. If you take animals and stress them, they make Vitamin C in their liver. Their adrenal gland secretes Vitamin C. It’s not by accident that animals make Vitamin C. It’s really very important. It’s a potent antioxidant, and it has anti-inflammatory properties. It’s very important for making hormones, but from the adrenal gland. It has anti-inflammatory, antibacterial properties. It’s a very important stress hormone. But for whatever reasons, humans have a genetic mutation where they can’t make it. What is the implication? It’s simple. When humans are stressed, give them Vitamin C. I stumbled upon this by accident. Because I had this patient in the ICU who was clearly dying of sepsis. There was no question or doubt she was dying. As a clinician, when you have a patient who’s dying, and this was pre-COVID, you do whatever you can to save the patient’s life, even if it’s not conventional. But as long as it’s not illegal, as long as it’s an approved drug, you’re going to try it. I had read the work of Dr. Fowler on Vitamin C. I thought, “Why not? Let me give it a try.” I was expecting this woman to die. When I came back the next day, not only was she not dying, she was sitting up in bed communicating. She was extubated, and her kidney function improved. This woman who was dying walked out of the ICU three days later. I thought, “That’s impressive, but maybe it’s just a one-off thing. I’ll try it again.” The same thing happened. I did it again, and the same thing happened again. When observation is scientifically valid, it’s reproducible. I kept on doing it because it was saving patients lives. At that point I said, “No one is going to believe me. I need to do a randomized study.” I said to the nurses, “I’m going to do a randomized study.” The nurses wouldn’t let me do it because they said it’s unethical for me to withhold a therapy, which I know saves kidneys, saves patients, and saves lives. To give them a placebo would be unethical. I agreed with them, because how could I, in good conscience, if I have something which can help patients, how could I deny it to them? We collected a series of 48 patients. We then compared it retrospectively to a similar match group and we showed a marked reduction in mortality. What was interesting, and I actually had forgotten about this. Sepsis at that time was used as a marker of hospital quality of care. There was a lot of focus by CMS [Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services] and national health agencies on sepsis outcomes. There was a company called Truven who was collecting data for CMS independently. They provided data to the CEO of my hospital, who at that time was a really very nice man. He was actually interested in patient outcomes. He didn’t last long, obviously. But he gave me data showing that once we introduced this protocol at our hospital, the hospital mortality from sepsis independently of my data went from 20 percent to 8 percent. People thought this was snake oil medicine, and this was fraudulent data. That just doesn’t make sense, but we had independent validation. Mr. Jekielek: Just one quick question. Why did they think it was snake oil? Dr. Marik: The head of the global sepsis forum who worked in Australia tweeted out that this was snake oil medicine and that I was a snake oil doctor. They just didn’t like the idea that a vitamin which is cheap could save people’s lives. It was against the narrative. It has to be an expensive molecule from pharma, which is specifically designed. The idea that Vitamin C, which is cheap, readily available, and completely safe should actually be able to have a significant impact in reducing mortality from sepsis was snake oil medicine. Mr. Jekielek: This is before Covid? Dr. Marik: This is before Covid. Mr. Jekielek: You were about to talk about Covid, but this is before Covid. What did you think of them saying that? Dr. Marik: I was personally offended. I was upset. I was disturbed because they went on this Twitter campaign to suggest that this was not real data, and that I had somehow manipulated the data. This couldn’t be real, because I was going against mainstream medicine. I had no idea what was coming down the line. Traditional medicine does not like challenges to the status quo. It’s very disturbing to them, particularly when it’s an off-label drug. That’s a theme that I’ve now recognized. As my direction has changed in terms of metabolic syndrome, diabetes, and cancer, I’ve realized that there are many repurposed drugs that are highly effective for these conditions. Mr. Jekielek: Is this based on the existing literature we’ve been talking about? This is astounding to most people that in the established literature, hundreds of deeply researched papers will tell you that these things work. But it’s not known in the collective consciousness, even among medical doctors. Dr. Marik: Absolutely. Most medical doctors don’t know because they’ve been isolated from this. It’s called brainwashing, propaganda, and manipulation. I use Vitamin D because the amount of data supporting the concept that Vitamin D deficiency causes cancer and that supplementing with Vitamin D reduces your risk of cancer is overwhelming. Yet nobody knows about it and nobody cares. Medicine is controlled by big pharma. The food industry is controlled by the big nutrition companies. They’re in cahoots to keep Americans as unhealthy as they can by promoting bad food, which causes all of these diseases for which you take drugs which are not curative. They suppress the symptoms, and they don’t treat the disease. We need a reawakening because this current medical system is broken. Our goal now is to educate clinicians, healthcare workers, and the public that they need to be empowered. The Epoch Times is wonderful in that respect because it does speak the truth. I’m not making this stuff up. It’s not like I’m taking some psychedelic drug that is disturbing my thought process. In fact, there was a paper written on Vitamin D deficiency in the New England Journal of Medicine. That’s considered the gold standard. In this review paper, they beautifully describe how Vitamin D deficiency causes cancer and how if you supplement, it reduces the risk. The data’s there, but physicians have been shielded from the truth and the science. Mr. Jekielek: There’s another part of the story with respect to the sepsis protocol, which I want you to talk about. Dr. Marik: Yes. Because of our involvement in promoting off-labeled drugs and alternative protocols and challenging the narrative, I became a target. What better way to embarrass me, discredit me, and disgrace me than to suggest that my research is fraudulent. There was an internet physician in Australia who basically went on the internet and made these outrageous claims. He basically said that within five minutes of reading my Vitamin C study, it was clear that the data was made up. He perpetuated this accusation on Twitter. He sent notices to most of the social media companies that were promoting the narrative. He actually wrote a letter to both my hospital that I worked at, and the journal, basically stating that my paper was fraudulent, the data was fabricated and the paper needed to be retracted. This individual, who we absolutely are certain is getting funding from certain sources, had actually written papers and tweets discrediting ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine. This was not just an isolated event. This was a coordinated attack on me and Vitamin C and repurposed drugs. What happened is the journal got this complaint, and they looked at the complaint. They went through an investigation. Then, they wrote us a letter saying that this complaint was completely false and had no validity. But they said at the same time this happened, they received a new complaint that there was some aberration in our inclusion and exclusion criteria for selecting patients, which violated ethical rules. They didn’t state where the claim came from, but I’m certain where it came from. So, the hospital got rid of me, when we had shown Vitamin C was actually saving lives. It did save lives, and we had really good data as I explained to you. Our nurses were absolutely convinced it helped. They could see it with their own eyes. I was a hero. But then Covid came and they didn’t like what I was saying, so I became the anti-hero. They had to get rid of me. As part of their attempt to discredit me, they filed this complaint with the journal accusing me of scientific misconduct. Then, the journal did another investigation, which went on for a year. At the end of it, like two weeks ago, they basically cleared us. They said, “There’s no validity for any of these accusations.” We were vindicated. What they had requested was changing two words in the methods section, which really were inconsequential. The results stand, and the discussion stands. In the conclusion, they just wanted two minor changes in the methods section. This became a major issue because if the paper had been retracted, which was their goal, this would have suggested that the research on Vitamin C was fraudulent and had no validity, and would’ve ended the use of Vitamin C for sepsis. Sepsis is a really important disease. We have a simple intervention that can save lives. Mr. Jekielek: 20 million people a year, globally. Dr. Marik: Yes, globally. In a way, this is a victory for me, but really it’s a victory for medicine. It’s a victory for science. Hopefully, people will now say our paper was scrutinized, and they went out of their way to find fault with my paper. They had scientists and epidemiologists and all kinds of people trying to find fault with our paper. All they could come up with was changing two words. In a way, it does validate our research more than it was before, because they’ve now said it stands. That’s really important for patients with sepsis, which as I said, is a major killer across the world. You can use it in resource-poor countries. Shouldn’t that be what our goal is, to help humanity? We make up about 4 percent of the global population in America, yet we consume 55 percent of the prescription drugs. How is that possible? 80 percent of prescription opiates are written in this country. This tells you the stranglehold that big pharma has on this country. But the reality is that there are cheap repurposed drugs that can be deployed globally that can have a massive effect on improving the health and welfare of humanity. Mr. Jekielek: Those are astounding numbers. You understand there’s something deeply wrong knowing that. Dr. Marik: Yes, that’s what is so troubling. Once you see the lies, the deceit, and the dishonesty, you can’t unsee it. Then, you just realize the depth of this corruption. We’ve been brainwashed. The good thing is that we’re exposing this, and there are simple interventions that people can use to empower themselves and improve their health. They need to be educated, and they need to be informed. When you choose a physician, you need to engage in a conversation just to get an idea where they sit on the spectrum, if they are open to the use of repurposed drugs, and if they’re open to Vitamin D and Vitamin C. Then, ask them what they think about the vaccine. Because if they are still pushing the vaccine, they’re obviously captured and brainwashed. Patients can choose their healthcare providers and they should select them carefully. Mr. Jekielek: Does FLCCC have a network of physicians that they recommend? Dr. Marik: Yes. Mr. Jekielek: How do you make those choices? Dr. Marik: We are working on the list. It’s not ideal because obviously we can’t screen every physician who wants to be listed. What we are actually thinking of doing is certifying physicians. If they watch our educational modules, that will give them a certificate of attendance, and a stamp of approval, which is obviously difficult to do. We don’t want to administer tests and all kinds of things, but it’s very important. The kind of doctor you have will determine the treatment you get and will determine the outcome. It’s very important you select your physician wisely. We can’t scrutinize every clinician, but we are working on a network, and we are working on certification. We’re actually thinking of a collaborative project with React19 to develop a network of clinicians who can manage the vaccine injured. That’s a starting point. Also, when you look for a new physician, if they don’t have time to speak to you, then you don’t have time for them, because you want to have trust in them. There are some very good physicians out there who understand the corruption in the system, and who really want to do what they were trained to do; treat patients, follow the hippocratic principle, follow true informed consent, and help people. There are good physicians out there, you just need to find them. Mr. Jekielek: Any final thoughts as we finish up? Dr. Marik: First of all, thank you for this conversation. People need to think about getting back to basics and common sense, being able to think for themselves, and not being told what to think. These are important issues to think about. Read about it, think about it, explore it, and go on this new adventure. For me, it has been a really exciting adventure because it’s opened my eyes, and I think it’s opened your eyes. There’s no reason that we all can’t go on this wonderful adventure. We hopefully will live happier, healthier, and more fulfilling lives. Mr. Jekielek: Paul Marik, it’s such a pleasure to have you on again. Dr. Marik: Thank you, Jan. Mr. Jekielek: Thank you all for joining Dr. Paul Marik and me on this episode of American Thought Leaders. I’m your host, Jan Jekielek. This interview has been edited for clarity and brevity. To get notifications about new Kash's Corner and American Thought Leaders episodes, please sign up for our newsletter! Here 👉 Get Alerts - PRE-ORDER "The Shadow State" DVD: https://www.epochtv.shop/product-page/the-shadow-state-dvd The Real Story of January 6 | Documentary BUY Jan 6 DVD: https://www.epochtv.shop/product-page/dvd-the-real-story-of-january-6, Promo Code “Jan” for 20% off. - Follow American Thought Leaders on social media: Twitter: https://twitter.com/AmThoughtLeader Truth Social: https://truthsocial.com/@AmThoughtLeader Gettr: https://gettr.com/user/amthoughtleader Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/AmericanThoughtLeaders Gab: https://gab.com/AmThoughtLeader Telegram: https://t.me/AmThoughtLeader

React19, a nonprofit organization that is leading the effort to help COVID-19 vaccine-injured Americans across the country, has reported surprising results from an ongoing survey. “I would tell you that there are probably over 1,000 symptoms people complain about,” Dr. Joel Wallskog, founder of React19, told Frontline Health. But the top six “remedies” that are helping people with their symptoms are not medication-based, according to React19’s preliminary third survey. “Number seven was the first medication, which was low-dose Naltrexone … Ivermectin was somewhere down in the teens,” said Wallskog. Currently, there is no straightforward treatment to alleviate symptoms from COVID-19 vaccine injuries. The symptoms also vary widely from one injured person to the other. Yet this survey shows an emerging pattern. Many vaccine-injured are reporting that pacing strategies in daily life, prayer, and contemplation—as well as dietary changes—are having the greatest impact. The results could still shift after the survey is completed, but it gives enough ground for the nonprofit to act. “So we are starting a spiritual network, and I’ll be honest with you, I’m amazed every time I talk about this—people come up and thank me. “[They say] we go to all of these rallies and meetings, and no one ever talks about spirituality. It’s like a breath of fresh air,” said Wallskog. Interview trailer: Watch the full interview: https://www.theepochtimes.com/vaccine-injured-survey-these-six-methods-have-a-greater-impact-than-medicine_5278010.html PODCAST TRANSCRIPT: Dan Skorbach: Dr. Wallskog. You’ve done some really interesting research studies, in terms of vaccine injury recovery. Do you want to give a quick download on what you found? Joel Wallskog: We have a couple different parts of research. Certainly we are not a research institution. We don’t have all the infrastructure of a research institution. Moving forward, we want to be the grantor of research dollars to real research. However, that being said, we do have a lot of injured people that we represent. And with that, we can do a lot of surveys. Really [these surveys] are kind of a case series. We’ve done three series on the injured. And the first one was looking at overall symptoms within the first year. The second survey was about 1,000 people and that looked at symptom progression—were the symptoms getting better or staying the same, or getting worse. And really, what we’re doing now is—we call it survey three—after a year or three years, what we’re looking at now is, what treatments are people doing? And we’re asking them what’s working, what’s not. The average number of symptoms that we have is twenty. I would tell you that there’s probably over 1,000 symptoms people complain about. And there is just a vast amount of what we’re calling syndromes. So you can separate out the injured, when it comes to mechanism of injury, into a kind of an allergic group, an autoimmune group and an inflammatory group. But a lot of people are kind of mixes of all three. So then what we’re trying to do is take those mechanisms, and then try to define the syndromes more. But then ultimately, we’d like to see more specific diagnostics and treatments. Right now, if you’re looking at treatments, there’s just a ton of things that people are doing. And to me in medicine, what does that mean? It means we just don’t know what to do. We don’t know what the right thing is to do. Because if you had the right thing, everybody would be doing that. But if you look at our survey three—and I think I showed that at the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) meeting—you can just see people are doing a ton of different things. First of all, I want to say our survey three is not completed. The results that I showed at the FLCCC meeting are very preliminary. I think it was based off of less than 500 people—453 people—but we want to get it down to thousands. Spirituality and Diet Improve Symptoms But the first six things on the list that people found most beneficial were—number one was pacing strategies. Kind of what I’m trying to learn of not overdoing. But two of the other things in the top six were prayer and kind of self reflection. So we saw that and really thought, geez, we [have] to act even though the study is very preliminary. And that’s what brought up our discussion about starting a spiritual network—is the results of that survey. So we are starting with the spiritual network, and I’ll be honest with you, I’m amazed every time I talk about this. People come up and thank me—[they say] oh my God, we go to all of these rallies and meetings and no one ever talks about spirituality. And it’s kind of a breath of fresh air. Everyone tells me just that. And for some people—and for a lot of people—it’s a very important part of their life. And so we’re going to add that into our organization. Now the other three things and the top six, were all dietary changes. Okay, look at these things—low risk, potentially high gain–spirituality, self reflection, and dietary changes.We’re not sure what dietary change is best. But clearly, there’s something that people are doing, where dietary changes are helping them and I’m not sure if it’s going to a low histamine diet, a gluten free diet or the lactose free diet. I don’t know. But that’s something we have to look into. Physical Therapy Makes Things Worse Now on the other spectrum, what really had the most negative impact to the people is aggressive physical therapy conditioning. And I saw that I was like, oh my God, okay, now I understand. Because I really went—as I told you—I was trying to condition myself out of my injury when I was like, Okay, I’m going back to work. And I worked out every other day, went to therap—and really, I did it for a week, and then for a week I had been on the couch or in bed. So it’s interesting for me to see that. Importance of Community Now also, in survey three, we asked another question—outside of those treatments, other things that are important to you. Number one was a supportive online community. And then number two was supportive family and friends. Now, when we get back to number one—let’s reinforce how important lack of censorship is. Early on a lot of these support groups that we have, we’re getting censored—it hasn’t happened now, for a while, I think they’re worried about getting sued, but—they should be because they are—but censorship is critical. And these people just need to commiserate and reflect and get acknowledged through each other. It’s also very important that people’s family and friends don’t just label them as crazy and censor them, because it’s devastating to them. So that’s a little bit about our surveys so far. It’s Not Always Medicine Mr. Skorbach: So I have a whole question about that. So you’re saying that in the first six things that helped the most for the people, there was no medication there, there’s no actual treatment? Mr. Wallskog: Number seven was low dose Naltrexone. It was amazing. The first six things had nothing to do with a prescription, a medicine, a test. It was either kind of spirituality type things, or dietary changes. Number seven was the first medication which was low dose Naltrexone. Ivermectin was somewhere down in the teens. It’s pretty interesting to see. Now remember, I think this will change over time. But again, I always tell people, when you see a list of 100 things that people are doing, clearly, we don’t know the right answer. Mr. Skorbach: How did you ask that question? Because to get this answer out of people—the spirituality or meditation or self reflection—is that something that’s unique to you to your background that you asked that question? Or is it self reported? Mr. Wallskog: These were self reported. So they basically said, This is what this is what I’m doing, and this is what’s helping me. And then they gave it a number rating from three to minus three. Three was very effective. Two was somewhat, one was a little, zero was neutral, and then the opposite to minus three. We’d like to also get a risk scale in there, too. Because when you’re looking at interventions, remember, we know that even with shots, everything has risks. So we’d like to try to assign a risk score to it, too. We don’t have that yet. We just have the benefit score. Again, I can’t really reinforce enough—this is preliminary. It’s just really interesting. And we thought it’s interesting enough to present to the FLCCC meeting [last month] in Fort Worth. Mr. Skorbach: That is fascinating. I think that’s going to help a lot of people change their mindset of what they should be focusing on and what could be helping them. Mr. Wallskog: I don’t think it’s always medicine. Mr. Skorbach: Lina, do you have some questions? Lina Skorbach: For the people who really want to help your organization, what is the best course of action that they can take? Ways to Help React19 Mr. Wallskog: So certainly, the number one thing we need is donations. That’s pretty much what I do on a daily basis. We have no corporate sponsorship. There’s no corporation that wants to get in this kind of polarized space. There’s two ways for people to donate to us. They can go on our website, which is react19.org. They can also do a text to give—text the word “REACT” to 50155—they’ll get a reply text, and then they’ll get connected to a donation platform on their cell phone. We do have volunteers. If there’s people that want to volunteer, there is a volunteer submission on our website. Right now we have a fair amount of help. But people with certain skill sets certainly would still [be helpful as] volunteers. A New Clinic for COVID-19 Vaccine Injuries And we’re getting closer to a major announcement. But I’ll give you a little secret—we’re planning on opening the first clinic here in the United States, just dedicated to the treatment of COVID shot injuries. We’re hoping to have this clinic open by the end of the year. It’s going to be down in the Fort Worth, Texas area. We have funding at this point for that, but we certainly need more funding. But we are going to partner with another medical group that will be the medical staff of the group. The clinic is going to help define the gold standard for treatment for the COVID injured. Because as the injured, we want to be part of that answer, and part of that solution. I also think this clinic is going to be very symbolic. The injured care overall in this country has been so horrible, that we had to be part of the solution to take care of it. So we hope to have that clinic open by the end of this year. We’re actively looking at real estate for lease [in May]. But I just want to give the injured that listen to this hope. We are making progress. We have a lot of battles to fight, but there are a lot of exciting things going on. Mr. Skorbach: That’s really hopeful. And it’s really amazing to see that the American spirit of ingenuity lives. And no matter what happens, sometimes the solutions are grassroots—living in personal responsibility and not in the hands of our government. Which is a little bit sad to see, but it is what it is. Mr. Wallskog: It is what it is. But again, we’re not just about telling our sad stories. That’s why the title of my presentation—if you saw down in Fort Worth at the FLCCC meeting—is really taking our negative reactions and turning them into positive actions. That’s why I want all the injured people to know—do not give up hope. Mr. Skorbach: That’s a really great message. Thanks so much, doc. And thank you so much for all that you’re doing. I think it’s amazing work. Well folks, if you enjoyed our conversation with Dr. Wallskog, The Epoch Times has just released a special documentary. “The Unseen Crisis, Vaccine Stories You Were Never Told,” gives us an intimate, uncensored look into the lives of Americans injured by the COVID shots. And on Thursday, May 25th there’s going to be a watch party at 7:30 pm ET, followed by a live panel with the experts featured in the doc. You’ll have a chance to ask them questions during a Q&A, so mark it in your calendars, tell a friend, and we hope to see you at the event right here on Epoch TV. This is Frontline Health, I’m Dan Skorbach, Stay healthy America. This transcript has been edited for brevity and clarity by Anna Varavva. To get notifications about new Kash's Corner and American Thought Leaders episodes, please sign up for our newsletter! Here 👉 Get Alerts - PRE-ORDER "The Shadow State" DVD: https://www.epochtv.shop/product-page/the-shadow-state-dvd The Real Story of January 6 | Documentary BUY Jan 6 DVD: https://www.epochtv.shop/product-page/dvd-the-real-story-of-january-6, Promo Code “Jan” for 20% off. - Follow American Thought Leaders on social media: Twitter: https://twitter.com/AmThoughtLeader Truth Social: https://truthsocial.com/@AmThoughtLeader Gettr: https://gettr.com/user/amthoughtleader Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/AmericanThoughtLeaders Gab: https://gab.com/AmThoughtLeader Telegram: https://t.me/AmThoughtLeader

Daniel Suidani, the former premier of the Solomon Islands’ Malaita Province, became a hero among China watchers after he challenged Chinese Communist Party (CCP) influence operations in the region, refused a bribe, and barred CCP-linked companies from operating in his province. The punishment came swiftly. He was ousted from his position, and when he fell ill and needed brain surgery, he was denied access to care—until Taiwan finally came to his rescue. I had the rare opportunity of sitting down with Suidani and his adviser Celsus Talifilu when they were on a trip to the United States. The story of Suidani and the Solomon Islands is a window into the Chinese regime’s tactics across the Pacific, and even here in North America, as it expands its influence, bribes the powerful, and co-opts strategic resources. In 2019, the Solomon Islands, which had long recognized Taiwan as the true seat of the Chinese government, switched this formal recognition to the People’s Republic of China. Recently, Parliament voted to delay elections to accommodate a big event funded by China, the Pacific Games. There’s evidence that suggests the Parliament members who supported the change received about 200,000 SBD per person (about US$24,000), from a CCP-linked slush fund. Interview trailer: Watch the full interview: https://www.theepochtimes.com/exclusive-daniel-suidani-reveals-the-chinese-regimes-tactics-in-the-pacific_5278636.html FULL TRANSCRIPT Jan Jekielek: Premier Daniel Suidani, such a pleasure to have you on American Thought Leaders. Premier Daniel Suidani: Thank you for having me. Thank you very much. Mr. Jekielek: Welcome to America. I was very happy to hear you yesterday testifying at the Congressional-Executive Commission on China about the Chinese Communist Party influence in the Solomon Islands, and the big changes that have happened there. I want to go back to 2019. You wrote the Auki Communique which said, number one, you don’t want the province to be working with Chinese Communist Party-affiliated companies. Number two, you highlighted that the Chinese Communist Party is an atheist enterprise, whereas Malaita Province, of all the Solomon Islands, is a Christian enterprise, and to watch out for that. Please tell me about this and what happened. Premier Suidani: We came up with a communique, a set of principles that we believe can guide the people in future development. We have seen the destructive and dishonest ways of these Chinese companies involved in the provinces, particularly in Malaita, that are exploitative. They have been getting resources. They don’t care whether it damages the environment, as long as they get what they want from the people. That’s all they want. The Malaita provincial people are Christian people, and they believe in God. The CCP, commonly known as the communists, don’t believe in the same principles and values and truth that we believe in. We have faith. It would be very difficult for us to work together with these two different beliefs, these different values and faith. The second element of the communique is that the provincial government will not allow any company that is linked with the CCP. We must make sure that any company operating in Malaita must not be related to a CCP-connected company. Mr. Jekielek: China provided a loan, something to the tune of $66 million, for 27 Huawei cell towers to be developed in the area, and you blocked that. It was from that moment that things started to change for you. Can you tell me about that change? What happened? Premier Suidani: They forced the non-executive government motions of no confidence against our government. I believe I am the only premier to face three motions of no confidence. The latest one when I was ousted is likely one of the reasons for them to put the motion against me. Mr. Jekielek: Beforehand, you were a very popular premier, a popular member of parliament. Of course, you were elected premier, and that means you must have been popular. How could you lose a vote of non-confidence? How did that happen? Actually, there were three of them. Premier Suidani: Because the whole aim of the government is to get the Chinese companies into Malaita. They would like me to be out of the premier’s office so that they can come in and do their developments in whatever way they want to do them. I believe they are behind the motions, in order to open the way for Chinese companies to come. Mr. Jekielek: Those parliament members that voted in these non-confidence motions, why would they vote against you? Premier Suidani: With the non-executive members, they were members of the provincial assembly, and they were there because I believe they were handpicked. Some of these non-executive members attended some programs with the government. They were given money to withdraw from my government and to join the non-executive in order to oust me as premier. They paid $10,000 to each non-executive member. They joined the other side of the house to vote me out. Mr. Jekielek: Please tell me about Malaita province and why you decided to go into politics in the first place. Premier Suidani: Malaita Province is a province that believes in a more communal and tribal working together, and they believe in resource-sharing as a tribe. What I’ve seen in the past, before I became a premier and a member, what I’ve seen before me is that people just come in and get salaries for their own benefit. But they haven’t produced or introduced any ordinances at all to safeguard the resources and the people of the province, or even the involvement of other businesses, so that there will be something that indigenous people can be involved in and build their own future. Then, I came in. We are the first province to introduce the logging ordinance that will safeguard our resources. The way these contractors or the Chinese people do logging, they don’t care about anything. They don’t care about the environment. They move their machinery into the streams that people use for drinking water, and they’re not giving water tanks or other necessary things to the people. This is something that is very sad. They don’t care about the damages caused to local indigenous people and their livelihoods. We need to see that for any genuine company to come and do development, it has to have some set of rules, and abide by them so that they can do things that are not destructive, with development that doesn’t cause disunity, and where people can reserve the resources for future generations. Another thing is retailing, which should be for indigenous Solomon Islanders. That’s a reserve business that should be given to only Solomon Islanders. But we have seen Chinese people more involved in these businesses. They push away the Solomon Islanders, and the Malaitans in particular, in Malaita province, with no space for them to be involved in such a business. The way I see it, if we are not careful or we don’t talk about these things, we will end up having all Chinese people running the businesses in the Solomon Islands. Mr. Jekielek: How big is the investment from China? Premier Suidani: I cannot tell you exactly how big. But in the whole town of Honiara, we haven’t seen any local Solomon Islanders with bigger buildings or investments in Honiara city, and in the provinces as well. These Chinese people can pay off properties in the headquarters like in Auki. They are the ones building huge buildings in the capital at the moment. It’s huge with the investment they’ve had in the country. Mr. Jekielek: You needed some pretty serious medical care and normally that would be funded by the government, but this was denied to you. Can you explain that? Premier Suidani: I got a doctor’s report when I was sick, and that report by the doctor said that I must go to get my medical treatment in an overseas country like Australia. The doctor wrote the letter and we gave the letter to the ministry of provincial government hoping that they will finance my trip to Mater Hospital in Sydney. But they decided not to support my medical treatment. I was talking to a member of parliament and they said, “If you can go and shake hands with Manasseh Sogavare, you will be funded to go overseas for your medical treatment.” I said, “I can die here without shaking his hand, and that’s okay with me. I stand for the rights of my people.” Mr. Jekielek: But in the end, it was Taiwan that offered to support your medical treatment. Premier Suidani: Yes, they did. Mr. Jekielek: After you went to Taiwan for your treatment, there were articles written by the editor of the biggest Solomon Islands media, who is also one of the leaders of the Solomon Islands China Friendship Association, alleging that you had gone to Taiwan to organize a hit squad to take out the prime minister that you mentioned earlier. Premier Suidani: Yes, that was the article published in the Solomon Star at that time and that’s what they said, that my coming to Taiwan was not for medical treatment. It was to collude with the Taiwanese government or the U.S. to assassinate the prime minister. It was all false. I was in Taiwan for medical treatment. They did say that in the media and they wrote so many things about me that were all false. They don’t have the facts on the things that they talked about. That’s how they are doing the front page news articles all the time about me colluding with the Taiwanese government to assassinate the prime minister. Mr. Jekielek: Why did they do that? Premier Suidani: This is so that the government can arrest me for doing some illegal activities like the one they mentioned in the Star. Mr. Jekielek: What would you say is your biggest fear for the future? Premier Suidani: My biggest fear is that if we are not careful about the way we deal with the CCP, we’ll end up like other countries in the Pacific and in the world that have been overruled by the CCP. The government at the moment depends entirely on the influence of the CCP. Mr. Jekielek: Do you feel like your life is in danger? Premier Suidani: Yes. In the first place, they have been trying to find things so that they can arrest me for it. I’m very fearful of the things that are happening right now, but I’m going to stand for what I believe in, even if it’s hard on me and my family. It’s what we stand for. Yes, I’ve been very fearful, and for my children too. Mr. Jekielek: Where do you find the strength for this? Premier Suidani: The strength I have is from my people. They are with me, and we are fighting together for this. Because if we don’t fight, if we don’t talk about these things, in the future, it will be very dangerous for us. I am encouraged and I’m having the strength from my people that this is the right thing to do. Mr. Jekielek: We’re sitting here in front of the U.S. Capitol, but you actually had some trouble getting your visa approved. Premier Suidani: Getting approved to come to the U.S. for me was quite difficult. We followed the procedures, we applied for a visa, and we answered the questions. But then, when I first got an interview, it was denied and there was no reason. They gave me a paper saying that you haven’t provided evidence to prove that you are coming back to the Solomon Islands. They gave the denial document and my passport back without saying anything. But we have the help from the Congressmen and the woman helping me out. Behind what is happening with the first interview, that is something that I don’t understand. Mr. Jekielek: A lot of people may not understand how rare it is to take the stand that you did with the Auki Communique. Why does only Malaita have this type of communique? Premier Suidani: Being a leader, you need to listen to people. I listened to people who have the same thinking. They shared with me this is how the government should lead our people. I have a team that can advise me on good things, as well as the people of the province. We created this principled stand, because I am listening to the people that I am representing. Mr. Jekielek: You’re here with your advisor Celsus Talifilu. Please tell me about him. Premier Suidani: Celsus used to work for the central government, and used to work in parliament for quite some time. A province like Malaita needs such people like him. We work together from 2019 to this day. Even if I’m ousted from the government, he is still advising us on things that are happening in the province and in the nation. Mr. Jekielek: Celsus Talifilu, such a pleasure to have you on American Thought Leaders. Celsus Talifilu: It’s a great pleasure to be on the show. Mr. Jekielek: You’re an advisor to former Premier Daniel Suidani. Before that, you were an advisor to the prime minister of the Solomon Islands. Please tell me about how that change happened. Mr. Talifilu: Before I went to Malaita, I was the coordinator of the policy that we put together under the current government. I went back to join the premier’s government because of the diplomatic switch that has happened. If one knows about the history of Solomon Islands, we have had an ethnic crisis from 1998 onwards. During that time, one of the only countries that have helped, apart from Australia and New Zealand, is Taiwan. They provided a loan to pay for the lost property of those who have lost their property during that crisis. One could say during one of the darkest times in our history, Taiwan was there. When the diplomatic switch happened, it was not very respectful. In fact, the prime minister sent our foreign affairs minister to Taipei a week before the diplomatic switch happened. After that, Taipei sent their foreign affairs minister to Honiara, who was not received in any official way at all. In my view, the whole scheme was very disrespectful. Government can be government, but human beings are more than the government. Mr. Jekielek: Why do you think China is so interested in the Solomon Islands? Mr. Talifilu: One reason could be for resources, there’s no doubt about that. With the logging industry in the Solomons, 80 to 90 percent of the logs ended up in the Chinese market. In terms of resources, that’s big for them. In terms of our imports too, it’s like 80 to 90 percent of imports from the Solomon Islands are from China. We export one product like logs primarily to the Chinese market and we import from them. Their companies also operate in the mining industry. They have very interesting trade with the resources that we have in the Solomons. You can look at fisheries. Solomon Islands are among a number of countries in the Pacific that have good fishing grounds for tuna. There is no doubt that they are looking for a strategy to dominate the region. Their ambition is to be a superpower bigger than America. It could mean that dominating the Pacific could allow them to posture themselves as a world power that can face off with America. Mr. Jekielek: I’ve had a number of China experts on this show who have talked about the strategic importance to America of many of the Pacific Islands, including the Solomon Islands, and what will happen if the CCP gains influence and establishes a military presence. How big has the change been since the diplomatic switch in 2019? How big or quick has this change been in terms of CCP influence since that time? Mr. Talifilu: Since the diplomatic switch, the amount of information that has played out in the media in the Solomons is huge, to the extent that’s the only thing they talk about—that China is there to help. It’s been promoted so much beyond anything else. The Pacific Games, they are the ones who will build the stadiums. Of course they are. It’s promoted by the government that the Chinese will bring a lot of investment into the country. So far in terms of infrastructure, these Chinese companies are operating in the Solomons, but not with Chinese money. They are using the opportunities under World Bank projects and even Solomon Island-funded projects. Their companies are actually willing to bid to develop these places. The only two big investments so far in terms of direct involvement with the government of China are these stadiums and the building of dormitories for the local university. Those have always been referenced in the support that China gives directly. Otherwise, there are companies believed to have connections with China that are operating in one of the provinces, for example, in Rennell and Bellona, where they’re involved in bauxite mining. Some local companies registered locally, but they have connections to the Chinese that are interested in nickel mining in other two or three provinces of the Solomon Islands. Mr. Jekielek: There’s a lot of Chinese activity, but a lot of that is funded through World Bank and other development loans. Mr. Talifilu: That’s right. Before the diplomatic switch happened, companies like CCECC [China Civil Engineering Construction Corporation] and China Harbour Engineering Company were already in the Solomons. They were there working with the World Bank and Asian Development Bank. Some are Solomon Islanders, but mostly World Bank. They were already there winning bids for bridge-building, and road-building. After the diplomatic switch took place, there was another company called the Sam Group that was interested in developing Tulagi into what they call an economic zone; building structures, wharves, and other things. At the time, there was a lot of speculation that this company was actually related to the PLA. Mr. Jekielek: People’s Liberation Army. Mr. Talifilu: Yes. There was some concern by ordinary people that what is published in the papers seems to suggest that this is really not an ordinary company. They have deeper connections that might not be good for us. That’s one of the reasons why the whole thing in Tulagi ended up being put on hold, because of the publicity of the company being related to the military. Mr. Jekielek: There’s a situation with the federal government postponing the current elections by modifying the constitution with a vote of 39 out of 50. Please tell me about that. Mr. Talifilu: I remember when I was still in the prime minister’s office, the conversation about the extension of parliament was discussed, but had not taken any prominence. But after the diplomatic switch, when the Chinese were building the stadiums, somehow the discussion suddenly popped up again for the amendment of the Constitution to allow for the parliament to have an extra seven months before dissolution in December. The reason behind that was it would be very difficult for the Solomon government to host two big events in a year. That’s the general election and the Pacific Games. That’s the reasoning that they say. But one would see that if you calculate correctly the current life of Parliament, it should be dissolving somewhere around May. Then, the new Parliament should come about somewhere around after September, even before the Pacific Games. The argument that they say that there has to be a government during the games has no grounds. When you look at the actual timing there would be a new government before the event happened. Therefore, what’s the reason for extending parliament? Mr. Jekielek: What do you think’s going on? Mr. Talifilu: I have had connections with the police. They hear from the politicians that the reason was China was quite afraid. Otherwise, if the elections happened before the games, the new government might make a decision to oust them. It might mean, because of what is happening outside of the government, there are people who are complaining a lot in the local social media about China, the government. It is likely that there might be a new government that might not be friendly to China. Mr. Jekielek: Are you concerned that they might be extended even further? Mr. Talifilu: Of course. I am really concerned with the fact that the government can amend the constitution for a sporting event. What is stopping them from doing it for another reason? They now have 39 members. That’s two-thirds. The requirement under the constitution for an amendment of the provision to extend the life of parliament is two-thirds. They have the numbers, they have done it already. There’s every chance that they can do it for another reason. If the current government has a reason enough to say that they might lose in the coming election, they might find other reasons to prolong parliament, until they feel confident that they can win the election back again. Mr. Jekielek: My understanding is that there’s some evidence that the CCP has provided funding to these 39 members. Mr. Talifilu: Yes. They were well-published lists of members of parliament that are supporting the amendment, most of them from the government side, that were given money from the Chinese slush fund. It’s to the tune of 200,000 per member. That payment was made before the motion, so the amendment was made. It’s rewarding those who have participated in amending the constitution. Because one of the backbenchers of the government who refused to support the amendment has not received anything. He was on the original list for the payment. But when the payment was done, he was not, because he didn’t support the amendment. Mr. Jekielek: You’re saying that only the people who supported this amendment got such money? Mr. Talifilu: That’s right. Mr. Jekielek: And anyone who didn’t support it, didn’t get it. Mr. Talifilu: They have not gotten anything. Mr. Jekielek: When you decided to come work for Daniel Suidani, what was the effect on your professional life and your personal life? He was already not so popular among some of the powers that be. Mr. Talifilu: Yes. When things started to happen, I felt that it was time to stand up and be real about what you believe in, that government is an elected government. The purpose of a government is to save the people, not to save itself. It is not to make decisions that they feel are popular within the government, but not within the country. I felt that it was time to save the country, especially the province that we come from. As an indigenous people, that’s our land, and that’s our ancestral place. What if we make bad decisions like what we saw in Honiara, where the land used to be customary land belonging to the people? But with bad decisions, most of the land in Honiara has now been bought off by Chinese people, because they are the ones who have money, especially for the prime sites. In terms of Malaita, there should be a good scheme of arrangements where if you bought land, you bought it correctly, and did it properly. Mr. Jekielek: If you were speaking to the Americans or the Canadians watching this show, what would you say is the number one importance of the story of the Solomons? Mr. Talifilu: Although things have looked quite bleak in terms of democracy, we still believe in democracy as a system that allows even indigenous communities, with their values and what they have, to still flourish under the democratic system. Whereas, that would be difficult under a communist system. That’s the opportunity for the Western world, especially America and Canada, to continue to work on this opportunity that is still existing. While China comes with money, I still believe that in as far as the systems are concerned, our people are looking for a system that would support what they have, rather than destroy what they have. We have not seen communism popularized around the world. It’s not a system that people, especially indigenous people, would love to have, because it will destroy them. Premier Suidani: The freedom here in America is from the Founding Fathers. It is the way that people live free. Even if we are a small society, we need the same freedom that Americans have. If there is any possible way that Americans see fit to help out, that would be something great for the Solomon Islands as a country. Mr. Jekielek: What would be a good way to help? Premier Suidani: Getting the people of Solomon engaged, and then having them visible in the country, is something great in terms of economic development. The other thing would be to remind the people that Americans are still here. We need to have them seeing Americans bring development that can attach to the lives of the people, so that they can recall America and see Americans as people who can help out in these situations. Mr. Jekielek: If there were some Solomon Islanders that are watching our interview, what is your message to them? Premier Suidani: My message to families and brothers from the Solomon Islands is that we need to have a clear understanding on the issues of democracy and the issues with the CCP. We must not stay blind. I call on the people who understand democracy and the CCP to advocate strongly for what is good for the country. Mr. Jekielek: Premier Daniel Suidani, such a pleasure to have you on the show. Premier Suidani: Thank you very much. Mr. Jekielek: Thank you all for joining Daniel Suidani and me on this episode of American Thought Leaders. I’m your host, Jan Jekielek. This interview has been edited for clarity and brevity. To get notifications about new Kash's Corner and American Thought Leaders episodes, please sign up for our newsletter! Here 👉 Get Alerts - PRE-ORDER "The Shadow State" DVD: https://www.epochtv.shop/product-page/the-shadow-state-dvd The Real Story of January 6 | Documentary BUY Jan 6 DVD: https://www.epochtv.shop/product-page/dvd-the-real-story-of-january-6, Promo Code “Jan” for 20% off. - Follow American Thought Leaders on social media: Twitter: https://twitter.com/AmThoughtLeader Truth Social: https://truthsocial.com/@AmThoughtLeader Gettr: https://gettr.com/user/amthoughtleader Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/AmericanThoughtLeaders Gab: https://gab.com/AmThoughtLeader Telegram: https://t.me/AmThoughtLeader

1, Should We Raise the Debt Ceiling AGAIN? Joe Biden and Kevin McCarthy Made a Deal... | Crossroads A debt deal has been made. President Joe Biden and House Speaker Kevin McCarthy have agreed to again raise the debt ceiling. This essentially means digging the country deeper into debt, while making it appear they’re solving the debt problem. At the same time, however, it shows a bipartisan deal, but Republicans and Democrats remain divided on the deal. Meanwhile, Twitter CEO Elon Musk is embracing the American spirit, and has decided to openly disobey the governments of Europe. He is now pulling Twitter out of a European censorship agreement. And by doing so, the world will witness how much authority the European censorship police can exert on a business. And in other news, Donald Trump has put his money where his mouth is. The former president and leading candidate for 2024 has begun ballot harvesting. By putting in practice something he previously opposed, he is now engaging in the new way elections are run... WATCH HERE 👉 https://ept.ms/DebtDivideCR_YT - 🔴 Get unlimited access to EpochTV for just $1: https://ept.ms/1For2Months-Josh 2, LIVE: House Expected to Vote on Bill to Raise Debt Ceiling 3, Congressman Says No to 'Fiscal Responsibility Act' to Raise Nation’s Debt Limit The House is voting on the debt ceiling bill Wednesday night, and both Republican and Democratic leaders in the House are claiming victories. What do they say and why do some insist the deal is problematic? Congressman Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.) joins us to offer his perspective on the debt ceiling talks. We ask him how he plans to vote. There are the highlights from a Senate hearing on the Chinese Communist Party's dangerous influence. The Justice Department is suing the West Virginia governor's son and his family's coal mining business. The Department of Justice alleges his companies failed to pay fines for violating environmental regulations. ⭕ Watch the full episode on EpochTV 👉 https://ept.ms/DebtLimitVoteFULL 4, DEBT Ceiling HIT! What Happens When Federal Government Runs OUT of CASH | Crossroads The U.S. government is expected to run out of money to pay its debts by as early as June 1, the U.S. Treasury says. 🔵 Watch the full episode on EpochTV 👉 https://ept.ms/PalaceCoupCR_YT

Americans who developed neurological complications from the COVID-19 vaccines are not being compensated by the government because the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) does not recognize such complications as safety signals. “If they fail to recognize all these neurological complications, then the Department of Health and Human Services, through the CICP (Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program), is going to deny everybody that [doesn’t have] anaphylaxis, myocarditis, and blood clotting disorders,” said Dr. Joel Wallskog, founder of React19, a nonprofit that is supporting people injured by the COVID-19 shots. Meanwhile, Dr. Wallskog said that another federal health branch—the National Institutes of Health (NIH)—is allegedly withholding an important study that could convince the FDA to recognize neurological events and widen the compensation window. “Early on with the shot rollout, there were a lot of people [with] neurological complications. [The NIH] flew in 23 people, they studied them all, they developed a treatment program. “They told these 23 people that they would investigate, and they would communicate this to the broader population. But somewhere in 2022, that communication with the 23 [people] just ended,” said Dr. Wallskog. He believes the NIH never communicated their findings to the FDA. “It’s insane. We know through React19 that the adverse neurological events are probably the most common adverse event,” he said. React19 is a leading nonprofit organization that is supporting Americans injured by the COVID-19 shots. To this day, they have awarded 81 grants to adults and children, totaling $562,000. “Now compare that to our government. They’ve given out three grants to injured people, for an average of $1,500 and a total of $4,500.” Interview trailer: Watch the full interview: https://www.theepochtimes.com/the-nih-studied-covid-19-vaccine-injured-in-2021-what-happened-to-their-treatment_5269149.html Dan Skorbach: Dr. Wallskog, before we get into all of these topics, can you tell us how this journey started for you? Joel Wallskog: I received my one Moderna shot on December 30th of 2020. And after getting that shot, it was somewhat uneventful. However, about seven days later, I woke up from bed and told my wife that my feet were numb. Within a couple of days after that, or certainly by the next week, I started having problems with balance, weakness in my legs, then I started falling. In fact, I fell in a clinic room while talking to a patient. I was sitting in a chair and I tried to stand up, and I couldn’t stand. So I pushed myself up with my arms off the examining table and then fell. That’s when I knew something more was going on. I really didn’t think about the shot at first. My symptoms started about seven days after. But I quickly got a diagnosis—after a bunch of testing and spinal tap, and labs, and MRIs—of transverse myelitis (inflammation of the spinal cord). I have a demyelinated lesion (a localized, abnormal structure) on my spinal cord at about the T8-T9 level (middle back). It took me another week or two to remember back to the AstraZeneca trial in the United Kingdom that got delayed twice for three cases of transverse myelitis. So that’s when I started putting my symptoms together with the [Moderna] COVID shot that I got. Losing a Bustling Medical Career Moving forward—2021 for me was a difficult year because I tried to go back to work. I took about a two week break, although my neurologist told me to take a two to three month break. But being the type “double” A personality that I am, I told him I’d take two weeks off. I went back to work after a two week break. And literally that led me bed bound for about three days. So I realized that I was dealing with something much more serious. After that two week break, and then trying to go back to work for two days, I’ve never been back to work since. I just have never gotten better enough. In fact, some of my symptoms are worse today than even six months ago. But 2021 was kind of a time—Kubler Ross talks about the stages of grief— and really you kind of grieve losing your career. And I always say, professionally I’m devastated, but personally, I’m fine. I’m fine personally, because I’m happily married to my wife of 21 years. I have four adult children who I’m very good friends with. And although I love my job and certainly had a passion for being an orthopedist, and in a very large busy practice—I never defined my identity by my job. But I did certainly go through stages of grief professionally. And then you go through the next phase—anger. From Abandonment to Helping 30,000 Americans I was certainly very angry about the whole situation. The one thing that epitomized my experience of 2021 is abandonment. There’s no one there to help you. There’s no one there to guide you through financial stuff, and disability stuff, and trying to find a doctor that has any idea how to help you. So I was pretty angry for a while. It wasn’t until November of 2021, when I got invited by Sen. Ron Johnson to go out to DC to speak at a roundtable press conference. For me, that was almost transformational. There were about ten of us who had really never met before, who spoke, met, commiserated. And I really left there knowing that that was my new mission. We decided that we were going to try to make a real advocacy organization. We filed for a Wisconsin-based corporation. We filed for 501(c)(3) status and the rest is history. We started with that core group of ten people and today, without trying, we now represent over 30,000 Americans that are injured by the COVID shots. Mr. Skorbach: Wow, these are 30,000 that have contacted you or that you’ve worked with? Where do these numbers come from? Mr. Wallskog: These are all people that have contacted us directly, and that are on our mailing list. And then we also consider all the people that are in our social media-based support groups. And those we have hard numbers on. Taking Back Personal Responsibility Mr. Skorbach: Tell us a little bit about these people. I know you gave out some grants. How else are you helping them? Mr. Wallskog: I’ll give you a rundown of React19. We’re very science based. We’re very grassroots. We’re nonpolitical, although we admit we’re in a highly politicized environment. We’re here to give the injured hope and support. And we do that through three main missions: There’s a financial mission, there’s a physical mission, and an emotional mission. Financially, we’ve given out grants to people through what’s called our care fund. The care fund gives out grants to Americans that are injured by the code COVID shots for uncovered medical treatment. Each grant can be up to $10,000. And all the money we raised is just raised through non-corporate, individual donors. We’ve given out 81 grants for a total of over $562,000, with the average grant being over $6,800. Now compare that to the government’s compensation program—the CICP—that’s the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program. Now, I looked yesterday (May 4, 2023), they’ve given out three grants to injured people for an average of $1,500 and a total of $4,500. That’s our government. So the compensation program is horrible. If you look at Australia, right now, a bunch of injured people are suing the government because they actually have rights to sue the government. We don’t, because of the Emergency Use Authorization and the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act—we can’t sue the government. But they are in Australia. In addition, Australia—I just looked at their numbers—they’ve given out 137 grants to injured people for over $7 million. So while the U.S. led [Operation] Warp Speed and the development of the vaccines, they have really been—in first-world countries—in last place with regards to taking care of those that are injured. Mr. Skorbach: They spearheaded it, but they’re not cleaning up the mess that the spearheading has made. Mr. Wallskog: Exactly. We all know that certainly, there’s risks with any medication, there’s risks with any intervention. But we’re trying to say in a non-judgmental way that we did what we thought, at least at that point, was the right thing to do, and rolled up our sleeves and got a shot. Now we’re injured. But these people need help. So we do what we can to help them financially. In the physical realm, we’ve created provider networks. We’ve created a medical provider network, we’ve created a mental health network. And I’m actually excited to say that we’re creating a spiritual network. And these are just providers across the country that we’ve vetted, that we can put on our website and recommend to our injured populace. These are providers that won’t gaslight them, and that have some idea of available diagnostics and treatments. Communist-Like Tyranny and Censorship Mr. Skorbach: Just to go back to the gaslighting. It is very strange to me how the government or the media is so set that everything was perfect, nothing was wrong. Everything was done in such a “safe and effective” way that they do not even acknowledge the injuries. Or they gaslight people and say it’s in your head. For me, it resembles Chinese Communist Party (CCP) tactics, where you cannot even criticize the government. Mr. Wallskog: I agree with you 100 percent. I can’t believe this is America. Again, I’m very reflective. I believe in individual liberty—life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Right now, we live in a tyrannical world where I can literally speak data from the FDA and the Centers For Disease Control (CDC), and I get called a “purveyor of misinformation.” How is it misinformation? It’s actually their information. I’ll tell you a little story about when we were in DC. We spoke from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, where Martin Luther King Jr. spoke. It was very inspirational. And we had a brand new video created for that event called “Silenced.” It was written by a vaccine-injured person, it was sung by a professional singer who was also shot-injured. And we debuted it. It was very impactful. And within eight hours, it was taken down by Vimeo as misinformation. It’s a video about how we’re trying to fight censorship—you know, listen to our story, and don’t censor us. And literally, you can’t make it up. It was taken down within eight hours. Mr. Skorbach: Strange times we’re living in. But for me, it’s the American ingenuity—that individual personal responsibility that people are taking—that’s what’s really nice to see. That we have organizations like yours that actually get stuff done. You’ve dealt with a lot of people personally. Can you tell us about one of these people you’ve been able to help with this fund? 9 Year Old Vaccine-Injured Misdiagnosed as ‘Crazy’ Mr. Wallskog: Yeah, one really sticks out to me. One thing about our organization is, I always say we’re a very proactive advocacy organization. We don’t mind confronting people that gaslight us, we don’t mind getting involved to really advocate for these injured [people]. So I’m going to tell you a story about a young girl. She’s eight to nine years old. Say her name is Riley. She lives out east. She got misdiagnosed with functional neurological disorder. And I see this all the time, especially in children that get injured. The doctors can’t figure it out. So they slap a diagnosis of FND or functional neurological disorder. What that means is, the kid is crazy. This child could not walk after their shot, and couldn’t control her bowel or bladder. She actually got admitted to an inpatient psychiatric ward because she was diagnosed as crazy for three weeks until we got involved. We’re not a medical provider, but we certainly are well tied-in with a lot of medical providers. And we helped assist her in getting a real diagnosis—which was really CIDP or chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy. Kind of like a severe form of Guillain-Barré syndrome. It’s a nerve condition where you probably have an autoimmune attack from the shot, where the shot creates antibodies, and the antibodies want to fight the spike protein, but they make a mistake and also attack your neural tissue. So we helped get her a diagnosis. Again, we’re not a medical provider, but then she also needed an intervention called IVIG, which is intravenous immunoglobulin. It’s a very expensive treatment. And unfortunately, because it’s considered somewhat experimental in this use, it’s not covered by insurance. So we used care fund money, gave her a grant of $10,000, and helped her get going in the IVIG treatment. This was, if I remember correctly, in the spring of 2022. And so literally, this child, for six to nine months was in a wheelchair and diapers. After getting treatment in the spring and summer of last year, she got out of her wheelchair, she got out of diapers. And in September of 2022 she went back to school. So that’s how impactful our organization can be. What we’ve also learned is—even the government knows that early treatment is better—the quicker you get to these people with their injuries, the better. NIH Secret Study and Treatment Program I don’t know if you’re aware, but there were 23 people that the NIH flew out to Maryland in 2021. Brianne Dressen, who is my co-chair, was one of them. That’s how I know a lot of details of this study. Early on with a shot rollout, there was a lot of people with neurological complications. And [the NIH] flew out 23 people. They studied them all. They sent them home, they developed a treatment program that included IVIG. That’s who we got this information from that IVIG can help with these neurological disorders. But that whole study, if you ask them now, we can’t even get a hold of it. It’s gone. And they never communicated with the FDA that this is food for investigation. So reportedly there’s another group that’s being flown out. There’s a subgroup of people—after the shots—that are getting kind of like amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) or Lou Gehrig’s disease. And the rumor mill in our community is [that] the NIH is flying another group out that, after the shot, had kind of similar Lou Gehrig’s disease, ALS-type symptoms. So, again, we’ve met with the house investigation team. We’ve talked to Peter Marks (FDA director) about this. The NIH—under Dr. Nath—they put out a preprint article. It’s on the preprint server of the 23 people, but they never tried to get it published. They told these 23 people that they would investigate, and they would communicate this to the broader population. But somewhere in 2022, that communication with the 23 just ended. Why Neurological Vaccine Injuries Don’t Qualify For Compensation So remember, to this day, the FDA does not recognize neurological problems as adverse events from the shots. It’s insane. And we know through React19 that neurological events are probably the most common adverse event. And why is that important? Well, for two reasons. One, the FDA has to recognize it as a “safety signal” in order to notify the health care organizations and the providers across the country. The only things they’ve recognized are really directly caused by the vaccines are anaphylaxis—meaning acute allergy, you can’t breathe, throat swells—blood clotting and blood disorders, and then myocarditis. That’s it. So number one, if they don’t acknowledge these issues, the adverse events—certainly if they don’t admit transverse myelitis is causally related—so if they don’t admit to it, they don’t communicate with the providers in the street, [telling them] that they should be looking for it, and at least be aware of it. Second thing is the compensation programs. The CICP uses what they admit as safety signals as reasons to compensate people. So if they fail to recognize all these neurological complications, then the Department of Health and Human Services, through the CICP program, is going to deny everybody that’s not anaphylaxis, myocarditis, and blood clotting. Mr. Skorbach: So that’s why your organization is even more important to help these types of people, because you’re aware, you know what to do. And you’re using their own research and data to actually help people. Mr. Wallskog: It’s easy. I mean—I won’t go in too much in the whole “safe and effective” comment. That drives me insane because it’s so much more complicated. But I always tell people, if your provider says the word “safe and effective,” run, because they clearly don’t understand this is more complicated. But the data is there. If you want to look at the efficacy of the new bivalent vaccine—bivalent means two—so it’s really the old Wuhan strain and BA.4, BA.5. Go on the CDC website. Look at the circulating variants. Wuhan is extinct, and BA.4, BA.5 are extinct—they’re gone. So the bivalent vaccine doesn’t work. Now if I say this somewhere on Facebook I’ll probably get banned for misinformation, although it’s directly from the CDC website. So the Twitter files—when we go back to censorship—the Twitter files were very important, because they clearly said, censor COVID vaccine injured people even if true, so as not to cause any vaccine hesitancy. That’s insane. This transcript has been edited for brevity and clarity by Anna Varavva. ———– Medical Disclaimer: Frontline Health (the “Show”), its guests, and contributors provide the latest news on health and medical discoveries and it is meant for informational purposes only. The Show does not provide medical advice, diagnosis, treatment, cures, mitigation, or prevention for any type of disease or medical condition. Similarly, it is not intended for self-diagnosis or self-treating of any health-related condition. The information on the Show is gathered from reputable sources; however, neither Frontline Health nor The Epoch Times Association Inc. are responsible for errors or omissions in reporting or explanation and will not be liable for any direct, indirect, consequential, special, exemplary, or other damages arising therefrom. Patients should always consult with a doctor or other health care professional for medical advice or information about diagnosis and treatment. To get notifications about new Kash's Corner and American Thought Leaders episodes, please sign up for our newsletter! Here 👉 Get Alerts - PRE-ORDER "The Shadow State" DVD: https://www.epochtv.shop/product-page/the-shadow-state-dvd The Real Story of January 6 | Documentary BUY Jan 6 DVD: https://www.epochtv.shop/product-page/dvd-the-real-story-of-january-6, Promo Code “Jan” for 20% off. - Follow American Thought Leaders on social media: Twitter: https://twitter.com/AmThoughtLeader Truth Social: https://truthsocial.com/@AmThoughtLeader Gettr: https://gettr.com/user/amthoughtleader Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/AmericanThoughtLeaders Gab: https://gab.com/AmThoughtLeader Telegram: https://t.me/AmThoughtLeader