Name: Dr. Ryan Cole: NIH Should Fund Research into Rise in Cancer
Uploaded: 2025-11-25T10:56:35.000Z
Description: Since mRNA technology was deployed widely in the COVID-19 vaccines, developers have rapidly accelerated research into more mRNA products. Moderna alone has more than two dozen mRNA products in development.

Jan Jekielek is a senior editor with The Epoch Times, host of the show “American Thought Leaders” and co-host of “FALLOUT” with Dr. Robert Malone and “Kash’s Corner” with Kash Patel. Jan’s career has spanned academia, international human rights work, and now for almost two decades, media. He has interviewed nearly a thousand thought leaders on camera, and specializes in long-form discussions challenging the grand narratives of our time. He’s also an award-winning documentary filmmaker, producing “The Unseen Crisis: Vaccine Stories You Were Never Told,” “DeSantis: Florida vs. Lockdowns,” and “Finding Manny.”

Jan Jekielek

NTD Plus

Shows

At a time when our nation is becoming increasingly polarized, media often ignore viewpoints and stories that are worthy of attention. American Thought Leaders, hosted by The Epoch Times Senior Editor Jan Jekielek and his reporting team, features in-depth discussions with important thought leaders on key issues facing America—and Canada, the world—today.

American Thought Leaders

The CCP Wants to Subjugate Taiwan—She’s Standing in the Way | An Exclusive With Hsiao Bi-Khim

Beijing Wants to Wipe Taiwan Off the Map—This Man Is Making Sure Its People Can Survive | Enoch Wu

How Classical Arts Training Helps Kids Unlock Their Full Potential | Sherry Zhang

How Cartel Mega-Tunnels Move Hundreds of Millions in Narcotics Into America | Sara Carter

Why Women Can’t Find Good Husbands | Timothy Goeglein

The Machinery Behind Modern Mass Manipulation | Jacob Siegel

What the End of the Orban Era Means for Hungary and Its Constitution | Marton Sulyok

One Key Fact About America’s Founding That Isn’t Taught Anymore | Eric Metaxas

Is Canada Becoming the CCP’s Backdoor into America? | Former Canadian Intel Analyst Scott McGregor

Bringing you the latest videos, livestreams, and premieres.

Epoch Video

'Killed to Order' LIVE Q&A with New York Times Bestselling Author and Epoch Times Senior Editor Jan Jekielek

The Associated Press is an American not-for-profit news agency headquartered in New York City. 

The Associated Press

News

World News

Americas

Helicopter With Singer Oliver Tree on Passenger List Collides With Another in Brazil, Killing 6

NTD Newsroom comprises teams of reporters, editors, and producers assigned to cover breaking news and other stories.


NTD Newsroom

News you can trust from the U.S. and around the world. Critical information and insight. We cover the stories that others don’t. NTD News Today airs Monday–Friday at 11 a.m. ET.

NTD News Today

Iran's Football Team Leaves Note of Friendship

Melanie is a reporter and editor covering world news. She has a background in environmental research.

Melanie Sun

US News

State News

California

California Governor, LA Mayor Declare Emergency Over Warehouse Fire

News with integrity, from the United States and around the world. Focused reports and analyses that shed light on major issues the world deserves to know. NTD Evening News airs daily at 6 p.m. ET.

NTD Evening News

Up to 900 Planes Grounded Worldwide Amid Engine Shortage, United CEO Says

Reuters is a news agency owned by Thomson Reuters. It employs around 2,500 journalists and 600 photojournalists in about 200 locations worldwide writing in 16 languages.

Reuters

Andrew Thomas is a reporter for NTD News primarily covering business, the economy, and technology. 

Andrew Thomas

Science &amp; Tech

NASA Reverses Evacuation Alert Order for Astronauts Aboard Space Station

Rudy Blalock is a Southern California-based daily news reporter for NTD. Originally from Michigan, he moved to California in 2017 and the sunshine and ocean have kept him here since. In his free time, he may be found underwater scuba diving, on top of a mountain hiking or snowboarding, or at home meditating—which helps fuel his active lifestyle.

Rudy Blalock

8 Dead After B-52 Bomber Crashes at Edwards Air Force Base in California

Ohio

At Least 12 People Shot at Ohio Festival, Search for Suspects Ongoing: Police

Mary Man is a writer for NTD. She has traveled around the world covering China, international news, and arts and culture.

Mary Man

Daniel Monaghan is a reporter for NTD News covering culture, social issues, and education. He holds a BA in Political Science and Government.

Daniel Monaghan

China News

Epoch Times Obtains Over 2,000 Unseen Tiananmen Square Photos on 37th Anniversary of the June 4th Massacre

US Embassy in Israel Issues Travel Alert for Much of Middle East

Los Angeles Warehouse Fire Prompts Shelter-in-Place Orders

Gordon Chang Breaks Down Trump-Xi Summit and What’s Next

The CCP’s Greatest Insecurity—and America’s Greatest Weapon | Sam Brownback

Why a Taiwan Invasion Would Trigger Trillions in Global Losses | Amb. Alexander Yui

Over 1,000 CCP-Linked Groups in America: Exposing United Front Operations | Peter Mattis

Why 28- and 29-Year-Olds Are Disappearing From China’s Uyghur Concentration Camps | Ethan Gutmann

Texas AG Ken Paxton Breaks Down Wave of Lawsuits Targeting CCP Surveillance

The Many Hidden Fronts of CCP Unrestricted Warfare | Casey Fleming

The Charter School Principal Turning Children Toward Plato, Virtue, and the Eternal | Caylan Ford

The Failures of Multiculturalism in the United Kingdom | Peter McIlvenna

From AI Girlfriends to Brain Implants, How the AI Revolution Is Radically Reshaping Our World | Wynton Hall

Most Americans Agree: You Can’t Change Your Sex | Jonathan Butcher

The Woke Movement Has Peaked. What’s Next? | Andrew Doyle

Rob Schneider: Here’s What’s Wrong With Our Culture Today

Why These 9 Institutions Must Be Reformed Post-COVID | Jeffrey Tucker

Robert Kiyosaki: Why America’s Middle Class Keeps Getting Poorer

The CCP’s Gloves Are Off in Trade War—What’s Next? | Lee Smith

How Tariffs Once Paid America’s Bills–And Why They Could Again | John Gardner

Jeffrey Tucker: Everything You Need to Know About the Fed

Impact of Trump’s Trade, Tax, Energy Policies | Mark Skousen

How Clay Clark Helped Small Businesses Survive—and Thrive—During the Pandemic and Beyond

Eric Trump: How America Can Outcompete China in Manufacturing

EJ Antoni Decodes the Trump Economy and the ‘Big, Beautiful Bill’ Controversy

Homeopathy Cured Her Disease, Now She’s Fighting for More Access | Paola Brown

Here’s What Darwinian Evolution Can’t Explain About the Origins of Species | Stephen Meyer

How ‘Brain Rot’ and the Escapist Virtual World Are Harming Our Youth | Adnan Alkhalili

Treating the Root, Not Just the Symptoms: The Power of Integrative Medicine | Dr. Daniel Monti

Exclusive: Dr. Jay Bhattacharya on How the NIH Is Rethinking Autism, DEI, China Ties, and Gain-of-Function

The False Promise of Antidepressants | Dr. Joanna Moncrieff

Why Steak Is at the Top of the New Food Pyramid | Dr. Shawn Baker

A New Approach to Alzheimer’s? | Lou Reese

Dr. Mehmet Oz: Up to $4 Billion in Health Care Fraud in California

The Evidence of Harm: What the Data Really Show About Pediatric Transgender Procedures | Leor Sapir

An Exclusive, Inside Look at Shen Yun Performing Arts | Special Episode

Epoch Cinema

Cinema

A Little Sketchy TV

Breast Milk, McDonald’s, & Garbage | A Little Sketchy

3-Headed Hydra, NSA, & Cringe | A Little Sketchy

Special

Jubilee Celebrations, Valentines Day, & Selling to China | A Little Sketchy

Freedom Convoy, Ukraine, & Winter Olympics | A Little Sketchy TV

Mollie Hemingway: The Untold Story of How One Man ‘Reshaped the Supreme Court’

Inside ‘Trump 2.0’ and the Media’s Role in Political Violence | Sean Spicer

He Ran the World’s Biggest Payment Processor; Now He’s Taking on Social Security | Frank Bisignano

Devin Nunes on Ending the Politicization of America’s Intelligence Agencies

Exclusive: Inside SBA’s Crack Down on Loan Fraud Nationwide | Administrator Kelly Loeffler

Exclusive: Kash Patel Talks China Fentanyl, Violent Networks, ‘Burn Bags,’ and More

Andy Ngo: I Was Nearly Killed by Antifa. This is What I Learned.

Eric Trump Opens Up About How Relentless Attacks Impacted Him and His Family

Why Charlie Kirk’s Approach Matters Now More Than Ever | Pastor Jackson Lahmeyer

The Battle Over Alligator Alcatraz, the US Census, and CCP Surveillance | Florida AG James Uthmeier

[RUSH TRANSCRIPT BELOW] Since mRNA technology was deployed widely in the COVID-19 vaccines, developers have rapidly accelerated research into more mRNA products. Moderna alone has more than two dozen mRNA products in development.

But is the mRNA platform really the revolutionary breakthrough that its champions claim?

Since early 2021, Cole has been at the forefront of alerting the public to an unusual spike in cancer diagnoses following the widespread adoption of the COVID-19 genetic vaccines.

In this episode, Cole explains the risks he sees with mRNA technology and how he sees things shaking out at the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in the coming months and years.

Views expressed in this video are opinions of the host and the guest, and do not necessarily reflect the views of NTD.

RUSH TRANSCRIPT
Jan Jekielek:

Dr. Ryan Cole, so good to have you back on American Thought Leaders.

Thank you, Jan. Great to be here.

Let’s talk about what you see as the opportunity right now, current governors at HHS and at the CDC and in these agencies. The last time we spoke, it was before a very significant change.

The thing I’m most hopeful about is transparency. Over the last several months, we’ve seen the Overton window shift on things that we never would have talked about before. It’s things that we talked about for the last five years, and a force for questioning and change, I think, is an open new opportunity for people to ask questions. And I’m hopeful that a lot of Americans will wake up to the fact that there are things that agencies and the government have done for many decades that are not true or have hidden information that has adversely affected the health of a nation.

Not everything’s out there yet, don’t get me wrong, but people have the opportunity to see that there are things they haven’t known that will be known. And I think the changes we’ve seen thus far within HHS, CDC, and FDA, are they perfect? No. As much as the MAHA/MAGA movement is kind of divided and angry that things aren’t happening at a pace they want to see, yeah, we hear that all the time.

But turning government agencies around is like trying to turn a battleship on a dime. It doesn’t happen. And there are entrenched patterns and layers of bureaucracy. I grew up in the D.C. area. You live there. You know, we know. But at the same time, what Kennedy has been able to accomplish without having a full cohort of a team

and the staff that he would like to have and many holdovers is really actually impressive at this point.

And I would encourage people not to give up hope, because I think things are going to continue to accelerate in terms of the changes that are coming. Of course, you know, do some of us want to see a ban on mRNA technology for humans? Yes. And for animals? Yes, we do. Is that going to happen overnight? We wanted that, but…

Why are you so convinced? I mean, there are examples, I think, right, where there’s mRNA gene therapy that’s being used in, you know, for example, a cancer setting that I haven’t heard people complain about. It actually apparently is functional and not in certain settings. But why should there be a ban on this technology? You’re suggesting a complete ban.

To your point, for research purposes, for rare conditions, I think it’s reasonable, because it’s potentially reasonable. The problem is the delivery system. You can’t target these modified mRNA technologies. They go everywhere in the body. That’s the problem. The cells that end up making the protein that one is trying to get coded by, made the machinery from this little sequence of RNA that can go anywhere, and those cells that make that protein are now a target of your own immune system to attack that.

That’s because of this lipid nanoparticle, right?

Yes, they’re shielded in this little fat bubble lipid nanoparticle. That technology was originally designed to carry chemotherapy to the brain, so we know it goes to the brain. Do you need a foreign protein being made in the brain for anything other than an exceedingly rare condition? You don’t.

So in theory, it’s a fancy concept. There’s too much money behind it. It became the new scientific rage, but by people that are investors and people that have big money in biotech, not understanding the consequences pathophysiologically to the human organism. So why does it need to go away?

Because the risk-benefit ratio doesn’t exist. And as a vaccine, it was a failure. For rare conditions, should we allow research into it? Sure. But should we allow self-amplifying sequences? I mean, that’s another issue that’s a can of worms. No, we shouldn’t. Some of the new vaccinations are modified RNA technology and self-amplifying technology. It gives huge potential for mutation.

Just very briefly, what is self-amplifying technology, and then why does it create this huge potential for mutation?

What we’ve done with self-amplifying technology, unfortunately, is we’ve taken rare viruses like an eastern equine encephalitis virus and used that as a vector to put this little gene sequence, RNA sequence, attached to that. The problem with all of these is they don’t have an off switch. They can start producing their product, and that gene has the potential to mutate and shed out of the body onto surrounding individuals. So you can’t find what you don’t look for.

I’ve said this a thousand times in the last five years. So if you say it’s safe and effective without showing that it doesn’t shed onto surrounding individuals and/or animals or animals to humans and/or mutate, then you can’t make that claim. And so the transparency of any of these products is to say, okay, if we’re going to assess the safety, we need to make sure all those things that I just mentioned don’t happen. Then you can make the claim, okay, there’s no evidence of these things, but you can’t make an ex cathedra pronouncement that that doesn’t happen by not having done the experiment to prove that it doesn’t.

And so my big concern for self-amplifying, and there’s still a trial that was allowed to go forward with that with the Arcturus strain and bird flu, is what if you create a stronger strain of it? What if you spread it where it wasn’t intended to spread? It could be a biologic disaster.

What does self-amplifying exactly mean in this context? Because technically, okay, just the standard mRNA technology, it enters the cell, co-ops the cell to produce, well, in the COVID-19 vaccines, a spike protein. Okay. So now we have, and there’s, you know, obviously these potential problems because it’s toxic to the body and it’s being produced all across the body. And for some people that’s, you know, particularly problematic.

It is. Because we don’t know where the off switch is in the human body. Similarly, now they’re giving a lower dose of the self-amplifying, but it still has the opportunity to go inside of the cell, persist in the cell. And that self-amplifying aspect basically means it’s making more copies of itself so it can ramp up more protein. It is self-amplifying and then producing whatever protein the intended protein is. Where’s the off switch? No one knows. And this is the challenge with it.

One final thought on the mRNA, you know, in a situation where someone has some sort of disease that’s going to kill them in two years, you know, 95 percent chance or whatever, you know, you kind of think to yourself, okay, so they’re going to produce a lot of a product in the body and all this, but, you know, but I’m going to be dead in two years. So maybe I’m going to take the chance, right? That’s where your kind of cost-benefit calculation comes in. It’s very different if you’re giving something to a healthy person, right?

I agree with that. This is where I think having the research opportunity and very limited confined studies for those very unfortunate cases may be scientifically reasonable, but in a limited setting and not under mandates for all. But that’s kind of that right to try, knowing the risks of potentially clotting, hyper-inflammatory conditions, and autoimmune conditions. If you go into it with that full knowledge upfront that all of those things can happen, but you know you’re up against a clock of time in terms of your expiration date, well then I think that goes to that individual choice as long as they have fully informed consent, which we lacked during the COVID vaccine period in terms of all the harms, let alone the contamination of the product.

And that’s an important paper that just came out from Kevin McKernan, David Speicher, and Jessica Rose, going to the fact that if we have a contaminated product because of how they manufactured it, you know, you go to the store and there’s E. coli in the lettuce, they do a big recall because of contamination. Why haven’t they recalled all these contaminated Pfizer products or Moderna products?

So let’s discuss this. This is incredibly important. I was just looking at this paper that came out just a few days ago. I had Kevin McKernan on the show talking about his findings a couple of years ago. And we were talking with him about there actually being DNA contamination, which is hugely problematic, and also endotoxin contamination, which is also hugely problematic.

And ultimately, there was this kind of, I think maybe you even said this in an interview we did, but there was a switcheroo, right? Where the thing that was licensed was a process that was basically done, well, maybe you can explain. The process that was licensed was different from the process that went into production and foundationally different. But tell me about that.

Yes. So for the 40,000 Pfizer patient trial, they had a very synthetic process for stitching together the sequence of RNA that would go into the little fat bubble and get injected. For mass manufacturing, the switcheroo was the second process where instead they took that sequence and put it inside a little ring of DNA. And then the message is the inverse of that sequence that’s called a plasma, that little ring of DNA, is grown in vats of E. coli bacteria.

When you want to get the RNA produced by that process, you basically break the cells apart, lyse the cells, and then you’re supposed to go through very specific filtration processes. Enzymes that break proteins down or build proteins are used to break down that DNA, and all you should be left with is RNA and a little fat.

For whatever reason, they ended up not having a very clean process and ended up with a bunch of garbage at the end, which included the cell wall and some of the toxins that bacteria produce, in addition to multiple-fold excess regulatory-allowed copies of contaminating DNA, which are protected by a fat bubble.

In the second process, we did a trial on 40,000 people. At the end, on 250 people, we looked at the second process where you’re not going to have any statistical signal for harm. Then they rolled that out to billions of people. They said, oh, emergency authorized on these 40,000 patients. The process they rolled out wasn’t really examined, and that’s where we need to go back to see what data inconsistency or fraud actually happened.

It’s not just that contamination; it’s the fact that they used certain sequences within this little circle of DNA, this plasmid of a contaminating monkey virus sequence, simian virus number 40 [SV40]. The promoter region, not the whole virus, but the promoter region of that, is known to bind to certain families of genes that are supposed to suppress cancer and tumors.

Instead, it binds to and shuts those abilities down. That’s known from the medical history and research literature. There’s just so much contamination, be it the SV40 sequence, which I would consider an adulteration, and having the leftover DNA in an RNA product—that’s contamination. And having cell wall fragments and toxins from literally a poop bacteria, E. coli, can cause anaphylactic reactions in the human body—shock reactions.

This paper looked at just the DNA contamination aspect. Very briefly, if you could tell me what they found. They were extremely rigorous in their methodology, presumably expecting to be attacked for this paper and so forth. So, what did they find?

They used two techniques to detect DNA and quantify it—two different techniques to compare against each other.They found multiple-fold, from 36 fold to several hundred fold extra copies of DNA. The FDA allows 10 nanograms per milliliter, I want to say, of DNA in a product, but that’s naked; it’s not protected in a bubble. What they found was billions of copies, essentially, of DNA in each vial. Why does that matter?

Well, you do run against the, can it integrate into our own genome, issue. Several laboratory papers suggest that one case report that hasn’t been published yet shows Pfizer integration in a tumor, both pre-death and post-death. That’s a problem with having contaminating DNA persisting within the cell for a long period of time and making atypical proteins—that’s a potential. Causing other autoimmune reactions—that’s a potential. The biggest concern for me is the cancer potential of having that contamination. Of course, we’ve seen an uptick; the National Health Service showed an overall 23 percent increase in cancer above average.

From which time?

From 2020 to 2023. But the uptick was after the rollout. It was after the inflection point of the mandates and the shots in 2021 when you see the uptick. Everybody will say, well, correlation is not causation.

Well, it’s an important data point—23 percent. I mean, that’s a hold the presses moment.

Right. And what new thing happened societally in 2021? The introduction of a gene transfection product that we know was contaminated, given to billions of people. Other people will say, well, it was just the virus. The spike protein is made by the virus as well, certainly, but in a normal immune reaction, the body clears a virus within 7 to 14 days in an immune-competent person. There are just so many questions, and this is where going back and doing a retrospective look with actual data, like it or not—not spinning a narrative from any side or another, being a neutral party and just saying, let the data speak, but let all the data be seen.

Then we need to fund those projects that haven’t been done, funding the cancer projects that so many of us have tried to do individually and have basically cobbled together a few dollars here and a few thousand dollars there to do the scientific methods and techniques that the universities, unfortunately, very few would do. They should say, okay, let’s take a couple hundred cancers. Let’s look for Pfizer or Moderna sequences in those. If they’re great, then if it’s not great, let us at least look at the truth and find the truth. If we’re right, we’re right. If we’re wrong, we’re wrong.

The data so far indicate that it has been identified on a small scale. Let’s prove whether those crazy people out there who are saying these things are happening—let’s, and I’m saying that facetiously, but let’s prove it. With the funding from the government that should have been spent on this, they took a billion dollars on a long COVID project and accomplished zero. Well, let’s identify what the body is making. Which project is that, by the way?

That was under the Biden administration, and a billion dollars was put toward long COVID research, of which we have seen nothing of benefit come from that billion dollars. Now that we have a man of integrity at the NIH, some of those funds—look, the universities are afraid to do some of this research because they think they’ll lose their grants and funding. You should never be afraid of basic research. Ask the question, answer the question, put forth a hypothesis, do the research, confirm or deny the hypothesis.

That’s basic science. The universities are worried about losing their funding from patents on discoveries and then making billions selling it to pharmaceuticals that have intertwined interests. That’s not in the interest of science and the health of people; that’s in the interest of big corporate entities.

That came into being because of the Bayh-Dole Act. If we erased that act and went back to basic science with no conflicts of interest, we could do the research that the inquiring mind would have inquired about and wanted to do in the first place, not being fearful for their job or reputation, but just answering the questions of science, nature, physiology, pathology, the human body, and the better health of a nation. We’ve missed that. We have an opportunity to reset and say, this is how we’re going to do science again. We’re going to do it with honesty, integrity, and transparency.

Presumably, ACIP [Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices] under Dr. Retsef Levi is doing, you know, is looking into all of this, is going to look to make some specific recommendations around a number of these questions. So do you, I mean, where do you see over the, you know, the next few years, are there some specific things? I mean, you mentioned a few pieces of very important research, for example, is there integration of and people? Name a few things that you would expect to see in the coming three years, because that’s how long this will take.

I think the number of products that will come to market under the designation vaccine will be fewer, because I think the criteria for approval will be more strict. I think that protects people. I think that protects children. I think that’s critically important. So that’s one thing I think will happen. They’ll bring things to that committee. That committee really only recommends for or against. The CDC can still kind of override if they want. I doubt that’ll happen now that some of the leadership there has changed. Even on their first meeting together as a new committee, they found out later that they were lied to about certain data points.

Dr. Robert Malone kind of notably on this show talked about his regrets about voting for authorizing the RSV.

And I think this is where the committee needs to step forth with their ability and their power to defer an issue, to vote for a deferral instead of a yes or no, or defer until there’s more data.

So if you’re looking, if you’re smelling a rat or you’re seeing like, I don’t feel like, that’s actually Dr. Levi. I had them on the show talking about this. Like, why did you vote for, why did you vote against? He said, I just don’t, something, and he’s a very interesting guy because I actually, we kind of bonded around this a little bit at one point because he’s of this massive acumen. I also see patterns and things and when they look off, I just feel like there’s something wrong. And I think that’s what he saw there and just said, I’m not ready to really do this. So I’m going to have to vote no. And I kind of know exactly the way of thinking you might have, even if you don’t have all the information, you kind of sense there’s something wrong.

Yes. And I sit on a health board in Idaho, four counties, about a million people. And there are certain issues that come up among the board of health commissioners. We talk to each other, and sometimes we just say, let’s table this issue. Just because there’s a committee meeting doesn’t mean you have to make that decision. I think there’s industry pressure, and there may be agency pressure, but at the same time, I think our greater interest should be for the people who will be affected by that product. So, we live and learn from that first experience as a committee.

There are some wonderful people coming onto the committee going forward. One of my favorite people on the planet is Dr. Kirk Milhoan, MD, PhD, pediatric cardiologist, a phenomenal person, a man of integrity, a man of decency. He’s been attacked mercilessly in the media since the announcement, but he’s the kind of guy who will say, let’s look at the data, but give me all the data. I think because we have people who don’t have conflicting interests with other companies, and there’s nothing to be gained in one direction or another for these individuals.

They’re volunteers. It’s a high-profile position with just about zero remuneration, but they do it out of the goodness of their hearts, their oath, their ethics, and so I’m encouraged going forward. I think seeing better data going forward is going to be one thing that happens. I think the look back is going to be important, Dr. Levi’s project of looking back, because I think people will be surprised.

But I think it’s going to bring back a demand by the public for people of integrity to be in government going forward.This is a great opportunity to set an example that corporatocracy doesn’t get everything it wants. We, as a people, want to protect each other. Also, the mindset now is that, okay, let’s bring new products forward. That’s fine and dandy.

But at the same time, let’s never mandate anything again. When we do find something that’s unsafe, let’s remove it. I mean, that’s integrity as well—to say, okay, we thought this worked; it didn’t. A committee 10 years ago approved it, or five years ago or two years ago, but new data has come forth. Let’s protect people now that we’ve found harms.

So there’s just so much to be done. Am I saying it’s easy? No. Are better people, and that’s somewhat judgmental on my part? Sure. But do people without conflicts now have positions of importance? They do. Is that encouraging? Absolutely. Are they perfect humans? No. Are any of us? No. But are they good people trying to do good things? I think so.

I mean, just because I know a number of people that are involved in these things personally, I know that I can’t speak to whether, in the past, I didn’t know as many people, but I can speak to how many people are good people. It seems like there’s quite a number of people that I know to be, let’s say, unusually decent human beings that are in these positions. And I find just that in itself heartening.

Absolutely.

Yes. And of course, you know, it’s also a very difficult job. So I kind of feel for them.

Yes, it is. It is. And, you know, they get maligned by certain media sources. Those media sources, you have to consider their funding sources. And those funding sources are highly corporately, pharmaceutically driven. And so there’s a narrative against these individuals. But if you actually step back and know them like you know them and I know them, you realize, oh, these are just good people trying to do good things.

And of course, there’s always going to be negative verbiage in so many ways from so many angles. Is it true? Is the question that people ask themselves, oh, he’s such a this and that. Are you sure? How do you know that? And as you said, when you know these people personally and you’ve seen them be consistent time and time and time again, you think, okay, there’s integrity there.

And so that’s encouraging. I agree with you. I think, again, we’re not going to get everything we want all at once, and nobody does. But that’s part of being in a civil society—realizing that sometimes the answer is somewhere in the middle and not at the extremes.

Well, and also just that you need to build coalitions. You need to convince people who, you know, fairly or unfairly, may be unconvinced about things. I mean, we can’t coerce our way. I mean, this is kind of probably a big lesson. I’m adding a little bit of my own commentary here.

Yes, coercion. You may have heard me say earlier, a quote I remember from childhood: a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still. So we have to find a way of allowing people to have civil dialogue, agree to disagree on certain things. But until the dialogue happens without censorship, let one side have their voice. Let the other side have their voice. Let’s come to reason together and come to a good decision for all. And sometimes this side doesn’t get what they want, and that side doesn’t either.

Latest

Paywall Related

Free for Subscribers

Conversations on current and trending topics.

Health &amp; Science

Latest and breaking news, documentaries, movies, and lifestyle content on NTD+.
 
Empower your knowledge and elevate your spirit with NTD+, your go-to destination for truthful news, insightful documentaries, and captivating lifestyle content that enriches your life.