Bill Meyer Show Podcast - Sponsored by Clouser Drilling www.ClouserDrilling.com - 12-10-25_WEDNESDAY_7AM

Episode Date: December 11, 2025

It is more than Oregon, Utah is all over the trans surgery. Dr. Miceli from Do No Harm Medicine says Utah cooks the books to make it look better than reality. Open phones follow.

The Bill Myriss 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 Klausordrilling.com. Dr. Kurt Maselli joins me. He's the medical director of Do No Harm Medicine. Do No Harm. And Do No Harm is an interesting group because you're all about getting identity politics out of the medical profession. Is that a fair assessment?

Dr. Kurt, welcome. Good have you. That's absolutely right, Bill, and thanks for having me. We are a organization of over 50,000 members, and those are folks from all different walks of life, health care professionals, citizens, all those who are concerned about this issue of identity politics and medicine.

And as you said, our goal is to get it out of medicine. We want to focus on quality, on patients, on really those values that make medicine excellent for each and every one of us. How badly compromised is the medical profession or the medical arts these days in the United States? Could you give us a kind of thumbnail sketch of it all? I think, unfortunately, if you look at organized medicines, so organizations like the American Medical Association or other sort of academic organizations that are out there, unfortunately

we see this significant institutional capture. We see a DEI agenda that's continuing to be pushed even in light of the current political environment, and we see a continued focus on just really going down the wrong path. And I think the outcome there is that you see. large medical societies like the American Medical Association that really only represents about 15 or so percent of actual practicing physicians. And so we see folks walk with their feet away from these organizations. And that's something that certainly needs to change. And very much, if you look at medical journals and the like, you will see a continued infusion of DEI throughout those

journals, focuses on structural racism, disparities in health care that are due to such. And again, we know that's just not the case. We know that there's so much more to the story and sort of sharing these lives and spreading these misfortunes just only worsens the divide and creates just so much difficulty when we need to be building trust and continue to grow that relationship with patients and not be divisive. So I think there's a lot of work to be done and certainly on this issue of quote-unquote gender affirming care in minors. We really see medical associations that have just lost their basis in a scientific principle. They've adopted guidelines with really not much scientific rigor. And consequently, we've come to a point where we're harming

children and unfortunately just doing so much wrong when we need to change course, look at the evidence, and recognize that these sort of surgical and hormonal procedures for kids just aren't the way to go for kids who are confused about their gender. Yeah. And this is something which, of course, the state of Oregon, Oregon Health Science University, is very, very big on. I would imagine that our university system is on the naughty list here for a do no harm medicine would that be a fair assessment i think it's a real challenge and unfortunately it's it's not alone there there are many many hospital systems academic medical facilities that again have been just so captured by this ideology when we need to focus on putting

patients first all right now your group just released a report and it's called debunking the utah department of health and human services defensive pediatric medical transition this is what we were going to focus on this bizarre trend in which you would have medical societies that are saying, yeah, go ahead and cut the sexual organs off of eight-year-olds if they claim to be a different gender. I mean, I don't know how else you can describe what is going on. And gender affirming care, you know, there's no talk about mental health treatment, no anything else, just immediately get in and do the operations.

and these are serious lifetime commitments, aren't they, doctor? Bill, you're absolutely right. This is a permanent damage that's being done to these kids. And we have a database, a stop-the-harm database, that looks at claims data, insurance claims, from 2019 to 2023. And in that database, we saw that there were over 5,700 such surgeries done on children. And again, these are gender-confused children. These are children that are struggling, oftentimes with many other comorbid psychiatric illnesses, autism and the like, and we need to be focusing on the psychosocial and the psychotherapeutic

interventions and not putting these kids on a path to puberty blockers, hormones, and then ultimately these surgeries. So this is, you know, this is alarming. And I know many states have made progress in terms of putting restrictions on this, but I also recognize in a state like Oregon, it's quite the opposite. And we need to refocus medicine on truly caring for our children. And that entails giving them the psychotherapeutic, psychosocial supports that they need and very much like what's being done in countries like Finland and Sweden and the United Kingdom where there's recognition that we've gone totally the wrong way. Now, if I understand correctly, did they ban this in the UK, this kind of just automatically

taking kids and mutilating them for this transgender agenda? Yes, so there has been significant progress in that front ever since the cast review came out a year or so ago, and that's really sort of shown the challenges that we've seen and just really the horrors of these procedures. Now, granted, I believe that the United Kingdom has started a research trial, unfortunately related to this, but for the most part, these procedures are not what they are in the United States in terms of their commonality. There's a recognition, really from both sides of the aisle, conservative and liberal, that these aren't the right things to do for kids, and that's likewise what we see at Do No Harm. We see that this is really an issue

when you talk to the average person, whether they're on the left or the right side of the political spectrum, they recognize that kids shouldn't be given puberty blockers. They shouldn't be given cross-sex hormones. These are children that we need to help support for a psychotherapeutic fashion and not rush them into these medical procedures. I wonder if any older transgender patients have any say or what they say today, because I'll give you an example. Back when I was a younger DJ, this was probably going back about 30 years ago, I ended up

working with a transgender woman in a radio station I worked with. And this individual was born a male. And he did this transition when he was in his probably 30s or 40s, you know, that kind of thing. So he was older. He was perfectly well-informed. And I have to tell you it was very, in many ways, much more difficult, you know, to do it back in those days, 30, 35 years ago. and but I see that as hey he was an adult he's fine I don't know if if even these people who have done it as adults would be approving of it being done on little kids is there any

thought anybody any talking with a with past people who have gone through these gender affirming surgeries well I think that's a really great point and it's important to look at the population that we're talking about we're talking about children here kids who don't have the capacity to make many other decisions who their parents are really responsible for and helping raise them and rear them and such. And unfortunately, I think in this day and age with social media and the influences that we see there, we're living in a very different time than even was just 10 years ago, where there is just tremendous social contagion and pressures upon kids. And I think without recognizing those factors and really understanding

them, we're missing at what's really troubling these kids and what we can do to to help them and really guide them in the right direction. Dr. Kurt Buscelli is the medical director of do-no-harm medicine, do-no-harm medicine.orgies, the website. This report on Utah, we normally think of Utah as being a pretty sensible state, kind of rock-ribbed, socially conservative kind of place. But apparently it, too, has been struggling with gender-referming care issues. What do you can tell us what happened there with this report?

Absolutely. So back in January of 2023, there is a law passed to effectively put a moratorium on these procedures in minors. But as part of that moratorium, the Utah Department of Health and Human Services will have to conduct a systematic medical evidence review of the data. And the purpose was really to help provide lawmakers with any evidence to support the recommendation that Utah's Department of Health, Human Services, will be making regarding gender affirming care. As part of this process, they went to the University of Utah College of Pharmacy, and that's where the bulk of the report really does come from. It comes from the Drug Regiment Review Center. Yeah, the problem is, though, isn't there undue influence because the Drug Review Center makes its money by doing these changes, don't they? And I think what we've seen is that some of the advisors who are even outside of the Drug Review Center,

some of the folks who were looking at this report were themselves having conflicts of interest and being very much in, in a sort of pro-gender-affirming care stance. And, again, you know, folks can come from different walks of life, but those weren't specifically disclosed within the context of the report. And I think it's important for us to understand that and know that and to understand that. But if your job, and if your job, just like being at OHSU, as an example, up in the Portland area, if your job, if a big part of your job is making money with doing gender change surgeries and such, you know, chances are you're naturally going to come out there and say, yeah, it's fine, right?

Or am I wrong about that? It's something that we've seen even in our database to stop the harm database where there's over $100 million of claims that are associated with these procedures. And that's probably a significant underestimate. So, you know, there certainly is concern of financial conflicts of interest and other conflicts of interest, but even just looking at the quality of the report. I mean, it takes different practice guidelines that come from organizations like the World Professional Association of Transgender Health.

It takes them as gospel. It doesn't even critically analyze them or review them, and the whole point of this study was to do a systematic review, which is really to get at the highest level of evidence. It's supposed to be comprehensive, rigorous, look at the risks of bias and the like, and it didn't do any of that when it looked at guidelines. It accepted them at face value, and it looked at those guidelines that have been just terribly biased. I mean, W-Path has had guidelines back some years ago at Standard of Care, eighth edition

that suppressed evidence reviews that it didn't like, it didn't see that it agreed with, it eliminated age restrictions on many, many surgeries related to these gender procedures and minors, and it just used the phrase, quote-unquote, medically necessary as a phrase to help push the agenda when there's no medical necessity for any of these procedures whatsoever when we're talking about kids. Has anybody ever been able to prove medical necessity of enduring a transgender surgery? Do you know, doctor? Yeah. Yeah, there's really no proof of that whatsoever, particularly when we look at kids.

I mean, those words were just used to help move things through legal processes and to sort of give that sort of medical seal of approval. But there is no such medical necessity. If you look at the actual systematic reviews and you study them, you see that the evidence is really of low, certainty for any benefit. And the other side of the coin are the risks. And we talked about a little bit, those risks are significant, whether it's infertility or cardiovascular side effects or cancers or even just the sort of neurological problems that are potentially possible. And certainly with surgeries, how they impact youth and such. So there's significant risk, these procedures, significant harm, really low certainty of any benefit whatsoever. And again, just another

reason why we need to keep kids safe from these procedures. Yeah, I would say so. Dr. Marcelli, let me just throw another one out of you. I don't know. I'm asking for a speculation on your part. But is there any evidence that the people who are pushing transgender surgeries just hate the idea of breeders? I mean, people who can actually have children naturally? And, you know, is there any evidence of that? Because there's been a big push, especially through the climate change agendas and all these other things. Oh, we don't want to have children. Boy, what a perfect way to get. everybody out of having children in the future. I don't know if there's, maybe that's too

weird of a question, but I'll throw it at you. Yeah, yeah, no, I don't know of any such association, but what I do know is that in this report, one of the key side effects, the key negative effects that we see, infertility and sterility that are associated with these procedures, that's not even given any ranking of a high priority. It's completely ignored in any sort of semblance by the report. In fact, in the executive summary, they do comment on the fact that infertility is a known risk of cross-sex hormone therapy, but they didn't go into it whatsoever or look at it or study it, and it just seems like, wow, what a significant omission when you look at the significant consequence of what puberty blockers cross-sex hormones

can do to use and such. It just is, it's just really inappropriate. And again, just shows the unreliable nature of this Utah report. Is there any attempt to take, like, reports that what you're doing and take apart these medical associations that just seem to have their thumb on an agenda, on a political agenda, rather than actually taking care of children in their medical care. AMA, as far as I've concerned, should be ashamed of themselves, but when it comes to the medical associations, there doesn't seem to be a lot of shame these days. What do you think? It's unfortunate where we are with the state of organized medicine associations like the AMA or the American Academy of Pediatrics.

I mean, fortunately, there are some good ones out there. They tend to be a little bit smaller and don't get as much of the attention as these other associations like the AMA get. But I think it's a matter of physicians who've just walked with their feet. Like I said, I mean, most of these larger associations actually really don't represent the majority of physicians at all. And I think an organization like Do No Harm has just grown so tremendously over its three plus years of existence, partly because of the outcry and the realization that we need to put patients back at the center of medicine, and we need to focus on the science, and we need to get the identity politics out of the exam room. And so an organization like Do No Harm has grown to over 50,000 members, a third of those are health care professionals.

These are doctors, nurses that are really concerned about where we are with medicine. and I hear from these folks each and every day about what we need to do to change things. And certainly I would love to see a resurgence in organized medicine. I would love to see these associations really take into account what they've done and also recognize that there really is a good report out there about all of this that we're talking about in terms of the gender space with kids. And that's the report that came from the federal government, HHS, which had just been sort of re-released this past,

November and really puts the evidence at the forefront and shows that these procedures are so harmful. And I think, you know, I would really call upon our medical societies to really look at that information and to understand it and to read it and digest it and likewise recognize that they're out of step with mainstream doctors. We did a study at Do No Harm that looked at a survey of Florida physicians and recognized just how much they are not in line with organizations like the AMA or the American. Academy of Pediatrics, that they are very much in line with the public, which recognizes

the harm of these puberty blockers, these cross-sex hormones, and these surgeries and kids. So I think these medical associations really need to self-reflect and understand that, you know, there's an opportunity with HHS having issued its report, not the Utah report, but the federal government's report that really does do a fantastic job of presenting the evidence in a detailed, methodologically sound way, which has been subject to peer review as well. well. And it's withstand it so nobly. I mean, I think it's been really clear that it's important for us to change course. And I hope that, again, physicians, we encourage folks to join our organization, but that we continue to speak with this topic and to really convey the message that

we've got to stop doing these harms to kids. Dr. Rasselli, I'm kind of curious. Do you know if the psychiatric profession is seeing the gender dysphoria more clearly? Because forever, I mean, forever, as much, far as I'm aware of, gender dysphoria was looked at as a mental illness and it was something that you had to treat from that side of the issue. You know, if you, if you all of a sudden claim that you were a dinosaur, we didn't knock all, you know, cut all your body parts off and put horns on your head, you know, so that way you could, you know, match your body to the outside. You know what I'm getting at? I'm just wondering what the psychiatric world is thinking about

this. Yeah. Bill, I'm a psychiatrist by training. And unfortunately, the American Psychiatric Association is at the same point as the AMA and the AAP and other medical associations. Why did they – why have they all – why are they all drinking this Kool-Aid? That's what I'm trying to figure out. Why did they drink the Kool-Aid? Yeah, there's definitely this institutional capture. And I think oftentimes these societies have outsourced much of their policymaking to committees, committees that have been taken over by radicals and folks otherwise that are afraid to just

say anything differently for whatever those reasons. And perhaps that's to advance their own careers in organized medicine or what, but it has just gone way too far. And we need reasonable common sense physicians speaking up, speaking loudly, and really articulating their voice. Unfortunately, that voice is just getting ground out in medicine's academia, medical journals. Well, I'm just wondering if what will end up happening is because if maybe, maybe insurance companies should just stop covering the surgery. That might change it, huh? Certainly the monetary incentive would go away in that regard.

I think for us, we look at the other side of the coin in the sense of advocating for those folks who recognize that they've made a terrible mistake and they've actually desired to detransition. And we've been advocating to make sure that insurance will cover those detransition procedures. so folks who then recognize their biological sex want to go back in some sense and reverse some of the damage that's been done, we want to make sure those folks are fully supported and certainly help them to really reclaim their lives. Dr. Kurt Maselli, medical director of Do No Harm, Do No Harm Medicine.org.

You can read that report. I will certainly link to that on my show blog today. Doctor, I appreciate you working on this because I have just, you know, it's a lot of I think many people listening this morning are just saying they just can't believe that these so-called trusted white coats have gone so far down the political realm there, and I don't know if there's any recovering from this situation. What do you say? The experts have let us down, and that is a huge problem, even within medicine,

even within medicine to be a physician referring to another physician and being concerned of what's actually going to happen at a gender clinic if I refer a child there. And unfortunately, we know it moves to puberty blockers hormones and surgeries. And so that there has been this breach of trust. And that is a tremendous problem, especially in light of the challenges that medicine's gone through with COVID. And here we have these gender procedures on kids. It has just been devastating in the sense that we need to do something to really reclaim our profession. And for that, we need to shine light on the truth.

We need to look at the evidence. We need to, again, look at those resources like the HHS report that the, federal government have provided, and take that to heart and bring that to our medical societies and really rekindle that trust with patients because ultimately what that doctor-patient relationship is about is trust. And if we're going to be those experts, we need to act like folks who are informed of the evidence and really put the patient at the forefront, not this ideology. Dr. Maselli, I appreciate you being on. We'll have you back. Thank you. You take care. Be well. Thanks so much, Bill. You take care.

haven't planned your holiday party rosario's italian restaurant the josephine county fairgrounds welcome to the bill mire show on one oh six three km ed give bill a call at five four one seven seven seven oh five six three three that seven seven seven seven seven seven i started the show off this morning kind of frustrated with the president because um the president talking about inflation under the Biden administration as being the worst in history. I just know that's not true. And the truth is bad enough. I just don't feel the need to exaggerate it.

But, Rick, you actually agree with the president. So I wanted to get the other side of that on. I'm happy to have you kick it around with me. What do you think? Well, thank you, Bill. And thank you for your show. I think everybody in Southwest, Oregon, should be listening to you.

You just educate us on so many things, and maybe you can educate me on this. Okay. But my question for you, you say it's demonstrably wrong, what Trump said. How so? Okay. Well, the inflation rate from the 1970s was brutal. You remember the great inflation? I'm 74, and I had a terrible time then.

I remember stagged inflation very well. Yep, I sure do. I think many of us do. The inflation rate, through all that period, peaked at 14%. 14% inflation. I think that was 1980 as Reagan was coming in. That's why Paul Volcker ended up having. Now, that's the official rate of inflation, which is usually understated because it's government statistics, right?

You know how that goes. Nobody likes the idea of having a high inflation rate. So it peaked out at 14%. Now, during the Biden administration, it was an 8% or 9% inflation, still not good, really bad, worst inflation that we'd had for a long time, but not certainly the highest that we had had. It was bad. I'm not kidding you on that. All right. So what do you say? All right. Well, that's kind of where I thought you would go, but I think you're comparing apples and oranges. How's that?

Remember, during the Biden administration, food and fuel were excluded from the calculations. And to me, those are the two greatest drivers of inflation. So I think Trump's statement is correct. Except that food and fuel are usually always excluded from the inflation. calculations because they're volatile. Okay. All right, then you're educating me, but that's the first time, the Biden administration is the first time I ever heard that food and fuel was excluded. Yeah, that is generally a traditional situation. Anything which is volatile, they call it too volatile, Rick.

No, I understand that. And it is volatile. But if you exclude it, then you're not correct. in stating the rate of inflation. Yeah, and there is also the... I was not aware. Yeah, there's also a tendency over time that they also engage in another interesting... I'm talking about federal statistic makers, you know, the ones that sit behind and calculate

stuff, and then they put the reports out. The other thing they like to do is substitution, so they'll say that, oh, okay, so you're complaining because your state got expensive, but that's okay, you're going to replace it with a cheap steakum, or you're going to replace it with pork or something like that to try to make it look better. That's just what government does to try to, you know, make it look a little more pleasing to the, to the palate out there, I guess. And that's nothing unique to President Trump. All administrations do that kind of stuff. They all do it. No, I agree. Everything that we see statistically related is probably a lie and the statisticians are liars. Yeah, well, the reason

they want to keep that. There's a reason why the government wants that inflation rate to look a lot lower. You can figure that because you're on Social Security, I imagine, right? Yes, yes. If they go out there and say the Consumer Price Index went up at 8 or 9 percent, officially, boy, that makes Social Security costs go way up for the government, doesn't it? Yes, it does. Yeah.

Absolutely. Anyway, so I'm just saying all I was getting at, though, was that the truth with President Trump, the truth of the Biden inflation, is bad enough. I just would have stuck with that. That's just me. Yeah. Yeah. Well, no, I think there's plenty of things that he says that are, you know, you need to take with a grain of salt.

But I'd also say that there are many things that he has stated that people say they poo-poo it and say, oh, that can't be. And then we find out later. Yeah, he was correct. Yeah. Yeah, it could be. And the upshot of it is I think he's doing absolutely a marvelous job. I'm not a Trump sycophant, although I'm probably sanding like one, but the improvement that we have in the executive branch versus the previous administration is just out of this world. Well, Rick, I appreciate you calling, and we'll just gently agree to this screen on some things.

How about that? Yes, and I'm going to do a little research on that because I have not heard that those factors were excluded in other calculations. Yeah, pretty sure. Now, I don't know if it was included or excluded in 1980 or not. I would have to do a little more research on that myself. But traditionally, the Fed has tried to keep food and fuel out of it for that very reason because it's up and down and up and down and, you know, et cetera. Well, I'm going to look into that.

And if I find something different, I'll maybe give you a jingle again and we can look at this again. You do that, Rick. I know I looked back at another Democrat administration back in the early 1900s when inflation was terrible, and I know it wasn't excluded then. So I kind of concluded that maybe wrongly so that the first time they excluded food and fuel was in the Biden administration. I can be wrong. You know, I'm going to recheck my stuff, and maybe I'll get back to you on that tomorrow, okay? Okay.

Yeah, very good. Thank you for your show. It's marvelous. Oh, thank you very much, Rick. It's great hearing from you. 743 at KMED, and we'll catch up with the rest of the news. Dusty's Transmissions is proud to be Santa's helper this year for Toys for Tots. Help bring the joy of Christmas to children throughout the Rogue Valley, now through December 16. Donate one or more new unwrapped toys for Toys at Dusty's Transmissions, 250 North Front.

Restrictions apply. Call for details. Internet and cell phone service not provided by DISH. Hi, I'm Matt Stone with Stone Heating and Air, and I'm on KMED. Happy to take your call, 7705-633. Gold just under 4200, silver, $60.46 an ounce. My gosh, I don't know if this is a short squeeze or whatever this is. I know that Sean Ring from the Daily Reckoning is saying that what's going on here with silver right now is that the bullion banks are out of silver. There is lots of demand going on just industrial.

and otherwise. Wow. Is this going to continue? I know that some people are, I guess the point is that Sean is saying what's really fascinating is that the people who are holding physical silver aren't selling it while the demand is going up. That's what Sean is saying. I thought that was interesting. Do you want to keep stacking or do you want to sell at 60? I don't know. Maybe you bought it at five. You go, hey, man, or you think, is it going to go to the moon? I don't know. But one way or the other, physical gold and silver, they're looking at this as a big, big

way of tucking away some inflation hedging on wealth preservation. Okay, talk to Jay Austin and Company, golden silver buyers at Ashland, 1632, Ashland Street in Ashland, 6th and G in downtown Grants Pass, Mark and Andrea, great people, one of my oldest sponsors, and they help lots of people with this. either side of the of the transaction call 482 3715 482 375 they are crazy busy right now there's a lot of activity going on with gold and silver right now either way i'm not going to advise what to do i'm kind of a stacker myself but we'll see all right fortune reserve dot com that's fortune reserve dot com already before i get back to the phones and i will get

to all your phone calls here in just a moment i wanted to give you an idea i was just talking with Rick about the inflation rates and what it was really, and Rick asked a really good question. He said, well, what about food and fuel? And I was under the impression that food and fuel hasn't really been included in the inflation rate, the official inflation rate for quite some time. And so I did a little bit of poking around on the search engines. So there's a couple of ways they talk about inflation.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index, in the 1970s and 80s, they started emphasizing core CPI, and they would exclude food and energy. So it was in the 1970s that they first started talking about this. Prior to 1970, when they released the inflation rate, it always included food and energy. Before the 1970s, everything was in there. Food, clothing, energy, the entire basket, all right? Then when the oil shock hit 73, 74, they started excluding energy. And then in the late 70s to early 80s, that's when core inflation came up. And that's when they really started, was adopting that.

Federal Reserve, the economists, in 1990s. And so now the media and government spokesmouth routinely reference core CPI, Core CPI or PCE, personal consumption expenditures of inflation, both of which emit food and energy. No food and energy. So, yeah, now, was food and energy included with Biden's number? Maybe it would have beat the 14% of 1980? No, I don't think so, but it could be wrong. But that's what I found out so far just with doing some searching on that over the break, okay?

Now then, what is on your mind? Hi, good morning. This is Bill. Who's this? Welcome. This is my name. Yeah, Dave. Go ahead.

I got two things. One's a statement and one's a question. Have you finished the letter of recommendation and sent it off to the pardon office? No, I have not because there's more to it than that, as you let me know, right? You've got to sign up with some other stuff there. So I've been so busy, I haven't gotten to your pardon thing, but I will. Okay. Okay, well, I've got Kirby Jackson's doing one. He's just editing it now. And then, um, uh, could you send that around? Maybe that'll help us out.

I need one more. Okay. You need one more? Okay. Yeah, I need three, at least three that are not related to me. So, uh, you guys are not related to me. So that'd be great. All right. Thanks for the call. Let me know, Dave. Hey, we're here to try to help. Hey, listen. drug dealers and everybody else can get pardoned by President Trump. Certainly, uh, minor Dave should be able to have his, his stuff expunged. Okay. Uh, hi, good morning. Who's this? Welcome.

This is Bill. Good morning, Bill. This is Ann, the horse lady. Hello, Ann, Horse Lady. What's up? I have a question. Sure. Rick was talking about, um, food and, food and fuel not being included.

Right. Um, what influence, this is a question. You answer. because I don't know. When Carter was president, the interest rate went up to 22 to 25 percent. It was absolutely horrendous. Yeah, baby. We ran everybody out of business.

And what influence does interest rate have on inflation? Well, the interest rate is in reaction to the inflation, normally is what happens, because if the value of the dollar is going down 10, 12, Well, in this case, 1980, it was 14% a year. You would be able to purchase 14% less. If you held the dollar in your bank account, you bought 14% less a year later. You know, that was it. And so the interest rate soars because if you're going to lend the money to someone,

horse lady, you have to make up not just the cost of your money, the time, and everything else, but also the fact that the dollar was going to be worth less because you're going to get paid back in something which was worth less. Now, government loves inflation in some respects because they like the idea of when people buy treasury bonds that you'll, you know, you'll pay back with depreciated dollars, you know, that kind of thing. But smart people will say, hey, I can't, if inflation's at 14%, I can't charge 14% interest, I have to charge 18 or 20 or 25, that kind of thing.

You understand? It has to be a profit in it? Oh, of course. Of course. Yeah, that's why. okay you're a peach kid thanks all right love you keep calling hi good morning who's this welcome yeah ron grant's past hey ron what's up well i want to thank you very much for having the open uh forum that you present to everybody and all the information oh it's my pleasure

yeah so anyway i wanted to say you're doing a good job well thank you you don't have an opinion on something? Well, I do. As a matter of fact, I've been kind of considering what you've been saying about President Trump and some of the works that he apparently has displayed and is obvious. I kind of look back, though, if we instead of giving him the majority of the votes, elected Cackala Harris, just think of what our current system would be as a carry-on from Biden and Obama thereafter. No doubt. No doubt.

It just frustrates me, though, that, you know, the truth, just telling the truth accurately would be bad enough for the Biden administration, I thought. That's just it. I just wouldn't exaggerate it. That's all. Yeah, well, everybody, you know, is kind of funny in their own way, and Trump has his way of, you know, picking on people and call him names and so forth. Well, he may have that ward or those words.

I think in the mainstream, if you look to see what the big beautiful bill is going to be when it comes up into effect at the beginning of next year, I think we're going to have to reverse some of our ideas about the size of the warts. Oh, you think so? Are you not pleased with that big beautiful bill or you're concerned about it? What are you thinking? Well, I am pleased with it in a lot of ways because it's an exact opposite of what we've been having in the past about 12 years, less, you know, what Trump had before. But I think that we're

going to be a much better condition and situation in about three to six months because it's going to take time to wash all this crap that's been shoved down our throats from the Biden and Obama. Yeah, I'll be curious to see if the Trump administration, along with Congress, can truly rein in the spending because we really haven't done that. And that's why the, that's why, even though the Federal Reserve wants to drop the interest rate today, the bond markets are saying they want higher interest rates because they're seeing more money printing coming is what they're seeing, essentially. You're absolutely right. And sure do appreciate your doing, opening up the airways to the people. All right. Hey, always my pleasure. Thank you so much, Ron, and I'll grab another call

here before the rest of the news. Hi, good morning. Who's this? Good morning. Hi, who's this? Oh, yeah. This is Michael. Hi, Michael. Yeah, I wanted to bring up one of the things that's causing the silver market to go up is India has just monetized silver. They did? Really? Yeah, so people can actually get loans to buy silver and use it as a loan, you know, a collateral. Yeah, collateral. And boy, nobody would mind loaning against that, would they? Because it's a, you know, a real asset there. Okay. Yeah, yeah, hopefully they don't pay them back and they get them from silver. Yeah, we'll take the cereal, especially if silver continues to go up in price,

and what bank wouldn't want to loan against that, right? Sure, if you won't pay back, I'm taking your silver. So I got another good news from an odd source. What's that? Pepsi, Coke, Krap, Nestle, and General Mills are all being sued by the city of San Francisco, of all places. Really? Yeah, for deceptive practice, marketing towards children, and processed food causing all kinds of health issues.

So they're suing them for, I think, a bunch of different health issues that they're blaming on it. So it's good news in one way or another, but I just thought it was something that kind of getting swept under the rug. All right. Well, thank you. Now you're going to make me look that up, Michael. Good hearing from you, okay, Michael in the Hills. Shade before 8 o'clock, and we'll catch up on the rest of it. KMED, KMED, H.D. H.1. Eagle Point, Medford, KBXG, Grants, Pass.

We'll be talking about a health issue of a different source, and it has to do with, or a different sort, rather, it has to do with wireless safety. And what is going on here is that the federal government is working on a bill right now that would completely eliminate any ability, I didn't mean any ability, to question where a cell phone site tower might be going, and nothing like that. You can't question where anything. Now, it's already very difficult because the FCC has usually been the controlling authority on about this. And so I'm going to talk with Kelly Morkatouli, who is the president of Oregon for safer technology. It's nonprofit focuses on this kind of thing. And they're trying to work on Cliffbent's to change his mind about the bill or get him to pay attention to it. I'll talk with her at about 10.