The Highwire with Del Bigtree - NEW STUDIES SHOW PEDIATRIC “BEST PRACTICES” NOT BASED IN SCIENCE

Episode Date: July 25, 2024

Learning nothing from the opioid crisis, research misconduct and regulatory failure has opened the door to widespread public harm from new classes of weight loss and trans medicine drugs classes. Also, a new kind of scientific methodology is being brought to the forefront, driven by AI.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-highwire-with-del-bigtree--3620606/support.

Whoever is elected to lead this country is going to face a raging chronic disease epidemic in children, and they're going to face systemic issues at the core of science and medicine. And again, going back to Robert Redfield is saying decisions by some to underreport side effects, criminal behavior, where have we seen this before? Well, we saw this with Purdue Pharma, the maker of Oxycontin. This was one of the headlines here. They had to plead guilty to federal criminal charges for misleading regulators. Obviously, people know this led to, at the very least, mass.

of health care costs, but it's runaway addictions in this country. And so this lack of due diligence on the part of medicine is really a breakaway speed. And we're seeing this now being created these little brush fires like which started with OxyContin and Purdue Pharma. We're seeing another sector. This is the weight loss, injectable weight loss drugs. And this started when the FDA gave approval for these weight loss drugs for kids. This was for obesity in teens 12 and up.

And as soon as that as soon as that was done. The AAP American Academy of Pediatrics came out right on the back of that and said, consider drugs and surgery early for obesity and kids in their new guidelines. And you look in these guidelines, it's jaw-dropping. They say children struggling with obesity should be evaluated and treated early and aggressively, including with medications for kids as young as 12 and surgery for those as young as 13. Those are the new guidelines. And what you get then, and this is, there's been lots of studies on this, but when these

new drugs come out, there's a push by Big Pharma. they plant stories in op-eds and they make it look like they're just organic stories. But here's one, how OZimpec could save America's health system. So you're seeing this huge push on this drug. But unfortunately for the drug makers, an independent preventative task force has done a systemic review of these drugs to try to get ahead of what's probably going to be tens of thousands of lawsuits from these adverse effects. So this task force published this systemic review looking at the evidence of the weight loss

drugs and they said this, while several medications, remember if anybody who knows on this, send them this review. While several medications demonstrated greater weight loss than placebo, the totality of the evidence was found to be inadequate. That's where we're at right now. An important limitation of the pharmacotherapy studies was that there was only a single trial for each effective medication, phenomide, pyromate, semi-glutide, Lira glutei that lasted longer than two months.

So they don't even have long-term studies. The studies show that when you get off these drugs, there's a weight rebound. They don't know the long-term use or the harms from that long-term use. And right now, there's hundreds of lawsuits in a multi-dristic litigation. They're expecting tens of to 20,000,

just in this first kind of tranche of lawsuits for things like stomach paralysis, bowel obstruction, extremely, extremely, devastating medical conditions for these. And we're just at the beginning of this. And so something we're hopefully at the end at is the trans medicine. That's how the economist just put it. And you know when it's in the economist, the game's over.

So this is the economist's headline, research into trans medicine has been manipulated. And they're talking about the W-Path, World Professional Association for Transgender Health. They set these guidelines. They give an impression that their guidelines are better because they're based on so much science. It says in this article, court documents recently released as part of the discovery process in a case involving youth gender medicine in Alabama reveal that W. Path claim was built on shaky foundations. The document showed that the organization's leaders interfered with the production of systemic reviews that it had commissioned from the Johns Hopkins University of Evidence-based

Practice Center in 2018. From early on in the contract negotiations, W. Path expressed a desire to control the control the results of the Hopkins team's work. It goes on to say an email in 2020 from W-Path figures, including its incoming president at the time Walter Bowman to the working group on guidelines made it clear what sort of science W-Path did and did not want to publish. Research must be, and they say, quote, thoroughly scrutinized and reviewed to ensure that publication does not negatively affect the provision of transgender care in the broadest sense.

So what they're saying there is research should not be published if you read between the lines. That's going to discourage people. from getting this care. And they're the ones that are... Well, Jeffrey, let's stop just for one second. I want to address something that you just said. It all kind of melds together. You know, you mentioned there's no long-term trial data for these weight loss drugs, right?

You mentioned the flawed studies and the things that they're doing to kind of get what they want, results they want out of the studies. Actually, Steve Midendorp reported for High Wire News a couple months back about Texas suing Pfizer, I believe. They did this, too. They cherry-picked a study for a children's medication in order to make it look more effective than it actually was. How long do you think this has been going on for in the medical industry and the pharmaceutical industry? It's impossible to know. It's been going on perhaps since the beginning, ever since there's self-interest and the idea of money-making off the back of these drugs.

But, you know, it showed our work at ICANN legal has showed that these drugs, the vaccines were never tested long-term. the Hep B, the first shot given to children upon birth, was tested for safety. These kids were watched for three and five days with these drugs. So long-term studies and long-term advocacy and safety studies is something that really the vaccine industry has taught the drug industry and how to get away with. So is science self-regulating? No, it's not self-regulating. So what's happening now is it's actually going full seam ahead.

It's attempting to enter this kind of new alarming phase of scientific and clinical trials. This is out of stat news. This is a publication read by, I'd say, the mainstream medical community. And they're putting forward something called adaptive trial designs to increase clinical trial speed, safety, and effectiveness. And it's going to be run by AI. And it says one of the most dramatic areas in which this change is occurring is the clinical trial phase of drug development, whereas traditional clinical trials follow rigid, predetermined protocols, adaptive clinical trials use the data accumulating from participants to inform decisions made throughout the trial. What are they doing? It says this may include suggesting modifications,

dropping poorly performing arms, and answering questions to optimize and enhance outcomes. What if those poorly performing arms are the arms showing that your drug might be hurting people, that there's more side effects than the placebo? Maybe you could just cancel that out to make this clinical trial a little faster. I mean, this is what we're looking at here. This merge of science, Big Pharma, public health is extremely dangerous. And now we're talking about fast-tracking clinical trials with AI and basically cherry-picking results is super dangerous. And really to give where we're at, the state of science right now, Eric Weinstein was interviewed by Pierce Morgan,

and this is what he had to say about that very topic. Take a look. The science itself has been under probably a bigger public assault in terms of its validity as a result of the COVID pandemic than I can ever remember in my lifetime, certainly, Is it damaging when everybody on social media suddenly becomes an epidemologist, whatever it may be, you know, any different types of science you like, or medical expert, whatever?

When their views get amplified, like Terence Howard, if they're completely wrong, they get amplified and shared gazillions of times, as has happened here with all of the things that he said, is it damaging to the integrity of science when that happens? And is that a unique problem with social media? amort scientific and medical views? It's a very interesting question. I would think that we would begin somewhere else. The greatest damage is when we amplify pseudoscientists

who happen to be official pseudoscientists. So when you take a director of NAI National Institute for Allergies and Infectious Disease, and you take that person's contradictory pronouncements and you amplify those, then suddenly everybody has to learn what MRNA is because they're trying to make a decision for their child. And suddenly you've thrust them into advanced biology

because you've amplified pseudoscience coming out of the National Institute of Health or the Defense Threat Reduction Agency, DITRA. The failure and the pseudoscience is coming from inside the house. The problem is when a Francis Collins and an Anthony Fauci in private emails can turn their dissenting colleagues, fully competent expert dissident colleagues like Jay Batacharya

and his colleagues at Harvard and Oxford, and overnight they become fringe epidemiologists. Right? So more or less, what you're seeing is not a failure of science. What you're seeing is a failure of science to disson. avow public health. Public health is not science. Public health is an incredibly bizarre field that tries to straddle two worlds of actual truth and the noble lie. Absolutely unbelievable. Jeffrey, what do you have to say about that before we wrap up real quick?

You know, people watching may go, what can I do? I'm not a politician. I can't change this. I'm not a doctor. I shouldn't talk about this. What people can do watching this is they can keep doing their own research as they have been doing and they can keep speaking about it. And that has the power to change society, to change medicine, to enlighten legal minds, and to change the social structure and break medical and health narratives. That's what can be done. We saw it during COVID and we're seeing a breakaway, or I should say, the power center of the media and medicine switching from the traditional universities or gate-kept areas where

Tony Fauci was funding certain studies and not others. And you're seeing this being put into the independent people, doctors, lawyers, whoever wants to get involved in this. But they're finding and talking and communicating about the facts as they find them. And this is how as a society we move forward. Everyone gets a voice. Yeah, I mean, just it's all changing. It's changing really rapidly too.

It's fantastic. There's so much good happening at the same time as we're dealing with this.