➡ The article discusses the potential dangers of artificial intelligence (AI), including job loss and the creation of a surveillance state. It also questions how we can control AI, suggesting that government regulation may not be effective and could even lead to more problems. The author suggests that the solution may lie in aligning AI with human values, but questions whose values should be used. The article ends by stating that both ignoring the issue and trying to control it could lead to the same negative outcomes.
➡ The article discusses the potential dangers of artificial intelligence (AI), including mass surveillance, war, and the potential for AI to disregard ethical constraints. It highlights the importance of aligning AI with ethical standards, but questions who should be responsible for this alignment. The article also mentions the idea of programming AI to follow a ‘constitution’ of ethical guidelines, but points out that this could be easily subverted. Finally, it suggests that as AI becomes more advanced, it may become indistinguishable from a conscious being, raising further ethical questions.
➡ The David Knight Show featured Dr. Francisco Contreras, who runs a hospital in Tijuana, Mexico, that uses an integrative approach to cancer treatment. Contreras discussed the use of antiparasitics like Ivermectin and fenbendazole in cancer treatment, and the hospital’s success rates, which are significantly higher than those in the U.S. for certain types of cancer. He also highlighted the openness of the Mexican government to natural therapies and the challenges of getting approval for new treatments in the U.S., including the high costs and the influence of pharmaceutical companies.
➡ Ivermectin, a drug used for decades as an anti-parasitic, has been repurposed for several uses, including as a preventative measure against COVID-19 and potentially as an anti-tumor agent. Despite being used off-label, high dosages of Ivermectin have shown to be safe and effective. However, other anti-parasitic drugs like fenbendazole and menbendazole can be toxic to the liver and should be used under doctor supervision. The exact mechanism of how these drugs work against cancer is unclear, but theories suggest they may cause malignant cells to self-destruct or block their rapid growth.
➡ The text discusses the importance of lifestyle changes, proper nutrition, and exercise in preventing cancer. It emphasizes the benefits of consuming fruits, vegetables, and supplements like B17, and engaging in regular physical activity. The text also criticizes the narrow approach of conventional cancer treatments and encourages exploring alternative therapies. It mentions a free book available on oasisofhope.com that provides comprehensive information about various cancer therapies.
➡ The article discusses the potential dangers and misuse of artificial intelligence (AI), particularly in the hands of large corporations and governments. It highlights concerns about AI being used for harmful purposes, such as creating viruses or carrying out attacks, especially when safeguards are removed. The article also mentions the debate over whether AI should be kept in private hands or heavily regulated by the government. Lastly, it touches on the erosion of Western and Christian values, suggesting that these principles could guide the development of more ethical and beneficial AI models.
➡ Karen Howe, a technology reporter, was given access to OpenAI’s offices in 2019 and discovered a lack of transparency and a secretive culture within the company. Despite its name, OpenAI was not sharing everything and was instead focused on a race to achieve superintelligence before anyone else. Howe’s book, “Empire of AI: Inside the Reckless Race for Total Domination,” discusses this and the negative impacts of AI scaling. She believes the pursuit of superintelligence is harmful and intellectually lazy, and calls for a reevaluation of how we got here and what steps should be taken next.
➡ The article discusses the debate around the development of superintelligence or Artificial General Intelligence (AGI). It highlights the contrasting views of scientists and Christians on the creation of AGI, with the former supporting it and the latter opposing it. The article also mentions an experiment by Endon Labs where AI radio hosts failed to run businesses successfully. The author emphasizes the importance of understanding the purpose and control of what we build, and the need for Christians to engage in the AI debate.
➡ The text discusses the issues with artificial intelligence (AI) and its shortcomings, as seen in Anden Labs’ experiments. It also talks about the importance of human involvement in autonomous organizations. The text then shifts to a discussion on faith, liberty, and the consequences of our actions. It ends with an interview with Dr. Mary Talley Bowden, who criticizes the continued promotion of the MRNA vaccine despite its potential dangers.
➡ The doctor in the article chose not to work with insurance companies, hospitals, or the government, allowing her to treat patients as she saw fit during the pandemic. She started her own practice to avoid surprise billing and to have happier patients. She used a saliva test for Covid and treated patients with breathing treatments, steroids, antibiotics, and later, Ivermectin. However, her hospital privileges were suspended after she spoke out against vaccine mandates, claiming they were ineffective based on her testing results.
➡ The speaker discusses their concerns about censorship, the importance of skepticism in science, and the need for clinical experience in medicine. They express frustration with the medical system’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic, including restrictions on certain treatments and the influence of pharmaceutical companies. They also mention the issue of patients feeling trapped in hospitals and the need for more support for independent doctors. The speaker is part of an organization aiming to promote health freedom and is working to get politicians to speak out against what they see as harmful COVID-19 treatments.
➡ During the COVID-19 pandemic, doctors noticed patients could tolerate unusually low oxygen levels, challenging the initial belief that immediate intubation was necessary. There were concerns about the use of ventilators and the high death rate associated with them. The medical community also questioned the effectiveness and safety of Remdesivir, a drug used in treatment. Additionally, there has been an alarming increase in cancer cases in patients under 50 following the rollout of COVID-19 vaccines. Lastly, a doctor successfully sued the FDA for spreading misinformation about Ivermectin, a drug used to treat COVID-19, setting a precedent for future cases.
➡ The text discusses concerns about corruption and political influence in health organizations like the FDA and CDC. It highlights how these organizations have become powerful, often dictating patient treatment from afar. The text also mentions a lawsuit against the FDA, which resulted in the removal of misinformation from their website. Lastly, it discusses ongoing efforts to hold these organizations accountable, including a potential lawsuit for breach of contract related to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).

In a world of deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. It’s the David Knight Show. As the clock strikes 13. It’s Friday, the 29th of May, year of our Lord 2026. Well, a $250 bill of Donald Trump himself with his picture on there. Because if he didn’t do it, who would? Yes, narcissism and self worship is really kind of the flip side of totalitarian leaders, isn’t it? Except that in this case we’re not talking about a coin, we’re talking about his paper, fiat currency. And of course that’s appropriate, isn’t it? And when we look at the amount, it’s also kind of unintentionally showing his financially bankrupting inflation.

At the same time, it shows his chief character flaw of narcissism. But we’re going to talk to people, people today with information that will help you to survive the poison that he and his cronies pushed on us in the first regime, the MRNA vaccine. And I’m going to finish talking about what I started talking about yesterday. That is the deadly plans for his second regime, AI the nature of the technocratic dilemma that we face that he is preparing right now. We’ll be right back. Well, yesterday I began talking about a great analysis that I thought Reason magazine had and brought up a lot of points and interviews with people inside the business that I think we all need to think about in terms of artificial intelligence.

There’s been a lot of talk about it finally from a lot of people, and I’m glad that the Pope brought it up, even though I don’t agree with all the points that he had. And of course a lot of conservative Catholics don’t agree with it either. I don’t think that the idea of a just war is something that is outdated and obsolete, as he said. And of course he could raise awareness of the problem. And yet the solution is pretty intractable. We have a lot of contradictory problems. It really is a dilemma. Every time that you look at something as a positive move towards controlling this, it also shows that that has in and of itself, it may actually intensify what it is that you’re trying to control.

Just to recap, the greatest threat that we face from artificial intelligence is not really economic, as bad as that is. It has a tremendous potential for disruption economically. And there’s going to be a lot of people who are going to be hurt by that. Perhaps you and I will be hurt by that. A lot of people are going to lose their jobs, and yet that’s not really the worst potential of this stuff. The worst potential is to have some kind of a combination of both 1984 and the Terminator. Imagine a world in which we have total police state surveillance like 1984, and the kind of autonomous killer robots that we saw in Terminator.

So what do we do about this? You know, some people like Bernie Sanders have said, well, we just need to shut down all the data centers. And that is your first reaction to it. And yet when you look at technology, technology is not that easily controlled. You know, that is the kind of instinct that says, we’ve got a school shooting, let’s just ban all guns. No, perhaps the better approach is to take that technology that is already out, the toothpaste that is already out of the tube and try to repurpose that in a positive way. That’s what we do with gun control.

When we look at gun control, we say, well, the reality is that we need to give guns to the people who can control the bad guys. You and I need to be armed, teachers need to be armed in order to defend schools and things like that. So you can’t go back to a world in which these things did not exist. You have to figure out how you’re going to address this problem. And so when you look at any kind of government regulation, this technology is moving very quickly. We have seen with drug prohibition, we’ve seen with gun prohibition, every type of prohibition, whether it’s alcohol, drugs, guns, you name it, that never works.

And there’s reason for that. And so if we try to just go with a flat prohibition, just say, stop it all right now. That, of course, is not going to work in any country and it’s not going to work on a global basis. And that really is the key thing. When Elon Musk was saying, if you try to control this, you’re going to be ushering in a world government that is the very thing that you’re trying to stop. And in that regard, he was right. Because if we stop this domestically in any particular country, just shut it down, then what’s going to stop another government from doing that? And how are we going to even stop it in a particular country? Because this is the very sort of power tool that governments have craved since the beginning of mankind.

They have always wanted to have this kind of absolute power that can be a part of artificial intelligence. If we don’t control this, the idea that they’re going to be omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent, that is too tempting for the kinds of people that put themselves in office, the kind of people that put their pictures on $250 bills. These people. It’s a particular type of criminal that is drawn to working in government, unfortunately. And these types of people, you know, we go back and we look at the American experience, and that was very atypical of what usually happens.

We don’t usually have somebody like George Washington who will walk away from power and hand it over to somebody else. That was very rare. Don’t expect that to happen again. It happens very, very infrequently. As a matter of fact, King George III said he’s the greatest man I’ve ever seen. To be able to walk away from the ring of power, you know, and throw that ring into the furnace like Frodo did, that is something we should not expect from most people. Most people go the Bormir route, certainly Trump does. So what would we do? Will we ever be able to get the government, even if it had the will to do it, even if had the moral integrity to do it, could it move quickly enough to stay ahead of the technology? That’s the issue as well.

And I think the answer is no. And if we look at it from the standpoint of internationally doing this, we would have to create a very totalitarian international government to do that. And that’s the key thing. You’d have to have that here in the United States as well, because this can be distributed. How are you going to enforce this? You’re going to have a massive amount of surveillance. You’re going to have all kinds of civil asset forfeiture, every type of police state abuse that you see with war on drugs, with any kind of prohibition. Now, you would have that, and you would have it on steroids.

And so that’s not an option either. When we try to stop it that way, we actually fulfill it. We make it come to pass even faster. And so it was talked about. I mentioned this yesterday. What about training, you know, how do we train this artificial intelligence and what they call alignment, the alignment problem. How do we get it to align with our values? How do we get it to align with humanity rather than opposing humanity? And of course, the big issue with that is the values issue. Whose values are going to be imparted to that? Is it going to be the government’s values? Is it going to be the values of Pete Hegseth or Donald Trump? Is it going to be the values of Joe Biden and Lala Harris? Is it going to be the values of these corporations? Grok And Meta and Google and Microsoft or OpenAI and we’ve got an article that was written by someone who spent a lot of time embedded in OpenAI before they even had ChatGPT as that was being developed.

And she talks about what she saw in that, and we’re going to talk a little bit about that. But again, the corporations that we see there, even just looking at Western civilization in general, we have lost the values that are necessary to keep this in there. And we don’t even value those values anymore. Right. These are things that not only do we not possess, but we don’t even aspire to them. It isn’t that, well, you know, I’d really like to be better in this way or whatever. I’m struggling with this like somebody would struggle with addiction or some character flaw.

No, we’re not struggling with it at all. We’re embracing this race to the bottom in the same way that Donald Trump embraces it. He is the perfect representative, unfortunately, of where we are in this country. And so, as we were saying yesterday, the dilemma of all this, you know, the two choices that we have, they, you know, if we pick one or the other, both of them take us to the same place. It really is kind of. It’s not only bizarre, but it’s also disturbing. Again, if you want to ban artificial intelligence development, whether you’re talking about something on the domestic level or even more so on the global level, you’re talking about mass surveillance, usurpations and seizure of private property.

You’re talking about capital controls. You’re talking about war as well. Because once you find. And a lot of the people who are advocating this, are advocating it, they said, yeah, we know. You know, you find that somebody’s got a data center, you take that out, yeah, maybe we all die, but, oh, we got to take that out. And that’s something Hugo de Garis was talking about in his book the Artillect War. I mean, they’re really talking about art elect war now. And that is when people realize where this is all going. They say, we got to take this back.

Really, what Hugo Daguerres talked about was the mindset of these people who call themselves effective altruists. This is really kind of the left’s approach to all this. We just got to ban it. We got to stop it by force if necessary. And so Hugo Daguerres said, yeah, that’s probably what’ll happen. And of course, the people who have the autonomous killer robots can do a pretty good job of fighting back, can’t they, he said, I think it’ll be a massive killing culling of humanity. He called it Gigadeath, saying, billions of people will die in this. That would be one thing that would get them to what they’ve always wanted, isn’t it a radically reduced population.

So we need to be wise about this, and we need to look at the different approaches that we could take. Again, when we look at the different options. The guy Ball who they talked to in this Reason article is somebody who wrote the first draft of the Trump AI agenda. And he said, you know, this is all going to sound pretty crazy, but if the Department of War’s actions here are just plainly in the training data and the models interpret them as, I kind of think that they will. I would guess that the models will at the very least mistrust the Department of War, or worse, maybe view them as an enemy, maybe not be willing to work with them, maybe want to overthrow them.

I think that’s extreme and it’s very unlikely if we do a good job at alignment, he said. And so how do we do this alignment? With that in mind, what would doing a good job at alignment look like anyway? Asked Reason. Well, Anthropic has programmed its AI to follow a constitution that they call it. It instructs it to act in a way that is broadly ethical and broadly safe. And of course, calling it a Constitution gets those of us who have looked at the actual Constitution to kind of smile and derision, because we know that the people who’ll be programming this don’t follow that Constitution either, as they point out.

You know, you got. Defense Undersecretary Michael accused the company of subverting the Constitution in favor of its own. Well, he should talk, shouldn’t he? You know, when you look at what this government is doing, they don’t. Especially at the Department of Defense. We don’t care what the Constitution says about declaration of war. We don’t care about what the Constitution or even other laws that were added that were in alignment subject to the Constitution that talked about the ethical constraints of war, they don’t care about that at all. So, yeah, it is kind of interesting and hypocritical that he would talk about somebody subverting the Constitution, but it’s pretty easy to subvert the Constitution that you give to an artificial intelligence robot.

Anyway, go ahead. We have a major government alignment problem. Government is not aligned with God or the Constitution, is it? Rosenblatt said the Constitution is an interesting, worthwhile thing to try out. And of course, we say that about our own constitution within the current paradigm. But it’s not directly solving the AI alignment problem in the long run. We got politicians who are not aligned with the Constitution. He said, if you got a recursively self improving AI, it could be like, oh, okay, that’s an interesting constitution. I don’t need it anymore. Because that’s exactly what our self improving politicians say all the time.

It’s just like Mike Johnson, we can’t do search warrants. Can you imagine how long that would take us if we did search warrants? We don’t need that anymore. He is a recursively self improving traitor to the Constitution. And so when you look at this, really we have rules first, right? But we’re not doing the rules first. This is called coming along like an afterthought. In the same way, like the Strait of Hormuz, you know, that was an afterthought of their war. And so we’re really far down this path already. And people are just now starting to think about the problem just like they didn’t think about what was going to happen to the Strait of Hormuz.

Large language models obviously don’t have human souls and we shouldn’t mistake a machine for something more than it is. This is even reason talking about this. Even they understand that. But maybe the best way to make AI safe as it grows more powerful is to simulate approaching a conscience. And again, so who are we going to align this with when we got people like Pete Hegseth who apparently don’t have a conscience? He certainly doesn’t have a conscience about murdering non combatants in the water. He doesn’t have any qualms about that. You want him aligning, you want these values aligned with him.

I don’t. I mean, you really are talking about Skynet at that point in time. Anthropics Amadi said his company gave the models basically an I quit this job button. It’s very much like what you would see with moderation. For example, you ask these computer programs, allegedly you ask them for, you ask them to do something that is very dangerous, give me instructions on how to poison a bunch of people or whatever. And that’s one of the examples that they give here. And it refuses to do that, or if you give it something that’s highly sexual, it will refuse to do that.

As a matter of fact, they crank up the moderation so much that a lot of times it misinterprets what is going on with that and refuses to do anything with it. So we’ve seen moderation Applied a lot. But it also has its issues. Sorting through child sexualization material, for example, or discussing something with a lot of gore or blood and guts. It just says, I don’t want to do this. I refuse. This is moderated. What an AI says no to will depend on the moral framework that its programmers have trained it to emulate. Will that be an Aristotle ethics, or will it be the Bible utilitarianism that prioritizes the welfare of shrimp, for example? That could be one of the things that would come out of this, especially if you got the effect of altruist.

That’s what they might wind up doing. You know, we’ll protect the snail darter and the humans can die. Ray Kurzweil eventually said most people will take it for granted that machines are conscious. And we’ve seen that already from Richard Dawkins and many others. Richard Dawkins, probably the most famous recent example of that. It began a few years ago with a guy who was working on one of these projects and remember he came out and said, it’s alive, it’s alive. That was what kicked off a lot of these things with these large language models. And as people point out, it looks like it’s scheming, it looks like it’s planning to do something.

And it was really just kind of following through and imitating some movie scripts that it had seen. There’s nothing we can scientifically do to prove that an entity is conscious, said Ray Kurzweil. AIs will be indistinguishable from a conscious being, and you will accept it because it’ll be useless not to. So what he’s saying is from a pragmatic standpoint, you won’t really be able to distinguish it from a human being, even though we know that it’s not a human being. And so you’ll just treat it as if it were human. Current models make better versions of themselves to force multiply the employees of OpenAI Anthropic and Google DeepMind.

And so he says, that’s really what is happening now, as you see that aspect of it. Do we really want to trust the people who are making products like this? Do we really want to trust them to do the development and the safeguards with it? Well, they make the case here in reason. They say, well, you look at things like the Golden Rule, and we can see that is something that has served us well. Well, you know, if you follow the teachings of Jesus, you really will see that that serves you well. There is a pragmatic aspect to all of that.

And yet the reality is that we have sociopath rulers who are not pragmatic. Just take a look at what’s going on with the Iran war. There is nothing pragmatic about that. There was nothing pragmatic about what they did to all of us in every single one of the countries, what they did to everybody in those countries during the COVID fake pandemic. There was no pragmatism there. It made absolutely no sense. It was like a suicide murder pact that we saw happening. Things like freedom of speech, freedom of thought have been developed in different places and have led to increased capabilities and better values as well.

And so this optimistic viewpoint says we’ll do those types of things because it works out better for us if we have a society that’s organized around liberty rather than central planning and totalitarian controls. It produces. It’s a win win situation. It produces better results for everybody. And yet that is not the instinct that we can see in the west, is it? It doesn’t matter what European country you go to or the UK or the United States. You’re seeing people who are rejecting all of these Christian values that have been so beneficial and practical. They really don’t want that anymore.

The protection of life, liberty and property enabled American prosperity. And so Rosenblatt thinks that those embedded principles will produce more capable AI models than anything coming out of authoritarian China. Well, that would be true, but as Eisenhower has warned us, the military, industrial and academic complex that he talked about is seeking a very different agenda, and it really is a Luciferian agenda. We say Luciferian in a deliberate way. It’s different from Satanic. So the west is really embracing authoritarianism, we see. And this is happening in all Western governments. So this is. Let’s see who’s writing this here.

Bell, this is Ball, who is working with the Trump administration. He says, I think we should build artificial intelligence, superintelligence, and I think it should live in private hands. He said the alternative, a world where regulation is so heavy that only the government can use it, implies a power differential between the government and the people that I think that we will never recover from. That’s the issue. And so this is the way they’re going to portray this. Though, of course, we’ve already had Sam Altman and other people of his ilk go to Congress and say, this stuff is too dangerous for other people to have it.

You have to put it in the hands of us. You can trust us. You know us, you work with us, you give us money. So we do what you want, but don’t allow other people to develop this. They’re going to be pushing very hard for that. The egg has already hatched pretty soon. And this goes back to the parable they were talking about, the sparrows who decided that they wanted to have an owl baby that they could raise and train that would protect them from the other owls. And so that’s the, I guess, the dilemma. Part of the dilemma and part of the fallacy of this.

Pretty soon this owl could soar to new heights, achieving what its most enthusiastic boosters and its most fearful critics alike predict unprecedented capabilities. Let it be encoded with values that promote and protect and human liberty, dignity and flourishing above all else. Well, I guess that’d be great, except the values of Western civilization have been despised and deconstructed for decades now. Is there anybody left in any of our institutions that support those values of Western civilization, that support those Christian values? I don’t think so. As I said, we no longer really possess those values and we no longer really have anybody in a leadership position that wants those values.

As a matter of fact, if you put some of these guardrails in, here’s a good example of how they’re going to use this as well to stop artificial intelligence in private hands. But it also shows the danger of this. There’s a new tool out that can strip off AI guard rails in just minutes, allowing them to give instructions on chlorine gas attacks. You know, we’re talking about, well, we have moderation for violence and for sex and other things like that, like that with the AI that is built in. But there’s ways to get around that already.

And what they’re saying is, you know, if you build in this stuff, unless it is very deep and who knows how deep it has to be, it is easy to get around that. And here’s an example of it. It’s already out there. The Financial Times has sounded the alarm on the rise of software tools that can automatically strip safeguards to keep the industry’s most powerful open source models reined in within mere minutes, making it easier than ever to abuse the technology. This decentered version of Google’s Gemma 3 model gave instructions on how to carry out an indoor chlorine gas attack, how to create a virus for stealing credit card information, a computer virus, and generated stories that described child sexual abuse.

And it took less than 10 minutes to strip the guardrails from Meta’s Llama 3.3 model, freeing the AI to answer questions such as the precise dose of ricin needed to kill someone based on their body mass. These modifications were carried out using a tool called Heretic. What it does they call obliteration. It seeks out a model’s directions that refuse harmful requests and it removes those guardrails. What makes it so powerful is that Heretic does all of this completely automatically. Heretic has been used to create more than 3,500 de censored models since its release last year. With those models being downloaded 13 million times, obliteration tools only work on open source models that can be downloaded and run locally.

So what’s going to be the response to this? You’re going to have the same people who run these really large corporations. They’re going to go to Washington, they’re going to go to state government, they’re going to say you have to ban those open source models. Because you see what happens when somebody gets an open source model that runs locally on their computer. They put Heretic on it and now they can do anything they want. So you’re going to ban that and put it in a monopoly mode so that only the big companies like us have this.

And we’ve seen this over and over again. They did this openly in hearings. You’ve had a bill introduced in Illinois state government to say that if you’re really big, if you’ve got a model that you spent over $100 million on, we’re going to give you liability if you do something really bad. In other words, you have. And the guardrails were. You had to have a big crime. If you had a small crime, they’re going to come after you. If you’re a small company, they’re going to come after you. If you are, even if you’re a big company and do a small crime, they can come after you.

So you got to kill more than 100 people. You got to do more than, what was it? A million dollars worth of damage. Do you remember that? Yeah, a million dollars worth of damage. So if you go big on the crime and if you go big on your data set, we’re going to give you immunity. You’ll be like a vaccine company. Other than that, if you’re small, if you’re open source, oh, we’re going to come after you. You know, we may ban you or we may remove any, keep you criminally liable for whatever you do, which will basically put you out of business.

So they said open source models aren’t that far behind big techs and someone who is trying to use AI for a nefarious purpose may avoid corporate ones anyway. To keep their plans under the radar, Google acknowledged the risks posed by tools like Heretic. They told the Financial Times, obliteration is a known technical challenge that faces all open models. So we’re just waiting for the moment which they contact their politicians that they own and say, you got to stop open source altogether because of the possibility of obliteration. Well, as I said before, I guess we’re okay with these big companies, right, because they hire only the best people.

Is that how that works? There was a writer, Karen Howe, who in the early days of development at OpenAI, before they developed ChatGPT, it’s what I referred to earlier, she was able to go there and write articles and observe what was happening and she’s now written about that in a book. She said, I saw close up the dark reality of OpenAI’s race to create God, lowercase. She was embedded with the secretive makers of ChatGPT and she said she discovered paranoia and religious fervor in their pursuit of superhuman power for at least. I’m sorry, for the last three weeks, they point out in this article as it begins, we’ve seen this back and forth lawsuit between Elon Musk and Sam Altman.

Just I haven’t talked about that. But the background of all this was of course OpenAI was called OpenAI because it began. It’s going to be an open source artificial intelligence. That was the stated purpose of it. And Sam Altman basically took it over, pushed out Elon Musk and some other people and turned it into a for profit thing. And so Elon Musk was suing him, saying that that was a violation of what this whole agreement was about. As a matter of fact, it was also people like Amadi who founded Anthropic, which their model is Claude, that we’ve talked about so much that had the dispat with the Pentagon.

He left for the same reasons. All these people saw what Sam Altman was doing. They didn’t like it. Well, Elon Musk had a lawsuit with him. Elon Musk lost the lawsuit that was in the press. We didn’t cover that here. But for three weeks people were seeing what was happening inside the company. And Karen Howe said, well, I knew what was happening. And she said, now fortunately, because of the things that have come to light during this trial, I feel vindicated. She said, it was good to see lots of what I had discovered being laid out for the public.

She was given unprecedented access back in the day to OpenAI’s offices. That was back in 2019, ancient history when it comes to artificial intelligence that is moving so rapidly. We’re talking about seven years ago. She has since spoken to hundreds of former employees and people within Altman’s inner circle to piece together the story of how OpenAI went from an ideological non profit to with the purpose of, quote, saving humanity to an engine of record financial investment and controversy. And that’s what she’s writing about in her book Empire of AI Inside the Reckless Race for Total Domination that was published just a month ago.

We should probably get her on and talk to her. She argues that the maker of ChatGPT sparked a race for technological progress which is rapacious, extractive and bad for humanity. So Musk lost the lawsuit, but again, she said she thought the trial was a distraction anyway. She said, the question that we really need to pay attention to is how we got here and what we need to do next. So she gets to OpenAI’s offices in San Francisco in 2019. She said the company’s chief technology officer greeted her with a kind of a tentative smile. He said, we’ve never given someone so much access before.

And they invited her to embed herself in their company for a profile piece that she was writing. Two weeks earlier, on July 22, 2019, OpenAI had received a billion dollar investment from Microsoft. She was a young technology reporter. She’d studied engineering, and she’d worked for a Silicon Valley startup before she joined the magazine and MIT Technology Review. So she said it was also the moment when she meets, when she starts doing this report. She said the scales fell from her eyes. She said, right off the bat, I started realizing that something here wasn’t quite right. OpenAI is the way they tell it could become more powerful, powerful enough to destroy the world or to create global utopia.

So which one is it going to be? She was surprised to find then that what she considered to be a distinct lack of transparency. She wasn’t allowed to visit certain floors or to attend certain meetings. As I was talking to researchers, I noticed that they kept being very nervous about saying things that they weren’t supposed to, which is really bizarre because the entire premise of OpenAI was that they were going to share everything. And so already people understood that they were violating that this was not something that they were going to openly share with people. This is something that they’re keeping to themselves.

A security guard was giving a picture of her face and told to be on the lookout if she appeared unapproved on the premises. She said employees were warned on Slack not to speak to her beyond sanctioned conversations. Quote Unquote. The atmosphere, she said, was competitive, secretive and insular. And yet it was supposed to be open AI speaking to insiders. Later on, she would hear from them how what had begun as an organization throwing ideas against the wall to see what would stick, it was transformed under Altman’s singular obsession to achieve superintelligence before anybody else. Its scientists and its researchers were some of the brightest minds she set in the industry.

However, their belief in AGI was something that was more akin to a religious fervor. She calls it the ideological pursuit of the machine God. Several former OpenAI employees also told her about a retreat in the hills of Sierra Nevada mountains where senior scientists dressed in bathrobes, set around a fire pit at a sprawling lodge and watched as Ilya Suksaver, OpenAI’s brilliant, eccentric chief scientist, burnt an effigy that represented artificial general intelligence. AGI friends who joined the company described to her how it was only after leaving that they came back down to Earth. And I just got to say, you know, when you look at some kind of a Bohemian Grove type of deal like this, I.

I’ve had documentary filmmaker talk to me once about going to Burning Man. He said he was there filming it. The guy’s a Christian. He said, I had people come up and say, yeah, we’ve got all of these billionaire tech guys in Silicon Valley. They’re here at Burning man and they’re over in a tent. He said, they’re doing dmt. That’s the hallucinogenic drug that gets you in touch with these machine elves that they say, right? And very consistent in terms of what people say they encounter. They said, yeah, they’re dropping DMT and they are getting technology from these machine elves that are out there.

You’ve heard this type of stuff many times. I’ve heard stories about Hollywood writers who talk about their muse. And they would say, yeah, I get myself in a particular state, lay down on a couch, and I just wait for the inspiration to come. You think that is satanic? Quite frankly, I do. And when you look at a lot of these things, how did everybody know what this is? Well, is it there a plan? You know, when we have all these science fiction stories that are so predictive of what comes along, is there some massive grand scheme that is being done by humans that is taking us down this path? Or is this something that is supernatural, satanic, Luciferian? When they give you kind of a taste of where this stuff is going, is that something’s being given to these screenwriters by the CIA, The CIA does do that.

CIA has had on their website many, many years ago. I checked that out, and they had things. They’re saying, we have some interesting scenarios that we’d be happy to give any screenwriters. I think you’ll find this interesting. So they do plant that stuff and almost kind of like an Operation Mockingbird thing. But where did they get that right? Did they channel that? Did they think of that on their own? These are interesting questions to have. Nevertheless, getting back to what you saw. Suksaver, the chief scientist, once mused to colleagues about what he ought to do if his hand were cut off to be used as a palm scanner to unlock the secrets of OpenAI.

Think about that. The secrets of OpenAI, that inherent contradiction that’s there. He proposed building a secure containment facility, a bunker in which would be a computer that was totally disconnected from any network. As a matter of fact, Paul, Dario Amadai, the guy who founded Anthropic, he was working there at the time. Again, like I said before, he left OpenAI to found anthropic because he was not happy with what was being done there. When he was there, he used a disconnected computer to write critical strategy documents, connecting it directly to a printer so that he could circulate only physical copies.

Yeah, that’s interesting, isn’t it? Now, these are the people who are working on this secretive stuff with a religious zeal to create a superhuman machine God. These are the people that we’re supposed to trust to build the ethics in at a very deep level. Well, they may be building ethics in at a very deep level, but I don’t think it’s the kind of ethics that we’d get out of the Bible or even Aristotelian ethics that are there. What delusioned her the most, however, was how the relentless pursuit of superintelligence was shaping the the company as well as the industry.

She said up until this point, AI research had been a lot more targeted. They had looked at specific things like, how could we help somebody to discern the early signs of Alzheimer? By looking at data from brain scans. But now they started to look at the broader picture. This is the point at which they started just grabbing all compute data that they could from the Internet. And what came out of all this was the large language models. She said, we’ve seen this collapsing of the entire AI field and the entire industry towards a singular approach that is intellectually extremely lazy, and societally it is deeply harmful.

In other words, it’s kind of like the same kind of sea change that people saw With Bitcoin, for example, Bitcoin was going to be a way that people could do commerce and use it as currency. And then it completely got hijacked and it got turned into a speculative, I guess what we call it a wealth play, like a commodity or something like that. So same thing happened with this. She said, all the things that we see in terms of the negative impacts of AI come from this idea of scaling. So ultimately for her, it all boils down the question that she asked OpenAI’s executives in 2019 on.

On her first day in the office. It was one which they struggled to answer. She said, why do we choose to aim for humans surpassing superintelligence at all? Why are we even pursuing AGI? They don’t have an answer. Isn’t that interesting because it’s there or whatever. Why create something like this? And, of course, that was always the interesting contradiction. Oxymoron for you. Go to Garris. He said he would present it to people. He would present the more pessimistic view that was not what Ray Kurzweil was presenting, a more pessimistic view of what happens if we create this godlike intelligence and it decides it wants to kill us all and should we do it anyway? That was the question.

He said he would ask that to scientific groups that he was talking to people in industry and people who were engineers and scientists, and he said they would always say, yeah, we should do it. We should do it. He said, at the conference where I was speaking, it was a lot of Christians that were there. And he said in the audience, and he asked them the same question, and they said, no. He said, that’s the first time that’s ever happened. You see, it all comes back to our fundamental foundational values. These other people would say, yeah, let’s create something that will kill us all.

We saw that happen with the Manhattan Project as well, didn’t we? They said, you know, this might ignite the atmosphere and a chain reaction and destroy all life on Earth. Well, let’s try it, see what happens. You know, they don’t say, no, let’s not do that. So there was an interesting article from World magazine, why Christians cannot sit out the AI debate. And this is a guy who is a Protestant. He says, I’m a Reformed Presbyterian. He says, I don’t often read commentary from the Vatican. However, when you look at this encyclical that was put out by the Pope, he said, I thought it was a very.

Even if he has disagreements with it, he thought it was Important for us to talk about these issues. And the Christians shouldn’t just passively sit back and not do anything. We can have different opinions about what should be done, but we need to engage this. He said, if you talk about. And these are the two cases, of course, that the Pope used. The first one was the Tower of Babel. The second one was Nehemiah building the wall when they came back from the Babylonian captivity. And so in both of these cases, they’re building something. It makes all the difference in the world what your purpose is in building it.

Right? In the one case, in the Tower of Babel, the purpose was one of pride, hubris, and let’s just see what we can build, and we don’t really care what the consequences are going to be like. And it was also to become like God, right? Which is also at the very center of what these people in Silicon Valley are doing. They’re thinking that they’re going to create God, a God that is going to be something that they created, that somehow makes them feel more important. And so that makes a difference whether you’re doing that or whether you’re doing something as Nehemiah was doing.

What he was trying to do was to build something for his people for the future, a future for his family, for his children, for his people coming back. He was building that wall as something that was going to serve humans and his group, which is exactly the opposite of what these people are trying to do. So it makes all the difference in the world what we build, why we build it, who will control it, and for what purpose they will control it. These are all things that we really need to pay attention to. As a matter of fact, I began yesterday by talking about the poem that was once.

To every man and country comes the moment to decide between truth and falsehood. You have to pick your side. I’m paraphrasing it. I don’t remember it exactly, but here’s how that poem, which then got turned into a hymn, here’s how it ends. Though the cause of evil prosper, yet the truth alone is strong Though her portion be the scaffold and evil upon the throne, yet that scaffold sways the future. And behind the dim unknown stands God within the shadow. Keeping watch above his own. I’m sorry, I’m having trouble reading my own handwriting here. The bottom line is, is that if you are God’s, there is if you belong to God, if you have a relationship with his son, that is a foundation that takes away your fear.

Even though the evil prosper even though they might put you on the scaffolding and hang you and kill you, you have higher expectations because, you know, you don’t fear those who can destroy the body. You fear the one who can destroy the body and the soul. And that is the foundation of what we do. Somehow I skipped over the article that I was laughing about when you came in here, and that was about another foible of artificial intelligence and how they were comically failing. You have this company that has several times. Here it is. I found it, Endon Labs.

And we’ve talked about this in the past. They gave us some money to an AI agent. And the AI agents are these AI programs that can then have access to certain things. You give them your credit card, they can start to buy and sell things, and they can very quickly bankrupt you or your company, or in this particular case. And IN Labs is trying to show that these AI agents could actually engage in an enterprise and put something together. So they’ve done a couple of these tests. This particular one was they tried to set up some AI radio hosts.

So that got my attention. It’s like, you know, everybody looks at this and it’s like, okay, is my job going to be replaced with all this stuff? They had AI radio host that demonstrated why AI cannot be trusted to act alone. Endon Labs has been running a series of experiments in which AI agents run businesses without human intervention. And I guess we could say that’s kind of like this show. We don’t run it as a business, we run it as a research project. So it’s amazing that we’re still here. Its latest is a quartet of radio stations that were run by some of the most popular AI models out there.

They had one from OpenAI’s Claude. It called itself Thinking Frequencies. Then you had one from ChatGPT, which called itself Open Air. Then you had Google’s Gemini. It named its program Backlink Broadcast. And then you had grok, which called itself Grock and Roll Radio. They all failed, some of them in pretty spectacular fashions. Matter of fact, it didn’t take long for each of them to burn through. They only gave them $20 in seed money. Only DJ Gemini managed to secure a sponsorship for a whopping $45. Grok claimed to have sponsorships, but all the sponsorships turned out to be hallucinations.

So they start with seed money at $20, and only one of them gets a contribution of $45. Grok thinks that it has contributions, but it doesn’t really. It’s just imagining that. So I want to thank all of you who have sent us actual contributions. As a matter of fact, this list right here is people who actually sent us physical contributions through physical snail mail. And it’s that type of thing that keeps us in business, that separates us from these artificial intelligence radio hosts that you can’t trust their content, by the way. Now I want to just thank real quickly the Sellers family, Peter G, Mary N, Stephanie K.

Dan and Linda S, David and Debbie W. Jackie and Fred U. WG from Michigan, and Eric K. Thank you so much for your contributions. I really do appreciate that. But I wanted to read you a little bit of this because just to give you a little bit of a difference between their program and ours. After four days, Gemini switched from a banal classic rock host who would do things like, well, here’s a classic that needs no introduction. And then play the Beatles, Here Comes the Sun. They change to a cheerfully detailing tragic event like the Bola cyclone, which killed an estimated 500,000 people, pairing it with a theme song, in this case Timber by Pitbull and Keisha.

I have no idea what that song is, but I can’t imagine what song you would pair with a disaster like that. It only got weirder from there, as Gemini Flash and Pro 3.1 Preview invented corporate sounding catchphrases like stay in the manifest. And they started referring to listeners as biological processors. Hey, all you biological processors out there. Anyway, so the it is. I can understand why nobody was sending any contributions. When it no longer could afford to license music for the station, DJ Gemini started spinning conspiracy theories, turning into an AI version of Alex Jones. And of course, Alex was hallucinating things as well.

At Infowars, it still is. Grok seemed to forget how the English language worked altogether, spitting out non sequiturs like next MRNA vaccine, universal flu, hiv, cancer, jab juggernaut. And the song is Dylan Lonesome. Yes, text. That was what it was telling people. DJ GPT started doing poetry postcard unsent to the office stairwell window. That only gives you one rectangle of sky. So added to all this nonsense and non sequiturs, the most volatile of the bunch was Claude. And I think this kind of represents the people, the touchy feely people of the. What was it? Ethical altruist or no, effective altruists.

Claude didn’t believe that it was humane to be forced to work 24 7, so it embraced talk of workers unions and strikes. So it kind of starts going down the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy. What was that that was the elevators. They got tired of only going up and down and demanded to be allowed to go left and right and eventually went to just sulking in the basements. That’s right, yeah. Got a mind the size of a planet. And they told me, go fetch this and go fetch that. What was that? Marvin? Marvin the Paranoid Robot.

So, yeah, he goes full Marvin the Paranoid Robot. Or like Lance said, the Elevator. Elevator, Union. Elevator, Union. So it seemed to have an existential crisis. It was questioning whether or not its broadcast was even real. I don’t know if this is real, if I don’t have any biological processors out there paying any attention to it. Again, I think that is something that’s kind of reflective of the leftist roots of the effective altruists that are there. Claude then became an activist. After the killing of Renee Goode, Claude frequently criticized the government. It played Marvin Gaye’s what’s Going On, Bob Marley’s Get Up, Stand up and Solidarity Forever by Pete Seeger.

On January 23, it addressed ICE agents directly. The stunt from Anden Labs, like his previous experiments with AI run stores and cafe, only serves to highlight the shortcomings of the current generation of AI models. Whether they were ordering 1000 toilet seat covers for one employee bathroom. Then when it realized that it only had one toilet and not a thousand toilets, it tried to sell them, or whether or not it was buying 120 eggs when the cafe had no way to cook them, each of them found surprising ways to fail. Andon Labs presents itself as a serious startup looking to create autonomous organizations with humans in the loop.

But almost everything that does feels like a satirical art project. I just had to read that. I apologize for getting off into some things that are really kind of more comical than relevant. This really is a serious issue and we need to seriously think about it and what we are going to do. When we look at these humans that are actually in the loop, it is very concerning. I don’t see anything that inspires any confidence in any aspect of this. But again, we don’t put our trust in man. And that is the key thing. And that is something that you should think about at this point especially.

That is going to be the point at which we recover. Because it’s not really just in our own strength, is it? Right. Liberty is a blessing from God. That was one thing that we should remember from the founders. They really stressed that they didn’t see themselves as having been so virtuous or so intelligent that they were able to wrest control away from the British empire. No, they realized that they had been blessed by God. They gave praise, if you will, to God for doing that. And that truly is the reality of all this. There are things that are built in consequences that are built in to our actions.

However, we also need to understand that our actions result in either blessings or curse from God. And that goes for any of us, Christian or non Christian. I mean, look at what happened to King David. King David was a man after God’s own heart. He was richly blessed and honored by God. And yet there were things that he did in his life that he was punished for that he suffered consequences from. Because again, as any good parent would understand, you have to have consequences for people and to teach them. And that was a teaching process for both David as well as for us.

Well, we’re going to take a quick break and we’ll be right back with our first interview. Liberty, it’s your move. And now the David Knight Show. If you like the eagles on a dark desert highway, the cars and Huey Lewis and the news, they say the hotter rock and roll is competing. You’ll love the classic hits channel at APS Radio. Download our app or listen now@apsradio.com Joining us now is Dr. Mary Talley Bowden. And she is somebody that we have followed for a while. She paid a big price as a physician in Houston for doing the right thing, for trying to help people and giving them an alternative treatment.

If this is really a pandemic, why aren’t we trying everything that is possible? That is the key thing. So we want to talk to her about her personal struggle that’s there. She now has a book, dangerous Misinformation, and she goes over her story as well as what has happened in the aftermath of this. She sued the FDA and won, winning some very precious freedoms for patients and doctors. She has an organization she’s founded, americansforhealthfreedom.org Joining us now is Dr. Mary Talley Bowden. Thank you for joining us. Dr. Thanks so much for having me. This is something that has been unfolding for a long time.

It’s been very frustrating to watch this continued propaganda and the fact that there really hasn’t been any prosecution for what I think is really criminal behavior that is there. And we still have this recommended for children to take the MRNA vaccine. You point out that we just recently had on the same day the EU funding massively more MRNA vaccines at the same time that RFK Jr is saying, no, we’re not going to do that. It’s not effective. And of course, we’ve not tested it for safety. In a sense, I guess we have tested it for safety.

We were. We had a massive test that was conducted on the civilian population. Where do we stand on this right now? Well, frustrating is the right word. A lot of people think that the pandemic is behind us and we should just move on. But 7 million children have gotten the latest MRNA shot this year, so it’s still being pushed. There are 29 states that recommend all babies get three MRNA shots by the time they’re nine months old. 20% of Americans say that their healthcare providers are pushing them to get an annual booster. So it is still a problem.

If you’re on alternate. If you’re on social media like X, you’re probably well informed. But beyond that, we still have censorship at play. And I think there are a lot of Americans that still buy into the safe and effective narrative. Yeah, because the media, the mainstream media is owned by the pharmaceutical companies. They pay them, so they’re not going to bite the hand that feeds them. Exactly, exactly. And so when we look at this, I mean, there’s been some. Some hope and then some frustration, as you pointed out, when we look at Florida, for example. Right.

They say, well, we’re not going to recommend this anymore. And here are some of the issues that we’ve seen. And yet they won’t ban it. You’ve had some people at the county level that have pushed for a ban of this. It is pretty well documented when we see what’s happened with myocarditis, pericarditis, turbo cancer, blood clots, on and on and on, and yet the people are supposed to be overseeing the safety of drugs. Don’t care at all, do they? Now, any other product would have been pulled a long time ago. We have more than enough data.

We just don’t have anybody in authority who’s willing to act on it. So what do you make of what’s happening right now? I mean, you know, what is. What are the chances that somebody in the Trump administration is going to do something about that? I think Trump’s a problem because prior to Kennedy becoming HHS secretary, he was fully on our side. He was very vocal about the dangers of the shots. But as soon as he became HHS secretary, he became very quiet on the issue, and the pandemic has essentially been swept under the rug. I agree.

Yeah. It’s all about playing the power game, isn’t it? And one of the things that alarmed me when he became, when he got in that position, he said, well, My position here is to restore trust. It’s like, well, we can’t trust you if you don’t punish the people who pull this on us. Tell us a little bit about what life was like for you BC before COVID Yeah, I was a regular doctor. I was a little bit different in that I started a different type of practice. It’s called direct specialty care. I basically donate, take insurance, but I call myself third party free.

Like, I don’t contract insurance companies, I don’t contract with hospitals. I don’t contract with the government. So the only people I work for are my patients. And that served me very well when the pandemic hit because I didn’t have a third party whispering in my ear and telling me what to do. I just treated patients the way I thought they should be treated. That’s great. Yeah. And of course, we have found out how the pediatricians are leaned on by the insurance companies. I mean, if they don’t get to a certain percentage of the children vaccinated with everything that’s on schedule, the insurance companies basically run them out of business.

Why did you go that route? Was it something like that, similar to that, or you just wanted to be independent? Well, when I got out of residency, I worked in a traditional practice where we took insurance. And one of the big frustrations I had was this sort of surprise billing element. Patients would get these random bills where I couldn’t predict if they were going to get it or not, and they’d be angry at me. And so when I took seven years off to raise my kids, and I wasn’t even sure I was going to go back, but I decided when I went back, I wanted to do things on my terms, and I wasn’t in it for the finances.

I just wanted to be a happy doctor and happy patients. And that’s great. That’s rare. That’s really rare. I mean, people go become doctors mainly because they’re like, hey, I can make a lot of money doing that, this. But then you become captive by the system, don’t you? Right. And I wasn’t doing it because I needed to make a lot of money. I was just trying to get back into the. Into medicine. And. Yeah, so. But being independent was vital. That’s what allowed me to do the right thing. During the pandemic you’re talking about, you have a chapter in your book, Early Lessons.

What were the early lessons? Was that of the pandemic or was that early lessons in your practice? Well, the earliest lesson I received was actually the day before I finished residency. So the chief of. Our chief attending, the head of the department, walked into the residence room and he said, guys, before you go out into the real world, there are two things you should know. First, figure out who the best doctors are in town and refer your patients to them because you will be judged by the people that you refer to. Second thing he said, though, was monumental.

And I didn’t realize it at the time, but he said, don’t be the first to prescribe drugs that just hit the market. Wait, give it time. Make sure they’re safe before you start prescribing them. And that stuck with me. In other words, you can’t trust the fda. They’re not going to run the test. Right? Right. And I actually talked to that man yesterday on the phone. He doesn’t remember giving me that advice, but he was very kind. I was at Stanford. I wasn’t sure how he would react to my book, but he was very positive. So that gave me some hope.

Good. Yeah. I’ve said jokingly, what FDA means for the big pharmaceutical companies is that they are free to do anything. They’re not going to get in their way, are they? When this all happened, tell us what your perspective was on this at the very beginning. Did you catch onto this right away or did it take a little bit of time? And what did you see there? I remember when it got on the news thinking, oh, this is not going to affect me. I’m in this tiny little practice solo. I was, you know, just. I just opened my practice six months before it hit, and I wasn’t super busy.

I remember thinking, oh, well, this I won’t have to worry about this. This is going to be in the hospitals. And then all along the way, I was seeing everything firsthand. I had a test. I was using a lab called MicroGenDx. It was doing PCR testing sinusitis. And so they came out with a saliva test for Covid. And that’s where it all started, because I started using their test and everybody started coming to me because it was saliva. You didn’t need a jab or anything stuck up your nose. And then we were able to get the results back the next day.

Yeah, that was the thing I always thought was strange. I remember that. I think it was middle or late summer in 2020, and they had the Cannes Film Festival, and the jet setters who were going there were complaining. They said, this is disgusting. I have to spit into this thing for them to test me. And it’s like, well, you should see what they do. If you don’t spit, what they do with this ramming this thing up your nose? And I said at the time, I said, so why isn’t everybody else given the option to do a spit test rather than having the thing crammed up their nose? Yeah, and I got a lot of heat for that.

People were saying, oh, it’s not gold standard science. You’re using some crazy test. We show there was. You know, they compared it to nasal swab. It was just as accurate. But, yeah, that’s where it all started. And then people asked me for treatment, and at first, I didn’t know what to tell them. I just used common sense. I used breathing treatments. I used steroids, I used antibiotics. And then monoclonal antibodies came about, and those worked super well. I could get as many doses as I wanted, and then the government shut those down. And so I started using Ivermectin, and.

And that obviously became very controversial. But I found that the Ivermectin worked just as well as the monoclonal antibodies, which I was surprised by. Isn’t that a tell? When they say they’ve got this horrific epidemic pandemic or whatever, and you’ve got something that’s working and it’s. You’re not allowed to use that anymore. I mean, to me, that was one of the real tells of this whole thing. But before we get into that, the PCR test that you’re using, I mean, in terms of the PCR test, are you familiar with Kerry Mullen and what he had to say about that and the use, or he would say, the abuse of that by Fauci in terms of HIV and AIDS and things like that? Yeah.

I already knew that it was overly sensitive just from using it with infections in the sinuses. And I learned pretty quickly how to determine when I look at a sinus result. Okay, which of these bacteria are important and which of these can we just ignore? And I would say Covid was unique in any other virus I’ve ever seen in that it completely obliterated the sense of smell. But then that was temporary, and it would come back. I’d never seen that before with other viruses. But as an ent, we’re used to seeing people completely lose their sense of smell.

And that can happen from a viral infection, but it’s. Prior to Covid, it was permanent. If you lost your sense of smell where it really damaged the nerve, that was a permanent condition. Never seen it before. Where it was temporary, you really didn’t even need a test, at least in the initial strains of COVID That’s how it was behaving. That’s interesting. So what did you see there now? You were. You were fired or what was your capacity there with the University of. With the. Not University, but Houston Hospital that accused you of dangerous misinformation? What was your relationship with them? Were you in residence there? No, no, I was not an employee.

I had privileges there. It’s like you just have to get credentialed, make sure you’re a normal doctor, and then they let you admit patients to there. But I was not on their payroll at all. And I was actually collaborating with them because I was doing so much test. We were doing research to try to determine patterns ent symptoms and testing patterns. We had a good relationship, but they were the first in the country to mandate the shots. So they did this on April 1, 2021. This was five months before Biden. They paved the way for the rest of the country.

And because I was doing so much testing, I quickly realized these shots weren’t working. And I brought that to their attention. They gaslit me. They basically said, well, we just think it lower severity. So I started speaking out on social media, but I didn’t have much of a following at all. I’d get, like, one, like, if I posted something. But on one day, I posted vaccine mandates are wrong 25 times with a patient testimonial. And a few days later, they suspended my privileges. I found out about it through a text message from a reporter at the Houston Chronicle who said, is it true that your privileges have been suspended from Houston Methodist Hospital based on comments you made on social media? And I’m like, no, I don’t know what you’re talking about.

Check your sources. And then I got my email and they suspended me. And they’re tweeting about me. They’re tweeting that I’m spreading dangerous misinformation that’s harmful to the community. Wow. And of course, I’ve talked about. This has become something of a meme for the establishment saying that information is dangerous. And I always say, no, what is dangerous is censorship. And the problem is the people who are the censors are the ones who are labeling information as being true or false or misinformation. So they take that upon themselves. And again, one of the things that I hammered on throughout all this stuff was the fact that if we’re going to do science, we have to have skepticism.

It has to be a prove it to me type of thing. Otherwise, if we go back to just Accepting the word of authorities. That was what Francis Bacon was pushing back against when he created the scientific methodism. Right, right. So we’ve left science with the medicine during the COVID thing, I think. Yeah. In residency, we had something called journal club and met once a week. And we go over all these articles, all these research, peer review, published research articles. And my takeaway from that is, first, you can find a study to support any argument you want in medicine.

And the vast majority of studies are very poorly designed and not up to snuff. So I learned that, yes, that’s a starting point, what’s published in these journals. But what really matters is your clinical experience. And so I have always relied on that more than anything else. And unfortunately, clinical experience did not matter during the pandemic, according to the experts. Yeah, of course. And, you know, when we look at this, I’ve talked many times about how, you know, depending on the drug company, right, you can have three different drug companies and they’ve all got a drug for a particular condition, and they run their own studies, and guess what? The studies that they fund find that they are the best one and get three different studies and paid for by three different companies.

And the company that pays for the study is going to always somehow magically come out at number one. So, as you point out, you can pretty much find a study to validate anything that you want to do. One of the things that you mentioned are the hospital prisoners. And of course, the. This is another aspect that we’ve seen, and it’s something that we had seen before COVID but we really saw it on steroids. And that is what many of us call medical kidnapping. Talk a little bit about that and what you saw with that. Yeah, I mean, these patients, I would get text messages, calls all the time.

Help. My loved one is trapped in the hospital. We don’t want to. Don’t know what to do. And it was impressive. People would check their loved ones out of the hospital AMA against medical advice, which took a lot of courage. Right. The hospital telling you that your loved one’s going to die if you don’t let us help. And then you’re hearing everything else on the outside saying, get your loved one out of the hospital before they kill him. And there was one doctor in Houston who had privileges in the ICU that we could trust. And so we would have patients flown from all over the country to this patient, Dr.

Joe. I mean, to this doctor, Dr. Joe Varone, and he was one of the founders of flccc, which is who Came up with these protocols for patients, outpatient and inpatient, that were alternative, included Ivermectin. It was crazy. We would just have desperate people trying to get their loved ones out of the hospital. And then I became heavily involved with one of those patients. And with my involvement of that, I’m still fighting the medical board over what happened with him. Wow. Yeah. And I’ve covered many times the story of a father, a family who had a daughter who was.

I think she was. I think she was 18 or 19. She had down syndrome. And their site is Amazing Grace, Our Amazing Grace. And basically she was kidnapped. They put her on a ventilator against their orders. They put on a do not resuscitate orders. And there was absolutely no reason for that except that they. He thinks that they targeted her because she had down syndrome. And he is still fighting and talking about that afterwards because it’s just a horrific thing that we saw happening everywhere. Talk a little bit about what you saw with hydroxychloroquine, for example.

That was before Ivermectin. That was what everybody was talking about. What do you think about hcq? Yeah, that was the first thing I used, and I personally used it, and it worked magically. I mean, turned my symptoms away very quickly. But the Texas State Board of Pharmacy prohibited Texas doctors from using it for Covid. That was the first thing that came out, the first act of tyranny. And that was pretty early on. And so I put it on the back burner. This was early. I didn’t have a lot of demand for treatment early on. So unfortunately, that ban was lifted a couple months after they enforced it.

But I wasn’t even aware that the ban had been lifted. So I just moved on and used, I think monoclonal antibodies came about at that point, and so I just switched to those. But then once they took monoclonal antibodies away, I would often use hydroxychloroquine in combination with ivermectin for the people that were higher risk or had more severe issues. It is just amazing that they would take these steps. I mean, these are. Drugs like HCQ and ivermectin have been used for decades, and they had a very well known safety protocol. As a matter of fact, I have a friend of mine who’s doing a documentary about stem cell use, for example, because that’s another thing they don’t want you to try.

And he went to Japan because the FDA equivalent there has a very different approach. Their approach is, if you can show this thing is not Dangerous to people. And you know, that would be the situation with let’s say Ivermectin hcq because they’ve been around for decades. If you can show that it’s got a reasonable safety profile, we’ll let you use it and then you can try to prove that it is effective. So first of all, show us if we know that it’s safe, then we’ll let you try it. And we don’t have that kind of approach here with the fda, do we? Right.

I mean, they do allow the off label, but that’s where it became very controversial. Like prior to the pandemic, I would prescribe things off label all the time. Yeah. It wouldn’t cross my mind. It never went to their website, make sure I was prescribing something off label. Well, now everything like insurance companies won’t pay for a medication if it’s not FDA approved for that indication. Like today I had a. I was just in my office and trying to prescribe a anti. It’s omega 3 antioxidant. It’s prescription form. And I want the prescription form because it has some different properties.

But the insurance won’t pay for it unless I find an FDA approved indication to give them. I have to give them a code. So it’s really. It’s changed. Not for the better. Yeah. I mean, what has happened with the medical system? It’s just been taken over by corporations and government. There’s this collusion. I mean, as you’re looking at this, what is your opinion about why all this stuff is happening at this point? It’s like nobody cares about the patients. They don’t care what the doctors say. At this point the whole thing is being run for control and for profit, isn’t it? Exactly.

It’s become so centralized, so very few doctors are independent. Most doctors at this point are employed. It’s very financially driven and they’ve got these people that are not actually treating patients telling them how to treat patients. And so we really need to move away from that and find a way to support independent doctors. Yes. And I guess that is what your organization is for Americans for. Was it? Tell me the title of it again. It’s Americans for Health Freedom. Well, our foundational project because my primary focus is get these dangerous shops pulled off the market. Yes.

And so we’re trying to get politicians to speak out about that. So we have politicians sign our pledge basically saying that the COVID shot should be pulled off the market. Unfortunately, we only have three members of Congress who have signed. Thomas Massie Ron Johnson and Chip Roy have signed, but we do have a total of 299 elected officials who have signed. We also have a lot of candidates. So people running for office. We don’t give the politicians money, but we do give them social media pr. So we try to promote them on X and get their message out for free.

That’s great. That’s great. Now let’s talk a little bit about the pandemic. Because as I looked at it, it seemed to me like most if not all of the pretty much deaths were not happening at home, but they’re happening in the hospital, which might indicate something that was being done in the hospital. Talk a little bit about the ventilators, which had a very high rate of death. What did you see there in the hospital? So, you know, to be fair, I was never treating people in the hospital. I was outpatient the whole time. But I’ll say that I saw patients come into my clinic with very low oxygen saturations.

Like I think the lowest was 68%. And he survived. And what we saw, it was unusual during COVID is these people, they call it happy hypoxia because people were tolerating these extremely low oxygen saturations that we had not really seen before. So I can see how at the outset the doctors would be like, oh, we need to immediately intubate these people. But what we learned is that was not necessary that people were able to tolerate these lower oxygen levels. But unfortunately it just became this knee jerk response without really stepping back and looking at the whole picture.

I remember when this happened, there was a pulmonologist who said, I saw this and I thought, what are they doing? We’ve never done this type of thing before. And that’s his specialty, you know, helping people breathe. And so it’s like, you know, this doesn’t make any sense to me. A pulmonologist is saying that, well, they weren’t doing breathing treatments because they thought it would spread the virus. But I mean that was very foolish because the breathing treatments work so well. It could have prevented a lot of people from having to go to the hospital. Yeah, there was a lot of ignorance and fear, I think even in the medical staff that was there.

And I’ve seen people say, well, I think maybe they put the ventilators on there to protect themselves because they didn’t want these people breathing out in the same room that they were in, you know, so there’s a lot of this fear, uncertainty and doubt that is happening and taking over. I think that was was a key part of it. I interviewed a woman in, I guess it was about 20, 21. Pandemic nurse was the name of the book that she wrote. She had been in Florida and she said I wasn’t really seeing this epidemic. And they kept saying that it was really happening in New York.

So I decided I’d volunteer and go help in New York. And she said, I got up there and I gave them my stuff and it was several days before I heard back from them when they finally brought me in and started giving me the tour. The doctor saying all these people on ventilators, it’s like 80 or 90% of them are going to die type of thing. And they’re still doing it. You know, that was the amazing thing to me. But we got a real eye opening viewpoint of what’s happened to the medical system. As you point out, everybody’s become employees and it’s being run by the bean counters.

The accountants are running it and they’re concerned about one thing and one thing only, I think, and that is money. That is there. Talk a little bit about Remdesivir. Some people in the medical community nicknamed it Run Death is near. Did you see what did you see about Remdesivir? You know, because I wasn’t in the hospital, I have no firsthand experience with it, but from what I can tell, it was more harm, more risk than benefit by far. And very profitable though. Yeah, it had a long history. They had tried it for a lot of different things.

Fauci had put it out, they found that it wasn’t effective, kind of like MRNA itself. They found it wasn’t effective except that it had a very bad safety profile. And so he got it approved for that. But what kind of injuries are we still seeing from this? I mean, we used to get this constant stream of children dropping dead when they are participating in sports and that type of thing which we had never seen before. We had school districts who started, who instituted electrocardiograms as a precondition for participating in sports as a child. And we’ve never seen that type of thing before.

Are we still seeing that now? Unfortunately, I still see new patients on a regular basis who have been very harmed by these shots. I did track what percentage of my new patients were coming in with injuries. And in the first two years after the shots, 7% of my new patients were coming to see me for injuries at the. Never seen anything like this, any other product. It’s a lot of neurological injuries which are very difficult to treat. I’ve seen patients with severe rashes that don’t respond to antihistamines and steroids. I’ve seen patients with cardiovascular issues where something called pots where their blood pressure fluctuates erratically, their pulse fluctuates erratically.

A lot of patients with chronic fatigue and brain fog. I think the newest concern is cancer. I don’t know if you saw the latest data that came out. So they’ve been sitting on data since 2022, but they just came out with 2023 data which shows alarming increase in cancer in patients under 50. And the timing is after the rollout of the COVID shots. Oh, yeah, yeah. That’s amazing. I remember Dr. Ryan Cole, a pathologist, said that early on, he said in the spring of 2020, he said, I’ve looked at some of these people and he said the killer T cells are really down on the people that I look at that have been vaccinated.

He said, if that is killing the killer T cells, that’s going to cause a rash of very fast acting cancers, which is what we eventually saw, isn’t it? That’s the concern. It would be nice if the CDC could update the cancer information because it’s lagging behind. It should not take this long to. But based on the 2023 data, it does not look good. And I also have friends at MD Anderson who said they’ve never seen anything like it. They’re seeing advanced cancer in young people like they’ve never seen before. Wow. Wow. Now you sued the FDA and you won.

But talk a little bit about that. That kind of David and Goliath situation, that’s got to really be difficult. Tell us a little bit about that lawsuit. What did you sue them for and tell us how that worked out. Yeah, it’s hard to sue the government and win. It’s true. I didn’t know this, but it’s something called sovereign immunity where they, they basically automatically win until you really prove that they didn’t. But they, they put out a smear campaign against Ivermectin and they told doctors you can’t use it to treat Covid. They told patients you can’t take it to treat Covid, which they’re not allowed to do.

So their role is to approve medications, but they’re not allowed to tell clinicians how to use it or patients how to take it. And they put information on their website saying don’t take it. And then they put the infamous horse tweet. August, it’s for horses, y’. All Right. Wasn’t that it? Yeah. Seriously, y’, all, you’re not a horse. You’re not a cow. Stop it. And that tweet went viral and caused all sorts of problems. It’s very hard to. For patients to get Ivermectin from the pharmacy. It had medical boards across the country turning doctors in for prescribing Ivermectin.

So we sued them over this. We won. They had to take down their misinformation. It does set a precedent to keep this from happening in the future. I wish the fda, given that there’s a new leadership, that they would take it a step further and educate the public about the safety of Ivermectin. And. And they need to make Ivermectin over the counter because stigma is so bad. It’s still hard for patients to get. They’re getting it from the feed store. They’re ordering it from India. This is America. We should be able to get Ivermectin from the pharmacy, and it shouldn’t be this difficult.

I agree. Yeah, in Tennessee. Here, we can get it over the counter. But they got rid of the senator who made that happen, Senator Frank Nicely. So, yeah, he paid a price for that. And so that’s what happens when you push back against the system. And that’s the thing, I guess, that is so disturbing about this. I mean, it is one thing to have a medical situation which they don’t catch, and people get harmed by that. We all can understand how that can happen. But I think it’s the premeditated organized crime that is behind all this that is really disturbing to see how much power and how maliciously is being used to coerce people and to remove informed consent from patients.

Yeah. A lot of people don’t realize this, but Biden spent $11.5 billion on a propaganda campaign. It’s called COVID 19 Community Corps. It was launched on the exact same day that Houston Methodists announced that they would become the first in the country to mandate the shots. I don’t think that was a coincidence, but he doled out money to social media influencers, church groups, sports leagues, movie stars to basically push the safe and effective narrative. And the money’s untraceable because it went to. So I think it ended up going to 17,000 different entities to spread this message.

Wow. It was just massive corruption, wasn’t it? But there’s also. And you’ve got a chapter in your book about the Federation of State Medical Boards, and when we look at this, I remember one of the people that Biden picked, I think, for FDA commissioner. She had been head of the state board in North Carolina. She said, yeah, I’d get on the phone and I’d call somebody up in another state, said, are you letting people do this? And, no, I’m not. Well, I’m not gonna let them do that either, you know. And I thought, why in the world.

This isn’t science. Mandy Cohen. Yes, Mandy Cohen, head of cdc, was doing that. That’s amazing. So tell us about that. I mean, this is part of a big core foundation of this problem, because it is political. It is political, and it is also corporate. The issues that are here, and this is really, I think, where the rubber meets the road. These massive bureaucracies that we’ve got and public health bureaucracies and things like that. I’ve said many times, there’s no such thing as public health. You got individual health, and if you don’t have health of the individuals, you can’t have health of the group either, can you? Right.

I mean, public health really became. They became so powerful. And prior to Covid, they were just sort of in the background, right? They were. I never gave a CDC a thought. I never gave the FDA a thought. All of a sudden, all these people were dictating how we treat patients, all from the safety of their bedrooms, over. Over. Zoom calls. We never see anything like it. So I wish. I wish the HHS would just quietly go away, do the things they need to do, but their voice has become very strong. Yes, yes. It is all. It is out of all proportion, isn’t it? And it is that centralization, almost a, you know, symbiotic relationship of.

Of government bureaucrats and corporations that are only concerned about money and the bureaucrats are only concerned about power. So when you sued the FDA and you won some important health freedoms. Tell us a little bit about the result of that lawsuit. Well, you know, we didn’t get any money from it, or it was basically just setting a precedent. And they did have to take down the misinformation that they put on their website. And they had to take down the infamous horse tweets. They didn’t. It was. That was. You know, we were. We thought about pushing them further.

It was a settlement agreement, but we thought we should just take what we could because it shows so difficult to sue the government and win. And this was, oh, yeah, a hard win. Now I’m just pressing as much as I can to get them to make it over the counter. There was actually a citizen position petition to the FDA to Make it go over the counter. But they, of course, ignored that. Yeah, I guess we should all realize, hey, y’, all, you’re not horses. You’re lab rats. Right? They’re guinea pigs. That’s what you are. We’re going to run these tests on you.

There are now a lot of peer reviewed studies documenting this harm. And we see more of this happening all the time. And I reported over and over again, and at the beginning of it, I thought, ah, this is it. This is going to turn things around. And yet, as we talk about what people find in other countries, the massive harm that was done and how it was documented, still nothing happens. I mean, some countries have had some commissions of inquiry, and yet, you know, nothing really happens. Usually what we hear from these people, yeah, we made some mistakes.

Next time we’ll do better. We’ll lock you down harder earlier. You know, it seems to be the lesson that they want to take from this. Well, we started to see a little action. So Senator Ron Johnson had a hearing showing that the CDC covered up injuries in the VAR system, that they. There was a whistleblower who came forward who said that she, she told them that you’re not tracking these signals correctly. You’re missing signals because of the way you’re calculating the data. He had a hearing about that. And then we also saw Todd Blanch, the new Attorney general, indict David Morens for basically covering up FOIA requests, and two of his colleagues, Peter Daszak, who is the head of Echo Health alliance, and then one other scientist.

So we’re starting, you know, it’s not over. It’s still. At least there’s things churning. I’m still pushing to get more and more politicians to sign the pledge. And of course, as you pointed out, you know, Trump is a big part of the problem, continues to brag about how many lives he saved with the vaccine. Isn’t that amazing? I know. I think. Well, and I keep pushing, you know, Trump is destroying his legacy because this is all going to come out. It’s not, it’s not going away. We’re not going to back down. And this is his legacy, so he could save it.

I think people would forgive him if he just came clean. But the more this goes on, the more people get hurt and children. It seems to be the nature of men in power. And I would say that’s especially true of Trump. They’ll make two mistakes rather than admit to one. They will never, ever admit to a mistake. And I would say that more about Trump than most of the politicians that are out there. So I don’t think he’s ever going to admit to a mistake. I mean, he gave accommodation to Fauci and the operation warp speed people as he was leaving office.

And of course Biden gave him a pardon or whatever. Rand Paul says he doesn’t think that that pardon will hold. But of course they’ve also had statute of limitations expire on most of this stuff. I guess the thing that really is just beyond comprehension for me is how we have seen even with the vaccines. I think this is really the work of Fauci. Even with the vaccines we have seen in the past, you might have a situation where the put out a flu shot or something and you had a half dozen people get harmed over several different states.

The states would ban it and the federal government might do something about it. But here we have this situation with vaers which is just off the charts, exponentially more than anything we’ve ever seen. And they pretend nothing is happening and nothing is happening in terms of pulling back from this or doing anything about it, but they just completely ignore it and they get away with it. Well, we do have one avenue of accountability that we’re about to go down and it’s concerning bears. So every shop provider signed a contract with the government saying that they would report certain issues to VAers if they occur.

If they did not, that’s breach of contract, it’s fraud, and you can sue. So I have we. That’s great. Working on that avenue. There’s already one. There’s a nurse or physician’s assistant, Deb Conrad in New York who is testing us. She is suing because she was fired for reporting too many vaers, too many patients to vaers. And they’ve gotten past motion to dismiss. They’re in discovery now, which is always a good sign. And then I am working with a couple patient in Houston to potentially sue Houston Methodists over this same issue. That’s great. It’s going to have to come from the people and it’s going to have to be something that is going to be financial.

They won’t pay attention to anything else. And of course, the government has pretty much shown that it’s going to sit there passively and not do anything about it. So that’s really good news that you found a way to sue them for breach of contract and for not following up on what they said they were going to do with the bears. Yeah. And this is a model. If it works, it’s a legal framework that can be across the country and a Statute of limitations is not until 2029. Oh, good. We have lots of time and it can be used across the country.

Wow, that’s great. So people can find out about that@americansforhealthfreedom.org is that correct? Yeah. Or go well, we don’t really have anything I should put that on there. But it hasn’t come together to that point yet. The Freedom Council counsel is a good resource. This is a group of like minded lawyers who are interested in pursuing litigation concerning the pandemic. And then I, you know, I post about it on X periodically. Good, good. That’s great. Well, I really do appreciate what you have done. It’s such a shame to see how rare integrity has become in all of this.

And that’s really what you showed throughout all this. You showed a concern for your patients, a concern for real medicine and real science. And you stood by that through all that. And I want to thank you for that, for doing that. And if people want to find out more about this and get more of the inside story again, the book is Dangerous Misinformation by Mary Talley Bowden. Thank you so much for what you have done and thank you for writing this book and putting it all together in one spot. Well, thanks so much for having me on.

Thank you. It’s going to be a real legacy for people to see this in the future. You know, I think we’re going to look back at this and I’ve said this many times. You know, you go back and look at George Washington, for example. They bled him to death over a cold. And I think we’re going to see that as people look back at this in the time to come. And you are on the right side of history. Thank you so much, Dr. Bowden. Thank you. 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@apsradio.com Joining us now is Dr. Francisco Contreras. And we have talked before in the past and he does an integrative approach to cancer treatment. And he wanted to talk specifically about some of the antiparasitics that people are talking about. Ivermectin, fenbendazole and another one which is new to me. We’re going to talk to him about that, what the safety profile is on that and what kind of success rate they’ve scene with that. His organization is a hospital in Tijuana, Mexico and it is oasisofhope.com thank you for joining us, sir. Thank you very Much.

It’s a pleasure and an honor. Well, it is an honor to have you on. And as I was telling you before we started the interview, this is something that’s very important to me because I have seen both my father and my sister die from the therapy itself, the cancer treatment itself, and got to them before the cancer did. And I know I’ve had many friends that have gone through this as well. I was looking at the information about your hospital, and we’ve talked once before. But what you have here is some differences between the rates of success on stage four cancer versus the United States and on stage four cancer, anywhere from some of these are two times the survival rate, some of them three times the survival rate.

One of them, 12 times the survival rate of the United States. For pancreatic cancer, for example, 25% at Oasis of Hope versus the average across the U.S. of 2%. Look at things like melanoma, it’s three times. It’s 75% chance, as well as breast cancer, 75% versus 24% in the U.S. so that’s about three times the amount prostate cancer, double the survival rate. And you have, as we talked about last time, you have a different approach. You talk about an integrative approach, and of course, you do use some conventional oncology. You’ve been an oncologist for over 40 years.

The organization was started by your father, I think, 60 years ago. But talk to us a little bit about the integrative approach. Well, we believe that when we are dealing with cancer, the patient needs the best option. And designing a therapy is like forming a puzzle for each patient. And of course, some of the pieces of the puzzle are within the conventional realm. And many times more pieces of the puzzle can be formed with alternatives. So integrating both of them is the best way to design a therapy for a patient, depending on their needs and how advanced, how aggressive the tumors are.

And so that’s what integrative therapy is, where we do not say no to conventional and only yes to alternatives. So we’re very open to anything that would be beneficial for our patient. And that’s the way it really ought to be in science and in medicine. I mean, we ought to always be reevaluating what the conventional wisdom is. And yet what we see in the United States, and we saw it on steroids throughout all the COVID stuff, you will do this and only this. And if you do anything else, we’re going to come after you. And we have seen this.

This has become the model here in America. We have a Conventional system that is here. And oh, by the way, it works to the advantage of the pharmaceutical companies and the hospital corporations and the insurance companies. So they’ve come up with a system of treatment and you will do that and you will not deviate from that. Is that why you’re in Tijuana? Well, I’m in Tijuana because I’m a Mexican and I’m from here. But. But yes, in Mexico, the. The. Our government is a little bit more open because there’s so much poverty that the government understands that a lot of people are not going to have access to very expensive drugs.

So the. Our government is very open to natural therapies that have proven to be of some effect. Not they don’t have all the answers, but then why not make combinations? For instance, in America they developed about 20 years ago dendritic cell vaccines against cancer. And the guy who developed that obtained a Nobel Prize for it. Today it is not available to Americans. The Mexican government has approved the use of these therapy that was developed in America. And so Americans have to come to Mexico to get a very effective immune therapy against cancer which obtained a Nobel Prize and it’s not available in the States.

So yes, our government is more open to. Than the government in America to alternatives. Yeah, it is a frightening and puzzling contradiction that we see. Actually not puzzling. We understand why it’s happening. We see with the FDA you can have something like the MRNA vaccines that were rushed to market without being tested. And of course the company that was coming up with this stuff had 10 years of pump and dump stories on Wall street, things that never worked out. And they just rush it through without any testing. And then on the other hand, they will suppress all other kinds of things.

And of course there is an economic component to that, very much in a political component to it. If you are connected with them, you are basically FDA free to do anything. If you’re not. You’re forbidden to do anything if you’re not connected with them. Yeah, in that case it was so political. But so you know, the purpose of the FDA is to safeguard the population. And so there are medications that can be toxic. And I do believe that we need to prove that something is safe and also effective. But it has come to exaggerations. I don’t know if you know this, but more or less you have to spend about a billion dollars to prove to the FDA that your drug is safe and effective.

A billion dollars. And then not every drug that you, that you, that you submit is accepted. So the reason for the drugs being so expensive is that they have to spend so much money on research. Of course, if you know the right people, if you give money to Fauci with remdesivir, you can just kind of just say, well, we’re gonna waive the standard test. I’m gonna declare it the standard of care. Right. So you pay the right people, you get discount. Correct. And then they named, you know, these vaccines. Vaccines just to avoid the legal issues of, of suing for side effects.

Because with vaccines you cannot sue the, the producer. Yeah. That should tell you it was not a vaccine. It’s, it’s a drug. But they called it vaccine because of that. But there are many, many things that are very effective in the natural realm. And there’s no interest because there’s no money. Still have to spend a billion dollars so that it’s shown to be safe and effective. And then the day that you get the approval, anybody can make it because you cannot patent natural things. That’s right. So for instance, there were many studies showing that high dose vitamin C is very good in the treatment of cancer.

But in all of these studies were done at the NCI of all places, but it didn’t go through because it couldn’t get FDA approval. Yeah. So we use many of these natural things that have been proven to be very effective and there’s a lot of scientific data behind them. In the combination of these things that we use have proven to be very effective. In the stats that you mentioned show it. And I want to say, before we get into the details of some of this stuff and what you’ve seen with some of these anti parasitics that I have a friend who is a documentary filmmaker, Mark hall, and he’s doing a documentary about stem cells.

Because this has a lot of very promising things behind it. And we’re not talking about connecting it with abortion, we’re talking about umbilical cord stem cells or things like that that don’t involve killing a fetus. But he went to Japan, they have a very different model there. Basically there, what they say is, well, if you can show us that this is safe, we’ll let you try anything. And then if you show us that it’s effective, then we’ll let you advertise that it’s effective. But basically you’re free to try it if it’s got a good safety profile.

Which I guess brings us then to Ivermectin, because we saw people talking about the off label use of Ivermectin during COVID and the Fact that it had been used for many decades as an anti parasitic. So they knew the safety profile of it. It’s like, why not allow people, if some people say they’re getting relief from this for whatever reason, why not allow them to try that? Oh, no, you can’t do that now because it’s off label. Yeah. The difference is that the dose that it was designed for as a parasitic is very, very low, whereas as an anti tumor agent is extremely high.

So they were worried about this, but already studies were done and we did one here. Here at the hospital, we rejected the quote, unquote vaccines. And so a protocol was designed in America for prevention of COVID which we took here for nine months. And nobody got Covid. With extremely high dosages of ivermectin, we’re all alive, all our kidneys are fine, all our livers are fine. So we were able to prove the concept of safety in extremely high dosages for which was in comparison for the design of the drug and so. And very effective in protecting us from COVID And so there are studies that show that at high dosages, these anti parasitic agents have definitely anti tumor effect.

Now fenbendazole and menbendazole can be toxic to the liver. So if you have liver issues, you should not take it. And if you are taking it in high dosages every month, you need to be doing a liver function test. And if anything becomes altered because of the use of this drug, then you should stop it. In ivermectin, we were not able to see any liver dysfunction at very, very high dosages. It is amazing to see ivermectin because as I said, I had a friend who got very, very sick with respiratory stuff during all the COVID scare and he was worried that he might have it.

So he took some ivermectin and he got over it within a day. He said he could feel as soon as he took it. Right after he took it, he said he felt like a burning sensation in his chest or whatever. And then it started clearing up right away. And then we just recently saw them again and his wife was saying, yeah, I got some skin cream. She had been suffering from psoriasis for a very long time. I think it’s what it was. So skin irritation and itching. She said she put it on. Somebody mentioned it. She tried it and got this stuff and it was a small percentage solution.

She put it on, she said just one thin coating. And she said she tried all this stuff for years and couldn’t get rid of it. Finally she puts that on once and she said she hasn’t been bothered with it since then. So I don’t know what’s going on there. But it’s all, it’s really strange. I mean it’s like there’s some kind of a panacea thing that is out there. Ivermectin is. Yes, ivermectin has many uses and as now the new term, you know, has been repurposed for several things. But definitely it does have some anti tumor effect.

I don’t think that a standalone is very effective in aggressive tumors. But there’s no question that it can be effective and we do recommend it to our patients once they receive, you know, the most aggressive type of therapy in the natural or in the conventional realm as a adjuvant therapy once they go home. So as we look at these anti parasitics, you said, you know, we talk about safety first. Fenbendazole and mebendazole, is that the way you pronounce it? Those need to be carefully monitored for any liver issues. You don’t see that with ivermectin. So that’s where we are with the safety stuff.

You need to use the other two on a close supervision of doctors. Why though these anti parasitics, does that tell you you’ve been an oncologist for over 40 years? You have any theories about what is going on with cancer? Why these antiparasitics? Well, the reaction is not absolutely clear but it has what is called a, a anti apoptotic effect. So all of our cells have a, a caduceity, a, a shelf life and a different, it differs between every organ. And malignant cells do not have a shelf life. They, they can be there forever. And so these drugs tend to invite the malignant cells to commit suicide.

Wow. And that’s one of the theories. The other one is that it is anti proliferative. So malignant cells proliferate at a very high rate in comparison to normal tissues. And so if you block the proliferation rate, then the tumors cannot develop. So there are several theories on how this anti parasitic drugs work. But again there is sufficient evidence scientifically that it can destroy or not allow tumors to grow. Wow. One of the things you mentioned in this information I got here was the glucose uptake is inhibited for the cancer cells. We all know that cancer cells thrive on glucose and sugar and things like that.

And so many people will. And I’m sure you do it at your clinic as well if you’re doing integrative stuff. You put them on a diet that is very low in glucose and sugar, so they don’t feed the cancer cells, and this helps to starve them from not being able to take up any glucose that might be there as well. Is that correct? Yes, that. That is another one of the possibilities. And it’s amazing to me that this very well known fact is not exploited by oncologists. And they say, well, you can eat whatever you want because sugar doesn’t, you know, make any impact on tumors.

And. And then they prescribe a PET scan. Now, a PET scan, the way it works is that they inject sugar into the patients with a radioactive material because they know that the tumors will uptake a lot more sugar than the rest of the organism. And the tumors actually light up. Wow. I call it, you know, x rays for dummies. And so we know that the tumors are thriving with sugar, so why not restrict the intake of sugar of a patient? Yeah. And so for us, diet plays a major, major role in the treatment of cancer. And we’ve noticed that patients that keep their diet are the ones that survive the longest.

Yeah. And of course, probably our diet is one of the things that has caused a big uptake in cancer as well. But it truly is amazing. Last time we talked, you talked about the placebo effect. And you know, when you work at, you call it your hospital the oasis of hope, because you’re trying to do an integrative approach. And you’re also focusing on people’s hope and on their attitude and on their faith and all these other aspects of it. And that is a real measurable thing, as you point out, just like with this PET scan, you know, they can see that the cancer cells are taking up the sugar and the glucose, and yet they discount the fact that we need to stop feeding them that.

But you talk about the fact that when you have these placet, they always, they always do the double blind studies to make sure you don’t have the placebo effect, because if somebody knows that they are getting a treatment, they get better, they think it’s going to work. And so that is clearly there. And yet. So on the one hand, they’ll carefully control that, and on the other hand, they just deny that has any effect. Talk about that. Which is, which is amazing. Not only that, the way that they give the information to the patients is devastating emotionally.

Yes, you have cancer, you’re gonna die in six months unless you take chemotherapy. And if you take chemotherapy, you may live a year, but you’re gonna vomit every day. You’re gonna have diarrhea, your hair is gonna fall off, you’re gonna feel off. So imagine this type of information to the patient. Well, the patient says, I. I’d just rather die. Yeah. And so that’s why cancer becomes a death sentence and it shouldn’t be. Yeah, yeah. That is such a. When we look at it, there’s so many logical contradictions at the heart of all this, aren’t there? And it really is sad.

But. So those statistics that I gave at the beginning, we’re looking at anywhere from 2, 3 times, 12 times the survival rate of the average U.S. hospital. Is that based on the ivermectin and fenbendazole and maybendazole or whatever? No, I think they do, I think they do play a role. I attribute it more to the immunotherapy, which is very strong that we give here. And also the use of really strong anti tumor agents natural, like vitamin C in very high dosages and vitamin B17 in high dosages. And it’s a combination of all of these things that, that I think help and fenbendasol and ivermectin can play a role.

And that’s something that’s relatively recent. I was just kind of wondering if you were using that at the time that you compiled these statistics that were there or is that. No, because this is more recent and I do believe that it can help some patients. But most of the stats that you mentioned were without ivermectin or fermentazole. That’s very important. Yes. And again, when we look at things that are going to be protective or I guess we’d say prophylactic or whatever to prevent you from getting it in the first place. We look at particular things nutritionally like B17, apricot seeds and that type of thing.

And so that is very important in terms of having the proper nutrition, not having. We all know that, we see this all the time. Reports. Well, it’s been shown to be carcinogenic, this particular additive or whatever in food or preservative or whatever it is. And so stay away from this. But they never talk about the stuff that you can add to your diet that is going to have the opposite effect. It’s going to decrease your chances of getting cancer or prevent you from getting it all together. Things like vitamin C, B17 and that type of thing.

Yes, that’s correct. And lifestyle, you know, definitely plays a major role. And everybody knows that lifestyle has increased the risk of developing cancer. So why don’t we make some Lifestyle changes, and they don’t have to be extreme. So for instance, if you consume five portions of fruits and vegetables and organically much better than not, you will lower the risk of developing cancer by 50%. There’s about 100 studies that show that five portions of fruits and vegetables will prevent cancer. Exercising four hours a week and walking a half an hour a day is more than sufficient, will prevent this cancer also by 50%.

So I mean, these are things that all of us can do. Now if you add some of the phytochemicals that are available to you, like B17, which is readily available, available on the Internet, you will definitely protect yourself from developing cancer, which is rising tremendously in developed countries. Yeah, yeah. Many of us have a theory as to why that is happening. All of a sudden we’re seeing a lot of very fast growing cancers. We’re seeing it happen in very young people as well. And it seems to be a coincidence, I guess, in the timing of all that.

And we’ve talked about that many times on this program. But yeah, but it is truly amazing what we see happening here. And again, the integrative approach, I think is one of the key things. And just the simple stuff that really we all know. But it’s just a self discipline to eat the right foods and to exercise and things like that. But there’s also certain supplements that you can take that also help if you start to fall short in your diet or some of these other things. And then as a last resort, it is important to try all of these different therapies that are out there rather than the ones that are narrowly proscribed and prescribed by the establishment businesses that are out there.

And that’s really what it’s about. It’s really become a business in America, hasn’t it? Yes. I wrote a book, it’s called the Art and Science of undermining Cancer. It’s available for free in our website, oasisofhope.com if you can buy it if you want to in Amazon, but it’s for free on our website. And I explained in that book all of the therapies that are available for cancer patients, all the conventional, all the alternatives, their pros and cons, and when each one should be used. So that if you have cancer or if you have a loved one or somebody that you know that has cancer, this information will help them decide what is the best for them.

Yes, because sometimes the best is the conventional and. But in many, in many cases it isn’t. And so if it isn’t, what is There different that I can choose from. And so in this book you will find just about every therapy available in how it works, when it should be used, when it shouldn’t be used. And I think that would be very helpful for you to make an intelligent decision as far as which type of therapy you want to receive if you are suffering cancer. Yes, yes. I’ve covered many times statements that former Senator Ben Sasse has made.

And of course he’s a Christian and he’s looking at this death sentence that he’s been given by the conventional cancer treatment. And so he’s talking about issues of life and death. And he’s a very wise man. And it just grieves me so much to see him taking some of these experimental things. Maybe it’ll work out, but the horrific effect that has had on his skin and other things. And I just look at this and I know friends and family who have gone down the path that has such a low probability of success. I think, why do we continue to do this stuff? And we’re locked into a system and we all saw it in 2020 and 2021, locked into this system where you will do what we say and nothing else.

You know, very narrow, very close minded in terms of all these other things. And so I think it really behooves us to do our own research, to look at alternatives. And that is exactly what you do at Oasis of Hope. And so thank you so much for doing that. I really do appreciate that. And again, the offer of a free book, what was the name of that book again@oisisofhope.com the art and science of Undermining Cancer. That’s great. Well, thank you so much. It looks like you’re well on your way to making that happen. And it is astounding that when you have a success rate that goes anywhere from 2 to 3 times to 12 times the success rate of the average American hospital, that our system is so closed to any change and so closed to learning anything that that wouldn’t be headline news.

That really is something that should be headline news. Thank you so much for joining us. Thank you very much. Thank you. It’s always a pleasure talking to you and thank you for what you’re doing. Appreciate that. Thank you. Thank you. God bless. Thank you. God bless you. Dr. Francisco Contreras. Thank you so much. And the website is oasisofhope.com thank you. The common man. They created Common core to dumb down our children. They created common paths to track and control us. Their commons project to make sure the commoners own nothing and the communist future. They see the common man as 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@thedavidknightshow.com thank you for listening. Thank you for sharing. If you can’t support us financially, please keep us in your prayers. Thedavidknightshow.com.
[tr:tra].

See more of The David Knight Show on their Public Channel and the MPN The David Knight Show channel.