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

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

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

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

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

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

Sen. Ron Johnson: Here’s What We Found in 11 Million Pages of COVID Records

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

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

The Failures of Multiculturalism in the United Kingdom | Peter McIlvenna

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


NTD Newsroom

News

Fast, compelling, first-hand news from China. China in Focus airs Monday–Friday at 8 p.m. ET.

China in Focus

China Sends Warships to Pacific Drill as Tensions With Japan Rise

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

We present news that is truthful and based on facts, outside of the political fog. Instead of focusing on the negative things happening around us, our mission is to give our viewers a good morning with empathetic and uplifting stories. Our aim is to provide an antidote to negativity by shining a light on the best side of people. We speak to inspiring people who positively impact communities, pursue topics that represent our common human values, and will never miss an opportunity to bring you heartwarming stories.

NTD Good Morning

2 US Embassy Personnel Assigned to Cartel Case Killed in Car Accident

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

The Associated Press

US News

Gunman Kills 8 Children, Including 7 of His Own, in Louisiana Mass Shooting

Flora Hua is a reporter based at NTD's global headquarters in New York City, where she covers China news, U.S.-China relations, and human rights issues. Flora primarily contributes to NTD's "China in Focus."  

Flora Hua

Trump: Seized Iranian Ship May Have ‘A Gift From China’

Joseph Lord is a congressional reporter for The Epoch Times.


Joseph Lord

Aldgra Fredly is a freelance writer covering U.S. and Asia Pacific news for The Epoch Times.

Aldgra Fredly

Former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani Hospitalized in Critical Condition: Spokesman

Wildfires Across Georgia and Florida Have Destroyed Nearly 50 Homes and Are Forcing Evacuations

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

US Warns of China Hacks via Routers, Smart Devices

Juliet Song is an international correspondent exclusively covering China news for NTD. She primarily contributes to NTD's "China in Focus," covering U.S.-China relations, the Chinese regime's human rights abuses, and domestic unrest inside China.

Juliet Song

2 Americans Among Suspected Communist Rebels Killed in Clashes With Troops, Philippine Officials Say

Ryan Morgan is a reporter for The Epoch Times focusing on military and foreign affairs. He was previously a news writer for NTD. 


Ryan Morgan

Mari Otsu is NTD's White House correspondent based in Washington. 

Mari Otsu

World News

Middle East

Iran

3 US Warships Fend Off Iranian Attacks, Trump Says Ceasefire Still Holds

Health News

3 Dead in Suspected Hantavirus Outbreak on Cruise Ship in Atlantic Ocean: WHO

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

The Many Hidden Fronts of CCP Unrestricted Warfare | Casey Fleming

Has Xi Jinping Unified His Own Enemies? | Robert Suettinger

How the CCP Dehumanizes Christians in China | Pastor Bob Fu

Why the Iran War Is All About China | Zineb Riboua

From Iran to Venezuela—How Trump Is Neutralizing Beijing’s Allies | Gordon Chang

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

Canning, Compost, and Chickens: How to Stop Relying on Others for Food | Special Episode

Charles Murray: I Thought Religion Was Irrelevant to Me. I Was Wrong.

‘We’re at an Inflection Point’: What’s Next for America? | Robert George

Smartphones Are Rewiring Our Brains—Here’s How Parents Can Say No | Clare Morell

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

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

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] For many Americans, the COVID-19 era revealed profound ruptures in American society. While some are eager to move on from that period and simply return to “normal,” there are others who wonder: Is it really that simple?

How can we move forward without truly reconciling with the profound brokenness that was revealed in the last five years? How can we simply ignore or forget those who were censored, deplatformed, surveilled, fired, socially exiled, or irrevocably injured? And if a new virus were to spread in America, can we really say that the same things wouldn’t happen all over again?

At the center of the people asking these questions is the Brownstone Institute, founded by Jeffrey Tucker, senior economics columnist at The Epoch Times. Brownstone has become a safe haven for free thinkers to deliberate on some of the most profound questions of our time.

“We’re really at this precipice. We don’t know which way we’re going to go,” Tucker says.

In this episode, he breaks down nine key foundational institutions of American life that he believes are in desperate need of reform.

“We need a different system, a renewed and refreshed system of ideas production and teaching production in this country, with new independent institutions that are willing to stand up and do the right thing, [that] embrace classical forms of teaching and have a broad-minded approach to academia,” Tucker says.

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:

Jeffrey Tucker, such a pleasure to have you back on American Thought Leaders.

It’s my pleasure to be here. Thank you, Jan.

The Brownstone Institute was a reaction to the COVID lockdowns, but actually more so to everything they revealed about, frankly, massive structural problems in society. Another thing that I want to mention here is I think Brownstone was exactly the type of institution that de Tocqueville spoke about when he was talking about the best of America, people coming together around a common problem and starting to try to figure out solutions?

Yes, that’s a good place to begin, the lockdown. She said it revealed problems and it broke things, but it also revealed brokenness that was already there that many of us had not recognized. I think before the lockdowns, we had found ourselves very comfortable in a sort of easy left-right divide. I had thought I had it all together. You know, I had an orientation, I had a belief structure in my head. I didn’t know I had it.

I had a Whiggish view that whatever was wrong was fixable and being fixed with digital technology and market forces and this sort of thing. And it’s almost embarrassing for me to say that now because I don’t believe that anymore. There’s so much that went wrong in the early days, how the lockdowns happened so quickly.

I knew the possibility that this could happen because I’d been writing about it since 2005. I’ve been writing about pandemic planning issues. So I knew that it could happen. I knew that some people believed that it should happen. But I wasn’t really prepared to believe that it would happen. And that’s really different.

So in January 2020, I started warning, like, please don’t do this. And I remember podcasters calling me up saying, you’re not saying they’re going to issue stay-at-home orders or close businesses and schools, are you? And I’d say, oh, no, I’m not saying that. I’m not a conspiracy theorist, after all. I’m just saying that some people believe that we should do that, and I don’t agree with this. Well, sure enough, it did happen. And 2020 was a very difficult year for all of us.

At this event here in Salt Lake city, which is where we are, there are many Brownstonians, as we call them here. And we frequently discuss the strange paradox of how these five years have been the most difficult for us personally in watching things kind of go into such upheaval. At the same time, they’ve been the most intellectually stimulating you can possibly ever imagine. Putting together this new community of interest that is not left or right, but is just dealing on the ground with the tactical realities of life and the brokenness of so many institutions has been very exciting.

It’s put me in contact with people I never imagined I would have been in contact with before. I didn’t realize how much I had found myself before embedded in a tiny little bubble of opinion that I felt very comfortable in. The pandemic period just sort of broke me out of that and put me in touch with people from different disciplines and outlooks that I had never experienced before. So that’s in many ways the model of Brownstone.

Yes, there is a common theme that the pandemic response was destructive and based in scientific error and revealed terrible things about many of our institutions and revealed the barrenness of our ideological structures that were in place before it all happened. But at the same time, within the umbrella of Brownstone, we have so many disciplines that are gathered, whether it’s cultural historians or attorneys, infectious disease doctors, scientists, journalists, I mean, just from all over the world. The cross-pollinization of ideas has been tremendously exciting and a great reminder about the importance of communities and intellectual engagement.

And so, as I say, it’s been the most exciting time. I was describing this to somebody yesterday because I’m very cautious to say, oh, the silver lining is that it’s intellectually fun for us now. I don’t really believe it that way. But somebody pitched it that way. They said, you know, out of even the worst times, there are good things that happen. It is probably better that we know now what we previously were ignoring. It’s better that we know the dangers of monopoly control within Big Tech, or the dangers of such power being embedded in institutions like Big Pharma, or to know the problems with the food supply, a subject about which I cared absolutely nothing, or to know finally the root issue in a medical system, which is a subject that I had only just looked at very superficially.

There’s something else, too. So Brownstone is an outgrowth of what happened to the Great Barrington Declaration. The Great Barrington Declaration came along in October of 2020, which I think is quite late because the lockdowns began in March. It was put together by three scientists who were enormously frustrated that they were not finding a voice for traditional public health concerns in the midst of all this kind of censorship and propaganda and, let’s face it, an extreme experiment in locking down 194 countries more or less at the same time to deal with an infectious disease.

Nothing like this has ever been tried before. These three scientists were so frustrated they decided to find another way, a workaround, to finally find their voice, right? Watching how effective that was, that was in October 2020. I think it’s well known that I was working on the event that led to that declaration. Some of the people now associated with Brownstone were part of shepherding that declaration into its digital existence and finding the end run around the cartels of opinion that were ruling the day.

But here’s the thing that struck me about that experience. That declaration was not ideological as such. It was a statement of science rallying around what we know by experts who were even better at their craft than the people who were running the show. So our experts were better than their experts. That was sort of the big break, as you recall. The Great Barrington Declaration introduced not just the U.S. but the world to another way of looking at things.

When Brownstone was founded, I thought that was very effective and very powerful to see that. What was it really? It was earnest, sincere scientists with a great deal of expertise challenging what was emerging as a prevailing orthodoxy and saying there is another way. That’s all it was. These people otherwise had no power. They just had mastery of the topic and the willingness to say what was true. That’s it.

Brownstone comes out of this observation that this was a beautiful thing. Mastery of the topic and the courage to say the truth. What if we wedded those two things together in a single institution? Let’s just see what happens. That’s what Brownstone was founded to be. That was four years ago.

Yes, we’re taking on a lot of topics: finance and economics, infectious disease, health care, food supply, and even issues of philosophy and spirituality and all these kinds of things. It keeps kind of growing. But you mentioned de Tocqueville. It’s been very exciting to see how the thing has grown and expanded in its influence. Not because of anything I’ve done, but because we have a framework that lets earnest, sincere, great intellectuals do their work. That’s it.

Well, and if I may, there’s something very profoundly American about it. I’m looking from the vantage point of a Canadian who greatly admires the Founding Fathers and the whole system they crafted and kind of marvel at it, actually. The more I think about it, the more I see how it’s carried the country through all these different ups and downs. There’s this, de Tocqueville talked about this civil society being the thing that he admired most. America, I completely agree with that. I think I would argue that Brownstone is kind of a personification of that, exactly that kind of civil society.

Yes, and part of that is the philanthropic impulse that is so much a part of American culture. I mean, easily more than any other country in the world. That’s right. America is the real center of philanthropy. Why that is, I don’t know. It’s just part of our national DNA or something. Because starting a nonprofit like Brownstone, you know, it’s one thing to say, okay, Brownstone’s founded. It’s something else entirely to say it’s been funded, operating, and actually works. You need the resources.

Jan, I remember that very first donation that came in. I think it was very low. We built the site. Here’s a donate button. I think maybe it was $15 or something that came in. I remember being so touched, just overwhelmed that somebody took the time to type in a credit card number, put their name, and give their hard-earned dollars to something that they believed in. What drives that is just this desire to make the world a better place and a belief that it is part of our obligation, opportunity, and obligation to give of our treasure to make it happen.

I was overwhelmed with a sense of, first of all, gratitude and also responsibility. Because now I’m the custodian of this task. I remember when that donation came in thinking, okay, I want to, this is a great feeling I’m having right now. And I always want to feel that, no matter how long Brownstone’s around or how big or small the donation is. I want to feel that same sense of gratitude and responsibility.

I think much like at The Epoch Times, we are incredibly grateful for every single subscriber, which in effect in the U.S. is like a small donor, right? Because it’s a 501(c)(3).

It is overwhelming because it could be otherwise, right? We could live in a society where people don’t care that much. They don’t feel a sense of the burden of the weight of history on their shoulders at all. They’re just living their lives, and they just don’t care. Who cares?

But America is a country of people who really do care. They care a lot. And they believe that if they step forward, subscribe, read, pass The Epoch Times out to the neighbors, their friends, leave it auspiciously at the doctor’s office or in the portico at the apartment unit or whatever, which people do, that they’re going to change minds and bring enlightenment to society.

There is a kind of despair we were left with, I think, during the lockdown period. There was a sense that none of us were in control. Where I was living, you couldn’t even have a house party. You certainly couldn’t go to church or any kind of religious worship. You couldn’t even hold weddings or funerals. You couldn’t even travel to a neighboring state without quarantining two weeks on either side. And people that would come from New York to Massachusetts would get a text on the phone from the sheriff saying, what are you doing? Don’t come back for two weeks. You have to stay quarantined. This really happened.

There was a sense of powerlessness about the period, especially with the six feet of distance things. So I can’t even get closer than six feet to you to talk to you about my sadness or my doubts, you know? So there was a real sense of breaking down of empowerment to the population. But we came out of that. This was a period when, you remember Fauci at some point said, we will never shake hands again?

I don’t remember that, but that’s astonishing.

He said, we will not shake hands again. I thought, well, that’s a weird prediction. I think he might be wrong. I think we’re going to go back to shaking hands; at least I wanted it to happen. But it’s been a real inspiration to see how society, American society in particular, has bounced back to the extent that it has. At least there’s a lot of people that are really trying.

A lot of things broke: education, science, government agencies, media, and my beloved Big Tech. It was not on my team. They were on the other guy’s team during that entire period. Just the sense of betrayal I had over the thing that I had, about which I had written several books, you know, celebratory books.

Suddenly I felt like a knife in the back, you know, when social media became heavily censored and started taking down my own posts and accounts. It’s just a terrible feeling. But to come back from that period of despair and find the hope and to see that hope realized in really the appearance, reappearance of progress again, hopefully on a better foundation than we’ve ever had before.

Jan, I hope you don’t mind if I just divert it slightly and mention to you, because as I’m speaking, I’m remembering my sweet mother and the way she spoke to me about my job that I had to do with Brownstone, because I knew we needed a new nonprofit to come to terms with what happened and to reset the intellectual foundation of freedom after everything that had unfolded, but I didn’t have a name for it. And my mother’s elderly now, but she’s so earnest and, of course, a mother, her love for her son, right, it’s just so overwhelming, but she really put her mind to it. And over the course of three or four days, she suddenly announced to me early one morning, I have the name for your new institute.

And I remember the sinking feeling because I knew whatever was going to come out of her mouth I would have to accept because that’s the way sons are with their loving mothers. And I wanted to say please don’t suggest anything. Instead, she just said, Brownstone. And that was not what I was thinking at all. I was thinking about Latin and Greek names and all this kind of weird stuff. And I asked, why?

She said, if you name it after a person, you’ll feel like you’ll have to reflect that person’s thought. If you name it after an idea, then everybody has a different idea about what that idea means. But if you name it after a stone, then you can be a builder. And the right stone is brownstone because that was a very important stone that was used during the first half of the 19th century.

Almost every church, all the big apartment units in the most thriving areas, urban areas of America, the civic buildings were made out of this widely available, malleable, inexpensive, but highly durable rock. And she said, after everything we’ve been through, this country needs to revisit the thing that made it great in the first place, that’s the stones, the building blocks of America. And that’s what Brownstone is. And of course, it was born at that moment. So touching.

Well, but there’s so much to rebuild. It’s almost like a daunting task, you’ve argued, I think, pretty convincingly.

That’s why we have so many people involved. We have people who are specialists in all these different areas, and part of my job is just to kind of give them the support they need to do the work that they have to do. And, you know, I end up just dabbling in all kinds of areas, but there are some people that are just strong specialists in particular areas.

In my introductory talk yesterday, I listed something like 14 different areas that I believe, probably 14 of 140, but let me just give one example. I think it might be the first thing I listed, which was academic publishing. You might think, well, who cares about academic publishing? But actually, for the intellectuals and for the academics, this is a huge problem.

The entire system is non-functioning right now. We have this thing called peer review, which is double-blinded. So the peer reviewer doesn’t know who wrote the paper, and then the person who wrote the paper doesn’t know who the peer is. And the editors go out of their way to black out everything and send off the papers, except that everybody in the field knows who’s who and what’s what, and that’s part of the game of peer reviewing is to figure out who wrote the paper.

If somebody’s not telling you something, your first impulse is to know what it is, and it’s easy to figure out in academia, so people know. But the anonymity of it leads the peers to be not entirely, they don’t have to be held responsible for what they say over their review. They’re never paid; the reviewers are not paid, so they’re being asked to spend a lot of time and energy to review a paper by probably an author that they know, and they face a kind of moral hazard to work out their resentments, to maybe insult, to do a shoddy job. They’re not going to be held responsible for it anyway. The review that they write is never going to be published. Nothing about this system works.

And so every field, whether it’s economics or physics or climatology, whatever it is, you’ve got these little cartels that are sort of running everything, and they’re excluding dissident thought, and the people that are making it work this way are never named, and they’re never held responsible for what they do. So this is a fixable situation. By the way, a lot of these journals that are published are behind very high, high, high paywalls. So they land into these journals that regular people can’t read.

Here’s just a quick example. A friend of mine, I was complaining to him that he did really nothing to oppose the lockdowns. And he said, oh, no, that’s not true. I wrote this really important article. I said, oh, great. I somehow missed it. I don’t know why. So I clicked on it. Well, it was in an academic journal, and I thought, well, I’m not allowed to see it because I’m not in an academic institution. And so, well, I’ll just buy a copy.

Well, no, I had to subscribe for $600. And even then it was temporary or something. It was just the craziest thing. It’s like, okay, so you exercise your intellectual responsibilities to speak out against what was happening. But it was dumped into this wasteland behind academic paywalls that nobody would ever see. And that’s just sad.

But the academics have to publish in order to get promotions and tenures. So it means they have to play the game. And if you’ve been playing the game for 15 years or 20 years and you finally get your tenure, well, you’re not going to suddenly take off your street clothes and reveal Superman underneath. No, you’re just going to stick with it.

So academia has, by virtue of this broken publishing model, a technique for socializing academics into a certain way of thinking and punishing people for being creative or seeing things a different way. And this is one of the reasons why academia just went silent during the COVID period. A lot of academics just sat it out. They said, this is too risky for my career. I’m not going to speak up. So that’s just one area, academic publishing. It’s something you wouldn’t normally think about.

Right, and it’s also led to this replicability crisis, which is, you know, widely documented and, you know, basically means that just a whole lot of research out there is not good.

We talk about what we’re grateful for. I feel like I’ve gotten a graduate education in fake science. Over the last five years, I’ve learned how to read the papers and find the problems with them. It’s been kind of exciting. It’s like doing your morning crossword or something. Here’s the latest academic paper. I remember there was one paper that claimed that the states that locked down the most had the least deaths. And those states tended to be blue states, whereas the states that stayed the most open, they had better health outcomes in locked-down states than open states, right, which tended to be the red ones. I thought, how could that be true?

And I began to look at the paper, and I realized what they had done. They started the count of, like, when you’re going to look at the health outcomes from COVID. They started it in the very late spring, so something like May. So they skipped two full months during which time it was the blue states that were the hardest hit by lockdowns and experienced the most deaths. So I thought, wait, you can’t write an academic paper making these big sweeping claims while gamifying the data by just changing the dates, which was very apparent to me; it was very obvious to me.

And yet there it was, published in a major journal of epidemiology or something like that. That’s outrageous. But this has been going on for a very long time, whether it’s been, and I’m getting good at it now, with vaccine injury, the effectiveness of the shots, the effectiveness of all the MPIs and masks, and so on. There are so many problems in science today. It’s hard to believe that some of this stuff gets published. So that has to be fixed. It has to be fixed. And there are people who are working on fixing it.

What I’d like to see, and Brownstone can’t do it because we’re doing too much else, but there is a market right now for a new consortium of journals that are published on a completely different basis, that are not double-blind, that are open, that the reviews get published alongside the paper itself, where the referees are actually paid, where all the data that’s associated with the study are presented. And invitations for reproducibility are part of the study itself. I think this should happen in every discipline, whether it’s infectious disease or economics or political science or anything. We need a new system of academic publishing.

Yes, this makes me think of the new Independent Medical Alliance [IMA] journal, though I don’t know if they’ve implemented all of those things.

Not yet, but they can and will, but that’s also very encouraging.

Let’s go through some of the critical areas where really there’s a brokenness, but then now we actually see a path forward.

The first thing on my list is, of course, the inordinate power of the pharmaceutical industry. It’s Big Pharma, and I had no idea just how powerful they were over academia, over agencies. Turns out some people say it’s 40 percent of the FDA. Other people say that 75 percent of their budget is paid for by Big Pharma.

I didn’t know that NIH shared patents with Big Pharma. I didn’t realize how dependent mainstream media is on pharmaceutical advertising. I hadn’t realized how many NGOs are in receipt of pharmaceutical money, how many conflicted scientists there are out there who are not really objective. The whole system is so messed up. How many governments in the world that big pharma actually seems to control?

In the end, there are a lot of theories about why 194 countries at the same time tried this big experiment in lockdowns, right? And we could talk about this all day and think about nothing else. Why did this happen to us? But at least part of it came down to the power of pharmaceutical companies and their conviction that they can solve the problem for us if we just stay locked down long enough and give them time to create the great inoculation that was going to save us. And 194 governments in the world believed this. That is some awesome power.

I would like to see some kind of reforms, and I think that some of these steps in this direction are being taken to make the pharmaceutical industry a normal industry, you know, where they, like all other products, have liability for damages that have been caused, not earning these liability waivers that have given them all the wrong incentives. There’s got to be something done about the media capture by the pharmaceutical companies, which gets into another area.

Right, exactly.

Which is agency capture, right? I mean, this is the strangest thing that I think maybe I’ve discovered over the last five years is that I feel like I’ve spent my entire career trying to understand this thing we call government, right? And I’ve always thought of it as an exogenous thing, like here’s society and here’s government. And the one piece of the puzzle I did not understand is the extent to which industry is so interwoven with the operations of government, not just now but really dating back probably 100 years. And you see it. Once you see it, you can’t unsee it.

So housing and urban development, well, the real estate developers are very much involved in their operations. The FDA, obviously, is a pharmaceutical company. It’s the Department of Labor. Labor unions are very, you know, they have the biggest stake in it. The Commerce Department, it’s all the big commercial companies. And institution after agency after agency has its own embedded industry groups that are, in some cases, more powerful than the so-called bureaucrats themselves.

That has been one of the most remarkable things to see. And it’s invited me to sort of rethink, I guess, what you call the theory of the state. What is the state and what makes it up? I mean, I’ve changed my mind about that. And once you realize this, you see the problem of what we used to call big government then mutates into maybe a different kind of problem, which is industrial cartels. Maybe that is at least equally a problem or even maybe an even greater problem. You and I have talked on the show before about the Federal Reserve.

What is the Federal Reserve except a consortium of the largest banks? That’s what it is. Well, it hides that somewhat, doesn’t it? It hides that, but that is the underlying reality. So I do think we need political scientists and people who care about issues of public policy to be a little more empirically minded and look at the actual structure of the modern state and how it might be completely different from what either the Left or the Right is saying.

Related to this is the corruption of science, right? We saw science deployed in a way that violated human rights and that is not what we want science to do. I mean, if we have good science, it should be consistent with other truths like human rights and human freedom and truth, empirical reality generally. So how do you reform science? This is a problem I’ve talked to my friend Martin Kulldorff a lot. He’s one of the signers of the Great Barrington Declaration. He thinks about this issue a lot.

But we have a scholar here named Dr. Jessica Rose. I think you might have interviewed her on the show. She was very interesting. And we were talking all about how we need to reform science and how we can reform academic publishing and how we’re going to get better scientists that are more independent of the universities, fix up the universities. And then she said in passing, she said, yeah, but you know, there’s an even more difficult problem, which is laboratory research. Labs are very expensive. And they’re either connected to universities or funded by industry.

And suddenly there are incentives for you to find particular outcomes or not find other outcomes and do particular work.

It’s not my realm because I’m not a guy who’s in the lab. But from her point of view, she’s a serious laboratory scientist. And she needs an independent lab. She needs to be able to do objective work and say what’s true in the framework of where she has freedom to discover and then say what’s true out of that. I mean, I don’t know what we do about that problem, but it’s at least, according to her, a very big problem, which also plays into, and we’re just kind of going through this list here, the problem of medical insurance and medical services in America is getting more and more acute. This happened during the pandemic.

It was the craziest thing, Jan. I remember watching it as it unfolded, and I wondered how future historians would treat this. I looked at the data on health care spending as it unfolded during 2020 and 2021, and it kept falling and falling and falling like medical care spending fell by one-third during the worst period of the pandemic. How is this possible?

Well, the answer is that the hospitals were shut to everything except PCR positive COVID patients. So cancer diagnostics were missed; people lost routine contact with their doctors. There was one period in there where I thought maybe I needed a root canal. I could not find a dentist because all the dentists were closed. I thought, wow, for the first time since the Middle Ages, we don’t have dentistry anymore. It was a crazy period.

And then we emerged from that, and people were sicker than ever before and then encountering a medical system that just is not working for people. You’re paying $27,000 per person for insurance that, if you use that insurance, you’re going to be paying even more. And it just doesn’t make any sense. I mean, the dream of Obamacare was to bring more equality. I think it was called the Affordable Care Act, right? Maybe that’s a rule in Washington: whatever they call something, it’s the opposite. I don’t know, but healthcare costs are just out of control.

We need a completely different system of independent doctors being able to accept cash, and we need access to different forms of insurance, a greater range of insurance. We heard this morning from a talk that a family of five was paying as much as $50,000 a year just to insure their family. And the man said, I’m just not sure if this is really worth it anymore. This system has got to be fixed.

And then, this is what I keep thinking about; then, you had media that kept on a whole suite of issues telling you that everything is fine. Basically, the narratives were often very divergent from reality. And then, when confronted with that, when confronted with real information, they would just double down. This was just a common phenomenon.

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.