Shaun Newman Podcast - Ep. 184 Part 2 - Doctor Andrew Liebenberg

Episode Date: June 30, 2021

Part 2 is here - This is the 2nd half of my sitdown with Doctor Andrew. We discuss ivermectin, W.H.O recommendations, what the public can do to help doctors & some of the concerns with what is going on in today's world. Let me know what you think Text me 587-217-8500

This is Glenn Healing. Hi, this is Braden Holby. This is Daryl Sutterin. Hi, this is Brian Burke. This is Jordan Tutu. This is Keith Morrison. This is Kelly Rudy. Hi, this is Scott Hartnell.

Hey, everybody. My name is Steele-Fer. This is Tim McAuliffe of Sportsnet, and you're listening to the Sean Newman podcast. Welcome to the podcast, folks. Happy Wednesday. Happy hump day. Holy Dina, is it a scorched day? Like, it is warm, shall we say.

I got to give a shout out to all the graduating students. Grad is upon us, and we had a neighborhood girl, Sarah, shut out to you, come over and watch kids, and she just graduated, and we got talking to her. It sounds like there was some fun had this year, which is good. I mean, we all know kids find ways to have fun every year, but happy to see grad starting to go again. And to all the kids, best of luck in the future.

high school you always think it's the best days of your life I don't know what everybody else says but college was certainly a lot of fun or if you go to university and I just fast forward to now and man I'm having a lot of fun um it's been 17 years now folks since I graduated think about that closing in on my 20 year geez that's a that's a mind it's a mind blow for a Wednesday morning anyways before we get on to today's episode If you haven't listened to Part 1, by all means, it was Monday's episode. It was 184, Part 1. You can go back and listen to Andrew and my, the first half of our conversation.

This is the second half. But before we get there, let's get to today's episode sponsors, Jim Spanerath and Team Over, Three Trees, Tap, and Kitchen. Community Superstar, I like how they put this on social media. Tricia Hunter. I don't think that could be more bang on for the lady who donates a ton of her time to a bunch of different groups. around town while they raised uh in partnership with bike for breakfast uh three trees raised a thousand

dollars with beef dips and growler fills like you guys are awesome and on social media trisha hunter stopped by to pick up the checks so there's a there's a good picture with her and and jim uh for me tonight is date night and of course i'm taking the wife to three trees and i'm going to have to try a couple of their beverages and who knows maybe i'll try one of the the infamous or famous i don't know beef dips. Don't do like me. Make sure you call and get a reservation. 780 874-7625. I like to live dangerously. What can I say? Jane Gilbert and team for over 45 years since 1976, the dedicated realtors of Coldwell Bankers, CitySide Realty, have served Lloyd Minster in the surrounding area. They offer Star Power providing their clients with seven-day-a-week

access. Service is a priority because they know big life decisions are not made during office hours. Also, did you know when it comes to rental properties? They are the biggest licensed residential property management company in the city of Lloydminster. They deal with over 250 rental units. We're talking houses, apartments, and condos. All right? Now, they know home is truly where awesomeness happens. Coldwell Banker, Cityside Realty for everything real estate, 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

Give a call 7808753343. Mack Construction. They've been doing business locally for over 12 years with over 100. homes completed. Mack Construction is a design-build, custom-home building operation that has specialized in constructing homes, custom homes, cottages, and Rtems

throughout Lloyd-Mister in the community since 08. And in addition to custom home building, Mack Construction does extensive renovations to residents and light commercial work. So when the wife says, hey, really like to do up the kitchen a little better, my wife has never said that. You could give Matt Construction a little call

and they can come in and do the work for you. If you're looking to build, or if you're looking to build the dream house, because that conversation has never happened either, head to macconstruction.ca, and look no further. And I'm ragging on my wife right now, but I really do love her. HSI group, they are the local oil field burners

and combustion experts that can help make sure you have a compliance system working for you. The team also offers security, surveillance, and automation products for residential, commercial, livestock, and agricultural applications. They use technology to give you that peace of mind so you can focus on the things, that truly matter and you know as everybody's heading to the lake wouldn't you like to just sit at the

lake and pop open your phone and know your business or your livestock or your house is uh you know no issues there well they got that capability just saying stopping at a 302 502nd street or give brodie a chem a call at 306 825 6 310 if you're looking for the u uh looking for the SMP billboard. It is across from the airport now. I got to give a show to read and write for all your outdoor signage. Give them a call 306-8255-3-1. Gartner management is the Lloydminster-based company specialized in all types of rental properties to help meet your needs, whether you're looking for a small office or a 6,000 square foot commercial space. Give Wade Gertner a call 78080808 5025. And if you're heading into any of these businesses, let them know you heard about them from the podcast, right? Now, let's get on to that

T-Bar-1, Tale of the Tape. Originally from South Africa, he's been a medical doctor for 15 plus years, family man and concerned citizen. I'm talking about Andrew Liebenberg. Here's part two. So buckle up. Here we go. This is Andrew Liebenberg.

Welcome to the Sean Newman podcast. Yeah, it just perplexes me. And I think that's one of the big lessons and something that we need to dialogue about. And, you know, public health agencies globally that are essentially hiding data and standing like Merck, they changed, like there was never an issue with Ivermectin safety. But now all of a sudden they've put out a statement on the website that they have safety concerns around Ivermectin. Well, you want to talk about strange. Like I follow these websites, that's what it'll sound like. When WHO changed on, it was this past Monday, the verbiage changed to, and now you can't see it,

I should have taken a picture of it because I was shocked a little bit. Because here in Saskatchewan, Alberta, in the mail you get, get your shot, any shot, as soon as possible, 12 and up. Doesn't matter your age, get the shot. WHO comes out on Monday and says, basically, we do not recommend anyone from the 12 to 6. 17 age range, get the shot. Well, I don't know. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to put these two things up and go, the World Health Organization just said,

don't vaccinate 12 to 17. My province is saying everybody 12 and older get vaccinated. Something is off here, right? Like, obviously there's something wrong there. I slide into, and I should point out, now what they've said is children and adolescents adolescents tend to have milder disease compared to adults. So unless they are part of a group at higher risk of severe COVID-19, it is less urgent to vaccinate them than older people,

those with chronic health conditions and health workers. More evidence is needed on the use of different COVID-19 vaccines and children to be able to make general recommendations on the vaccinating of children against COVID-19. Now, I want to tie that into... Is that from the WHO website? Website. That as of today.

So as of Sunday night, that is, before I came here, I listened to Dr. Francis Christian, who U of S, Saskatchewan, who just had, you know, gets let go from his position for speaking out about children being vaccinated. And, you know, I followed it and I was like, okay, that's getting a little close to home. Like that, that makes the old heartbeat a little faster. And then he recorded his, uh, Zoom call, I believe, with his superiors. And he was saying to them, like, the WHO has already come out and said they don't recommend it. And they were cutting them off and just being like, you don't know what you're talking about.

I was on there. You're living in a fantasy world. And I actually had to call my brother before I came in here because I'm like, like the WHO, like, I did read that on a website. And he's like, yeah, absolutely. So then I went back and that's what I just read is what they've changed it to now. And, you know, I don't know what your thoughts on Dr. Francis Christian is and the rest of doctors being censored, but him being so close to us. You know, one of the things he was pushing was COVID does not pose a threat to our kids. The risk of them dying of COVID is less than 0.003 of a percent.

This is even less than the risk of them dying of the flu. There is no emergency in children. I think that's an interesting statement. There is no emergency in children. And I think if we reflect back on this and also if I look at the broader picture of health and we think of what the tragedy of COVID for kids has been their, like loss of healthy community, loss of healthy lifestyle, which are foundational for development, right? and that's where the risk for kids is

and I just I'm going to go back back to what you've said there with and Dr. Christian I mean it's incredibly brave to speak out and if I read his letter and I think he sounds like a wise rational he sounds like an experienced doctor with caution and there's nothing for him to gain

in speaking out in his community And he has not been, I think the important thing is he's not been speaking out against vaccines. He's been speaking out about the vaccination of healthy children in a way that has not included proper informed consent, which requires full disclosure of risk. And the fact is a lot of risk is unknown. So one needs to be honest about that. So sweeping statements like vaccines are safe and effective, they kind of don't mean much if you have new vaccine technology. That is awesome.

Like, MRNA technology is incredible. And it's going to have incredible applications for the future for rare genetic diseases. And genetic diseases which cause a huge amount of suffering but have no treatment. treatment and cancers where the side effect profile would probably be way better than chemotherapy. So there's a huge potential application there. And I mean, the great thing about vaccines with them is it's very quick to roll it up. But I think to go to ethics of medicine, basic principles of medical ethics. are autonomy, firstly, beneficence, so do good, non-melficence do no harm,

and that's the Hippocratic Oath was, you know, first do no harm, and then justice. And now, if a doctor is tried for malpractice or negligence, we tried on these ethical principles, so they're actually, we're legally bound to the ethical practice of medicine. So me, I do anesthesia, I have to get informed consent with every patient that I do. And even though, like for a spinal anesthetic, for instance, which is incredibly safe, like it's literally safe enough to not really, for your average patient to not do a conversation beforehand on risks and benefits. But I still have to discuss a one in a hundred thousand risk. have a spinal hematoma or infection in the spine, which could leave someone paralyzed.

Now with a spinal, it's in my career, I've never seen it personally in me or any of my colleagues. And so it's an incredibly rare thing, but I still love to mention that. Because for that individual patient, they need to know. And we need to put it in words that they understand. But they have to have full disclosure of risks. in words that they understand so that they can make a decision based on their own risk-benefit profile. And I think this is where public health and clinical medicine, the approach differs, whereas public health is looking at reaching a target.

Clinical medicine is looking at the individual in front of you. And now these are our Western ethics. Autonomy is sacrosanct. It is, we cannot find. force treatment on an individual. And we take that very seriously. And then beneficence and non-melficence is basically risk benefit. So where harm potentially outweighs benefit, you don't do it. And if you do, you are exposing yourself to malpractice or negligence, right, if you end up with a complication. If I got a complication, I've never had a case of clinically significant aspiration. I have to

mention that to every patient that I do an anesthetic to, because if I don't mention it, or dental damage, you've got a fantastic hockey gap there. It is getting fixed. No, it's classic. But, like, we, we, that's one of the biggest reasons for lawsuits against anyone doing anesthesia is dental injury. If I don't mention the risk of dental injury, I can be sued and I'm liable, right? So why aren't more doctors?

clinicians, everyone administering the vaccine and everything then scared like the other way to like where they should be like, man, we got to talk about this because there's a lot of maybe there is a lot of problems and we or maybe we don't know them. If that could come back on them, shouldn't that scare them to where you're sitting to where they want to talk about it? Well, I would imagine that. And I think it depends on whether you're, you know, as a doctor. The problem is doctors are busy. very few doctors have got time to go and read up on extra literature after work we are snowed under with administrative load admin is is such a burden on physicians these days and the electronic health records there's so much work outside of actually seeing and treating patients so after that to go and do

to go and read up on journals when you snowed under with information so we rely on on expert bodies to give us guidelines that filters down, guidelines and protocols. We rely on that. Just like maybe as a hockey player, you'd rely on your coach to come with different strategies and game plans while you're focusing on your game. On your game, yeah.

Okay. And I think we've always trusted that. And now I think one of the lessons going forward, you know, I don't know that the WHO has lost a bit of, of maybe not, I mean, I was maybe step back there, but certain health agencies like Anthony Fauci specifically, you know, where you couldn't talk about a lab leak hypothesis a year ago, where it's so clearly as a doctor, you make a differential diagnosis,

you know, you have different options. It was an option for sure. There's a biotech lab right there doing gain of function research on coronavirus, bat coronaviruses right there in Wuhan. So it's like in a game of Cludeau. It's one of the suspects for sure. It doesn't mean it was it. And then the wet market, sure, that's up there. But when they never found an animal that actually carried that virus and the closest bats were how many like, I mean hundreds of thousands of miles away, whatever, I mean, I don't know the distance. so I speak under correction there.

So it was a smoking gun. But if you spoke about it, you were censored, your reputation with people who had YouTube channels, they were demonetized. And now all of a sudden, yeah, it looks like it was that all along. Well, now it's a plausible hypothesis. It was a plausible option all along, but you couldn't. So I think one of the challenges is,

are we going to trust these experts? And I think we need to look at conflict of events. interest, people who are giving us guidelines, is their academic department dependent on big pharmaceutical funding? So if they give the wrong guidelines, if they, you know, don't recommend remdesivir, which is $3,000 for one treatment course, for one patient, got emergency use authorization after a very limited data like pharmaceutical sponsored study with marginal benefit and significant side effect profile anyway that gets pushed through but so if you're on an advisory panel or an advisory group and your clinic you might not be getting money directly you

you get a government salary, but your university department or your research program, your lab is dependent on a grant that ultimately through an intermediary comes from a big pharmaceutical company. And we need to know, I think, big pharmaceutical industry or the pharmaceutical industry is, I think, the biggest lobbying group in the USA. So bigger than oil and gas, bigger than the agricultural industry. So why are they spending so much money on lobbying? And where does, you know, where does funding for research come from? Where does funding for these advisory boards?

And that's why I take someone like Dr. Tess Lorry in the UK. She has a British bird, British Ivermectin research group. And she has, she has a, she's a medical doctor. and then she has a PhD. She also has done epidemiology, and she's a number cruncher. She correlates and organizes statistics and safety data on drugs

and puts in a presentable form for bodies like the WHO. So she is contracted to that, but her funding, she is a watchdog agency, so she's funded by the public. And when she is speaking, saying, hey, Ivermectin works and trying to promote that

and raising some alarm about potential harms from from vaccines. I think one needs to listen. I know she's, I don't see a conflict of interest there. So I think one would listen there. And I think when we get back to ethics, autonomy, informed consent, it's only honest to say, especially if, if a parent comes in with a healthy child and now before the WHO changed their recommendation now

say two weeks ago when we knew that there was a concern about myocarditis inflammation of the heart we you know the jury is still out but it's only I mean it is simply ethical to have that discussion with parents that come in asking about vaccination of their 13-year-old or 12-year-old.

You say, listen, it looks like there's growing numbers of kids with myocarditis, inflammation of the heart. Your child is healthy. Your child's not in a high-risk group for a vaccine adverse or for COVID. It would be different if your child has severe asthma, severely obese, cystic fibrosis, whatever. You know, there are certain high-risk groups that were the benefit of vaccination is clearly there. But I think for very low-risk groups and pregnant women, you know, pregnant women who were excluded from original clinical trials, I think just to have some caution and to be honest about unknown long-term risk, and that's not being an anti-vaxxer, that's being honest. And I think what we are doing now, I think the public is going to be less trusting of public health agencies. I think we need to show that integrity, we need to show, honesty, we need to show that we care for, you know, we have a big picture of you.

We have this public health program. We're aiming for targets, but we're not going to sacrifice an individual's autonomy for the sake of that target. know and that's the the the the question is it is it like is it right to vaccinate kids to protect the elderly that's an important ethical question and and it's it's not there's no easy answer there one one has to sit down and that's where we need the wisdom of many and where we need to be able to sit around a table and honestly share different opinions and and as a parent who has a parent who had a son who's went through cancer, who's been on chemotherapy, you know, those things, you realize a rare thing can happen to your child.

And we're talking about, you know, rare risk on both sides. But there needs to be an honest conversation around that, not just a sweeping statement, I think. And I think, yeah, clearly now with the WHO changing the recommendations, we're going to need to sit down and have those honest, honest conversations. And when they do look at starting vaccination of kids again, one's going to have to do it cautiously with the children in mind. And I think that's it, that child in front of you, that real person who has a long future ahead of, yeah.

And then just on the other. principle of medical ethics, just so that it's comprehensive. The other principle is justice. And this is also, this is really important to bring this into the conversation. We're vaccinating low risk groups in the first world, while in the third world, in the global south, there are healthcare workers who don't have access to vaccines. There are elderly, there are people with diabetes and heart disease who fall into high risk group for COVID that don't have access to vaccines. Yet we're aiming for these. local targets and I think it's short-sighted because it's a global pandemic, right? So now

the Delta variant is going to come this way. We can't close our borders forever and be an island and we need to consider the justice in the inequity that has happened with the vaccine rollout and the little access that high-risk groups have had in the third world and developing countries. and then even in some first world countries the wastage, you know. So these are important, important discussions and conversations to have. I was curious, I was going to hop in there just before. Can you not have, like in your role, can you not have the conversation with people who walk through the door, they got their 12-year-old, their 13-year-old, can you not tell them just maybe not get the vaccine?

Well, you know, I don't have a family practice at the moment. So I haven't had to, I haven't done that personally and we don't sit in on, you know, individual doctors. I think there'll be a spectrum. There'll be certain doctors who, the only information they have is what they've got from sort of that are filtered, filtered down. And they think, well, no, it's recommended. So you should do it. I think there's more nuance and I'm sure a lot of family physicians understand the nuance and it's I want to read something really important.

So this is the CanMed's physician competency framework. So it's the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada and these are the, this is what they expect from a family physician in Canada. And there are different CanMed's roles. There are six or seven different roles. I'll just touch on a couple of them. One is medical expert. And this is under the description of that.

So as medical experts who provide high quality, safe, patient-centered care, physicians draw upon an evolving body of knowledge. And that's the thing. We know that recommendations change. as we get more information. So draw upon an evolving body of knowledge, their clinical skills, and their professional values. They collect and interpret information,

make clinical decisions, and carry out diagnostic and therapeutic interventions. They do so within their scope of practice and with an understanding of the limits of their expertise. The decision-making is informed by best practices and research evidence and takes into account the patient's circumstances. So you can't put everyone in one.

one box. You're taking the, it's patient-centered care, so you're considering the individual in front of you. And so take into account the patient's circumstances and preferences, as well as the availability of resources. Their clinical practice is up-to-date, ethical, resource-efficient, and conducted in collaboration with patients and families. So, you know, that really shows how important involving the patient in decisions is respecting the individual in front of you. And then as a communicator, obtain and document informed consent, explaining the risks and benefits and the rationale for and proposed procedure or therapy. So that is an absolute expectation and requirement as a doctor.

So what do you think then, you know, I'm a, my guy sitting here. who hasn't got the vaccine. And now I'm labeled an anti-vaxxer, which is an odd thing to get told. I just, I sit back and look at all the information that I've been able to curate and pull together through my abilities. But like you say, Google and the ability

to see what's going on around the world and hear very smart people talk on it. I just put myself in an age range where I'm not, And then I guess I'm not concerned overly about going down the road of something very, very bad. And then on top of it, I hear so much talk about Ivermectin. Right. What do you think of the government and how they've, how many billions of dollars they've spent and how they're pushing for everyone to just get the jab?

I mean, the different slogans that have gone on from giving kids ice cream and on, on, Ontario to lotteries, right? There's a lottery in Alberta. There's a lottery in Saskatchewan. There was a lottery for free tuition in Lethbridge. Right. I don't know what anybody else calls that.

Is that not coercion? Is that not trying to buy the, buy consent to like try and pull me in? And I just stared and I go, this is really weird. Like you talk, you go through the,

the framework of what a doctor is supposed to be and what a clinician is supposed to do and how they're supposed to operate. When you see what's going on and the fact that you mentioned early on that pharmacies aren't allowed to give out ivermectin, that's what they've been told, and doctors aren't, you know, in the city, aren't allowed to give it to them because there's no research. And yet there's research going on that makes it clear. You sitting there, do you not go, like, I assume it's one of the reasons why you're sitting across from me, But do you not just, like, what is going on? This is unnerving. Yeah, I mean, it's informed consent should not include any coercion, for sure.

Now, I'll just, I'm not, I'm going to. Well, here. I'm saying, I don't want to put. I'm going to share another experience. and people might be, you know, and it goes with public health targets. So I've worked in another part of the world where there were sterilization targets. Okay, now people might be surprised to learn that in poor countries, world bank loans often have strings attached.

Like you've got to reach certain sterilization targets, et cetera. Well, you got to stop there for a second. I got to make sure I got this in my brain right. So you get a loan and with it comes sterilization targets. So you're talking about women can't have children anymore or... Yeah, so, you know, you can, in some countries you get the extreme, like in China where they had the one child policy. Right.

Right. That's the extreme of it. But other, and it's a, yeah. Yeah, government agencies in certain poorer countries have got sterilization targets. Certainly in the hospital where I worked, there were targets. And in meetings, if we didn't do X amount of sterilizations a month, there was pressure put on us. And it's difficult to talk about this because it's actually quite shocking. So there would be, now, it's very convenient to have a sterilization at a cesarean section

because you're already, you have an open abdomen. So it's very easy to go and to just finish up with a quick tubal ligation. Snip the tubes you're saying. Yeah. So, but now this is pregnancy. If you ensure there is rationale for you to advocate for smaller families, there's more opportunity for kids. So there's a lot of rationale. It doesn't mean it's this bad thing.

You know, it's not just population control or whatever. It can be, you know, to advocate in poorer communities, to advocate for smaller families means more opportunity. There's more chance that a family with a few kids that one of those kids will finish school and maybe go to university. Nutrition is a, you know, less chance of malnutrition, that sort of thing. So I think that's the rationale. So the people making these decisions are not necessarily bad. But just I stood up against it, and I was called a troublemaker, which is just so frustrating.

I really advocate for ethical health care. And I said, this is pregnancy. You've got nine months. And at least even if they present late at the clinic, you're going to have at least a few antenatal clinic visits. But presumably you're going to have three to six months of clinic visits where a nurse can sit down with this patient with their partner or husband and discuss the option of sterilization.

And that's part of good health promotion, you know, if their family is at a good size already. and you know that another child will put significant, you know, socioeconomic pressure on them. That would be fine, and that's informed consent, and they have time to think about it. You can give them information, and they can make a decision. And you can say, in the case of an emergency cesarean section,

yes, and you have that form signed and in your file, so the doctor knows, great, we're free to go ahead. Now, consent would often be taken, with a woman in labor before an emergency, is there in section. So say it's obstructive labor, a woman's been in labor for 12, 15 hours, whatever. They're in pain, they're exhausted.

And then to go to them, and they may be 24 years old to their second child. And it's an emergency seizure, so you don't know what the outcome of that's going to be, whether the child's going to make it or not. maybe it's their third child, whatever, but to go to that woman who is under duress, really, and to say, listen, would you, we're going in to do,

do you want us to tie your tubes? You can't tell me that that person's going to make the same decision as what they would make, if they had had a counseling session under different circumstances where they could think about it, talk to their husband or partner, talk to their community, whatever.

If you've been in labor, if you're in pain, the last thing you want to do is go through this again. So a lot of, you know. So anyway, so that is an example of consent done under duress. And I think, I feel it's unethical. Now, I don't, hopefully that's not happening anymore, right? That was many years ago. Yeah.

I'm trying to remember we had our third Casey and we had an emergency C-section. And in the emergency C-section, our doctor cut mouths tubes. And saying all that, we'd talked about it for so long after the third we were going to have it done. But I know what you mean when that was probably the roughest day of my life was those. I don't know how many hours that was. I can't remember because it felt like an eternity. Almost brings tears back to me thinking about that moment. And we made that decision and stand by it.

We talked about it so much that the third was going to be our last and everything else. But I also go back to when we'd had her second kid. And my doctor at the time, I wanted to get the snip. My wife was like, yeah, we're done. We're done. She's like, you know what, wait eight months and come back to me. And if she just booked me the appointment, our third kid doesn't happen. Right.

And what you're talking about is just time and deloading the stress and getting a feel for where you're at in life and whether you want another one or anything else. It's one of the lovely things about the country we live in is that there is no stipulation on how small or big your family can be. You can, you know, I've got good friends with six kids. that I was looking for six, but I understand what you're talking about and the stress, because the two moments just are so perfect.

Just give it six months. I'll book you in six months if you want. Okay, in six months or eight months, whatever it was, I'd forgotten all about it, and we're trying for a third, right? And on the flip side, you know, and then the next one, and once again, I can't speak highly enough about the doctor. He saves my wife's life, saves my child's life, and in the middle of it, it does what we'd asked him to do, right?

But at the same time, I remember him asking or asking her. I can't remember now because that's such a blur of a moment. And that's what you're talking about, right? Right, right there. And I don't know if you'd given me eight months, if we would have had a fourth and we would have decided, or that was it. I certainly know at the time, that was it.

I was stressed to the nights. That's a pretty impactful story, actually, on myself, because I felt both sides of that. And in Canada, you know, we're fortunate that once again, you don't have a size limit to the family. Yeah, and it's the reality in other parts of the world. And that's why we also talk about freedoms. You know, I think we take it for granted. Freedom, freedoms that we have.

And one thing, I couldn't find it now, and I'm not going to waste your time. but in the CanMed's framework, they talk about the need to make ethical decisions in the light of uncertainty. And uncertainty in medicine is that's what we learn. There is uncertainty. You always, you know, you have a differential diagnosis. You have a prognosis, which is a rough guide. But there's so much uncertainty. And I think if we can sit down and have an honest discussion, if we,

we can have less of a political, like, election type of campaign, because I think it's worked this time, but in the long run, it might erode trust in health systems. Whereas I think if we are more honest about unknown, long-term effects of experimental medications, vaccines, which it will be awesome if we learn and if this, if we can make vaccines quickly and safely, I mean, it's a huge, huge breakthrough for, it's a huge scientific breakthrough, but we've got to be honest about it and we've got to take, walk that learning curve, and we've got to be honest about that there are going to be some mistakes along the way. There is uncertainty.

and I think there should be more effort in teaching doctors how do you have those conversations with patients honestly in the light of uncertainty in the light of like if something's only been used for four months you know in a in a wide public how do you try and gauge it to your side effect profile or a five year side effect profile or a five year side of profile or on a 12 year old, a 20 year old, or how do you deal with if a mom comes to you and say, you know, they see their studies now that that shows that there's accumulations of the lipid nanoparticles around the ovaries? What does that mean? What does that mean? So the honest question is we don't know. We don't know and time will tell. And I know like

in reproductive toxicology studies, you've got to wait sometimes a generation. Now, I had another story. I had a kid of my soccer team growing up. I was 13, and he had one arm. And he was a brilliant soccer player, and he had 50% less chance of doing a handball. So he had an advantage over all of us in soccer. But he was a thalidomide baby.

That's looking at the glass half full, isn't it? He was such a legend, the happiest kid, and he had one arm. Yeah. His arm, and his mom was on thalidomide. And, And that's some scary shit what you're talking about right there. And the thing is, no, you know, doctors that were prescribing it, they didn't know. So I think like now with pregnant women, for instance, we need to be humble and say there's a lot of uncertainty here.

And people need free access to the vaccine for sure, you know, and that's the other thing with autonomy. And if you are really scared of COVID, if you think you're in, if you, if you, if you're in, if you are in a high risk group or if your family physician says hey you are if you get covered you're in trouble you know you need to have access but it's it's such a dilemma like balancing the public health trying to achieve targets with not violating autonomy and I think this is where ivermectin could have been and can be a godsend where it's got really good preventative data it looks it looks there are a lot of doctors that are taking it and if you gave people the choice listen either get the vaccine or take ivermectin prophylaxis to do neither is you know you

got two choices to and and i think a lot of people yeah well ivermectin they can see it's it's been out there for 30 years you know one dose a week yeah i'll i'm i'm a little unsure about the vaccine and my personal risk is low because I'm 30 years old and I'm an athlete. But yeah, I think that could be a real solution and why aren't we talking about it? And if, you know, if you look at that Argentina study where none of the 700 or so that were on Ivermectin prevention got COVID. And there are also studies that I've looked at if someone gets COVID, then they give Ivermectin prevention. mectin to the family, to their contact tax. And it shuts out the spread, which is brilliant. Now, why that is a threat to the vaccine rollout, I don't know. But it goes back to, I don't know,

profit margins, you know, a 50 billion and close to 50 billion annual industry versus cheap repurpose drugs don't make anyone any money. Shareholders don't get there. you know, their profits. And then that legislation, now, why we can't have, why that legislation has to be set in stone? Maybe that's one of the lessons here. Maybe that legislation, it was there for a good reason to protect the public. In the end, it's actually withholding effective treatments from the public.

And why is it either or? Why can't? So I throw that question out there. Let's talk about it. Well, I mean, this has been fantastic. It's been really enjoyable just to hear some open discussion on it with a man who knows obviously more than I do. I guess I said back there you said some,

this is a scary thing you said. When you talk about not understanding the long term or even having the vision of like this, what are we doing to the population? You said it took a generation to see the impacts of what had happened. Like very few people can think like that. Like very, very, very few. Staking in my arm, let's get back to normal.

Carry on with life, right? It's one of the most troubling things I hear right now, Andrew. A lot of people, why aren't you getting the vaccine? I don't know. Why did you get the vaccine? I want to travel. Like, I don't know. They haven't.

I haven't. I could be wrong, but I haven't heard of anybody saying you can't travel around without the vaccine yet. Now, there are hoops you got to jump through, for sure. The next is, you know, I just want it back to normal. Okay? But we can, as a population, we can, you know, wait and see what's coming down the pipeline and go through a little bit of pain. And here, you know, all the stories, you know, once again, well, I remactin, I don't know enough about it. I've read some articles on it.

I've certainly listened to a lot of smart people talk about it. And I go, it seems like at some point, this is going to come, jump through a loophole to, and it's going to become something that's effective. And we could do as a population, as a world. It's worth reading the Ivermacton review. Here it is. I'll leave you a copy. So American Journal of Therapeutics, Volume 28 of 2021.

And it's a review of the emerging evidence demonstrating the efficacy of ivermectin in the prophylaxis and treatment of COVID-19. And Dr. Pierre-Cori, Umberto Maduri, and Paul Merrick, and, you know, I unfortunately don't know much about the other two, but those are three ICU heavyweights. And so it needs to be considered and we need to think, okay, and it's not, it's part of a package of early treatment. So there are the drugs, two, phlevoxamine is a repurposed antidepressant, SSRI, and it crosses the blood-brain barrier, and it looks like it's got anti-inflammatory properties. So it looks like it can help with long COVID, and there is some evidence out there that it can help inhale bedesinite. So there's a package of cheap repurpose things that in, in the USA where they have a different health system,

because it's private, local groups can set up their own protocols. It's not everyone following one protocol. So like the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons, they've got their early treatment protocols. And a lot of them also include hydroxychloroquine. And they say that the trials that show that it was dangerous and doesn't work, they were inappropriate,

because it should be given early on during viral replication. That's when it works. and it should be given at a safe dose. Now, people with, I worked in a rheumatology clinic during my training, and I prescribed it many times for people with psoriotic arthritis and some people with rheumatoid arthritis intolerant to methotrexate. And they can take it safely every day or, you know, five days a week for five years. And, you know, but it's at a safe, low dose.

But now a lot of the studies that were done, It's the Solidarity trial that looked at a lot of treatments, including hydroxychloroquine, that concluded that it's unsafe. They were using a crazy high dosage, like close to the toxic dose. That's the dose that they were using. And they were using it in sick ICU patients. So they're using it for late, complicated disease, whereas the advocates that are saying, listen, it works at a low dose. in early disease. But then it was, you couldn't mention it.

But now people are starting to look back and look at those studies and they're saying, hey, did we miss something there? So if you mentioned that you were deplatformed, you were censored. So you're welcome to edit this out. But yeah, and because Trump said, talked about it, it suddenly got political. Like, why must the drug be left or right? Like, since when, that's just ridiculous. Like, it's an important drug.

It's in the toolbox. So if you use a package of drugs, if each one has a small effect, you know, you could reduce hospitalizations, you could reduce ICU admissions, you could save lives. And that really looks like that's what the data is showing. And, yeah, I want to advocate for that. I got to ask before I get you out of here on natural immunity. Do you care to talk about it a little bit? Oh, I actually wanted to, yeah.

Now, so very briefly, in a natural immunity is quite complex. It's your immune system's got different branches. So you have your, and I'm going to just do it in late terms. So you've got your immediate non-specific response. So that's at your membrane level. So you've got barriers. And then you've got specific types of antibodies that work at those levels,

like your IGA. and IgE, but yeah, IGA on mucous membranes. And there are certain types of cells that they just kind of go for anything. And it's immediate. And people with a very healthy immune system that have a good, you know, natural immunity will often sort out an infection at that phase and not get sick at all. Like there are viruses that are around all the time, especially at change of seasons and that, and not everyone gets sick.

Everyone's exposed. Almost, you know, there's a high level of exposure, but only certain people get sick. And then you have your specific immunity, which is your B and T cells, and they produce antibodies, specific antibodies. A pathogen will present a huge amount of antigens to the immune system, and antibodies will start. stick like a lock and key or like Lego blocks, they'll stick to, like a specific antibody will stick to a specific antigen. And then you have cells that recognize those antibodies and know

to take out that that antigen or that pathogen. And you don't always have antibodies or loads of antibodies around in your bloodstream. So you can have good, if you've been infected previously, you can have good memory. So your B and T cells can have immune memory. And where they encounter a pathogen again, like a virus if you've previously had an infection, they will recognize it immediately because they've seen it before

and they've got that protocols there. So they'll immediately produce lots of antibodies against that and sort it out. And usually why, yeah, you won't get. as if you won't get as sick. So there's people walking around right now that have natural immunity to COVID-19 essentially. Correct? Well, we know that.

I mean, people who've, and one, I mean, people who've been infected, there is natural immunity for sure. And now there are concerns. It's a new virus, so we don't know how sustained is it. But it looks like it is pretty sustained. There's some studies that show after 10 months there's still a very robust immunity. and there are some recommendations that say people who've had COVID previously only need one vaccine shot to just boost that immune memory and response. But there's an interesting trial from SARS-CoV-1, which was 17 years ago

where they did a study where people who had some. SARS-CoV-1, they looked at their immunity against SARS-CoV-2, and they actually have a significant amount of immunity against SARS-Co-V-2, and this is 17 years later, which shows that from SARS-Co-V-1 was a very sustained immune memory, which carries hope. Like, we don't know. This is new, so you can't say it's going to be the same, but that's, you know, that there's an immune response to a SARS-Co virus, the coronavirus. And I think there's an 80% similarity. And so it's a cousin.

It's a cousin. So there's hope there. And I think when making, yeah. So, and traditionally you would include previously infected people in your calculation of herd immunity. So you would look at the population that has been. exposed or previously infected plus those vaccinated to get that that herd immunity level and then it would be interesting if you added a ivermectin prevention arm you could get you could get huge

coverage yeah it's cool to hear you talk about ivermectin so highly um just in there's it's like kind of like vax you don't vax and that's the only two options and it feels like there's this this huge option that is being not utilized right now. Yeah, and I think if I can just say it, I'm not telling people not to get vaccinated, right? Yeah, yeah, yeah. No, I think that comes across really clearly. And, but I think from like regulatory agencies and I think clinicians,

like we need to use all the tools in our toolbox. And I think there will be much better safety, especially for low risk groups. And if I can just share some stats, interestingly, tetanus vaccine. Now, I've treated a patient with tetanus. I've seen it. It's bad. Okay, young lady got tetanus, and she was in ICU on a ventilator for like three weeks,

previously completely healthy. So you don't want tetanus. So if I stand on a rusty nail, I'm getting my tetanus booster, no question. And it was Tess Laurie who looked at the day. different from that WHO, from macrovigilance data that they, that's accessible. She looked at the tetanus vaccine and it was, I think it's been out since 1968 and there were 36 deaths, 12,000 reported adverse events from the tetanus vaccine. So for that, yes, safe and effective. Awesome. We are grateful for that vaccine. And it'll be awesome if we can have a vaccine in

that caliber for coronaviruses. And I think if I can just say I've been reading a little, the Novavax vaccine looks good. It's not, it's, it's, it's, it's, I'm going through trials now. But that it seems to, to be on, on, have a, have a better, better safety and efficacy profile and it looks like it's effective against all variants as well. And it's a more traditional vaccine. Now, for the WHO data on reports of the current coronavirus vaccines, and there's over, this is Kuntess Laurie who has the, I'm going to see if.

I've got it here, just so I can, I don't butcher it. Her agency, yeah, she has the evidence-based medicine consultancy limited. So she collates research and advises public health agencies. And so I haven't personally looked at the data, but from her, and she, and she, she, I feel she's reputable. And she says there's a million reported adverse events. Now that's a broad range of different adverse events. It doesn't mean there's causality.

It doesn't, but those were reported. And that's part of normal drug safety, the process in drug safety. When you put new drugs on the market, you've got a period where you've got to be looking at adverse events and then you need experts to filter through it and try and figure out which ones are associated and which ones not. And then in the end you get your pamphlet inside any medication package, which has that long list of potential side effects. So there's already over a million reported side effects and already 6,000 deaths on the WHO database. Now, Tessler, Lorry looked at UK data, which is really also quite...

It shows that there are significant concerns. What I've read or what I've seen is VERS, which is optional reporting. Like it comes with a whole gamut of self, like they know about some of the errors that come with it. Regardless, I've already seen so many experts talk about how they're up to 6,000 deaths, like you say. And that's more than 40 years of that website being in use compared to all the other vaccines. Yes. Like that's concerning. So, and I think that's really important.

Like, you can't, like, vaccines aren't bad. Like, it's a really important part of our medical toolkit. And there are, you know, like, we want that they play an important role. But it needs to be vaccine development, any medical development and rollout needs to be done ethically. And we need to think hard and fast if we are. going to, you know, just throw our ethical foundations out of the window. And that's the thing. Where are the ethical control boards here?

Where are the – but it is good to see that, like, the WHO has changed their recommendations now based on – it's unfortunate. It would have been awesome if there were no adverse events, right? it would have been awesome if there was no myocarditis. It would be awesome if this was, that would be like first prize, right? Sure. Unfortunately, you've got to be real.

Like, you have to, okay, this is rarely happening. These things are being reported. And they say, like, the VERS is a U.S. that's in the United States, their system. Now, it's a criminal offense to fraudulently fill in one of those forms. So for a doctor to fill one in, they're being serious. Also, a patient, it apparently says it on the form. And there was a Harvard study that showed that only 1% of adverse events are actually reported because of the time

and the process and, you know, physicians don't get remuneration for it. And so it could be a huge underestimation. Other people say up to 10%, but it could be a huge underestimation. But one has to take it seriously. One has to pause and one has to have honest conversations. I, I, I, I, I, I just, once again, I, if you go all the way around the gambit, it just, like, why I'm, why I'm digging, why I have you on, I'm not just talking to some hockey player and just going down it. It is like, I've got the vaccine. My parents have the vaccine. I have friends that are getting the

vaccine. But I also have friends and family who are not getting it. And it's a very black, white issue. It's very, like,

it's difficult. And one side falls this way and the other side goes that way. And I just think, like, I keep hearing all these

different stories and I'm like, I just, I just want to wait. I just, now I'm fortunate enough to live in the country I do, to live in the area I do,

to be at the age I am. I got a lot of things going the right way for me. That's that's okay. And it's okay for me to understand that all. And I just wish more people would, would maybe take a step back and do like, yeah, it's, it's hours in the day to do the reading and the research and to listen to some people and do some critical thinking. But I just keep coming back to, but we're not, you know, like, this is my body. This is my life. I only get one crack at it. I want to make sure that if I'm putting it in my arm,

I'm doing it because I've done all the research and I've had the hard conversations and brought people on like yourself and listen to just about everything under the sun on it because I want to know. I want to know for sure that when I do it, it was my choice, it was my decision to make. And I'll be the first.

I don't need to put words in your mouth when it comes to the vaccine rollout and how it's been handled and the things they've done and the things they've said in my own country, in my own province, it concerns me. And it concerns me more, I think, Andrew, that more people aren't standing up going,

like, this is weird. And maybe they are, and maybe the social pressure, the social pressure is unbelievable. And maybe the social pressure has just gotten to more people, and that's fine. So I had friends,

and you've come to me, and they said that, you know, that kids being bullied at school because they haven't got the vaccine. Now, I'm not commenting on whether it's right or wrong that they got it. That was their decision and that's based on the principle of autonomy.

But for them to be bullied, that's not the reason to get it, right? Like, that's just wrong. Listen, there's been, I've seen emails go around from companies telling all their employees to get vaccinated. Think about that, right? A company telling you, you know, do the right thing, get vaccinated. so we can all go back to work and whatever blah blah blah blah blah once again I don't need you to comment on that I go like not no that that's to me it's immoral like it's that's my choice I get a choice in this that's the way I think at least yeah and I'm

going to throw a question back at you like if if your if the health system was presenting you with the VERS data trying to make that or that within the uncertainty we know you know we have these initial trials we've used it for so long there's uncertain two year five year 10 year but you know that there could be some estimates on on potential long-term safety but if you were given kind of a package of information with current reported deaths and that were interpreted in a way to say, okay, how many of those do they think we're rarely associated with a vaccine and one of the risk factors for that? Like some of the risks might be, you know, if someone's had a severe hyper-inflammatory response to coronavirus and you've got this antigen overload, you know, this antigen load in your body that your immune system is a reacted to and you've ended up with this multi-system disease to, to, vaccinate that individual within a short period of time, you're just exposing them to more antigen.

Their immune systems already, like, in a hyperinflammatory state or has recently been in one, and you could simply re-trigger a hyper-inflammatory. So there's certain cases where one would rarely be cautious. And then there's some cases where it's like, nope, listen, for you, your risk benefit, I think you need to go ahead and get it. But if you were given, if you didn't feel that the authorities or government, whoever, were trying to whitewash information. If you didn't feel forced, if you felt free to make a decision and you were given honest information, I think that would fast, like, how would that be different for you? Well, for one, it would kind of give you a voice in it again, wouldn't it?

I mean, one of the cool things that has happened over the last, I would say probably month and a half, is I've seen more and more doctors starting to step up and people that are like in the front lines and willing to talk about the really bad that's going on that scares everybody. But willing to talk about some of the stuff that's just misinterpreted or maybe some other things people need to think about. and for so long I think a huge majority of the population understood that they weren't telling you the whole picture and they were just trying to fearmonger you of like it's really bad we're all dying

stay at home don't ever leave there like don't go to a park don't do nothing and I think for like a month and a half I think it really worked like I was I can speak in my situation I was I was scared not only for myself my wife, my children, my family, friends, right? Like, what's going on? But as time went on, you started to just be like, okay, this isn't the end of the world.

And in the last two months, I've started to understand that it is really bad, like the smartest people in the world are all talking about, that it is really bad. Now, for different ages, for different people, underlying conditions, everything you've talked about, it affects them differently. Why we can't talk about that is mind-boggling. What you're asking me is if I came to you and said, listen, you're my doctor, should I get the shot? Well, we get to have a conversation about it,

and then that should be okay. If you're saying that, and I, and you, that's what I want to have a physician. That's how you build a relationship. What's happening right now is, if I don't go to the lineup that is however many hours long, get stabbed in the arm, and do what is right for the world,

I'm a bad person. And I just take a step back and I go, that's a large question. Because I go like, there's no data, or not enough of it yet, I would say, that makes me go, like it's safe, it's proven, I'm totally fine.

If anything, I feel like there's more data coming out saying, yeah, you should be a little bit, just maybe. And then on top of it, I just, I go like, I'm not in any of the age groups, I don't have any underlying conditions, X, Y, Z. I just, so I guess what you're asking, I'm giving a very, I'm trying to let you into how my brain thinks. I just go, what you're asking is if you gave me,

me and you got to have a conversation about it. And you said, you know what, as you're a doctor, I think this is why, but you got to understand there's a couple things, but here's blah, blah, blah, blah. That's what was happening a year ago. That's what happened all the time. Now we fast forward, and I don't know, how many people have that conversation

before they get the, before they have the shot? I don't think that many. Honestly, don't think. Maybe I'm wrong on that. Well, yeah, people that I've spoken to in a healthcare worker specifically, I mean, I've been surprised at how little information or how short the discussion. And for sure, with a huge rollout, you need efficiency.

And that's important. But again, to throw out or to not have thorough informed consent is, we just go to think, where does this take us in five years' time? And what's the difference between, you know, what? Why is there legal immunity for vaccines, but not for other things? I mean, there's so many questions. I think if I can just say, like, as a take-home, I mean, people will put me in a box. I think I've tried to speak out in my circles. I've tried to say, like, because there was a, you know, the question of how do you get more

healthcare workers to get vaccinated? that that's an issue, so they're trying to roll out. I don't think ice creams and lottery tickets are necessarily going to work there. So I suggested one really aims at stopping to label people, stop putting people in boxes, allow honest debate. Don't just because you're cautious about this new vaccine when you know your personal risk for COVID is low. And you know, okay, there's, you know, if you did do it,

would be to get to that 70% or whatever you'd be, you know, taking for the sake of society or whatever. But when you are cautious because of what you've read and be as a scientist and as a doctor to be labeled an antivaxor or to be called vaccine hesitant, that's an insult. It's, you know, it's just, it's so much more complex than that. It's so nuanced. And if we can learn to dialogue, go back to what I said at the start, where we are free to say the unpopular things, to speak about the elephant in the room,

to point out that the emperor is not wearing clothes. Oh, my seat just sunk. You know, if we can sit around the table and we can put, the issues on the table without fear of losing our jobs. And I think we'll end up stronger. We'll have a more robust system. We'll have a health system that people trust, where people feel that, okay, those making the decisions,

those in authority positions actually care about not only the statistics and targets and whatever, but also the individual. They care about me and my family and my kids in the guidelines that they make in the decisions that they make. And if we could, and I'm not an expert, I'm a generalist, but I know there are experts out there that are being silenced. And one great example is Dr. Pierre Corey and, you know, heavyweight ICU physician,

when he presented his ibupactin data to the U.S. Congress, YouTube cut that video, label it misinformation. That's a red flag, people. Like, he needs, his voice needs to be heard. And he shouldn't need to rely on YouTube for his message to get out. Like, there should be forums where experts are meeting that on opposite end of the spectrum that can hash out the data together and come up with a plan so that we can get out of this

thing. And I think if we could, we're missing that pillar of early effective cheap treatment. And then I know this is going long, but I really wanted to mention this. This is something that is, that I'm passionate about. And if we can learn one thing, like the third pillar for me is health prevention, health promotion. So it's not the public health prevention of spread by public health measures, but health promotion through. healthy living, and we learned that with a kid going through cancer on chemo. We learned the importance of nutrition. You can't tell me that vitamin D and zinc and things like that aren't important. They're not a cure-all. That would just be ridiculous to say that. But, you know,

if you're going through winter in Canada, you know, it just makes sense to have healthy balanced nutrition. So where are the restrictions on sugar levels on pop? The public health agencies have just shown us, and I call them out, they've just shown us that they have the authority to do, go to great measures. They have phenomenal sweeping legal powers to shut down businesses. Why not shut down Coca-Cola unless they, sorry, Coca-Cola, but why not shut, you know, you know how funny it is? What did I offer you before we started this? A Pepsi. I mean, that was after paddling the, you know, being out in the heat.

And so there's a place for pop, right? But, I mean, kids sitting inside watch. So, I mean, the model of staying safe has been locked up at home, watching Netflix. With fast food. Fast food delivered to your door by door dash. Hey, it's great. Yeah. Huge industries.

Don't even have to walk out with the door anymore. How many billion dollar industries are that? The entertainment industry, the fast food, junk food industry. keeping us at home not exercising. So your kid, and what are we doing? We're putting people at risk. Like, we're putting people at risk. If people are stuck at home eating junk food on screens, they're putting up in

weight, they're getting diabetes, their blood pressure is going up, and their risk is increasing. So where are the programs? Where's the health promotion to make nutritious food affordable? If we're printing money, why not give subsidies on healthy food? Like, we always speak about it here. Because fruit and vegetables are cheap in South Africa. If you eat steak, like red meat is expensive. It's a big treat.

Here, it's actually cheaper to eat meat. If you're buying a lot of fruit and vegetables, it costs a fortune. It's very easy to buy junk to just eat processed rubbish. makes you sick. So where are the programs trying to get kids through the crisis, through the challenges, trying to get kids active, trying to get them, I mean, we are teaching them that these are patterns that they're going to take into their life. I mean, you've benefited from, you know, from being, you know, from your history in hockey. From growing up on a farm, Saskatchewan, playing hockey for a good majority of my life.

Yeah. So that is the missing, those two pillars. So along with the important role that vaccines play, within a ethical framework, public health measures to prevent spread, again, evidence-based and honest. And we, you know, and we need to look back and think, okay, how we do things differently next time.

And then, but those, the four legs of a chair, the other two really critical ones, are early treatment. And let the clinicians on the ground figure it out. Like, why must you wait for pharmaceutical companies sponsored huge randomized clinical trials when you have got a huge amount of observational data and small trials that all are showing the same signal? And we're in a crisis. when you're in a crisis, if there's a fire, you're going to use what's at hand. You're not going to use, like, you're going to use what's there. And you, you know, and then health promotion, like, nutrition, exercise, teaching to be, people to be healthy, getting kids off screens, getting them outside, getting them active, and getting them in healthy environment and figuring out how to give them a,

healthy social context while limiting spread. And I think we can definitely be a little more creative next time. And we'll be surprised at how cheap those interventions are. You can, if you've got diabetes or hypertension, you can reverse that. Industries that are making money from chronic disease want you to believe you've got it forever. So you will take pills every single day. I'm passionate about behavioral change and healthy lifestyle and lifestyle interventions. And it is awesome when you see someone who's motivated who realizes, okay, I'm insulin resistant,

I've got high blood pressure, I'm overweight, I'm heading towards a heart attack, I'm heading towards type 2 diabetes, to see them turn around and make effort through nutrition and exercise and actually reverse those processes. and end up investing in, you know, not, you know, getting off medication over a few months or a year, adding years to their life and healthy years, you know. But no one makes money from that, right? Well, normally to end this, because this has been fascinating. I really appreciate you coming in and once out the third or fourth time, I'll say that.

I normally do the crewmaster final five, but I think I got one question. for you and that is if you could do this I'd ask this of all my people you could do this you could sit in my chair and have anyone across from you who would you want to pick their brain on I would love to have someone like dr. Pierre Corey here or Peter McCullough and then our local scientific advisory group you know or I'll yeah I would like to see people I would have have two on the opposite end of the the spectrum and I'd like to chair or try and mediate a dialogue

and try and see what comes to that conversation because that that's the problem we're speaking in echo chambers right what you know what can the what can a guy like me what can the population do to help or we just got to sit around and like wait is there anything we can do to help doctors like yourself like people that want to you know create some discussion around what's going on in a healthy way is there anything the public can do to help folks like yourself well i think we like i said we need to just spot the red flags here that the fact that I'm in a in a democracy in our you know the country with without constitution or just with with the that that I would be

afraid to to speak about medical ethics about autonomy the principle of autonomy and that I would be afraid to on just talk about on talk about risk benefit for individuals to help families make decisions when it comes to their kids. I mean, the fact that it's scary talking about those things is simply strange, right? I never, I never would have imagined that. Normally, in an oral exam, if you're in a family medicine exam, that's what they're looking for. someone who demonstrates a patient-centered approach with a good ethical foundation who understands the principles of autonomy, beneficence, non-melficence, and justice. To now be sharing on that, and I realize I might have accidentally said something that might be misconstrued as me saying people shouldn't get vaccinated.

or whatever. I really try to steer from that. I really try to just focus on the importance of medical ethics and people should be able to make that informed decision based on full disclosure of risk and benefit. In the context of a pandemic where they realize one of the factors is a good reason to take it is, yeah, I'm going to, you know, I realize for me there's more rest than benefit, but I'll take it so that we can get to that number, whatever. That's legitimate and that's fine. But for people to feel coerced to do that, we need to reflect on that. And so for what the public can do, I think we need to realize we are still a democracy. We do still elect our leaders. We need to decide, do we want to go down this road? Where does it?

does this lead us in five years, 10 years? And yeah, I think to speak out like someone like Dr. Francis Christian, who essentially was suspended from all academic activity, and he works in an academic institution, for simply bringing up a way awareness of possible risk of vaccines to children. And now, I mean, the WHO brings out their recommendation, which is what he said all along.

And the other thing he spoke out about was censorship of medical doctors. And he's essentially been censored. So he's sharing his story. And I think it's sad that we've gotten to that point and that we can't sit around a table and dialogue. I don't know. How do you how does one support him? I don't know. I assume by getting the story out and talking about it

and opening up that dialogue, right? That's what I'm hoping I'm doing here. I'm hoping that people listen and start to think about it. Start to have the, you know, the lovely thing about a podcast is you can be driving to work by yourself and put on whatever you want and listen to it and it can spur on thoughts. Yeah. And a lovely thing about a podcast.

is it can be heard around the world. It's as simple as you know, you want to flick it on. It's right at your fingertips. We have the ability to have any conversation you want and they're out there. You just got to go looking for them. There's some great ones.

And I just, I hope that's what I'm doing here. I hope by having you on it opens some dialogue. I'm hoping it got some people thinking because anytime you can do that, that's, that's what I think that's what this is all about is opening up people's,

thoughts and critical thinking. Well, I really appreciate you hopping on. I've kept your hair longer than I thought I was, but... Yeah, I mean, it's a huge... I mean, we could chat about this for days. Well, regardless, I appreciate you coming in and sitting... I know this can't be the easiest thing to sit down, or maybe it is, I don't know, but I really appreciate you coming in and allowing my curiosity to spur on a couple different avenues

and hearing personally why you're sitting in the chair and everything else. It's been really enjoyable getting to sit to know you for the first time and first time meeting you. Yeah. And hearing some of your thoughts. So thank you for coming in. Great. And next time, yeah, offer me a beer, not just a Pepsi. That's a deal.

Hey, folks, thanks for joining us today. If you just stumbled on the show, please click subscribe. Then scroll to the bottom and rate and leave a review. I promise it helps. Remember, every Monday and Wednesday, we will have a new guest sitting down to share their story. The Sean Newman podcast is available for free on Apple, Spotify, YouTube, and wherever else you get your podcast fix. Until next time.

Hey, Keeners, thanks for tuning in to Part 2 of Andrew Liebenberg. I've got to give a shout out to Krista Monteteeth. She said, I can't wait for Part 2. Obviously, she was talking after Part 1. This was a good one, a really, really good one. And I got to agree with her. I got to give props to Andrew for sticking his head up, for coming on the podcast, and for talking about some things that I know everybody's talking about.

And we're all a little bit concerned about and to just kind of go where my brain goes and to just talk about some things. It was super cool. If you're the champ and you're out at the lake, you know, start warming those clubs up. I'll be looking for a golf game here soon. We both know I'll be putting it in the drink. but, you know, what can I do? And to everybody else, stay cool.

Find a shady spot. Find a cool drink. Find a pool, a lake, a puddle, something, because, man, she is a scorcher. So we will catch up to you guys after the long weekend. Have a great long weekend. And Monday, we'll be back. All right.

Until then.