Bill Meyer Show Podcast - Sponsored by Clouser Drilling www.ClouserDrilling.com - 11-21-25_FRIDAY_ 8AM

Episode Date: November 21, 2025

11-21-25_FRIDAY_ 8AM

The Bill Myers Show podcast is sponsored by Klausur Drilling. They've been leading the way in southern Oregon well drilling for over 50 years. Find out more about them at Klauserdrilling.com. Join me right now, Dr. Shushana Shendlman. She's a Ph.D., scientist, entrepreneur, has founded numerous biotech companies, and she's a pioneer in the development of drugs for rare and underserved diseases. She's currently the vice chair of the board of advisors at Columbia, University Medical Center and Columbia University, is it Vigelos or Vigelos College of Physicians

and Surgeons? How do you pronounce that, doctor? Yes, pretty close. Vagelis was a former CEO of Mark, pharmaceuticals, and a big donor to Columbia. Very good. So you are all into a lot of the immune therapy, all sorts of drugs. In fact, I mentioned how my wife had used Ketruda a number of years ago. and was amazingly cured of cancer.

And I just can't say enough good things about that. But you have also been involved in cancer drugs, that sort of thing? Yeah, actually, my current company is working on a treatment for solid tumors, for patients with cancer that are unresponsive to other treatments. And I'm glad you raised it. I think it brings up an important point that, you know, the biotech and pharmaceutical industry is really important for innovation and for coming up with new technologies, new drugs,

Ketruda is a great example of that. And I'm glad to hear it helped your wife. You know, that's what we're all here to do. But, you know, what I think has been interesting, but also a little bit unfortunate in the last year or so, is that we've seen less innovation in biotech in the pharmaceutical industry and a shift towards de-risk commercial spaces that offer safe returns and clear regulatory.

pathways. But unfortunately, this leaves behind patients with rare and underserved diseases. Yeah. I was kind of wondering if that was going on because all of a sudden I have detected an amazing shift, even in the advertising that's been going on when it comes to pharmaceutical drugs and how many of them seem to be, and I think you refer to them as cosmetic drugs, right? Of a sort? Yeah. It's, you know, I think one of the great examples here is the obesity market. So, you know, for a few decades, people were unsure if it would be possible to get a drug approved for something like obesity or weight loss.

But once the GLP-1s were approved for that type of indication, and it was clear that there's a huge population and a high willingness to pay, you know, a lot of resources shifted to that market. And so we're seeing, you know, more and more, you know, it's not. innovation, but it's just sort of minor adjustments there. So instead of injectable GLP ones, oral GLP ones, and now the new class of drugs called triple G agonists that, you know, offer a little bit better weight loss. And, you know, it's great for obesity. It's a huge market that offers a lot of financial return to the pharmaceutical industry, but it's

leaving behind a lot of people with diseases that have no treatment options available. that are really desperate for innovation in their disease. And so I guess you were talking about the concern about, okay, let's say neurological disorders, cancers, things like that, which might be a riskier path to actually being able to pay for themselves. Is that kind of where you're coming from? Exactly. You know, for diseases that have no treatment approved yet, ironically, it's extremely

risky because it's not clear what the regulatory pathway is. there. And, you know, unfortunately, we've seen an FDA that's been very politicized in the last few years. And it's resulted in moving goalpost. So, you know, you'll be told it's one pathway for a certain disease. And then a few years later, oh, we've changed our mind. Now here's the new pathway. And so this is, it's very risky, very costly to biotech and pharmaceutical companies. Could you give me an example of those shifting goalposts? I'm, uh, I'm, I just want to make sure and put a little meat on that bone, so to speak. Sure, absolutely.

So, you know, I think in general there have been a number of rare disease treatments that have been refused by the FDA in the past year. You know, you may never have heard of these rare diseases before, but, you know, as these things go, if God forbid someone in your family has it, you're very aware. things like Barth Syndrome, San Felipe syndrome, and a mitochondrial disease called PDCD. So, you know, these drugs had a pathway mapped out for them. The companies put their applications into FDA. Everything was moving along and then at the last minute they got

an FDA refusal. So, you know, those are a few recent examples and, you know, I think we were all a little bit shocked just recently a few weeks ago we heard about a gene therapy for Huntington's disease, which is a terrible genetic fatal disease that affects about 40,000 people in the U.S., and there was a company developing a gene therapy for this, they were told by the FDA, you know, that they've kind of reversed their path here, and they need to go down a different road for clinical development, and it's unclear if that gene therapy will ever be able to be developed now. So that's just a handful of diseases. People like me in the industry have been following. It might not be top of mind, you know, for the general population. But it's extremely unsettling to people in the biotech and pharmaceutical industry

because it just incentivizes more of a shift towards these well-established low-risk indications. You know, the 25th drug for something that we already have a lot of options for. Yeah. Well, even the GLP one drug was. originally created for diabetes, wasn't it? Exactly. Yes. And, you know, I want to ask you, being a doctor as you are,

I know that everybody's piling into these Ozempics and the wee gobbies and, you know, all the rest of it. Is there any risk in your view that we are looking to a future kind of fen-fen sort of deal? You remember the fen-fen controversy when everybody piled into the, uh, the, the, the Fen, and you had a bunch, you had a whole generation of women with their hearts blown out. And it was just amazing what had happened back then. Yeah, you know, obesity is a tough one because, you know, it's kind of staggering. I'm not sure if people are aware of this, but 42% of the U.S. population is clinically obese.

So not just overweight, not just that I'd like to lose a few pounds, but actually obese, which has huge health consequences, right? It results in things like diabetes, heart failure, you know, cancers. And so we do have a huge problem in this country. And, you know, for a lot of people, diet and lifestyle modifications need to be made. But it doesn't always, you know, go the whole way. And there are some patients that really have a need for a drug. And, you know, I think that with GLP-1s in general, they are known to induce a huge level

of weight loss and a lot of patients, it does come out a bit of a cost, though. So 80% of patients who take GLP-1 can't continue on them for more than a year. So within one year starting the GLP-1, 80% of patients have stopped taking it, either due to tolerability or side effects. Yeah, and I was reading about side effects, including gut paralysis. And I'm thinking, you know, that's a big, That's not a minor little side effect, you know, in which your digestive system ends up binding up to a certain extent. I thought, and yet everyone's piling in. I just was curious about that. Yeah, I think a lot of people aren't aware of the serious risks that come with it.

And then there are some, you know, less serious, but still eye-opening aspects to GLP1 treatment, which is that, you know, 50% of the weight that you lose. is fat, great. But the other 50% of the weight that you lose is muscle. And that's a problem, right? Especially if 80% of patients stop taking the drug within a year and gain back 100% of the weight that they lost. So when you gain back that 100%, it's all coming back as fat. But this is kind of going back to it. And by the way, I'm speaking to Dr. Shoshana Shendlman, Ph.D., scientist and entrepreneur, involved with all sorts of biotech. companies. But this is kind of getting back to the point where the pharmaceutical world seems to be going into where is the safe, hot, big money return. Now, I understand that because, you know,

you have to pay the bills in order to do something like that. But there seems to be a real push into not curing anything, but here's the drug to help you manage something. Is this also something that you've been concerned about? Yeah, I think you're absolutely right. And, you know, just to put some numbers out there, I'm not sure how aware people are, but it takes on average about 10 years to develop a new drug and anywhere from hundreds of millions of dollars up to billions of dollars with things like, you know, diabetes and obesity treatment. And less than 10% of drugs that go through the development process ever get approved. So that's a lot of time and a lot of cost. And if you think about it, the pharmaceutical companies have to make back not only the money,

that they put into development of the drug that's approved, but also all of the money that goes into development of the 90% of drugs that are never approved. Yeah, so you hope you get a big whale every now and then that takes care of all the losers that just went nowhere couldn't work, right? Right, right. And so I think, you know, what you raise is a really good point. This has led to a shift towards safe returns in well-established diseases, and it's really leaving behind patients with rare and underserved diseases.

And, you know, a concern that many of us have in the pharmaceutical industry is that we're losing innovation. And so, you know, making the next best version of something that already exists, you know, okay, that's going to be very costly. Yeah, but if you make a next best version of something like instead of the injectable GLP one, you have a pill, then that's a new patent, isn't it? it is and so that that helps financially for sure but i think most doctors and scientists and i'm certainly in this category um you know went into the field to help cure diseases and to help people that desperately need treatments and so that's very cost effective for sure um but it's not necessarily the best humanitarian approach we're leaving a lot of people behind with no treatment options and, you know, we're also losing innovation, which is a very important element of the U.S. economy,

as I'm sure you're aware. What would you then think is needed, or do you have a suggestion, to bring back some more focus on actually curing some diseases, especially of these orphan diseases that don't get the same kind of attention as, let's say, Parkinson's or obesity, diabetes, all the rest of. to them. What would you suggest? Yeah, absolutely. I think we need to take a close look at the structures that are in place to fund and approve new drug treatment and really evaluate how we're incentivizing innovation. I think there are some steps that we can take pretty quickly and effectively to get this back on track. So, you know, by firming up the regulatory guidelines so that they're not changing all

the time with, you know, with new diseases. Yeah, you were talking about that one disease in which they had develop this for Huntington's, I think you were talking about? And then the FDA says, well, we've changed your pathway. Why is the FDA in charge of changing a pathway or even creating a pathway? And do I, and I don't understand why that is even a thing. Yeah, I mean, that, that is their job. It's their purview. So they're able, they're able to do that. And, you know, I think part of the problem is, as you just raised, there's, there's not much keeping them accountable. And so I think that's a great example of something that we can change. If we change the structures so that the government shares in that accountability, you know, and really kind of

feels the pain in the same way that the biotech and pharmaceutical industry does when things like this change, I think it could really help to get us back on track. When you talk about sharing accountability, the federal government, if the government's going to say no or yes on something, it would have some accountability. How would that look in your view, doctor? Yeah, absolutely. I think that there's some structures in front of the government right now. I just want to call out that the government has been able to do a great job at changing the system in other ways in the pharmaceutical industry very quickly and effectively. And so just as an example, because we were talking about the oral gLP ones, you know, the new administration put a plan in place for something called presidential vouchers for pharmaceutical companies. What it gives the pharmaceutical company is a very expedited review. So if it would normally take a year for the FDA to review something, this allows them to review in one to two months.

That's great for the pharmaceutical company. They can get on the market faster. But it's in exchange for lower drug prices and domesticated manufacturing, which helps the country. And so this was an exchange. It took less than six months for them to put in place. They just announced that the oral GLP-1s are going to, to be part of this deal. And so the government can change things and make it work. And we just need

them to take a look at rare and underserved diseases next. So you'll be looking for the same kind of plan then for a rare disease, something which doesn't have a lot of treatment option then. And lower prices in exchange for we will give you a lighter touch on the regulation moving into it, right? I think that would be a great example. Oh, okay. That would work. I don't understand why the federal government would get in the middle of this in the first place because a rare disease or an underserved category like you're talking about, these people are already dying from this. And is, now I guess there comes like, well, what do you have to lose? I guess the idea you don't want to do any harm, but yet if somebody is already dying anyway, well, is this also

kind of along the lines of President Trump when he did the right to try? Yes. So the Right to Try Act was a big step forward. A lot of that, unfortunately, has been undone in the last few years. But that's a great example. And it is just mind-blowing. You know, people are dying from these rare and underserved diseases. Huntington's disease is a fatal genetic disease. People die within a few years.

And so we can't always assume what people are thinking at FDA. But, you know, it certainly raises some questions on accountability. and I have often said that if they were forced to meet patients with these diseases, if they were forced to face the families, they might have a slightly different view. Dr. Shoshana Shendelman, Ph.D. with me this morning. And what is the company you're with right now? I'm the founder and CEO of an oncology company called Sianna Therapeutics. We're developing an immunoncology drug for treatment of solid tumors.

basically patients with cancers like breast cancer, colon cancer, lung cancer that are resistant to other treatments. So I was glad you opened up the conversation with your wife's experience. That's why we need drugs in this space. There are still people dying, unfortunately, of a lot of diseases in this country, and we need new treatments for them. Yeah, the cost, though, is a thing. I remember being told, well, in my wife's case, her oncologist,

from OHSU ended up going to the mat for for her because my insurance would not pay for the treatment at that time. They would just would not. And K. Trudeau was considered experimental even though it was not. And yet I got to tell you, I don't know how the system can afford that. It was 40,000 bucks every time a bag of that of that drug, you know, came in and was put in the infusion center here. And it happened numerous times. And it's like, wow. I mean, you want to talk about unsustainable, you know, that kind of a cost structure. You're totally right. And that's one of the things I wrote about in my recent op-ed on innovation in the biotech industry.

The reason drugs cost so much is what we talked about before. It is hugely costly to develop these drugs, and pharmaceutical companies have to get their returns. But if we're able to shorten the development timeline, make it more streamlined, more effective, we can also get lowered drug prices, which will help everyone. Can someone go read your op-ed and everything else about you, and where would they go? Yes, please. The recent op-ed is in real clear health. You can follow me on Instagram and X at Dr. Shendelman, or you could visit my website,

Dr. Shendelman.com. I really appreciate that. I think I'm going to have you back to talk about this, because this is a thing, it's a real thing, and what we're seeing advertised out there, and where the big money is is not necessarily taking care of people who really need some love, you know, apply to them medically, too, okay? And if you have government getting in the way of that, that just makes no sense. This is still the regulatory. Now, let me just ask you before we take off him, when they get in the way of this,

is this just because maybe the FDA person is primed to say just no until you prove? otherwise, is it just an anti-taking care of just a small group and they're only worried about the big group? Any opinion on that? I think sometimes it's just bureaucracy, and I know there's been a huge effort lately to cut bureaucracy out of the government, so hopefully that will help. But you're right. I think a lot of times it's just easier and it's more protective to the people in those

positions to say no, rather than to open an opportunity up and take a little bit of a chance. So I think we need to, again, increase the accountability, make it easier for people to say yes, and we'll all benefit. Dr. Shoshana Shendlman, thank you so much. Great talk. Appreciate that. Be well. Hi.

Definitely have you back. It is 832 at KM.D. If you've been injured in an accident, you've got Reedloff. Good morning. This is Guse Talk 106.3. KMED, and you're waking up with the Bill Myers show. We're on a little bit long with the doctor, so we're going to break for news here in just a moment,

and we're going to talk about a British comedy coming to the Criterion. It's about Christmas. And so, hey, we're getting into that mood now. Next week, Thanksgiving, Black Friday, and then we're on. And then 2025 is over. I just got used to writing 2025 as the date. I don't know what happened. It's just been monumental speed.

thing but anyway what is coming up is oh christmas tea oh christmas tea i think that's a play on like the oh christmas tree yeah okay we'll talk with one of the people involved in this hey looking for fun one of each k4 venn 2 2 2 8 msrp 24 185 tell you ride venn 677 258 msrp 4 3 8000 350 9 9 do it signing 10k miles per year zero security deposit all incentives and discount to dealer plus tax title license 150 registration processing fee trading in a vehicle will not eliminate your debt negative equity applied to new loan balance ends 1130 25 Unwrapped the gift of an upgrade I'm on 106.7, KMED.

And if you're on hold, I will get to your calls here in just a moment and it's going to be open phones for the rest of this time. I wanted to make sure that we talked with Alistair Knowles. Alster Knowles, and he is part of the group which is coming to the Craterian Theater in Medford. In fact, it's two weeks from yesterday. It's going to be Thursday, December 4th, 7.30, and it's, oh, Christmas tea, a British comedy.

Alistair, how are you doing? Welcome to the show. Good to have you. Thanks so much. Thanks so much for having me. Yeah, what is the name of your group, by the way, that's coming here? We are James and James. We're two British comedians who have put on shows for the last decade. I think we're approaching our thousand to show.

Thousand. Wow. Now, you're actually from Canada, isn't that right? Yeah, I live in Winnipeg, Canada, and James lives in BC, in just north of Vancouver. Okay, so you're going to be traveling to Metford, December 4th, we're going to be doing this. And it's a British comedy, but obviously with Oh Christmas Tea, this is a take on Old Christmas Tree, right? Well, sure, yeah, we've definitely twisted up the name a bit just to make sure it's appealing to the audience that we want.

So it's a Christmas theme here, and I'm in the mood for it, and any time we could get a great laugh, I'm good with this. So I'm wondering, Alistair, so you're playing Jamesy, right? You play Jamesy, the character, you know, in this then. And could you give us a kind of a beat on what this will be about or how this show will play out for people and why they want to come, all right? Well, the show is a celebration of imagination and friendship. And so my character, Jamesy, on stage is real. Okay, yeah, could you get that to me again, your phone cut out for a second there, Alistair?

I'm so sorry. Yes. So my character, Jamesie, believes in a world in such a way that what happens on stage is real. The theatrical imaginations are reality. And James, on the other hand, believes that we all know we're just in a theater. There's an audience here. And the imagination is not real. And so these two worlds collide. I can't see the audience and he can't see the imagination. And so the show is about how do we accept this. sort of magical state of theater, where, yes, we all can embrace this world of the imagination and challenge ourselves to embrace it. And what happens once we do is the sense that anything can happen. What you're saying, though, is that fun and frivolity will kind of ensue on this, on the stage, right? Yeah, on the stage and in the audience. So our show is an open invitation. to what now? Go ahead. It's an open invitation for audiences to access their inner child and let it out. Now, now, what is the difference in this style of humor that say then, let's say,

traditional American slapstick? Because British humor is different. I really like it. It's kind of like, you know, the Monty Python thing. What is it? I think, Dr. British is, the proper and the absurd. this idea that the British saying keep calm and carry on. Yes.

Even in the face of chaos, there's still this inner desire to find some sense of control. Right. And you think of misting, Rowan-Henkins, and all he's trying to do is get through making it. Okay. You don't have a swim in a pool. Yeah, yeah. For some reason, I'm having great difficulty getting a good cell signal from you this morning, Alice. Oh, I'm so sorry.

Yep, that's okay. It happens sometimes, but what I will say, though, is that I noticed that you are balanced on your partner's shoulders. Do you actually do that in the show? Yes, we do a fan bit of, the show is very physical. So I am in a sweat just 10 minutes into the show, and I don't stop for the entire show. Okay, that kind of gives me an idea what we're looking at. Now, what I'm kind of wondering, since it's just kind of physical, is this something which is family-friendly?

How would you describe it? I want to make sure people get what they're looking for. For sure, yeah. So we wrote the show to entertain ourselves as adults. It just so happens that our sense of humor really appeals to those of all ages. Yeah, the show is a delight for all ages. We've had multiple generations come to the show. We just had feedback from a 95-year-old woman.

She'd never laugh that hot in half. life. We also have feedback saying, oh, my six-year-old was in stitches. So it's great for the whole family. All right. Well, what I'll tell people to do is call the Craterion. The box office is 541-779-3,000. I'll put the information up here. And I know you're advertising it or promoting it with like, you know, you like Monty Python, Mr. Bean, you like Dr. Seuss. It's kind of all combined in a way, isn't it? Absolutely. That sense of play. and wonder and silliness, it all goes together. Alistair, I appreciate you joining in here,

and looking forward to you coming to Southern Oregon. It'll be on December 4th, 730, at the Criterion Theater at the Collier Center. I've got to get that big name in there and make sure everybody's happy about it. But be well and carry on and stay funny, okay? Thanks. Thanks so much, Bill. Okay, very good, Alistair. It's 11B4-9 at 770-5633.

This is the Bill Meyer show. I know that hiring can be... 3736, CCB number 250730. This is the Bill Meyer show on 1063 KMED. Call Bill now. 541-770-5633. That's 770 KMED. I am glad to take on anything as we wrap up the show this week on Find Your Phone Friday.

And let's talk with Brad first. Tell them, Brad, and what's on your mind this Find Your Phone Day? Yeah, happy Friday. before Thanksgiving. So this is something that you're going to be really interested in. I think anybody would. So the 1803 fund began operations in 2023 when Nike co-founder and his wife granted $400 million to invest in North Portland's Albina, a white neighborhood that was destroyed by misguided urban renewal and the construction of Interstate 5. So they're going to buy this property. They're going to call it Albina Riverside up up in Portland. And this is the 1803 fund,

you're saying? The 1803 fund funded by a $400 million grant, apparently by Phil Knight. I'm still looking into this, but I'll send you a copy of this story. But the thing that's interesting is it's because of the damage that was done to this neighborhood, apparently this white neighborhood that was really, really abused, and the purpose of it is so that white people can have, oh, wait, Bill, Bill, I'm wrong. Oh, oh, okay. So is it, is it only going to, is it black people and only black people get that? I'm sorry. I'm sorry. All of this money is being spent to create a place that is to attract and encourage black. I don't know how I miss that. I'm sorry. Okay. So, in other words, they're going to create a segregated neighborhood. Is that what you're saying? I can't believe it, Bill. I think you're right. I think that the purpose of all this is to create a segregated neighborhood to encourage and foster black culture somehow.

I don't know how I miss this. I thought, wow, I thought this was really going to be a big story. but maybe since it's not to support white people, maybe since us to support black people, we should do more of this, right? All right, now, I'm trying to, all right, it's, but seriously, a, in other words, don't live here unless you are not white, in other words. Right, yeah.

And Nike's involved with this, right? What's that? And the Nike fund is involved with this, right? Just $400 million of it. Oh, okay. I'm sure, well, if there's anything that could screw up Portland even further, it'd be Nike getting involved in making a segregated neighborhood. Can't wait. That'll be really interesting.

What would happen if anybody else tried doing that, though? If anybody other than Phil Knight would try doing this? Well, I thought this was really going to be a big story because it looked like this whole thing was a segregated white neighborhood. And I thought, man, this is really going to get on the news. But I'm sorry. I missed the point of the whole thing, Bill. I screwed that up. I'm sorry. Well, I appreciate you getting corrected there in the end or correcting yourself. Thank you. Dave's here. Hello, Dave. Go ahead. Take it away. Could you top the segregated neighborhood in Portland? Go ahead. This is minor, Dave. I wanted to say was for enlisted men, it's really hard for them to disobey an order unless it's obvious.

prisoners of war. And you're being told to torture one, right? That kind of thought. Torture one or just flat killed them, like they did, you know, like the Nazis did during World War II or, you know, mistreat prisoners. Well, as an illicit man, you could say, I'm not following that order. But if you're out in your Navy personnel and you're ordered blow up that ship and you're in international waters and uh well it would be very it would be very difficult for someone

to disobey that right it'd be very difficult because it's uh an ongoing thing plus they've been waiting these ships they're not just blown them out of the water they caught a uh on the 18th they caught a transport ship with four tons of cocaine on it they got they have bordered to that one you know I guess the thing is, though, is that, let's say even if you do have cocaine on that, does that mean that you are blown out of the water and killed? That is, you know, the interesting question that comes up there, people who are into that pesky thing like... Even too. Yeah, yeah, what is that pesky thing like rule of law thing? Okay?

Yeah, but if you're asked to heave two by the Navy or the Coast Guard, you better follow their directions or you're going to get blown out of the water. Okay, well, you know that, but it's one thing to be. told to heave to and you pull over and then you are boarded by the Navy. Well, that's what you're doing. Yeah. They're disobeying. They're not stopping in long to be bordered. Not, Predator drone stuff is not that kind of thing, though.

All right. But anyway, we'll talk about that. Thank you for the call. Let me go to Karen. Karen, you wanted to make sure and get some stuff about signing up for no text. Go ahead. Give me the take on that. Let's hear it.

Yeah, I just wanted to let your listeners know the locations this weekend. and today. So, of course, the Republican headquarters has petitions there. We have a location at the DMV. This is Joe County, by the way, all right? Yes, in Jackson County, or Justin County, excuse me. And then we have a pop-up location at the drive-in of Dutch Bros on 6th Street today. And this weekend, we're going to be at the fairgrounds and now also at the DMV. So that'll be the two bigger spots that we'll have this weekend, that we're hoping people will be happy to drive by and all the locations that they would need. Now in Jackson County, Jackson County Republican Party open on 112 North Front Street today, 10 to 4.

There are some other places, too. Go to J-C-O-R-D-G-O-P for the Jackson County locations. Big ones are going to be – the big push is really tomorrow, isn't it? Yes, it is. That's going to be – practically everywhere. There's going to be something available. Thank you for the call. Let me go to Bruce.

Bruce in Rocky Point. Hey, Bruce? What's up? I was just a comment about these people wanting to the service members to disobey orders. To disobey lawful, unlawful orders. I'm sorry, unlawful orders. But you go back a few years and how about like Ruby Ridge and the incident in Texas and these coverment of agencies going into like a guitar factory with guns

and saying, oh, you have some illegal wood and go on and on. of the Amish farmers selling raw milk. In other words, it would be interesting if there was a little more conscience in the enforcement organs just about everywhere. Right. And with the COVID, you know, shutting churches down. Or you have to take this shot. You know, why is it just the military and against Trump? There's a lot of agencies that go in with guns and you're knocking down doors. people are being killed by government agencies.

Yeah, it's not just all the military. Maybe everybody should be thinking this way. Bruce, I appreciate your call. Thanks for the conscience. And we'll kick more of this around on Monday morning. Email Bill at Billmyershow.com. Have a great weekend. Hi, this is Bill Meyer, and I'm with Cherise from No Wires Now,

your Dish Premier local retailer. It's time to switch to DISH. If you have Direc TV or cable TV, call me today to see how I can save you.