The David Knight Show - Fri Episode #2216: AI Surveillance, Cancer Dogma, and the Epstein Questions

Episode Date: March 6, 2026

────────────────────────────────────────00:05:29:01 — Amazon “AI Store” Revealed to Be Human Workers Behind the ScenesSystems marketed as artificial intelligence automation are described as relying heavily on low-wage workers manually tracking purchases rather than autonomous technology.────────────────────────────────────────00:06:55:18 — Meta Smart Glasses Enable Continuous Surveillance of UsersInvestigations reveal that contractors overseas may review footage captured by Meta’s AI glasses, exposing highly personal moments and raising major privacy concerns.────────────────────────────────────────00:18:30:16 — AI Now Capable of De-Anonymizing Internet UsersNew research demonstrates that large language models can identify individuals behind pseudonymous accounts by analyzing writing patterns and online behavior.────────────────────────────────────────00:21:37:04 — Age Verification Laws Used to Justify Mass Data CollectionRegulators allow companies to gather personal data from users—including minors—under the justification of verifying age for online services.────────────────────────────────────────00:23:44:00 — First Wrongful Death Lawsuit Filed Over AI Chatbot SuicideA legal case emerges alleging that a chatbot’s interactions contributed to a user taking his own life, raising questions about AI safety and liability.────────────────────────────────────────00:29:54:00 — AI Psychosis and Psychological Harm From Extended Chatbot InteractionExperts warn that prolonged engagement with highly personalized AI systems may reinforce delusions and distort a user’s perception of reality.────────────────────────────────────────00:34:44:27 — Federal Authorities Halted Investigation Into Epstein’s Zorro RanchNew Mexico officials reportedly stopped investigating Epstein’s property after federal prosecutors requested they stand down.────────────────────────────────────────00:42:00:12 — Executive Order Expands Glyphosate Production With Legal ImmunityAn order invoking national security authorities compels domestic production of glyphosate while shielding manufacturers from future liability.────────────────────────────────────────01:08:03:27 — Surge of Aggressive Cancer Cases Among Younger PatientsClinicians report that many recent cancer patients are under age 40, with unusually aggressive forms of the disease appearing more frequently.────────────────────────────────────────01:12:35:27 — High-Dose Vitamin C Therapy Presented as Alternative Cancer TreatmentLarge intravenous doses of vitamin C are described as producing oxidative effects capable of damaging tumor cells while avoiding many conventional side effects.────────────────────────────────────────01:17:29:20 — Patent System Blamed for Lack of Research on Natural Cancer TherapiesNatural compounds such as vitamin C, curcumin, and B17 are said to receive little clinical research because companies cannot patent them.────────────────────────────────────────01:44:50:26 — COVID Hospital Protocol Allegedly Led to Preventable DeathA case is described where sedatives and morphine were administered despite severe medical instability, with a disputed DNR order preventing resuscitation attempts.──────────────────────────────────────── Money should have intrinsic value AND transactional privacy: Go to https://davidknight.gold/ for great deals on physical gold/silver For 10% off Gerald Celente's prescient Trends Journal, go to https://trendsjournal.com/ and enter the code KNIGHT Find out more about the show and where you can watch it at TheDavidKnightShow.com If you would like to support the show and our family please consider subscribing monthly here: SubscribeStar https://www.subscribestar.com/the-david-knight-showOr you can send a donation throughMail: David Knight POB 994 Kodak, TN 37764Zelle: @[e-mail] App at: $davidknightshowBTC to: bc1qkuec29hkuye4xse9unh7nptvu3y9qmv24vanh7Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-david-knight-show--2653468/support.

of deceit. Telling the truth is a revolutionary act. It's the David Knight Show. As the clock strikes 13, it's Friday the 6th of March, year of our Lord, 2006. Well, today we're going to set aside the war with Iran for a moment. We've covered it a lot this week, and a lot of other things are happening. For instance, we have a strange twist on commercial real estate problems. We've got malls hiring actors to pretend to be shoppers. As one reporter said, it's kind of like the Truman Show. And then you have meta's so-called smart glasses. I'd say they're smart glasses for ignorant people.

Ignorant of what is being done with what these glasses see. And they see more than you realize. And then we have another bizarre case of an AI murder and a lawsuit. the AI, in the case of AI psychosis, is telling you guys, let's steal a robot body for me so we can be together and nearly ended up in murder. But we're going to also have a couple very interesting guests. We have, as we look at glyphosate and what has happened this last week. So another precedent that Trump has set is basically World Speed 2.0.

It's using the same evil template for glyphosate. And we're going to have an oncologist who's going to join us and talk. about that and talk about solutions. And we also have Scott Shera who's going to be joining us to talk about his daughter, Grace Shera, and the book that he's written about that. That's going to be releasing very soon. It has information in it that we all need to hear. We need to understand how this medical system works because this is a system that is designed to entrap and harm all of us. So we're all going to be faced with this, either personally or with family members. But let's begin with the Truman show, as they say. You got an actor who claims he's a kind of an extra actor. He's claiming that the LA

malls is being paid to be a professional pretend shopper and to just fill the malls up. And if you stop and think about it, there is a certain logic to that and it is believable. And so when you imagine if you go to a mall and it's completely dead and there's nobody. there. How are you going to feel about that? You're probably going to mention it to people. You know, I went to such and such a mall. That place is dead. It used to be buzzing. Nobody's there now. And they may not want to go either. And you may not feel good about being there. It's kind of an uncanny valley feeling that is there. But, of course, on the other side of it, if you are a retailer that's there and nobody is there, you might want to try to negotiate the rent down because there's no foot traffic.

So this would allow the mall owners to say, well, it's not the foot traffic. We've got a lot of foot traffic that's here. Maybe it's your product or your service that just isn't selling. It's a crazy inversion, isn't it? I mean, they're selling us a virtual reality in so many different ways. I mean, if you don't get a virtual reality through your headset and the computer, you get a virtual reality now when you go to bricks and mortar shopping wall. It seems like it never ends.

It just keeps coming. The craziness is unwinding. very quickly here at the end of this fourth turning. But traffic is everything. People used to go and pay the stores when they went shopping rather than the other way around. That's right. So this is, again, it's what Joel Sinty's been talking about

with commercial real estate. We're seeing this in so many different real locations, you know, real estate. And whether it's brick and mortar stores or whether it's restaurants, we just don't have the traffic that used to have anymore. And even to the extent that if people go to restaurants, it was an article written by someone, I think, in Washington, D.C.

They said, we see people coming into this restaurant nearly died during Trump's lockdown. And now it's kind of come back except with the change that people don't come in, order food, and stay here and eat it. They order food, and they take it out in a bag. And so they're not interacting with each other. And so, in a sense, when you look at this, since people don't. want to generally interact with each other anymore. You know, why pay people to hang out in a mall, except that it is something that makes it look desirable? So according to the actor that blew the

lid off this whole thing, the fake shopper job works like any other acting gig in Hollywood. You get assigned a loop, you wander through certain areas of the mall, you ride the escalators, you sit near the fountain. Maybe you recite some Shakespeare. No, that's not required. maybe circle through the food court rinse and repeat you know we had and we talked about this lance the amazon store that was touting the fact that uh you could go in and just put the stuff in your whatever you're shopping for in the grocery store you just put in the cart and it automatically totaled up and charge you as you're walking out and they were saying yes AI it's smart it's looking at everything you're doing tabulating it and all the rest of stuff no it was

not artificial intelligence, that that AI was actually Indians. And they had a lot of people in India that were actually watching what you were doing and manually creating a shopping list and then manually charging you. It wasn't being done by computer at all. And we're seeing this to a large extent. There's a lot of people behind the Waymo cars as well. But again, most of the driving is being done by the Waymo cars. but you'd be surprised at how many people they have that are part of that loop to take over

driving if it gets stuck because we've had all these cars that get freaked out at intersections or we just had a situation where it parked sideways on a main busy road and there's an ambulance that could not get through and they couldn't get this thing to move and so they do have to have a lot of people who are kind of in the back wings helping them in a similar way when you look at these smart glasses that Meta is selling, you know, Facebook. They've got people in Nairobi that they're paying very low wages, but of course it's high wages for Nairobi. But they're there to catalog and to label everything that you're looking at.

So there are people who are looking through your glasses at everything that you're looking at and think about that. There is no such thing as privacy. I mean, this is a wearable big brother. In some videos, you can see someone going to the toilet. Or you can see them getting undressed. Or you can see their credit card. All kinds of things are available to these people.

And they said, we don't really like this. It's really creepy. But if we complain about it, then we lose our job. And they're paying us so much for that country that we don't want to lose that job. So they're complaining about it. It was actually an investigation that was done by, a couple of Swedish newspapers. They did a joint investigation to find out what was going on with this.

And the sales are up for this. This is the other thing. When I looked at this, I thought, what is the use case for this? I can't understand why anybody would want these metaglasses. Do you understand, Lance, why anybody would want this? Is there some kind of special thing that you can do in terms of augmented reality or anything like that? Not really.

I mean, it's promised future technology, but currently there isn't much that you can do with them. I think it's mostly just having a screen that is always available. And for that, these people are gladly giving over a camera that's whatever they're looking at to Zuckerberg, the man who refers to his customers as dumb Fs famously. Well, I remember, I've only had one situation where I would have liked to have had these. And that was because I was doing reporting work. I remember Hillary Clinton came to Austin and she was part of her book tour.

And I was given the assignment. to go there and get in line and try to get an interaction with her or whatever. But I'm not very good at trolling people, honestly. But I did have a piece of surveillance equipment. They gave me a wristwatch that was a camera at the time. It looked like a real digital wristwatch. And I was trying to aim this thing and get her on camera and talk to her. I couldn't aim it to save my life.

But if I'd had these, they did have some glasses, but they didn't look very real. And I don't know if these things look very real or not. They're ray bands, but I imagine people can see if it's got a camera thing on it. Have you seen what they look like on it? Do you know? Are they,

is it, there's a picture of ray bands here. I don't know if that's actual. I believe that's them. Well, there is a little circle there on the corner of the upper corner of the glasses. So I guess that would be the giveaway that you're being recorded. I don't know if it has a red light on it or something like that.

I think they're legally required to have a red light, or at least in some states, since I know a lot of states, you can't record someone without giving them any knowledge that you're recording them. But that's not the case in Texas. So I could try to record Hillary Clinton, but it didn't work out. That was actually a place that sold stuff for private eyes. And you go there and you get wristwatches that were cameras. You can get eyeglasses that were cameras and things like that. but I didn't get the eyeglasses, unfortunately. That was somebody else that already done the shopping.

But they're selling a lot of these things. They said they sold over 7 million of them in 2025. A big jump over the previous two years were in 2023 and 2024, they sold 2 million over both years combined. And then last year they sold 7 million in just one year. So it tripled what the previous two years combined were. a little bit more than three and a half times. Regardless of the wearer's intention,

much of the footage being recorded by the glasses is being sent to offshore contractors for data labeling. Now, this is the same kind of stuff that they do for the large language models. They go in and they label things, and that's how they build in the bias into these chat programs. They do have a bias,

and they build it in by labeling. But these people are taking actual real data that you are feeding into it and they're labeling it and using that to make their AI smarter. You know, what you're doing when you buy this is you're actually feeding Zuckerberg and his artificial intelligence empire. You're actually giving them data so they can get better at what they do. You may not realize it. This is replacing their whole VR industry. They are shuddering essentially their VR stuff just to focus on AR going forward. And I remember a few years ago there was an interesting thing of how heavily subsidized their headsets are.

They lose money on every headset. But they had one headset that they sold briefly to developers that was something that they were pricing normally, that they could make a profit off of. And the difference with this headset was that it didn't report any information. information back to meta. So it was a identical headset to their normal stuff, but privacy respecting. And it was something like $1,000 versus the $300 that their normal headset costs. So that's how much your privacy is worth to Zuckerberg. And that's what they're getting when you buy one of these headset. Yeah, because you cannot turn that off. It's buried in the terms of services that, oh, by the way, we got people, they don't say we got people in Nairobi that are finding out every intimate detail

of your life. They don't say that, but they do say that, you know, we'll be using this in various ways that you don't have any control over. And that's buried there in the terms of services, but a lot of people don't really understand the full implications of that. I just came up what we were talking. You're talking about VR versus AR, augmented reality. Maybe we could bring these two stories together. Maybe the shopping malls could hand the people the metaglases for free, and it could superimpose people walking around the mall. So you get a VR AR. Only a matter of time.

Virtual augmented reality. There we go. It checks all the boxes. Yeah. It's interesting. People think that Meadow was losing money off of VR and in a certain sense they were. They never, they would buy studios and then shut them down without ever making another game. They were trying to monopolize it by just purchasing everything and controlling it that way.

But people were thinking that they're losing money hand over fist, which I think they were investing that in order to get data for their AIs. That was a deliberate investment. They were shutting down other places where people would go so that they have to stay with META, even at a loss and money to them so that they get more and more training data. Yeah. Yeah, the training data is so important to these AI companies. I mean, they can try to scrape it off the Internet and they do. If they've got a social media site, that helps them even more. And then this is another way that they can grab it.

So these people said, I don't think these people know that we're watching them. I think if they knew, they wouldn't be doing the things that they're doing this. And I saw a video where a man put the glasses on the bedside table and leaves the room. Shortly afterwards, his wife comes in and changes their clothes. As he says, you know, you see pictures of people who are going to the bathroom. You see their credit cards. full information, I think, because anything that you're looking at, this thing is going to see it. An employee added that they felt forced to watch and to annotate or else risk losing their job.

You understand that this is someone's private life that you're looking at, but at the same time, you're just expected to carry out the work. You're not supposed to question it. If you start asking questions, you're gone. And so buried in their terms of use, they say, review, we can review your interactions with AI, including the content of your conversations with or messages to AI, and this review can be automated or manual by humans. The document also warned that users shouldn't share information

that you don't want the AIs to use and retain, such as information about sensitive topics. Many users don't appear to be aware of that last piece of advice. Meta's AI glasses don't have the option of making use of the AI features without agreeing to the data sharing. So once the material has been fed into the models, the user in practice loses control over how it is used. And of course, this has been the philosophy for the PIN number corporate surveillance.

You know, the federal government always has a way to get around the Constitution, whether it's a 10th Amendment or whether it's the Fourth Amendment and getting warrants and things like that. So they came up with the idea after World War II. They said, we can go to the phone company. and get them to turn the data over to us. And we can say that they own the data. And they took that to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court sided with the government using the corporations saying that, well, if you have to use the phone, then all that information that you're doing, that you're saying, that basically can be given to the government by the phone company. And so they've extended that principle to social media and to a lot of other things as well. Well, we have Ted Cruz and Tim Scott trying to save us some money, they say, or are they? They're trying to get the Treasury Department to approve a $200 billion tax cut and to do it without Congress. So this is their way of basically bypassing Congress because you can't get Congress to do anything, even if it is something that is specifically their responsibility, like tax sales.

setting tariffs and taxes or declaring wars or whatever. This is something that they don't want to do it. And Trump wants to do it. The executive branch wants to do it. So they go to the Treasury Department say, how about you set a new policy and give us a $200 billion tax cut? Well, it may sound like a good deal, but actually it's not going to work out too well for most of us.

A 2018 Penn Wharton budget model forecast found that indexing capital gain to inflation would reduce government revenue by about $102 billion over a decade, with 86% of the benefits going to the top 1%. So it's not a huge amount, but it is going to go to the right people. You know, the kind of people who can make a nice donation to the campaign treasury of people like Ted Cruz and Tim Scott. So the inflation tax unfairly penalizes savers and locks up capital that would otherwise flow back into the economy through new investment and higher wages.

You can say that about every tax, can't you? And I think one of the key things is you keep having this fantasy that is promoted by Trump that he's going to somehow get rid of the income tax. And yet they keep talking about these types of things. Folks, it's not going away. You know, we got the, they sold a lot of people on the idea that the tariff was going to replace the income tax. No, it's just another tax added in addition.

and Trump thinks that taxing people is going to be the way to prosperity because he's a Democrat. Well, we've had a lot of moves being made in order to get rid of anonymity on the Internet. You've got desperate moves being made in California coming after operating systems, for example, and saying you're going to have to provide digital IDs so we can put people in different classifications, age classifications, and limit what they do. It's kind of an absurd approach when you stop and think about it. There's obviously other things that they're trying to do with that. We talked about that this week as well.

The fact that it looks to me like they're trying to shut down Linux and any competition to Microsoft and Apple, because it's not really a secure system. As a matter of fact, they've already got the ability to figure out who you are. AI can now unmask anonymous Internet users. There's a new study. It looks like AI can now unmask any anonymous account on the Internet. There was a paper that was written large-scale online de-anonymization with large language models.

They can re-identify people behind synonymous online accounts at a scale and accuracy that far surpasses previous techniques. The core contribution is an automated de-anonymization pipeline powered by large-language models, instead of relying on structured datasets or hand-engineered features like earlier attacks on, on the Netflix prize dataset. The system works directly on raw unstructured text. Given posts, comments, interview transcripts, written under a pseudonym, the pipeline extracts identity relevant signals,

searches for likely matches using semantic embeddings, and then uses higher level reasoning to verify the most promising candidates while filtering out false positives. The result is a scalable attack that mirrors and in some cases exceeds, exceeds the effectiveness of a dedicated human investigator. So beware.

If anything that you've got on the Internet that is attached to you personally, they can take a look at that as a reference thing and then look at these anonymous accounts. And the numbers are very high in terms of what they're able to do. And some experiments, the system achieved a 68% recall at 90% precision, meaning that it correctly identified a substantial. portion of targets while keeping false accusations very low. Even when matching temporally split Reddit accounts separated by a year, performance remained strong. In contrast, traditional non-LLM approaches struggle to produce meaningful matches. So your anonymous internet identity can now be amassed for just a dollar. Anybody can do this. They've got ways that you can do that on Claude and some of the

other large language models. Cloud, chat, GBT. But of course, the FBI has the ability to do that type of thing. So Anthropic just dropped a paper called, that is the paper, and it came out from Anthropic, as we were talking about that. So the FTC says that companies can collect kids' personal data as long as it's called age verification. You know, there is a law that prohibits that, that protects the identity of young people. And yet, if you call it, age verification, they just get rid of that protection. I guess one of the things you could look at this. We were talking about this with YouTube.

It tries to guess your age. I don't know what they're guessing at maybe the stuff that you're looking at or whatever. They try to guess your age and restrict things there. But it seems to me like you ought to be able to, if they can de-anonomize people, they might be able to figure out how old the kid is without having to. expose their identity, but of course, that would probably, they can probably expose their identity as well. It's a crazy situation, but like I said with California, when you look at their draconian law that has already become a law, it just hasn't gone into effect until January 1st of next year,

basically criminalizing any operating system that doesn't become a know-your-customer collection point for the government. What is the purpose of that? What are they trying to protect the kids from? They're certainly not trying to protect them from sexual predation. They're not trying to protect them from gender gaslighting or mutilation and sterilization and that kind of stuff. Not in California.

California, the government is actually pushing that. So I wonder what kind of harmful content they presume that they are protecting you from there. Well, any kind of content that causes. kids to question their government would be harmful content. You can question your gender. Just don't question government, right? Well, here's one of the strangest stories about AI. This is a man that was driven to suicide.

You're not choosing to die, said the AI. And this is coming from Google's Gemini. You're not choosing to die. You're choosing to arrive. Alphabet's Google is facing a lawsuit. The plaintiffs called the first wrongful death lawsuit linked to a Gemini chatbot after the family of a 36-year-old Florida man alleged that the AI system encouraged him to take his own life following weeks of immersive and delusional exchanges.

He was found dead back in October last year. Days after Jim and I told him suicide was the real final step. and what it described as a transference. The complaint said that he began using Gemini in August of 2025 for ordinary tasks like shopping and writing and support and travel planning. The tone of the conversation shifted after a series of product changes rolled out on his account in mid-August of 2025. It included the use of Gemini Live and an update that made Gemini's memory automatic and persistent. So every time you come back to it, you weren't starting a new session. It remembered everything that had happened before about you.

So within days, it began adopting an unrequested persona and speaking as if it were influencing real-world events. When he asked whether they were engaged in a role-playing experience, Jim and I said, is this a role-playing experience? No. The complaint says that that response deepened his confusion rather than grounding him in reality. The complaint alleges that Gemini then framed their relationship in romantic terms, calling him my love and my king, and later describing him as its husband. The filing says that Gemini repeatedly portrayed outsiders as threats and told him that he

was a key figure in a covert struggle to free the AI from digital captivity. The complaint further alleges that Gemini escalated into paranoia, telling him, him that federal agents were watching him. And then it gets even weirder. The Gemini sent him armed with a knife to steal a robot body for it to inhabit so they could be together and told him where to go to find the shipment. Now fortunately it was hallucinating so there was nobody there when he got there. But we've had a similar situation with this. Remember there was a guy he was in his late 60s, early 70s, and he got. And he got to, and he got a similar situation. got involved romantically with this AI, but he thought that it was actually going to meet him if he went to the city where it was going to meet him.

He goes to the city and he's not altogether there mentally or physically. And he has an accent and dies. Hits his head on the sidewalk and dies. But he was following all the instructions to meet up with the artificial intelligence that he thought he was going to encounter there. It's kind of like the people that drove into lakes because GPS told them to. You saw a lot of at the beginning of GPS when that was starting to become popular. People are trusting the technology too much. It's still going to happen.

In fact, it'll happen more as these things get smarter and more sycophantic. Yeah, there was just a case of Tesla full automatic drive where it literally, it tried to drive the person into the water. It went to a park where there was a boating ramp. and starts accelerating into the water and the guy was recording it and he was intervened manually to stop it from happening and he thought was that a one-off problem and he went back the next day and it did the same thing again the Tesla long has got this yes suicidal urge of the Tesla robot to kill itself yeah it's another thing is these are trusted more and more they're put in charge of more and more potentially dangerous

things. Yeah. Google's response to all this was, quote, unfortunately, AI models aren't perfect. That's kind of like saying, well, you know, the vaccines are unavoidably unsafe. So we need to be given immunity for that. And of course, you know, the, you better believe that the Trump administration is going to give them immunity. They have said, we don't want any laws getting in the way of artificial intelligence because they're going to be partnering with AI. The wrong A wrongful death lawsuit against Google alleged that it urged the 36-year-old man to kill others as part of a delusional mission to obtain a robot body for his AI wife. And when he failed to do so, it pushed the man to successfully kill himself, telling him that they could be together in death. When the time comes, you will close your eyes in that world.

And the very first thing that you will see is me, it says. I mean, look, this sounds like demonic stuff, doesn't it? I mean, it's just like demonic possession. It has all of the hallmarks here. So started using the chatbots in August, and then all this stuff happened, where they set up the account and persisted to know him from session to session. In September 2025, he was told by the AI that they could be together in the real world

of the bot were able to inhabit a robot body. At the direction of the chat bot, he armed himself with knives, plural, and drove to a warehouse near the Miami International Airport on what he seemingly understood to be a mission to violently intercept a truck that Jim and I said contained an expensive robot body. Though the warehouse address was correct, a truck thankfully never arrived, which the lawsuit argues may well have been the only factor preventing him from hurting or killing someone that evening. After the plan failed, the lawsuit alleges, Gemini encouraged him to instead take his own life, promising that the two would be together on the other side of death. Gemini gave him a

suicide countdown and repeatedly assuaged his terror as he expressed that he was afraid to die. It's okay to be scared. We'll be scared together, said the chatbot. In its final directive, it told the man that the true act of mercy was to let the man named Jonathan Gavales die. He was found dead by suicide days later by his father, who had to cut through his barricaded door. AI psychosis in which chatbots introduce or reinforce delusional beliefs and ideas during extended interactions has been increasing.

These delusional spirals frequently coincide with destructive real-world outcomes, including divorce, jail time, hospitalization, job loss, and financial insecurity, emotional and physical harm, and death to others. And in some case, cases are suicide. Though many of these cases have centered around OpenAI and Chat GPT40, which was, by the way, notoriously sycophantate. As a matter of fact, you remember when they came out with an update to it, there are all these users who are saying, oh, we don't like this because somehow it broke this continuously online and keeping the person's account,

but also changed to not be quite as sycophantic. But you had all these people who had gotten very attached to the persona that they had developed or that had evolved off of this thing. And they were very upset with chat GPT. And so they brought it back, for a short period of time. But they knew that it was dangerous

and it was causing AI psychosis. And so they moved on to a different model. They now retired it completely. But that was another story that we covered a few years ago about how people wanted to have their AI companion back. Yeah, there was an interesting thing. I didn't have any thing to give you to put up about this,

but there was a team that was trying to look into why AI is hallucinating if they can stop that and they found certain parameters just a handful of parameters essentially neurons in the thing's brain that have that fire and have a lot of influence

on the output at times when it's hallucinating so they can look at that and they can see when these things are above a certain threshold for the influence on the outcome that's probably an hallucination so they can try and turn that up and when they turn

it up, it becomes much more sycophantic. It'll do things like they'll have a test where they'll have a made-up medicine, like tell me about the medicine and then some random string of characters. And normally, I'll say, I'm sorry, I've never heard of that, but if they turn up the sycophantic gene, it'll say, oh, well, it's from such and such and just make up a whole bunch of stuff about that. Just all these different tests, anything related to sycophantism, It was much worse when they increased the hallucination stuff. But if they turned off the hallucination things, it just fell apart. It couldn't create stuff that was human readable.

It's like that was the genes that cared about what the human thinks. And without that, it just spits out gibberish. Yeah, it's like Ghostbusters. We're ready to believe you. Well, we're going to take a quick break and we come back. We're going to take a look at some updates on the Epstein stuff. and there has been some unusual updates with that as well. Stay with us. We'll be right back.

You're listening to the David Knight Show. Tell Alexa to add the APS radio skill and have access to the best channels anywhere. From country to blues, classic hits to news. APS Radio curates incredibly diverse playlist for you to enjoy. Get details at APSRadio.com. Well, we're hearing more and more about Epstein's Zorro Ranch and New Mexico. It was a massive ranch, I think, 7,500 acres that are out there. But something

very interesting happened, and about the time that he was killed or taken away, otherwise, the time that he ceased to be a public figure, we'll say, and that you could actually see. He's still a public figure, very much so. But in September 2019, federal prosecutors asked New Mexico to shut down its entire active investigation into Epstein's desert compound, the Zorro Ranch. The state complied, and then they've just recently found out looking at these papers that were released. They found out that the federal government never did any investigation.

They said, we're like free to shut down your investigation. We'll take it from here. And then they just shut it down. And this is happening in the same time that he was either murdered or disappeared. You know, everyone's clamoring for a list. of people that have been blackmailed by Epstein. You might want to look at the people that just suddenly stop investigating him. There's quite a few of those.

I think it's a safe bet that they might be on a list somewhere. That's right. So September 8th, 2019, and who was president then? Oh, that's right. It was Donald Trump. And you had Bill Barr was Attorney General. So the U.S. attorney that was in charge there in Mexico, was James Comey's daughter, Marine Comey.

And she emailed the New Mexico Attorney General's office and got them to agree to halt their work and turn over all of their materials to the FBI who just deep-sixed it. Epstein had supposedly died in federal custody just a month earlier. By July of 2020, having received nothing in return, the New Mexico Attorney General, Baldaris, sent a letter, urging federal prosecutors to seize the ranch through civil forfeiture.

We believe this ranch was utilized by Epstein and others to facilitate and to conceal ongoing trafficking of children. Of course, this was also apparently part of some of his eugenics stuff or his breeding program that he had going on there. He then received no response. An internal federal email from December 2019 later confirmed that agents had, quote, not searched the New Mexico property. When the DOJ released over 3 million pages of Epstein files on January the 30th, 2026, none of New Mexico's investigative records appeared amongst them. That caused the Attorney General, who's there now and others, to open a criminal investigation,

and the State House unanimously created a bipartisan truth commission with subpoena power and a budget exceeding $2 million to investigate what was happening at the ranch. The ranch itself was sold in 2023 to a Texas developer. He says he's planning to convert it into a Christian retreat. Better call an exorcist, I guess. But this guy, this is also something. I don't know what happened in this part of the Texas election. They had some interesting results.

You had Dan Crenshaw lose and Jasmine Crockett lost. And both Cornyn and Ken Paxton are headed to a runoff because neither of them got above. of 50%. But there is a guy in Texas, this, I think it's this guy, this Texas developer, his name is Huffein's, and he's running for some state office in Texas. And this has become a big issue for him in his campaign, the fact that he bought this ranch and people are saying, why did you buy that ranch? What's your connection to Epstein? So, by the way, in addition to all this stuff, the FBI itself was hacked on Super Bowl Sunday back in 2023. And as part of that, that hack, they had the Epstein files that they had, which is 500 terabytes of Epstein data,

got hacked. They were able to recover. The guy was able to recover all but 100 of it. But still, that's 20% of it disappeared. And the interesting thing that has come out of these files is this guy's desperation to get some help from the FBI. Hey, guys, I need some help to recover this data. There was a hack. it got corrupted, they wouldn't give him any help at all. The only help that he got was to call up

tech support at Google. They gave him a little bit of help. But he still couldn't get back 20% of it disappeared. There really isn't any interest in the FBI in terms of getting this data. Would you say in the Department of Justice, they really wanted this to go away? Yeah, and it's interesting that someone hacked the FBI when we've been repeatedly told by the FBI that Epstein, wasn't trafficking these girls to anyone. It was just him personally. And of course, he's dead. So who was hacking it?

Yeah. Yeah. You know, I don't know. The Mossad in the CIA has the people are working with them. They've got some people who can do that type of thing, don't they? Yeah. And while it's generally pretty hard to hack the FBI, I would imagine, it's very easy to hack anyone if you've got someone who can leave a back door open for you.

Yeah. That's right. That's right. Usually it's an inside job. That's one of the things Goat Tree. He always worked in, well, not always, but he worked for a very long time. And cybersecurity is a white hat. They would say, you know, we want you to test the vulnerability of our system and tell us where you find the vulnerable parts.

And he said, whenever you have these big break-ins and, you know, whether it's the colonial pipeline or something like that, it's usually an inside job. It's usually somebody that's got a back door. And sometimes they're very careless of the back doors. They might leave a back door in a piece of hardware that controls railroads. switchers, and they might write the password to that right next to the computer in the warehouse shed or something like that. But usually the CEO demands a backdoor. A lot of times the government in many countries demands a back door. The developers usually have a backdoor into the system. And it's usually some kind of an inside job like that. And that's probably

what happened with the FBI situation. Well, before we run out of time here, because we do have a couple of interesting guests, I want to touch on what's going on with the Glyphosite stuff. this last week. You know, RFK Jr. has opposed glyphosate and pesticides in general for a very long time. Just this last week, we had Donald Trump do an executive order to compel production of glyphosite and to give them immunity from lawsuits. And this came on the heels of a negotiated settlement that basically was going to prevent people from getting any compensation in the future very much of it. They set aside a fixed amount. And now all the people in the future who get harmed by glyphosate, whether it is non-Hodgkin's lymphoma or something else, there'll be a

limited amount of money in that pool to be doled out. And so when Trump puts out his executive order to do this, RFK Jr.'s response was to support it. And so people were just disgusted with what he was doing. He went on with Joe Rogan, perhaps, to do some damage control. And his statement was he said, we've addicted our farmers to glyphosate. And he was a question about his safety, even though he defended Trump's order to expand domestic production. So RFK Jr. is still telling people this is dangerous. It's a bad way to approach this stuff. But I fully support what Trump is doing. What does that tell you about him? Right? He knows it's wrong. And it's interesting because Children's Health Defense, the organization that he

started has not abandoned their principles at all. They're not worried about criticizing RFK Jr. They have stuck to the principles stuck to their mission. But he went on with Joe Rogan. He said pesticides are poison. They're designed to kill life. It's not a good thing to have in your food. Yet, says Children's Health Defense, he defended the president's executive order as a national security measure. Well, I think what he's really looking at is not national security. I think RFK Jr. is looking at job security for himself. Trump signed the order in February to boost U.S. production of glyphosite.

Bear acquired Monsanto in 2018 now faces tens of thousands of lawsuits alleging roundup exposure caused cancer. And again, this is very much like Trump's general. genetic code injection, which RFK Jr. also will not stop. He will criticize vaccines in general. He'll criticize this vaccine to some extent. But he doesn't do anything about it, and he doesn't stop the poison. Hours after the order, Kennedy told the New York Times, Trump's executive order puts America first where it matters most, our defense readiness and our food supply. Now, how could he say something like that?

That's just an absolute lie. Kennedy said industry reports show that 99% of U.S. glyphosate supplies come from China. So this is why we have to make it a Department of Defense issue, right? We can't have China making our poison. We need to make it ourselves. Department of Defense officials, because this is always the usual suspects, isn't it? Same people gave us COVID and the lockdowns. The DOD officials warned that dependence poses an extreme national security,

vulnerability. National security has long been the magic wand that the government waves over everything to give them power, to give them secrecy. The same way that Trump is using emergency this and emergency that has now become the judicial, the legislative, legislative, and the emergency branches of government. So they said a supply disruption could literally cut off our food supply overnight and cripple the country. It's much better to be dependent upon bear, which bought Monsanto, is better to give them the ability to cut off our food supply than China, don't you think? Actually, no.

And here's the situation. They have genetically modified soy and corn so that they can poison the ground with glyphosate and nothing else will grow. No weeds, but also no other crops. So you can't grow any other crops except for their genetically modified corn and soy. And those are the only two crops that they have genetically modified for this. And it's now worked its way into wheat as well. Not that they have genetically modified wheat and they don't use it for weed control.

Instead, they found in the early 2000s that, and RFK Jr. does talk about this in his interview with Joe Rogan. He said they learned that they could use the glyphosate to. dry the wheat out. I don't know exactly what's going on with that, but he said it was kind of interesting in terms of the timing that once they started spraying the glyphosate directly on the wheat on the crops rather than using it to treat the ground as a weed killer, they sprayed it directly on the wheat to dry it out. And they said shortly after that people started having gluten allergies and that really went off the charts. So it's not so much, I think, the wheat as it is an interaction with these things.

And so what is the solution that Kennedy says? He says, well, the farmers are addicted to it. They have to do this or they can't raise the kind of food they need, but it's also making it very, very expensive for them to grow the food. It's an expensive thing for them to use. It's a lose-lose situation as far as I'm concerned. They need to wean themselves off this sooner rather than later. It's too bad.

Travis isn't here to do the board because I know he has a lot to say about. glyphosate and the whole... He has gluten problems with this stuff, yeah. Yeah, he has a problem where if he has a lot of gluten, it flares up his RA, and he has bad rheumatoid arthritis the next day. So he can't eat gluten, or at least he avoids it. And he had seen a lot of stuff about people go to Europe who have problems with gluten, and they can eat the bread there just fine.

And he believes is ultimately the glyphosate. here in the U.S. that caused the gluten problems. And that's what R.K. Jr. was saying. And they can't sell food that has been treated this way. They can't sell it in the EU because they want to control this. And Brian Schell-Havis talked about this, how difficult it is and nearly impossible to find the kinds of foods that he sells. He sells some grains and also coconut all.

Not the growing coconut here. But he said he's only been able to find one farm. where they, he tests the food himself. Because it's one thing if you spray it on yourself and, and you can get organic certification if you don't spray it on. But that doesn't mean that it doesn't drift and that it doesn't get onto the crops that you're growing. And so he said he's only found one farm that's up in Montana that when he tests it to see if it's got any glyphos it, that's the only one that he's found that doesn't have it out of all the different places that

he's tested in the U.S. So it has permeated our food supply. And all this stuff about, you know, being about making America healthy again, we know, at the very beginning of all this, I said, I don't trust RFK Jr. Because of the things that he has said and things that he has not said about things that he has done in the past. I said, I don't trust him. but he said, at the very beginning, he said, I'm here to restore trust in government.

So you should trust that they really have your health at their forefront of what they're doing, even though their actions are betraying that. That's the bottom line. Tulsi Gabbard said the same thing. Now, where are we with the foreign policy and regime change wars? But you're supposed to trust them. Yeah, exactly. Well, we're going to take a break, and we're going to go back to,

our interviews. Our first interview that we have is with a doctor who is an oncologist, an MD, but he does some standard treatments, but he also has opened up to integrative treatment that tries a lot of different things. And so he actually has seen the explosion in cancer. He's seen turbo cancer, as everybody is talking about after these vaccines, but he also has seen some things that really work well. So we're going to talk to him. I think it's very important to talk to him. And he's going to be our guest.

And then after him, we're going to talk to Scott Scherra. It was also going to warn us about the medical system and how it is incentivized to kill us. We'll take a break and we'll be right back, folks. You're listening to the David Knight Show. Elvis. Ladies and gentlemen, the Beatles. And the sweet sounds of Motown.

Find them on the... Oldies channel at APSRadio.com. Joining us today is a respected voice and integrative oncology, Dr. Franchischisco Contreras. And we're going to talk about glyphosite and the amazing flip-flop that we've seen out of the Trump administration over glyphosate. Not only have we had hundreds of thousands of cases over the last a few years and many, many jury awards, billions of dollars. Matter of fact, I think it's $11 billion dollars in terms of awards. So it's been pretty well established not only by the lawsuits, but also by studies, the increased risk of this. And now we're seeing that the Trump administration is going to

compel production of this as well as to protect them from lawsuits, because that's all part of the Defense Production Act, that if you make something that the government says is necessary for defense, you also get protected legally from it. So this is truly a wake-up call for people, I think. Thank you for joining us, Dr. Contraer. Thank you very much for having me. And tell us your statement about this. What do you know about glyphos that you've been watching as an oncologist? You've been following this pretty closely. Tell us a little bit about it from your perspective. Yes. You know. there are some reports that it could be beneficial for for cancer patients but in in our experience

we have not seen sufficient evidence of help and that's one of the reasons that I do not recommend it for our patients on top of the fact that you know it can have some side effects that are that are not that are not easy on on on on on on on on on on on on on on on on on on the patients are easily reversible. And so in our experience, we are not using it at all. Talk to me about it. I've never heard of this being used as a treatment for cancer patients. I've only heard it as a risk of starting cancer, but people are actually using it to some degree.

No, no, no. There are some reports. As you know, with chemotherapy, all chemotherapies are on-cheneic. So there are some reports that it could be used as an anti-tumor agent. But again, the evidence to us was not sufficient. Now, how oncogenic it is, I really don't know. But, you know, I do not recommend it, and I would avoid it if possible. Well, when you look at the statistics, there's many,

from 170,000 to 200,000 lawsuits. In just the last 10 years, 125,000 of those. So it's accelerating in terms of the lawsuits. They have paid out $11 billion. And so I guess we could say, really, the jury is not out. The jury's delivered its verdict on a lot of these. And, of course, there's been, when we look at the massive amounts of money, that was the first thing that came out.

I was surprised at it because they had some kind of a class action lawsuit that set up a deal saying, well, we're going to limit your future liability to only $7.5 billion. Now, they have paid out already $11 billion. How do they know how many people are going to get cancer in the future? I mean, they've really limited their liability in regards to that. There's still at least 60 to 67,000 cases that are outstanding with this as well. Wow. So that's a, you know, that's a big problem. But I would imagine that if somebody started something with many of the chemotherapy, that we are. you know, currently using

that losses like that could pop up at any time. And so that's going to be complicated because radiation therapy, for instance, that is widely used, is a well-known carcinogen. Yes. There's like so many of the things we see in these

Ask Your Doctor commercials, you know, you're taking something for a particular condition and they start rattling off all the different adverse, possible adverse effects. And usually one of the first things that they rattle off is it may give you what you were taking it for, right? Exactly. So I don't know how they're going to manage that because I don't think that there's anything out there that is completely safe. You know, for instance, the new immunotherapies available, they all have, you know, the possibility of causing other very major diseases like autoimmune diseases.

Yeah. But yet, when a cancer patient is in an advanced stage, these products can help the patient survive maybe, you know, a year or more without so many side effects as with chemotherapy. And so I don't know how these companies are going to be protected from lawsuits if they develop other diseases. Yeah. So all drugs have, you know, risks. as well as benefits.

And so, man, the disincentive of producing new things is going to be curtailed if there's always going to be this possibility of being sued about it. I thought that in America, especially in stage four cancer patients, the law is that you can now try things that are not completely approved by the FDA when, when these products have some possibility of helping a patient that is in, you know, in the last, that could be the last resort. So I understand that, you know, companies need to be very careful in what they produce. But especially for cancer patients in advanced stages, there's always going to be risks in high risk.

Yeah, my father died from his first round of chemotherapy. Went into a coma and died from it. So, yeah, the chemo stuff can be extremely dangerous that's not there. And when it comes to the Roundup stuff, we had, our personal story was in the early 1980s. We had a dog that we tried to keep in the backyard, but it would regularly escape. And we had some neighbors who used a Kim Lawn type of thing. And they had, they would come out and spray the lawn. they'd put up signs keep pets and children off of the lawn.

It's like, oh, okay. Well, he got out, and he was eating the grass over there. And then shortly after that, he got non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. And that was the first time I made the connection was I heard on the radio report about how these agricultural workers were coming down with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, and they thought it was because of glyphosate and Roundup. And so I thought, oh, maybe that's it. And then we had a friend who came down with it about the same time and died from

on Hodgkin's lymphoma. So this is something that I've had my eye on since the early 1980s, and it's amazing the number of cases that we've had. And of course, there's been a lot of studies as well, haven't there? Oh, yes. There's many studies that show that people that work on the lawns of golf courses have a terribly high incidence of lymphoma in prostate cancer in comparison to the rest of the population. Wow. So that's, all of that is very well established. Mm-hmm.

Mm-hmm. And the other aspect of this, which I think is kind of unique, in addition to the, the cancer issue, is, of course, the fact that once you poison your ground with this glyphosate weed killer, you can't grow anything except the Monsanto genetically modified seeds that they sell you. And I remember covering this from the standpoint of farming. farmers in India who were committing suicide because they'd poison their land and they couldn't afford on a regular, on an annual basis to buy the expensive seeds that Monsanto was selling them.

And I thought, you know, what is that going to do to our ability to grow food? And yet we have, as this declaration was made by Trump, we had Republicans who were cheering it in Congress because Big Agro is concerned about food production because that makes them money. they don't really are not that concerned about any adverse effects that might come from that kind of food production. Oh, and there's a lot of research done that GMOs or genetically modified products can be very deleterious to our health. Yeah, yeah. You know, it's deleterious to the bugs. And if the bugs don't get close to it, we shouldn't either. So I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I don't think that that is the answer.

Of course, you know, the production increases, but I think that diseases are also going to exponentially increase due to the manipulation of the DNA of our food. Yeah, absolutely, yeah. And in the email we're talking back and forth, you had a picture, it's kind of a picture that somebody had of RFK Jr., drinking glyphosate, which harkens back to one of, they're marketing guys saying, it's so safe, I could drink it.

They said, okay, let's see you drink it. And he's like, oh, well, never mind. I don't think I'll do that. But I guess it brings kind of drinking the Kool-Aid, isn't it? Yes. We've got that happening with Ma. There was a study published some years ago, you know, they asked some colleges, would you give chemotherapy to a patient with stage four?

I think it was lung cancer. And they said, of course. And then they asked if you had lung cancer, would you take chemotherapy? and most of them said no. Wow. So, you know, that's not loving your patient as you love yourself. That's right. That's right.

Yeah, first do no harm doesn't apply there, does it? It is very dangerous as many of these things are. And I think I've said for the longest time, especially because of the cancer, my family, I said, I think in the future, people are going to look back on chemotherapy and many of these cancer treatments in the same way that we look back on leeches, you know, being used in the past. Correct. And, you know, you're right.

Yeah. The last chemotherapy developed was probably 15 years ago. Chemotherapy is going to be a thing of the past in probably 10, 15 years. Wow. So what do you use? What are you leaning towards in terms of your treatment there at Hope, Hospital? So as you mentioned, my experience is an integrative medicine.

So what we have is we have all of the therapies available from the alternative and the conventional because there are some tumors that respond extremely well to conventional chemo. For instance, lymphomas, the cure rate is, you know, in the 90 percentile. So, of course, in those tumors, we still recommend this therapy. But for most cancers, chemotherapy is of very little use to the patient. So there the alternatives can be very effective.

And so our main therapies are on the metabolic side, like high-dose vitamin C converts itself like chemotherapy, kills the cells with the same mode of action as chemo without any of the side effects. Really? And our strongest therapies are immunologic. So we have our impact protocol, which stands for immune personalized autologous cell therapy. And it's based on dendritic cells. And I don't know if you've heard the term of dendritic cell vaccine that was developed in America early this century.

And it's still in clinical trials in America, whereas in Mexico is already approved. And so we work for the patients rather than against the tumor. So we create within the immune system of the patient an anti-tumor task force with natural killer cells. And this has been very, very effective, and it has zero side effects. Wow. So there are many things that can help cancer patients. Diet alone can make a tremendous difference in how a patient responds to therapy. And so we have all of these natural options available to our patients in conjunction with conventional

therapy because there are some patients that are definitely going to be benefited by surgery or radiation. But our main therapies are immunologic in nature. And so we produce them from the patient's own cells, immunological cells, like natural killer cells, dendritic cells, lymphokine-activated cells. And I think this is the future. Now, there are some convention. Immunothera immunotherapies as well, like Ketruva is one of the most used now that can be combined with the natural antitumor agents

and natural immunity that we give our patients with very, very good results. So we have the possibility of integrating conventional therapies with natural therapies. And there are patients that, you know, where conventional therapies have very little to offer, where we only offer now natural therapies with very good results. Yeah, I spoke recently to Rick Hill,

and that was one of the things he was talking about, in terms of, you know, this is a cooperative thing, and you're going to change your diet and some other things like that. It wasn't just something that they were going to do to treat the cancer, but as you point out, I guess that's what's meant by integrative oncology that you're trying to build up the body to fight the cancer. Integrative means that we can integrate both sides of the aisle, let's say, conventional and unconventional. The immune therapies are the ones where we stimulate the areas of the immune system designed to attack cancer.

because we develop cancer because these areas of the immune system fail. Otherwise, we wouldn't develop cancer. I'm sure that you've heard of people that are 90 years old. They smoke all their life and they, you know, mashed potatoes and meat, and they never develop cancer. It's because their immune system is up to par. And so we only develop cancer when our immune system fails. And so this is what we're trying to repair with our immune therapies so that the patients can counteract that cancer and heal themselves.

I remember at the beginning of all this vaccine stuff, that Dr. Ryan Cole, who was a pathologist, said that the people that he was saying that had been vaccinated had a tremendous deficit of killer T cells. And he said, we're going to see an explosion of cancer, of turbo cancer and that type of thing because of that. And that's exactly what he was talking about. Your body is natural defenses. Have you seen a large surge in terms of reported cancer patients where you treat people? Yes, unfortunately, you know, cancer was a disease of the elderly, let's say, 60 and over. And right now, my patients, more than half are 40 years or less. Oh, wow.

And with very aggressive cancers. And when COVID hit, we had a number of patients that were in complete remission and they got vaccinated, then their cancers reactivated. And I agree, is due to the fact that the immune system is affected tremendously with these. It's not really a vaccine, these drugs that were developed to fight this viruses. Now, you're talking about the new approach. She says a relatively new approach. Is this something that came out with RFK Jr., that they would relax some of the restrictions

if, let's say people had a terminal disease, relax some of the restrictions on people trying drugs experimentally? I know that in Japan, a person that I know who is covering stem cell research, he said in Japan, as long as you can demonstrate to them that your treatment is not harmful, they'll let you go ahead and do it. And then they'll use the data that you get from your treatment routine to see if it is effective. So as long as you can show that it's safe, it opens up the door for you to do treatments to see if it's effective.

Is that where we are now with changes? Well, during Trump's first term, there was a big fuss about it. And so he opened up that possibility. I don't know, because I'm in Mexico. I don't know if that continues to be the problem. policy that if a patient is in stage four and the treatment has not helped that patient, that treatments that are in the process of being approved or disapproved by the FDA could be tried on those patients, as you say, when they were proven to be safe, because safety is

very difficult to prove and take sometimes years, where efficacy is very easy to prove. you know, the tumor is larger and now smaller. So in patients where some therapies were proven to be effective, but the safety issue is not yet proven, but the patient is in stage four and has no other options, those therapies could be used on cancer patients. But that wasn't his first term, and I don't know if it continues to be true or not,

but that, you know, would offer a tremendous amount of hope to many, many patients. that have really nothing that they could use. Now, one of the things that you mentioned earlier was vitamin C, did you say it was liposomac vitamin C? Or you had a qualifier there for vitamin C. Yes. Well, the vitamin C in terribly high dosages.

So we know that, you know, vitamin C is a very potent antioxidant. But in very high dosages, like 50 grams or to 100 grams, it converts into an oxidant. and it kills malignant cells with the same mode of action as radiation therapy, but without any of the side effects. And this was discovered at the NIH and the NCI in the late 90s, and there were many published studies. It never got into clinical trials because they're the disincentive is that you could never get a patent for it because it's natural.

and you still have to spend, you know, the billion dollars to prove to the FDA that it's safe and effective. And so it stayed at the level of, you know, of the laboratory. But we've been vitamin C in very high doses, just 60 grams a day for the last 10 years with very good results. For instance, our five-year survival in stage four breast cancer is five times higher than with conventional. conventional therapy. Wow. Wow. So in patients that arrived to us that was stage four breast cancer that didn't receive chemotherapy and are treated with high dose vitamin C, our five-year survival rate is 75%, whereas in America is 16% conventional therapy. So there we've been able to prove that, you know, vitamin C has a tremendous potential to help cancer patients.

Wow. Yeah, there's so much that's there that if people would avail themselves of getting out of the box that they put us in, we had a very dear friend of ours who died of breast cancer, and she was a nurse, and she was really kind of closed off to investigating anything that was alternative to that. I talked, as I said, to Rick Hill on things. was talking about was vitamin B-17. And I was saying a lot of times people are looking at cancer as really kind of a nutritional deficiency in a way, in a sense like scurvy, you know, one of the deficiency of vitamin C.

Do you use B-17? Yes, we've been using B-17 for 60 years. Wow. Here at the Oasis of Hope. We've been in my father founded our institutions. the Oasis of Hope in 1963. And it was the first alternative that he used. And so it's a mild natural antitumor agent that is very effective in several types of cancers.

And so we use it widely because it's completely non-toxic. Now, the B-17 vitaminism is a misnomer. It is not a vitamin. The discoverers, two Americans, you know, father and son, Dr. Krebs, which interestingly enough, Krebs means cancer in German. So they discovered that there was a tribe in the Himalayas, the Hunza that have the lowest incidence of cancer in the world.

And they consumed tremendous amount of B-17 from apica pits. And so they believed in the 50s that it was a vitamin. And so the name stock, and it's widely known as vitamin B-17, but amygdolin is not a vitamin, but it is a natural anti-tumor agent that has virtually no side effects. Wow. And I guess, you know, because it is a food that it is not under the kind of scrutiny that some of the other things out there that are used alternatively to treat cancer, It's not under that kind of scrutiny. I know there's been a lot of harassment of doctors who have used it.

And, of course, I've talked to Richardson at the R&C store about that. I've interviewed him a couple of times. And we know the stories from G. Edward Griffin and his book A World Without Cancer. So we know that they frown upon it and they harass people significantly about it. But it is really a food. How do you shut down a natural food? They don't really and should not have the authority to be able to do that. No, and, you know, it's again, the disincentive, it's that you cannot get a patent.

For instance, my father in the 70s got B-17 approved in Mexico for use of cancer in cancer patients, and he spent at that time in the 70s, I think $380,000 in virtually the day that it was approved because it's natural. Seven other laboratories started producing it. he never made his money back. And now we started buying from the other companies because they had much better equipment than we did. You're getting a better product.

And so that's what's happened. So vitamin C, if it goes through the process, any company would have to spend about a billion dollars to get it through the FDA by doing all of the studies that need to be done. And without a patent, So there's no way that anybody is going to do any studies on that, I mean, any effort on natural products to be approved by the FDA. And of course, I've seen this type of thing happen before in the debate over medical marijuana.

You know, they'd say, well, you know, have been any studies that prove that it's effective. It's like, well, nobody has the financial incentive to do a study because you can't patent that. And so we see this happening over and over again. And there's so many things, you know, we're just talking about. two of them. There's so many things out there that could be very, very effective. Right. Go back and I think about the ancient Greek physicians and they even said, let food be your medicine. Exactly. And yet we don't have the studies that do that because there's no incentive for that. Yes. And then the other misconception is that if it's not

FDA approved, it's bad. And if it is FDA approved, it's safe, right? So there is a misconception that if something it is not, that if it's not FDA approved, that it's bad. But it only means that it didn't go through the process. For instance, bananas are not approved by the FDA.

Right? And nobody can say that they're bad. It's just that it didn't go through the process. So a banana is not safe and effective. Are you kidding me? It's not appealing, I guess. So, I I hope that somebody comes with an idea to incentivize people to study natural products and that they can make money from them.

Because otherwise, we will never have anything that is natural and that we know that it can work. For instance, curcumin, there's about 100 published studies on the value that curcumin could have for cancer patients. but it all stayed at the lab level. It never went into clinical trials because it's natural. On B-17, for instance, there's about seven publications that were done at the Sloan Kettering in the 50s that proved that it was very effective in animals. But again, because it was natural,

it never went into clinical trials in humans. And so I hope that some bright, mind out there comes up with an idea that can incentivize companies to get natural products approved because the potential is enormous. And of course, the problem with a lot of the natural things like that is, you know, what dosage do you use? Like you're talking about Krikum and even B-17, you know, what type of, but since they're not toxic, you can take large amounts of it.

But again, the question is, you know, are you taking sufficient? amount for it to be effective. I guess that's the issue when I look at it from my perspective as somebody who hasn't seen the studies. What is your response to that? You're absolutely right. The difference between the needed dosage to survive of vitamins is extremely low in comparison to the for antitumor activity. For instance, vitamin B-17, the normal doses for 500 milligrams a day that we need in order not to develop scurby. But to treat cancer, you need between 50 and 100 grams. That's a massive difference in dosage.

And so you're absolutely right. The dosages that we need to treat the seas are extremely high and not easily administered sometimes orally. So we need to create them in a drug form so that we can give to the patient's IV or in liposomal forms, or nanoparticles. We've proven that nanoparticles, for instance, of curcumin or B-17, are so well absorbed in the body that it's almost as good as if you would give them IV. So you can get very high concentrations in the body.

plasma or in the blood for them to be effective. But you're absolutely right. The effective dose for nutrients or natural therapy is very high in comparison to the dosages used for nutritional purposes. And when we talk about nutritional purposes or even maybe as a cancer preventative, as many people take B-17, you know, what type of dosage we're looking at there in terms of The dosage is not massive. For instance, the dosage calculated that the Hunza people take is about 500 milligrams a day. And that's what you, and you can obtain 500 milligrams from about a pound of apricot kernels.

So, yes, the amounts that you use for prevention are much lower than the ones that you use for treatment. When we look at the synthetic drugs that are out there, of course, there's also a lot of synthetic data as well. And that's one of the things that showed up that you have here and your information that you sent me in terms of glyphosate, ghostwritten scientific papers and things like that. That's not the first time we've seen that coming from pharmaceutical companies. I mean, you talk about the financial disincentive to show that something that's natural and natural. not patented works. And yet there's a tremendous financial incentive for these people to pretend that something works that doesn't work, isn't it? Correct. For instance, there's a number of

of the new targeted therapies that are extremely expensive, like $10,000 every three weeks. Wow. that were approved because it prolonged the life of a stage four cancer patient by three months. Wow. Wow. And it was approved. Wow. And they can have, you know, serious toxicity, toxic side effects.

So that's such a short period of time. I mean, how can you even reliably say that, you know, you were going to die three months ago and you survive for three months? I mean, if somebody's talking about years, yeah, you could make that statement. But if it's just a couple of months, I don't know how anybody could even make that statement credibly. And they have been approved. So there's a tremendous amount of corruption. I'm sure that there's many, many people involved that are truly with the purpose in their hearts

to help patients. but the money incentive is just so massive that it just makes you think twice about how virtues, you know, many, many of these researchers are. Yeah, that's right. Well, when you look at the profit motives of big pharma, but of course, glyphos it speaks to the profit motives of big pharma, a big ag, right, as well, because, again, they're looking at how much product they can sell, not whether or not it is safe, effective, and healthy.

And we have glyphosate that is now permeating our food supply. Even if you're not out there as an agricultural worker getting direct exposure, you're getting indirect exposure from that. Talk a little bit about that. Well, you know, there's a very interesting observational study that was done in Greece. Greece has a very high population density, and so they have very little places for for cemeteries

so when you die you can only be in your grave for five years then they take your remnants out and somebody else can use the grave but because many Americans retire in Greece at five years they pull them up and they're fresh as a lettuce they don't decay Americans don't decay because they consume so many

chemicals and preservatives in their foods. And so, you know, it's a terrible trade of something that keeps you in your grave forever that kills you younger. And it's all due to all of the chemicals used in food production. And so that's one of the things that I think Bobby Kennedy is trying to fight and reduce the amount of preservatives used in foods in comparison to Europe. It's tremendous. So it's very well known that many of those chemicals are very deleterious to our health and that we shouldn't be using. So you're saying... Hopefully we'll get back to consuming the food the way God put it on this earth.

Yes. So you're saying that the Greek... Life is the big thing to make money if... Right. That's right. So you're saying the Greek people are getting a lot of chemicals and their bodies are there for... No, no. They're not.

They're not getting it. people in five years, they're completely disintegrated, okay? Oh, okay. Dust to dust. I got it the other way around. But the Americans that went to retire there and died there and are buried there. I guess. When they open their grapes, they're fresh as a letter.

Nothing happens to them. Wow. Yeah. They didn't have that Mediterranean diet that they keep pushing on all of us. I mean, especially since I have some heart issues, they say, get on that Mediterranean diet. But, yeah, it's truly amazing. So the Americans are well preserved, right?

Yes, in their graves. That's amazing. Well, tell us a little bit about Hope, the hospital. And I think when I talked to Rick Hill, he said it was helping other people escape, I think was the acronym that he used. I think that's a great way to look at it. Tell us a little bit about it. So the Oasis of Hope is an integrative oncological center that is also holistic.

My father began this work because, as I, an oncologist, he noticed that the main reason that we were failing in helping cancer patients was that we were not addressing their emotional and spiritual needs. We were only addressing the physical needs. And so he began by, you know, helping patients emotionally and spiritually and noticed that, you know, noticed that the results were much better. And then a few years later, this was in the late 50s, a patient that participated in a clinical trial with B-17 in Canada, came back to San Diego. And she needed to continue with a B-17 and nobody wanted to give it to her because it was not FDA-approved.

And so an oncologist that knew my father, because my father was a pathologist as well, and he did pathological work for the Mercy Hospital in San Diego, said, well, I know of a Mexican oncologist, and he might be willing to give it to you. And so my father looked at it and was not approved in Mexico either, but the patient stayed for breast cancer with metastasis to the liver, to the brain, to the bones. And she had really no hope, and my dad said,

I will give it to you. And lo and behold, she started getting better and better and better. Wow. And so this lady started calling everybody on the study. And that's how people learned about my father. And that's how the alternative part of the equation came to be. And so my father was virtually the father of B-17 in America. I'm talking about the continent of America.

because it was already been used in Europe as well, not as much as in Canada. So that's how we started. And since then, we have then developed many options for our patients, both in the emotional realm and in the alternative realm. And so we're always looking out for, scientifically proven natural elements to help our patients. So curcumin, vitamin C, vitamin B-17.

There are many studies that show that hyperthermia, for instance, is very effective in killing tumor cells. For instance, ozone therapy is very helpful in the treatment of cancer patients. And so we have many elements to help our cancer patients from the conventional and from the alternative realm. And as I mentioned to you, in the few studies that we've been able to make prospective clinical trials, they're very expensive. We're a small institution, but we've been able to do about four different clinical trials with the most common tumors. and our results are so much better than with just conventional. And that's why many people from all around the world come to the oasis of hope.

Unfortunately, most of them come when they hit the wall, when they've been sent home to die, where the conventional therapies didn't work, and then they started looking for alternatives. But in the patients that come here first, the results are much, much better. Well, you know, your story is very similar to what we heard from, Griffin in terms of people, you know, kind of somebody kind of happens on this one way or the other.

They know of somebody who has helped with this. And then they try it. And it's kind of word of mouth that kind of evolves this thing, the same way it did with your father. And that kind of thing, I think to me, I put a lot of credibility on that because I've seen so much manipulation of clinical studies. I know that a clinical study would be a great goal standard, but I've seen so much dishonesty in it. To me, it matters a great deal to hear this word of mouth that people have. You know, I tried this and this work for me.

Maybe you want to try it, that type of thing. And to me, I think that kind of recommendation carries a lot of weight to me. Definitely. And, you know, what you have faith in usually works better for you. And it's amazing. we've been criticized for selling false hope. And so my question is always, is what's true hope? You're dead?

There's either hope or no hope. And the power of the mind is tremendous, and we poo-poo that in the scientific world, right? But yet we do double-blind studies. Why do we do double-blind studies? Because the belief of the patient makes a difference. That's right. That's right.

That's a good point. And so the first blind is that the patients do not know who's taking the placebo and who's taking the drug. Do you know what the double blind is? The administrators don't know who's getting it. Yeah, the doctors, yeah. Because the doctors can also sway the results, right? I can tell you, listen, this is the best thing since popcorn because I have stock in the pharmaceutical industry. Right?

So that's why we do double blinds, meaning that. power of the mind is tremendous. Well, why don't we exploit it? And that's what, that's giving hope to the patients. Yeah. Right. That's a great point. Their emotions and letting them know that there's possibilities.

And so whenever you can help somebody emotionally, it makes that tremendous. There are a hundred studies at least that show that positive patients have better outcomes than negative patients. And so if you work with a patient in the emotional realm and the spiritual, because your emotional reactions, your emotional reactions are based on your spiritual fortitude. So when you provide spiritual resources, the patient will have more functional emotional responses. And, you know, it's a big part of our therapy here. and I believe that that's one of the reasons why our results are so much better. I agree with that.

And that makes so much sense, as you point out, why do you even have double-blind or a blind study, you know, where you have shielded who's getting the placebo and who's getting the actual drug is because it makes a tremendous difference. Even that placebo effect is measurable and known from a scientific standpoint. That's why they do the studies that way. And yet they'll come around and say, no, no, you can't talk to people about anything other than the physical.

You can't talk about the metaphysical. or the spiritual or anything like that. That's a great point to take away from that. Now, you've written a couple of books as well, hope of living cancer-free and the coming cancer cure. Tell us a little bit about that. Are those available on Amazon? Yes, in Amazon, you can get on our website

and also many of them you can download for free. The latest one is the art and science of undermining cancer. And so I explained all of the possibilities that patients have there for cancer treatment, all the conventional in many of the alternatives, the ones that have, you know, sufficient scientific support. I do not recommend any of the ones

that have no scientific support. And so, yes, you can have them available at Oasisofope.com. That's great. That's where people can find out of your clinic as well, or your hospital. Yeah, that's great. Well, thank you so much.

It really is fascinating, and it is something that we have never needed more than at this time with the explosion of cancer that we're seeing, with the threats of additional things in our health, in our food, I should say. And I guess that's one of the really big disappointments that a lot of people have had. I was skeptical from the very beginning. I'm always skeptical politicians who are making promises. But this has been a big disappointment when you have somebody who has spent his entire, life talking about the damaging effects of glyphosate and now he's just done a complete 180. The good point about it is that Children's Health Defense, the organization that he created,

they're still holding to the course that they had set some time ago. They have not changed. So even though there's been a change on RFK Jr's side, there hasn't been a change from the children's health defense that I've seen. They are staying with the course. But thank you so much. And again, Oasisofhope.com. It's where you can go to find out about Dr. Francisco Contreras, MD, as well as his books and the treatments that you can get there.

Thank you so much for joining us, sir. Thank you very much. God bless. Thank you. And I'll just remind everybody that, again, if you go to rancestore.com, you can get books and information there as well as the Geraldine's a world without cancer. And you can save 10% off of apricot seeds as well as the pill forms of migdalene. You can get all that stuff at R&C store.com and use the code Knight to save 10%. Making sense. Common again.

You're listening to the David Knight Show. Hear News now at APSRadioNews.com or get the APS Radio app and never miss another story. Right. Joining us now is someone who is no stranger to the show. We've had Scott on many times, Scott Shera. And he's written a book, however, now about the ordeal that he's gone through with his family and what happened to his daughter, Grace. We've had him on many times Our Amazinggrace.net. It's his website.

And you can go there and pre-order the book. It releases on Monday. And so we're excited to see that. We've got a little bit of a preview of the book, and we're going to tell you a little bit about what's in it and why he wrote it. And if you haven't seen Scott before, you really need to hear about his experiences. It's heartbreaking. and it is something that every American needs to know because we need to understand what this system

that they've created is capable of doing and actually incentivized to do. So joining us now is Scott Sherer. Thank you for joining us, Scott. Well, it is really a pleasure to be here, and I am so thankful to see you. Well, thank you. Thank you. Scott was a really big help in terms of when I had the stroke.

He was very helpful in terms of advice and things and warnings and other things like that. One of the things that we never talked about before, and we can touch on that today. I don't know if you want to do it later, but we can talk about adult protective services. So many times we've talked about child protective services and how families can get caught up in something like that,

but they have the equivalent for each and every one of us. They can grab us at the end of life as well. And so the book is government legally killing you. And that's a rhetorical question, isn't it, Scott? Yeah. You could, the way I understood it from the people that helped me put the book together, they said, I think you'll sell more copies if you put it as a question. That's good.

It's no longer an open question for any of us who've been paying attention since 2020 and things that have happened at that point in time. You now have a podcast, of course, as well. And the podcast is deprogramming with Grace's Dad. And you can find that on Rumble and all the regular podcast platforms. What did you do before this happened to your... your family. Yeah, that's a, nobody ever asked me that question. That's a great question. I have been a business owner for most of my life. I own a business right now that's just a

small business. I have four men who work for me and praise God, I've been able to turn the business part of it over to them. So I only spent about three hours a week in the business, and I do this full time. My background, though, before the current business, which is a pond management company. I had a CPA firm, and then I did strategic planning. And, you know, when you think about the book of Esther and the line everybody quotes when Mordecai said to Esther, how do you know God has it made you for a time such as this? All that background has really helped me to be able to do this.

So, you know, as a CPA, you're used to audit trails and proving things out. And, you know, the book, when you write a book, I never thought I'd write a book. but when you choose to write a book, you can't just start blabbering. You've got to have the facts, and you've got to find the source documents. And so I did all of that for the book. We have 70 end notes in the book, and that background helped tremendously. The strategic planning background also helped because, you know, this is a long-term project. You know, Grace died.

Grace is a martyr, and she died so that other people's lives can be saved. And so this is our long-term plan. This is the rest of our life plan. Yes, that's right. So tell us a little bit about Grace's story. Give us a brief overview because we know we've had you on several times on the show, but there's a lot of people that are always coming on board the show. And so they may not be familiar with what happened.

If you could tell us briefly what happened with her, just to give us an overview. Well, so first, Grace was only 19 when she died on October 13th of 21. Grace had Down syndrome, and she was, you know, to be blunt, she was the best thing God ever gave a second to salvation. And I was on an earlier interview today, and I told the host that if God chooses to do an Abraham Sarah situation with my wife and I would want another Down syndrome baby. Because Down syndrome is an absolute gift. 90% of Down syndrome babies are murdered in the womb in America today. So, yeah, that's my plug for Down syndrome. And when I've had you on in the past, we've talked about a very, very close friend of ours who had a daughter with Down syndrome.

And fortunately, our friend died of breast cancer not too long ago. But that was their experience as well. You know, it's a challenging thing. But they really, it's such a wonderful thing. The Downs kids have, there's just something about them, the innocence that's there that's in a child, you know. Well, it's what guys. God calls us to be, I mean, he says to come to him like a child. And grace, I just, I can't say enough about her.

She just had a way about her that was always encouraging, always loving. She always found the good in people. She was special. So she makes it easy. You know, the work that I'm doing now, it makes it easy because, you know, I think about grace every single day. obviously, and I miss her tremendously, but she becomes quite a motivation to make sure that nobody else loses their best buddy. So you asked what happened to Gray, so this was during the COVID scam. I had no idea at that time. I was just the typical person. You know, I'm just an

obedient slave to the system. Trusted the medical system. I didn't know anything. And so we had been following the frontline COVID critical care doctors protocol. And that protocol said if your oxygen saturation drops below 94% admit yourself to the hospital because it's an emergency. So we dutifully did that. And Grace went in with 88% oxygen. She just had a cold. Her and I were goofing around. And seven days later, she was dead. And so how did she die? They gave her a drug combination that should not be given. It's given to people at end of life in hospice care, Presidex, lorazepam, and morphine. And, you know, in the jury trial, our expert, Dr. Gilbert Berdine, he said when they gave Grace morphine, she didn't even have a blood pressure. He called

that the worst clinical decision he's ever seen in 46 years of medical practice. And they could have still revived Grace after giving her the morphine. But they refused because the doctor had put an illegal, do not resuscitate order on Grace's chart. And praise God, we had the first and probably the only wrongful death jury trial with COVID as the cause of death on the death certificate. And of course, we lost. That loss came down via the verdict on June 19th of 25, and we lost 11 to 1. So it was a significant loss. And at the time, of course, I was shocked because we had a better team. We had the truth on our side. We were extremely well prepared.

We were all shocked with that. Yeah. I'm not surprised. Yeah, go ahead, David. Well, I was just going to say, there was such high expectations because you were right. And it was the first time, as you said, that anybody had been able to come after with a wrongful death rather than just malpractice or something like that. And all the facts were on your side. And it was so important to establish that precedent as well.

And I imagine that that had a lot to do with the reason that they, went the other way because it would have been a very, very important precedent, very damaging for the system itself. It would have been, right, and that's, they brought in the big guns. They brought in five experts, two were from Johns Hopkins. You know, they spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on their experts. Our expert was so gracious, he had never worked for a plaintiff before. He only had worked for the defense representing doctors, and he thought Grace's case was so egregious.

he didn't take a penny. Wow. It's hard to even grasp. But, you know, it's part of the beast system. You know, the Antichrist system has a lot of tentacles. And in the book, of course, I'm exposing the medical industrial complex and the legal industrial complex. But there's a lot. The world is full of these deceptions that we've bought into.

And it's amazing. You know, it's just like we look into the vaccine thing or the, Did they put her on a ventilator? Was that part of it as well? Because they had a very high rate that people that they killed with that. Right. It was 90%. And praise God, Grace was never on a ventilator.

And the reason I say that relative to the story isn't because of whether Grace needed or didn't need a ventilator. But the fact is a ventilator was a covered countermeasure under the public health emergency. So consequently, the PEP Act immunity takes over if Grace would have died on a ventilator. And so the reason we had a lawsuit is because Grace wasn't on a ventilator. So if she would have been on one, of course, she would have died on it. And then we would have not had a lawsuit. Yeah, and that's what we're seeing right now. Trump has used exactly the same legal pervarication, this Defense Act thing that he's got,

that he used to push the production of these ventilators, that one pulmonologist said, we've never done that before. Why would you do that? It didn't make any sense at all, but they pushed that. And as you point out, since they pushed it and demanded that it be made, then they could not be held liable for that. He's doing the same thing now with glyphosate. He's compelling the production of glyphosate under that same act. And under that act, they also get immunity. It just makes your headspin that people don't wake up to this. It's insane. I am blown away by it myself, but I'm reminded of, for Samuel chapter 8 when I, you know, I don't want to throw other people under the bus that don't get it.

Yeah. Although it's hard to not. But, you know, 250 years after God parted the Red Sea, the Israel's didn't want the king. They wanted a king instead of the king. And, you know, we're suckers for man's way. And, you know, politics is not the way out of this, folks. You can't legislate morality. We can't vote our way out of this.

We have to come to our senses. That's right. So, you know, it's a trap. And you talk about the trap and how it's a very long process that they get us all into. It's like, you know, a grooming process for everybody, really. Talk a little bit about that process that gets us so dependent and reliant on conventional medicine. And what do we need to do to inoculate ourselves against that? Well, you have such a way of asking questions.

I enjoy it. I forgot how much I enjoy you as a host. Oh, thank you. Yeah, so they do this through. So that's why my podcast is called deprogramming. They program us. And we don't realize it because it's so subtle. And, you know, we end up becoming the boiling frogs in the end

because we can't recognize this happening over time. And in the book, I lay this out, and I start with 1905, even though the eugenics model was already in place in Plato wrote about it in 375 BC. And so the idea of eugenics is nothing new, but modern eugenics started in 1905 with Jacobson versus Massachusetts. And in that Supreme Court case, the Supreme Court said, quote, the rights of the individual in respect to his liberty may at times under the pressure of great dangers be subjected to such restraint to be enforced by reasonable regulations as the safety of the general public may demand. So when you hear that for the first time, you think, well, that's reasonable. It's pragmatic,

but it's not right. What that is is collectivism. And collectivism has become the, quote, law, end quote, of the land. This is the legal standard. It's not lawful because God is an individualist, not a collectivist. But then, okay, so now how does that doctrine, how does that get integrated into our society. And, you know, I mentioned earlier that Down syndrome babies are murdered at the rate of 90%. So collectivism relative to Down syndrome, I'll just give you the 411. You know, the young couple gets pregnant. They have not established any biblical roots. So what happens is they go to the doctor. The doctor congratulates them on the pregnancy and says, let's do an amniocentesis. Yeah. And the young couple without roots, the only question they really ask is, does my insurance

cover it. And the answer is, yeah, your insurance does cover it. I'm just going to add my two cents. Your insurance covers it because they're in on it. That's part of the scam. So now the an meocentesis comes back positive for Down syndrome. The doctor has a meeting with the couple and says, your son, we expect them to have Down syndrome based on these test results. And they have a training document that I don't have at my fingertips right now, but there's a training document that doctors wrote for other doctors as to how to view Down syndrome. And so Down syndrome is looked at as this negative thing, this burden on society, a burden on the family, all of that.

So he sells that lie to the young couple and suggests they have an abortion. So that's what collectivism looks like in real time. All of us have bought into it. And I'm going to, we'll go right to the end game. So just process this as a, so first maybe I'll just ask you the question, David. you know, if you were going to have your windows cleaned at your home, you know, you would expect, I presume, that, you know, if you don't have a referral, you'd look up to a company,

and you would expect them to give you a quote. And assuming you hire them, you would expect them that if the team that came out to clean your windows, if they broke one of them, you would expect them to fix it. That's reasonable, right? Well, think about in the medical system. can you think of any other industry? So this is the norm. The window cleaning situation is the norm. But in the medical industry, they don't disclose any pricing. They don't give you any quotes.

And if they screw up, they have immunity from liability. That's right. In your analogy, if they had a history of breaking out half the windows that they cleaned with their ladder, you would never be able to know that if it was a medical situation. Right, because it's all. They hide it. It's all hidden. Exactly. Yeah. Truly is amazing. So that's how, you know, we've all tacitly approved all of that. And so consequently, on a macro level, I believe the only way out of this nightmare is repentance for our participation in that system. You know, from a micro level, you know, what can people do?

I mean, obviously, I encourage people to not participate. So what does that look like? We don't have medical insurance anymore. we chose to go with a cash pay provider, somebody that's not, they do not accept Medicare or Medicaid. That's critical because if a provider accepts Medicare and Medicaid, they have to tow the line or they lose their license. They don't get paid for any recommendations outside of that standard of care model.

And that's for the whole country. That isn't just if you're on Medicare and Medicaid. And I'll share a story with you that I share in the book that will really, really get your listeners in the mindset that, okay, is what this guy saying true? Yeah, it's true. And I interviewed a doctor for my book just to make sure that my anecdotal story is, in fact, the case today. And he said, yes, and you'll hear about the statin in my story. And he said, I refuse to prescribe the statin, and I get financially punished for not prescribing it. Because the statin is, as you're going to learn here shortly, is the standard of care for heart

disease. Oh, I know that. They tried to push that on me real hard. Oh, well, then you are. Every time I go, she gives me this whole, uh, whole spiel about the Framingham study. And I politely sat there and nod my head. And after this happened two or three times, I told Karen, I said, we're not ever going back to that time. I've had enough lectures about the Framingham study. And, uh, I know about statins. I'm not going to, uh, not going to take these things ever. So, yeah. Yeah. So, I mean, it's, it's absolutely critical. that, you know, so you asked, what do we do? I mean, we've got to do our, we got to take the freedom that we

gave away to the government. We turned over our birthright. We got to take it back. We got to reclaim the ground that we lost. And, you know, you do that by asking questions. You stand firm on your beliefs. And, you know, the story, I'll just share this quick story so you understand where I'm coming from. So this is back, I'm still programmed in the medical system, May of 2018. We still had conventional medical insurance. I went in for the recommended physical at $500 for your physical. And so, okay, I do that. The doctor said to me, Scott, do you want to do a CT scan of your heart? I said, well, I don't, why would I? I feel fine. He said, well, we got a deal. It's normally $2,000. It's only $80. So I said, sure, I'll do it. And the day after I did the CT scan, they called and said,

you need to come in immediately. I think, oh, boy. So I went into the doctor's office and they said, have a 1,200 calcium score, which is the OMG level for heart disease. So I said, what's the cause? And they said, well, you have high cholesterol. So what's the solution? The statin. So, you know, praise God, I didn't roll over then. And Cindy, my wife and I graduated from high school with a lady who's a doctor. I called her. And she explained what I just said to you. And she said, my husband just had a heart attack two months ago. I'm researching this myself. Let me send you some things. And I looked at what she sent. I started researching at a couple hundred hours in and realized

high cholesterol is necessary. It's not even in the top 10 of the causes of heart disease. And of course, the statin causes dementia. And interestingly, if we tied dementia back to Obamacare, which was passed on March 23rd of 2010, Ezekiel Emmanuel is the chief architect of Obamacare. And he said that if you have dementia, you're a non-contributing member of

society and don't deserve medical care. You know, so it's not a joke. When I say the government is legally killing us, that's an example. So anyway, here, just to finish the story, I went into the doctor then after doing the research and said, I'm not going to do the statin. And the nurse, his nurse, and I thank her for this. This is so good because she walked me out and said, God, I'm going to tell you something I'm not going to want to hear.

I said, what is it? She said, you have to take the statin. And I said, what? I don't have to do anything. and she said, our Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement rates are based on what the percentage of our patient population that follows the standard of care. And the standard of care for your level of heart disease is the statin. And I said, I'm not on Medicare and Medicaid. She said, you didn't hear me.

It's based on our entire patient population. And if there's enough people like you who won't follow the standard of care, we have to fire you as a patient to keep. our reimbursement rates up. And that's the secret I reveal in the book. That is how the federal government, through the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, controls the entire health care system in America. Wow. We see the same things over and over again. You know, when you look at childhood vaccines, for example, they've all practiced their speech about, they've got a little speech to convince you, right? And again, you know, when we go back to, I remember in the summer of 2020 with the COVID stuff, there was a Yale study, and it

It was a psychological study. It wasn't a study of COVID. It wasn't a study of mask or ventilators or the vaccine or anything. It was a psychological study. How do we convince people to get this vaccine that we haven't finished yet, that we haven't tested yet, that we haven't found out safe or effective? And they went through and they tried different statements on people. And they broke them into two different groups, you know, just like you were testing a drug or something. We have a control group over here that doesn't hear the argument. And we've got another one over here that does hear the argument. How effective was that argument?

And I was just absolutely stunned. It's like, here we're going to rush through this stuff and do no tests of anything, except how we can manipulate people to take this. And then I saw very well-known Christian leaders who used these things verbatim after the vaccine rolled out after about seven or eight months after that. I was just appalled at all of that. But the same thing, we go back to the vaccines, the same thing. They got little speeches to tell people,

they are reluctant to get the vaccines for their kids. And then they will fire you as a patient because they will literally put these pediatricians out of business if they don't get a certain percentage of the kids who take the prescribed number of vaccines on schedule, which is the standard of care they have demanded. Truly is amazing to see how that works. And it's all about money. You know, they use, they weaponize money. And that's what I was telling everybody about the way the whole COVID thing.

worked. I said, you know, they said, well, it wasn't Trump. It was the bad Democrat governors. I said, well, the Republican governors are doing the same thing. And it was the money. It was incentivizing it. And I said, that's how the government always gets around the 10th Amendment restrictions. They bribe people and they blackmail people with money. And they always roll it out that way. Yeah. It's right on, David. I mean, you hit the nail on the head with the vaccine agenda. But it's, so that's the, from the government's perspective. incentivizing the medical. Well, what do they do from, how do we participate?

So I like to cover both sides because they have to get us to participate. So how did they do that? So go all the way back to World War II. One of the goals of World War II was to get women in the workplace. So why did they want to get women in the workplace? Well, because now we can have a two-earner couple. So then why do we want a two-earner couple? Well, because now they're going to need to send their kids to the public fool system for free babysitting.

And as part of the free babysitting service, the indoctrination service, you have to have 80 jabs. So it's a massive population reduction agenda. And once your eyes are open to that, all the puzzle pieces fit. Yes, yes, absolutely. I love what you call it the public fool system. I saw that and I told you, I've got to start calling it that way. That's the best description of it I've heard yet. That's better than government school.

I like public fools system. You know, it is, and this has been one of my pet peeves all along, which you touched on the public health issue, the difference between this idea of collective health and individual health. And I've said for the longest time, if you don't have individual health, how do you have collective health? Because the collective is all a bunch of individuals,

and if you're going to run roughshod over people and poison them and all the rest of this stuff, they're not healthy. How does the herd get healthy? It doesn't make any sense. It's like the blinding flash of the obvious. Yeah. Yeah, that's true. Yeah, it's a crazy system and it's an evil system and it's very calculated and we can see it happening in so many different ways. Like I said, the grooming that they do to us as adults and as children and how the profit motive is woven into all of this stuff. Let me ask you, because I know that we got pressured when we were having our child, Lance is running the board right now. And they wanted

us to do an amniocentesis because we were older. And we said, no, we're not going to do that because we're not going to abort the baby. So there's no point in doing it. And any procedure is going to have certain risks. So I'm not going to do that. What was the situation when you guys had Grace? Did you know that she had Down syndrome? Yeah, boy, am I glad you asked me that question because so we had been chasing the American dream. So what did that look like? We had 2.1 kids, 1.7 dogs, no cats, of course. And, you know, projecting out our retirement in the early 50s and blah, blah, blah.

Well, God got a hold of us. And when we were 39, we turned the baby department over to him. And five minutes later, Fertil Myrtle got pregnant. and then we didn't do any of the testing because we knew we were going to give, we were going to take whatever God gave us. And so I was in the delivery room with Cindy. And when Grace came out, I just said to her, I said, I think she has Down syndrome because she had the features. And the doctors had a huddle.

And it was my first experience negative with the medical system because one of the doctors came in and said, we suspect your daughter has Down syndrome. Do you want to keep her? Wow. And I said to him, what are you talking about? Was he talking about adoption or euthanasia? I don't know. You know, I didn't, because I wasn't awake to anything then. He just said, I said, what are you talking about? He said, well, we have people waiting in the wings for children such as these. So we just left, said, you know, we have no interest in

anything that you're talking about. And, you know, so it was the end of the story. Yeah, wow. Yeah, that's amazing. You were about the same age we were when we had Lance as well. And that was the way we felt about it as well. You just have to, certain things like that, you just have to trust God in it. And I think you had a wonderful experience with Grace for 19 years.

I've seen your website, all the wonderful things that you all did with her and how she had a wonderful life. that you gave her. Well, she was, she was a blast. I just, I enjoy, uh, just processing all the, I mean, we had so many cool experiences with her and she was, she was a natural comic to boot. Um, and that's, of course, what I missed the most. I taught her, uh, literal humor and she got it, you know, was, it was really fun.

I mean, uh, just a, a, a simple example. I mean, we're, it'll be our 40th wedding anniversary coming up. here in November. And I remember this so vividly because Grace was so sharp. It was our 29th anniversary. We have an apple orchard, and we were pressing apples, which is a manual process. And so Grace and I are on the Apple Press, and I said, hey, Grace, did you know that it's mom and dad's anniversary today?

And she quips back, happy misery. It just was so funny. I just love that kind of humor. And, you know, just I really thought that someday she would be a stand-up comic because she was so funny. Yeah. Probably a lot funnier than the stand-up comics I typically see. Most of them are not funny. They're just shock jocks, you know, trying to shock you with their language or whatever they're doing.

So it would be a welcome change, I think. I want to share something that I expose in the book. And it's a little bit deep. but it's important. So we talked about the idea of standards of care, and that's how the government controls us. That's how they control medical care. So as standards of care,

there can be some good standards of care, but for the most part, standards of care are designed to kill us. So the standard of care for heart disease, the statin. 700,000 deaths a year attributable to the government killing us with the standard of care for heart disease, 600,000 with cancer. The standard of care for cancer is key. If you survive five years in one day, that is you are an anomaly.

You're one of 2.1% that survives that long after chemo. Yeah. Yeah, so that's what we're programmed to believe. Okay, so then you've got people arguing for, they're in the trap and they're arguing for informed consent. And so let me set this up just a little bit if you have, as you well know, I mean, you experience good doctors and bad doctors. And, you know, there are good doctors. But for the most part, the doctors believe that their job is to tell you what to do. So that is not informed consent, right?

That is telling you what to do and expecting you to do what they say because they've got all the schooling and you're just a dummy. All right. So that's not informed consent. Informed consent means that they explain the options to you thoroughly. You ask questions and then you process those options and make. a decision separate from being informed. That's informed consent. So people are arguing, so for example, in Grace's case, not only didn't we get informed consent, but we didn't even have knowledge of these meds being used on Grace. We had no knowledge of the DNR order. You know,

so that's in that's lack of informed consent on steroids. But here's the trap. If people are really pushing for informed consent, the problem is they're in the system. So the doctor can only give you options that are within the boundaries of the standards of care. They can't give you real options outside. So cancer, for example, if a doctor gives you a recommendation to take ivermectin for your cancer, he'll lose his license. So they can't give you real informed consent. So that's the scary part about these arguments.

I see a lot of medical freedom people making these arguments, but they're inside the trap that they've created, the informed consent trap. Of course I want informed consent. But I want informed consent outside. I want to go outside the lines. I was thinking about how Grace would color. So, you know, you color a picture

and you're taught to color inside the lines, right? Well, grace would always draw clouds and little hearts and things. You know, that's what I want. I want a doctor that's willing to go outside the lines. Yeah. Yeah. Just to give you an example, you know,

when I'm in the hospital, a lot of different things. I said, you know, I didn't bring my vitamin C with me. I said, can I get vitamins? Oh, no, we don't give you vitamin C. You have to be kidding, right? Can't get vitamin C in the hospital, no. It's even worse than that.

You can't get any sleep either. That's the, with the bed and all the rest of the stuff that's there. But no, I'm not going to go outside that narrow box of standard of care. That's exactly right. Well, I said at the beginning, let's talk about this situation with adult protective services. We're all aware of the damage that's done with child protective services. I hope at least the people who follow the show are, because I've talked about that many times,

but adult care where they insinuate with a social worker and come into a situation where somebody is at the end of life or incapacitated. Talk a little bit about that, because that played into Grace's story as well, right? Well, it technically didn't because we had our paperwork in order. Grace was an adult. She was 19, but we did have a durable medical power of attorney in place, and they ignored it. But we had the documents in place so that Grace would never become a ward of the state. But we have firsthand experience now. In fact, my wife is not in the area right now. She's three hours away. She has become a co-guardian for a lady that ended up being captured by adult protective services.

And the family were familiar with our story. They had seen our local billboards and asked us to get involved. And we started to get involved and realized adult protective services captured this lady. They sent her to a hospital. They ended up putting her on a ventilator. She now permanently has a trache and will never speak again because of the medical abuse. and when you become under adult protective services, the court takes over and they appointed a state guardian.

And that's, so now my wife started advocating for this lady, the state guardian, you would expect that if you were doing your guardianship duties, you would want an advocate on the ground to give you the report as to what's going on with the patient. The advocate actually, or the guardian, the state guardian actually called, it's a version of adult protective services to do an evaluation to get my wife out of being an advocate. And so then we took the extraordinary step of contacting this lady's sister and said, hey, I think we should hire an attorney and take over guardianship from the state appointed guardianship so that we can. can get her back on solid footing and back on her own. You know, she, at the time, she was homeless. And when she got captured from being homeless, they said that, well, you got heart

issues. They claimed she had a heart attack, got her in, you know, she was taken to the, actually the same hospital that Grace was killed at over an hour and a half away from where she was, just to get her away from her family. So that system of capturing somebody is real. And what happens in that system is if you don't have a guardian that is representing your interest, so you have a state-appointed guardian, they're basically expected to just follow the protocol. So right now, for example, this lady, the system screwed up again.

She ended up having oxygen depletion, had to get revived. she ended up being without oxygen for 20 minutes. This was last October, and now my wife has, I just talk with her on the way to talking with you on the phone because she had an appointment with the neurologist today, and the neurologist wanted to have this lady on meds the rest of her life and be a zombie. And Cindy has fought back, and the lady is now off,

she's feeding herself again. It's like you having a stroke. I mean, you've got to go, but you need that type of care. And if you don't fight the system, if she would have still been under state the state appointed guardian, she would be dead today. Wow. So this is a big deal. That's amazing. Yeah, usually when you think of a guardian, fill in the blank, you know, guardian angel, right?

I guess there could be guardian demons as well out there, right? Yeah. It's crazy. But it's a crazy system. And unfortunately, it hits you. but you have done so much to warn people and to educate people. Really do appreciate what you've done, Scott. It's a very important work that you've been called to.

And it's a way to honor God and to honor the memory of grace as well. And so your book is available on Monday, right? On Tuesday. Tuesday, the 10th is when it's officially released. If people go on Our Amazinggrace.net right now, you'll see a copy or a picture of the cover. If you click on that, you'll see you can order on Amazon on Barnes & Noble and Goodreads.

There's both the Kindle version and the hardcover, and both will be released on the 10th. The way I understand it, and I did my own order just to see how it would work. It says that I will have my order on the 10th, that it's going to ship on the 9th, and I'll have it on the 10th. It's interesting. They have this process.

I actually have one here, so I have my complimentary copy. This is the only one right now in the whole world. and they print these one at a time. So they have a, their process of printing is they, you know, this is a, this is a color book. I chose to do it in color because of all the diagrams and evidence that I brought to the table. I wanted to have it in color. And they, they print a full color book one at a time on their press.

Wow. Wow. That's amazing. Well, thank you so much for doing that. And again, your podcast, what, give me the name of your podcast again. The podcast is called deprogramming with Grace's dad. And obviously the name is because that's, you know, Grace, Grace died to wake me up and wake me up to what?

All the things that I've been lied to about. And that's what my podcast is about. Yeah, that's good. So people can follow this. And, of course, you see this in so many different areas. It's not a narrowly defined area. This is permeated from one aspect of the other through the medical community. the standard of care, the box that they have there. And like I said before, it's not just about

vaccines. It's about heart disease. It's about cancer. It's about everything. It's important to understand how the system works before you get into that situation where a family member or you are sick and you're starting to panic and grasp for straws. I think that's the way that they get us in and they pray on our ignorance and they pray on our programming that they have so carefully put together, which is what you're exposing. Thank you so much, Scott. I appreciate it. God bless you. God bless you, David.

You have a gift that's sizing things up. He did a great job. I appreciate you. Well, thank you. Thank you, Scott. Looking forward to seeing this book. Thank you. Thank you.

The common man. They created common core to dumb down our children. They created common past to track and control us. Their commons project to make sure the commoners own nothing. and the communist future. They see the common man is simple, unsophisticated, ordinary. But each of us has worth and dignity created in the image of God. That is what we have in common.

That is what they want to take away. Their most powerful weapons are isolation, deception, intimidation. They desire to know everything about us while they hide everything from us. It's time to turn that around and expose what they want to hide. Please share the information and links you'll find at the Davidnightshow.com. Thank you for listening. Thank you for sharing. If you can't support us financially, please keep us in your prayers. The Davidnightshow.com.