Heartland Journal Podcast
Heartland Journal Podcast EP220 Dr. Michael Turner & More 6 19 24
Joining us is Dr. Michael Turner MD who shares about his battle with the Washington State Medical Commission regarding the covid-19 misinformation policies and procedures that prevented doctors from practicing common sense medicine. Dr. Turner has, partnered with the Silent Majority Foundation to go to court against these illegal and uncalled for sanctions on free speech and common sense medicine. For more go to www.michaelturnermd.com for info about Silent Majority Foundation go to www.smfjb.orgIf you like what you hear make sure to subscribe to the show and share it with your friends. You can find us at http://heartlandjournal.com
- Duration:
- 1h 12m
- Broadcast on:
- 20 Jun 2024
- Audio Format:
- mp3
Welcome to the Heartland Journal podcast with your host Vincent Cavalieri. Good day everyone. Good day everyone and welcome to the Heartland Journal podcast. I'm your host, Mill Creek City Councilman Vincent Cavalieri. And as always, I'm glad you're with us today. We invite you to check us out at heartlandjournal.com. We need you to subscribe, like us, comment, chit chat with us, whatever you choose to do, but do subscribe. It's necessary. It's how we pay the bills, so do your job out there. And make sure you're checking out our Rumble channel as well. Lots of great shows on heartlandjournal.com, past and present. You can also catch my editorials and op-eds there as well as many or several other new and up-and-coming writers. And we promise to make this a valuable use of your time. And in keeping with that same promise, it's my mission to continue to bring you great guests. Guests with their fingers on the pulse of your community, people you want to hear from, and people that you actually need to hear from, and tonight's guest is no different. Dr. Michael Turner will be joining us, and I'm very excited to have him, but I'm pretty sure that you probably never heard of him. But I guarantee by the end of the show you'll be glad that you did and I made the introduction. We'll bring him on in a few moments, and remember here at Heartland Journal, our mission is very simple. It's to always endeavor to make this a place where dialogue and debate will thrive and survive, and the truth will always have a home. That's my eternal pledge to all of you listeners out there. Friends, in early 2020, a man by the name of Dr. Anthony Fauci was on the tip of everyone's tongue, and seemingly everywhere in the news throughout the world. The 80-year-old director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases seemed to be what we considered an honest public servant, and for all intents and purposes, the ultimate subject matter expert when it came to viruses and diseases. This was a time where Americans were just begging for answers and looked to him and the people around him for information and guidance. I mean, what the hell did we know? That's what we pay these guys for. He was always peering confidently at White House press briefings and on talk shows, and he was literally everywhere, and the mainstream media had, of course, labeled him an American hero by now. Everyone wanted the de facto gold standard of infectious diseases to tell us what was happening in America. But what no one could foresee or what was about to happen in America, the land of the free, and what no one would ever believe is that a fiendish plot to seize liberty of the American people was about to take place. The unelected King Fauci immediately seized this moment and began the process of coercing the suspension of habeas corpus in America. He said and I quote, "Failing to shut down bars, restaurants, and gyms would have catastrophic consequences on the rest of us." End quote. His baseless and unscientific recommendations led to the permanent closure of over 300,000 small businesses. He is directly responsible for the loss of learning of millions of America's children. He created distancing mandates that had absolutely no scientific foundation. What he did was he essentially followed the Chinese Communist Party's lead while progressive Democrats and the mainstream media cheered him on. As Democrat architect Rahm Emanuel once said, "Never let a good crisis go to waste so they didn't." So he and the Democrats went to work shutting down America during a presidential election cycle. They demanded that children be locked out of their schools. They mandated seniors be locked inside nursing homes away from their families. They terminated doctors, nurses, police officers, firefighters, and numerous other government employees who refused to bend the knee to the unelected King. They're directly responsible for millions of miscancer screenings, hundreds of thousands of miscancer treatments, thousands of organ transplants that didn't take place and thousands of suicides that did take place as COVID migrants poured across the border and American cities burned to the ground. It's incredibly important that you remember who did this and why. As we continue to look in the rear view mirror at the origins of COVID and the responses that soon followed and all the bad actors, there's way too many questions and certainly not enough answers, especially not to satisfy me and especially Anthony Fauci's role in his recommendations. We won't get into all of that tonight, but you will get an inside look of what happened to the medical community. There were those that pushed back on the mandated groupthink and the few heroes that stood up to a medical apartheid are still going through it today. When we come back, Dr. Michael Turner will be joining us, so I'm going to ask you to sit tight, stay tuned, buckle up, here we go again, another great topic and a long time coming. Stay tuned. Welcome back. Welcome back to the show. I think you're going to be glad you stuck around. I've been dying to have this conversation that you're going to hear tonight. It's not often you have the subject matter experts and the frontline individuals from COVID on your show, so I'm really excited to have the person I'm about to introduce in just a second here. Tonight you're going to get an inside look at medical tyranny, quite honestly. Our guest tonight is a board certified physical medicine and rehabilitation specialist with more than a decade of clinical experience. He's a graduate of Stanford University and Harvard Medical School and did his internship in residency at the world renowned Mayo Clinic. He has a long-standing personal and professional interest in health, wellness, nutritious nutrition, integrative medicine and has over a decade of hands-on clinical experience in that time frame and has treated over 10,000 patients. Currently has two cases pending in front of the Washington state courts as they attempt to strip him of his medical license. Tonight's guest had the temerity to offer his patients alternative remedies and natural supplements as well as FDA approved medicines for those who were infected with the COVID-19 virus. He's the CEO of a successful corporation in medical practice. His core mission is "creating an experience of God's love through exceptional health care." I love that. He offers compassionate health care services in Richland, Washington and the Tri-Cities where he and his family reside. Friends, Heartland Journal, please welcome Dr. Michael Turner. Welcome, sir. How are you? Thank you. Really glad to be here. Glad to have a conversation. Looking forward to it. Same. How's things going? You're down in Richland, correct? Yeah. Well, I'm still in Tri-Cities, let's just say. I technically live in Pasco at the moment, but very happily been here since 2009, and we're here to stay. And you are the CEO of Aspire Enterprises. Can you tell us what that is? Well, sure. So I'd say it'd be more germane to introduce myself as CEO of my company, which is Michael Turner MD. And that's what I'm doing currently, professionally. Aspire Enterprises is a nonprofit that I started a number of years back, actually, to provide work opportunities for people with criminal records. And so our mission statement was offering people with criminal records an opportunity to improve their lives through work. And that was a public service ministry that I was felt very keen about. And I had done jail ministry often on for a number of years. And I realized that there were men and women who wanted to make a difference, wanted to do something better with their lives, but were encountering a lot of obstacles after they were released. So this was a post incarceration rehabilitation program. That's what Aspire Enterprises was. We matched them up and gave them character mentorship and some curriculum and matched them up with local work opportunities. So I was very glad to do that. That's sort of on hiatus at the moment. I hope it can reignite at some point. That'd be lovely. We were able to affect a lot of lives through that. But the business I'm currently running just pertains to health and wellness medical care. You know, michaelturnermd.com and associated things that we do, including podcasts and publishing and such like that. So you heard my introduction. I mean, Stanford University, Harvard Medical School, internship at Mayo Clinic. You know slouch, it's fair to say, correct? Well, that's kind of you to mention it. I mean, I've always worked hard. I had good values and co-cated in me through my parents. My mom read to me, you know, every night. She didn't allow me to own a video game console. I played sports, did boy scouts. So I was, you know, maximizing the talent that God gave me and had kind of a tenacious attitude along the way too. Just about if you want something, go get it, you know, don't give up. Don't quit. Stand for something. Go make it happen. You know, so that's what I've always tried to do with my life. And I think that God meets you in those opportunities. You know, it's like your best effort and intention and persistence and goodwill and stick tootiveness, right? And work ethic kind of meets up with the grace of God and then things can happen for you. So that's what I've tried to live out. Amen to that brother. And so I'm going to maybe preface this question with a little lengthy, but you belong to numerous professional societies. You passed the board to practice medicine in the top 95 percentile. Your board certified in Washington state and have met all the criteria to practice medicine in Washington state. Currently is your ability to treat medicine under threat in Washington state. Yeah, regrettably it is, you know, we love to talk about that further, but the medical commission is prosecuting doctors for prescribing non FDA approved medications for treating COVID. Well, let's talk about that. Yeah, well, um, brief history is that the state adopted a position statement. I think sometime in the fall of 2021, September, October, and it basically said we're not going to tolerate people spreading COVID misinformation. And then it, and it's literally called the code misinformation statement, which you can look it up. It's still enforced to this day that not changed it nor amended it. And it basically defined misinformation as number one, speaking against the vaccine, number two, speaking against mass, or number three, prescribing medications, not FDA approved for COVID. And among them, it names I vermectin and hydroxychloroquine. And their whole, their whole state of rationale was these are not FDA approved to treat COVID. Therefore, we consider this medical malpractice and we will come after you. And so let's go into that a little bit. Is the position statement law in Washington state or any state for that matter? No, to the best of my knowledge, not. And, you know, your friends with Pete Serrano, as I'm eyes, very capable attorney, currently running for attorney general. And we know, we wish him Godspeed. He'd be the best thing to happen to Washington law enforcement in quite a long time, I imagine. So he's more up on this, but his case that's been brought forth with myself as one of the chief complainants is that this misinformation statement doesn't have standing to be enforced in the manner in which it is, right? It's being enforced like a law or like a rule. And in fact, it's just a position statement. And furthermore, it wasn't even adopted with due process. So there's several levels of holes and undercutting, essentially, the whole basis on which they're prosecuting doctors. So they're what they call position statement failed to go through the proper process through the house, I'll say house representatives. And through the proper boards that certify these procedures and these findings and whatnot for doctors, correct? Right. Right. Essentially within the state, if you want to prosecute doctors from malpractice, you need to have a more robust basis for doing so than just a position statement. And where this really came from is it came from the Federation of State Medical Boards in their position statement. So there was, you know, a coordinated political push to, you know, quench malpractice around COVID as they understood it in misinformation. And so the state position, which was, there were similar ones adopted in other states, I think notably California. They all kind of got in lockstep with what was promulgated by the National Federation of State Medical Boards. It's not often I have a doctor on here, so I want to go into a couple of things, maybe a little bit technical and maybe some a little bit of the obvious as well. First thing, is Ivermectin horse medicine? Well, that's a gross mix characterization. It's a veterinary medicine and also a human medicine. And as are many such medications. So Ivermectin's got a fascinating history, which depending on our time and your audience's interest, we could go more into, but please. All right. Well, it was discovered actually in a soil sample in Japan in the '70s by a microbiology researcher. And there was a strain of streptococcus bacteria that was basically secreting something that was keeping it alive. And it was whatever it was secreting was killing parasites and viruses and other natural predators to the strain of bacteria. So there was sort of a superbug that was secreting some super potent protective molecule. And he wanted to figure out what that was. He isolated it, turned out to be something he named Avermectin, which they chemically changed slightly to make it more suitable for human and veterinary use and renamed it Ivermectin. It was then launched in the veterinary market because it was a wonder drug for killing parasites. Right? And so you could say, arguably, it's not an overstretch to say that Ivermectin stabilized the world's food supply because it quickly shot to become one of the, if not the top, one of the top three selling veterinary medicines and has stayed at that level, to my understanding, ever since the '80s. And the idea was now you could give your livestock, your sheep, your goats, your cows, you know, an injection or even better a cream and just rub it on them. It can be absorbed topically. And all of a sudden their parasite burden is killed, obviously, their lifespan, the amount of weight they carry, et cetera, shoots way up. So it essentially eradicated parasitic disease on a large scale within farming and, you know, commercial livestock cultivation. So that was, he had a huge impact on health, wellness, et cetera. And for that, it won the Nobel Prize. Oh, well, well, excuse me, it got momentum towards that. And the next thing that happened was it was introduced for humans. And that was really where it took on legs towards, ultimately, the Nobel Prize. But this was now the late '80s and it got introduced because it had value in killing parasites that were affecting humans. So you may have heard of the disease elephantiasis where you have like a big swollen limb and it looks sort of ghastly and the skin is thickened and the whole thing is blown up. So you don't want the drug users. Yeah, that's because there could be different reasons for that, but typically in tropical medicines, because some of the larva of the parasites are clogging up your limb system. Okay. And so it was very effective at eradicating elephantiasis and also a disease called oncocirciosis, AKA West African River blindness, which was a disease where these parasites were literally destroying people's eyes and their eyesight. It was horrible. I've remained eradicated that. So for its humanitarian uses in the late '80s, it got traction. Work was actually giving away dosages kind of as a humanitarian slash PR concept, let's just say, and it did such an uplifting job of eradicating some of these parasite diseases that that ultimately became the basis for receiving the Nobel Prize for medicine, which I think was either 2015 or 2018 because it was shown to be safe because it has been used literally billions of times because it's generic, readily available and was already a widespread part of public health. There was ongoing research as to what else Ivermectin might be able to do. Okay. So in the labs, they continued to research and voila, what did they find? One of the seminal studies that came out of Australia, a place called Monash University, which sort of launched the COVID in Ivermectin whole concept was if you have a petri dish with cells in it that are infected with COVID and you put Ivermectin in those same cells and that same petri dish 98% of the COVID infection is gone in 48 hours, 98% cells are clear COVID virus eradicated in 48 hours. So that launched a tremendous amount of interest. That study was picked up on by Peru, which then rolled it out on a population basis, which then created a bunch of data where you could do a side by side comparison. You can see the states that rolled out Ivermectin COVID hospitalization rates and death plummeted. It didn't have it, it stayed elevated, which then triggered further population studies in Mexico and South Africa and ultimately India and a bunch of places. So research on Ivermectin and COVID was ongoing, but Ivermectin also has value in other viruses. So if you're familiar with the FLCCC organization, if you look up their protocols for influenza or RSV, Ivermectin's mentioned because it has pan virus activity, even helps with herpes, HIV, several other types of nasty little viruses and a final point, it has strong anti-cancer properties. So all you have to do is go to PubMed, which, you know, if you're a scientific or medically minded reader, you can go to PubMed and just type in Ivermectin and cancer. You see there's tons and tons of ongoing research about what it does for cancer. So it's a bit of a wonder drug. It's got a lot of applications and, you know, thankfully for mankind turned out to be strongly highly active against COVID and that was discovered, I think, in just the right time for this pandemic. And that's the normal evolution, if you will, of a medication is that it has a specific use and then as time goes on, doctors start using it or applying it for different types of uses and in different settings and in different patients, right? So there's nothing uncommon about the practices where I'm going with that. You're right. No, you're bringing up a great point about FDA approved uses versus not, which I was a guest on the Dr. Drew Show a while back and we had a great conversation about that because he's a psychiatrist and psychiatrists use medicines for many so-called not approved reasons. But the idea is, let's say that a company brings a drug to market like Ivermectin, perfect example, and it's great as at killing parasites. And so the first usage of it is it's going to be labeled an anti-parasitic, okay? And the FDA looks at all the studies and they say, "Mark, this is phenomenal. You get the, you know, you get commercial permission to bring this to market. We're going to label anti-parasitic, start selling it. It's got good safety data, good efficacy data, fantastic. There we go. We're off and running. Now, just because that happened doesn't mean research stops on Ivermectin, right? So you're going to have some group of scientists somewhere like, I don't know, Australia, right, who happen to put Ivermectin in a petri dish with cultured viruses, cell models, and see what it does. Or you're going to have some group somewhere who puts it in a petri dish with cancer. You're going to have somebody who runs some other studies. So research goes on, including worldwide. They don't care what the FDA did and they don't care what the original label was. They're just researching what does this molecule do, right? And it turns out, if you follow the science to bring back a phrase but put it in a positive light, that this molecule does a whole lot of good. So then, where does that leave us? So now I practicing doctor who I'm aware of this research and these population studies, I can, thankfully, typically, once the drug has been available for human use, I can take these best practices that are emerging and take that drug and say, you know what, it started as a parasite as far as we're concerned, but let's move it over here and call it an anti-cancer agent or an anti-covid agent because the data is robust enough to do so. And that's my discretion to do that. That's my medical licensure, that's why I was paid, sanctioned, commissioned and appointed by the state to be the guardian of people's health to make those kind of decisions, what a molecule is best for your cell situation at what particular point in time, right? And so I stay up on the research and I do that. The drug company may or may not bring that med forward for a new official approval by the FDA. Usually they don't because they're incentivized not to. That's not required though, right? Right. And it's not required on our side, right, to use that med once it's been approved by the FDA. It's sort of released into the public domain, let's just say, for use by medical professionals as they would see fit, aka the practice of medicine. So it's not uncommon that you have one medication, you know, initially released for a certain reason, ultimately used for many different reasons that I can cite examples, but that's probably too much in the weeds, but it's very common. So it's a bit of a conard, sort of a bit of a shell game and a hollow slur, let's just say to say, oh, it's not FDA approved for COVID, therefore it shouldn't be used for COVID. That's not the question. The question is, is there research that demonstrates anywhere, whether it's good for COVID or not, not what did the FDA think about it 25 years ago when Merck submitted the patent and what label got slapped on it, you know, like that doesn't matter. I remember Do you know what label it's supposed to have, right? It's just a molecule. It doesn't know if it's supposed to be an anti-parasitic and anti-COVID or an anti-cancer med. It's just there. And it's our job, how to utilize it best for people. And this unfortunately is where politics interfered with medical care to the detriment of millions of people. And frankly, causing a consternation, indignation, you know, outrage, and beyond even for many people. And myself included, it's reprehensible, it's terrible, it's never happened in the history of medical care that doctors, in good standing in their field of expertise, can't take a medication that we know is helpful over here and use it just because, you know, it ran afoul of some politics that said we don't want to use that way. Well, that's direct interference in patient care, which the FDA has kind of been sued about. You know, there's a case in Texas where they kind of put them to the wall about that. You're interfering in the doctor-patient relationship. And they actually won. But, you know, I'll hold my piece there for a moment. That's the brief story of that. I think we're starting to see more cases come to fruition and more courts starting to rule in favor of plaintiffs. I just read another one today where firefighters, I think it was in Spokane, their cases is allowed to go forward now. So it's a process. And as you know, you're in the middle of going through it. But just to be clear for anybody that's uncertain, as a physician, licensed to practice medicine and the state of Washington, you have every legal right to prescribe hydrochloroquine and ivermectin. Is that correct? Yes, I do. I do. And unfortunately, I don't have political cover to do so, you know, recently as many other doctors and I could share some examples are more egregious than mine, if you want to hear about it. But, yeah, doctors are. Okay. Sure. I think the most egregious example I've ever heard of and is a friend of mine out of Spokane. She read about how helpful Ivermectin was, had a nursing home patient who is very vulnerable, of course, at the time, this is right in the middle of the worst of COVID and wanted to do everything she could for this nursing home patient. So she called the nursing home pharmacy and said, we want to order up a dose of Ivermectin to treat this patient. And the patients, I think it was their guardian, I think it was maybe the patient's sister or daughter or something like that, the medical guardian was a nurse. I think from Seattle area, the west side, okay, point being different, different mindset about Ivermectin. Let's just say what you might find in Spokane, okay. So the guardian gets wind of this, pitches a fit, calls the pharmacist, threatens the doctor, raises a first-class dean, takes it to the medical commission and all this. The prescription was never even filled, okay. It was never even filled, it was never even given to the patient. It was attempting to fill the prescription for Ivermectin with no documented harm to the patient because it never even got out the door. That was enough of a reason for the medical board to go after her, to sanction her, to say that she can't prescribe Ivermectin and to put a black mark on her with her national board certification. I think she's family practice or something like that. So she ended up getting a letter later on from the family practice board saying, you know, basically you're accused and found guilty of inappropriate conduct and major black mark negatively professionally for her, just for the attempt to do that. No documented harm to the patient. I mean, truly asinine and outrageous. And Pete Serrano knows about this case. So I think they're on this as well. I introduced them to each other and I hope it moves forward successfully. I feel terrible for this doctor. But you guys as patients, you should be concerned about that because that has a chilling effect on healthcare providers, right? It's like they want to hold that case up. They want to publicize it or my case. And it's, it's sort of like taking someone outside publicly to be flogged and tarred and fed and humiliated, right? And all the other doctors will take warning and notice, like, I don't want any part of that, right? So you really only have to abuse just a select number of people. But if you make it public enough, doctors are conservative and risk averse by nature. They're not going to want to get involved. And that's just terrible. And in them not getting involved, that is your lack of access now to potentially lifesaving medications. It doesn't just stop with COVID or I-remectant or, you know, hydroxychloroquine. That's not the point because the precedent is established, right? So what is the next thing? You want your doctor to have freedom of medical decision-making according to his or her conscience to bring forth the best treatment for you. You don't want them living in fear of what Jay Inslee or somebody might say through some misinformation statement overly and unduly applied that's putting a chilling bit of censorship. So the back of the doctor's mind is thinking, like, I'd like to get this med, but I hope I don't run afoul of somebody, you know, in Tacoma. And I don't know what this is going to do vis-a-vis my license. And so let me not just even offer that to the patient. But unfortunately, that's what's happened. So I-remectant is extremely hard to procure in the state of Washington for exactly that reason. And it's a disgrace. It absolutely is. And so I think you touched on it a little bit in my opening monologue and my closing monologue will certainly do the same where we talk about how politics integrated itself into the medical community and really perverted it to a degree that I don't think we'll ever know how many missed cancer screenings, how many missed organ transplants and such that didn't happen because of the fear mongering that was going on. What was the medical establishment in Washington state telling you to do? Besides stop hydrochloroquine and Ibermectin, what was their suggestion for treating COVID patients? Well, I've got two answers. My first answer is I don't really know because I was working on my own independently, thankfully, and I wasn't paying attention to them anyway because I know they weren't saying anything helpful. Right? So thankfully I had quit my corporate medicine job just prior to COVID. So that was January 2020. I resigned from my job, on perfectly fine basis, I was not unnecessarily unhappy with where I was, but I just felt like I had outgrown the job for which I was hired back in 2009. So in 2020, I moved on, you know, amiably from my previous corporate job, launch Michael Turner MD dot com, became CEO of my own practice, hung my shingle, right? Not knowing anything about COVID, literally two, three weeks later, bam, we got lockdowns, we got COVID hitting us and all of that. So I was already out from corporate medicine, and I wasn't getting emails in my inbox from Washington State Medical Association saying this is what you do or don't do from I ever met. And I was a free bird at that point and, you know, doing whatever I felt was in the patient's best interest. So my first answer is I'm not exactly sure what little talking point they were pointing out, but broadly speaking, I can say it wasn't anything much helpful. The basic tenor was, you know, stay at home, take some ibuprofen, you know, maybe monitor your oxygen saturations, try to take some coughs here for something. And you know, if you get really bad, you know, show up to the ER, but patients were left in this with this huge vacuum and black hole of lack of guidance, and you were either doing really well at home or not doing well enough to really be admitted to bounce off of the ER a few times until you were doing so badly that you go in the hospital, in which case you were doing so badly that you promptly died, which is exactly what happened to a friend of mine, Bruce. And I write about this in an article I wrote, but it was very poignant, very upsetting. Bruce had COVID. Remember, I went to his house for Thanksgiving, he said, Doc, what do you think about this virus? He's like, some people think it's a big deal, some people really don't. He's like, I'm not wearing a mask, you know, what do you think? I said, well, Bruce, I don't want to be a fearmonger, but, you know, this virus can mess some people up. Some people, it's a little bit of a sniffle and sore throat. I don't even need, they have it, but some people are getting messed up, Bruce. So I'd pay a little bit attention to this, at least try to get your immune system up and stuff. Okay. Well, two weeks later, Bruce could come down with COVID kind of sick, Bruce had like a history of heart problems, he had a bypass, so he was a bit, you know, tenuous with his health status. So anyways, wife brings him to the ER, he's kind of struggling, ah, you know, they, they, they, they, they, they, they was breathing a little bit, send him back. He deteriorates a couple of days later, goes to ER, not quite bad enough to admit it, send them back, sometimes seven or ten days into this. Now he's terrible, goes to the ER, now he's bad enough to admit and then dies within days because he was, you know, too bad off. So perfectly emblematic example of people at home, lacking appropriate outpatient treatment. So when patients were sick enough to make it to the emergency room, a lot of them were put on ventilators and placed on a, a, what was called remdesivir, if I'm saying that correctly, what is remdesivir? So I'm not an expert on remdesivir, but my knowledge, because again, I haven't worked in the hospital and I've never prescribed it nor used it, right? So, but my knowledge is, um, it's a strongly antiviral medication, originally developed as an Ebola drug, actually, and it was a failed Ebola drug, and you can read about this in Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s book, um, The Real Anthony Fauci, he goes a lot into that. Dr. Corey's talked a lot about it through FLCCC, um, so those are the real expert voices on it. But basically it was a failed Ebola drug because it was killing so many patients. And that, that says a lot because Ebola is a fatal and nasty disease. So that actually stopped using it as an investigative remedy for Ebola because it was so toxic. Okay. And it got rebranded and repurposed as supposedly an option for COVID, uh, which was based on some dubious science with the ignored a lot of the known side effects of this med, unfortunately. So the hospital option, the, the official only FDA approved option at that point ended up being remdesivir, which there's all kinds of kickbacks and money and payoffs, you know, associate that. So it's a very CD, a little bit of history, but basically if you were in the hospital, the only thing that the FDA was happy that they would do for you would be remdesivir, right? FDA didn't want anything to do with Iremectin, but they were keen on, you know, allowing remdesivir to be used as a med, not surprisingly terrible side effect profile kills a lot of patients as it did in the Ebola trials, killed a lot of patients, you know, in COVID, unfortunately. So it's, that was a case where the treatment is worse than the disease, honestly. And I have another example, which I could tell about, but basically it's a good friend of mine ended up going to hospital, healthy, right? Yeah. Her name is Angela. I've written about her. I talked about her on some podcast, truly very upsetting situation, truly, truly still kind of gets me, you know, teary and, you know, pissed off at the same time, basically. But, yeah, so she was a close friend. I tried to order Iremectin for her. The local pharmacy refused to fill my prescription, okay, the pharmacy five minutes down the road refused to fill a prescription. Because of that, we had to use a mail order pharmacy. It got lost in the mail. By the time we sorted it out for the second round to come, she was deteriorating to the point that her son, Panic, took her to the ER. She calls me on the phone from the ER, which I still have the message on my phone. I'll never delete it. And she's like, I'm not doing well. Can you help me? I really want to get out of here. I don't like the treatment options they're talking to me about, et cetera, et cetera. She ends up getting remdesivir and dying within days of what was obviously on medical review kidney failure, okay, which was not the reason she even went in. She went in because of cough and such. So she died of kidney failure induced by remdesivir, in my mind. And it was all shouldn't happen, but it was all initiated. The initial domino in this whole chain of events was the yoke's pharmacy in West Richland. I will call them out. Five minutes from her house refused to fill my Iremectin prescription and that started the chain of events resulting in her death. Absolutely call them out. And remdesivir, that is the number one side effect is kidney failure, correct? Right. Correct. And that's what happened. She was fit. She was healthy. She was probably early sixties vivacious. You know, she was ballroom dancing. She was paddle boarding. She was kayaking, basically no medical problems, okay, taking supplements, you know, fantastic shape, fantastic shape, COVID happened to hit her real hard. And then, you know, remdesivir hit her even harder once she got, once the family pack into the hospital. But he couldn't take it anymore, right? All right, let's, let's jump to, let's jump to vaccines for a, for a moment if we could. How long for listeners, how long does it normally take to bring a vaccine to market? I'm talking from beginning to end, clinical trials, lab trials, all the above. Yeah. And I'll, I'll preface this by saying I'm no expert on vaccines, but, you know, my sense is 10 years or so, something like that. It's a significant period of time, you know, before this, not being a pediatrician, for example, and not working in infectious disease, I never had much occasion to deal with vaccine. So I was by no means well, first on vaccines prior to COVID, and we can get into my experience with it since then. But yeah, my sense is the R and D was always maybe upwards of a 10 year multimillion dollar process, you know, with a lot of research and paper and documentation that you had to show the FDA. So I mean, I think a lot of us that that didn't subscribe to the group think myself included. We were very dubious of, of all of a sudden there's a vaccine within a year, regardless of what you even President Trump's Operation Warp Speed and the process of pushing the vaccine. We were all very skeptical, and those that were skeptical were punished across the board from, I'm a police officer. So many of my coworkers were threatened with termination, but having good union protection ended up solving a lot of that. But in many cases it didn't, for several colleagues in Seattle, they had a monkey pox vaccine right away as soon as that narrative came out is, and where I'm going with all this, does this all lead back to big pharma and the money that's being produced and distributed? A lot of it does, but I think it goes back even a little farther to that. So I mean, to make that first tie in, yes, let's understand how the vaccine relates to remdesivir relates to persecution of Ivermecan and hydroxychloroquine, because that's all under one little TP here of money and corruption, right, and that was basically Merk had Molypiravir, which was one of their meds that they were trying to work up. Merk has, I don't know if they had a vaccine, but Pfizer, you know, of course, had their vaccine, J&J, Moderna. So these companies were all buying for market share, and they wanted to be first to market, and they wanted to kill all competition, okay? So in order to be first to market for the vaccine, since it was unprecedented in its speed of development, it was not done under typical procedures, it was done under emergency use. That's a big legal distinction. So we're talking about emergency use, authorization, AKA and EUA. Now, in the fine print of the EUA, basically the FDA and other regulatory agencies are saying, we'll bypass all our usual checks and balances, we'll throw out the door of the 10 years and all the multiple studies, we'll fast track something, you know, with three months or six months of data as in the initial Pfizer studies, unprecedented, but we'll do that because this is an emergency, we're in a state of emergency, it's a pandemic, desperate times call for different measures, and we're going to give you this legal free pass under this different system, EUA, but the only way you get to EUA is if there is no acceptable alternative available at this time. If Ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine were found to be unacceptable alternative towards COVID, there would be no EUA, okay, there would be no pandemic response emergency. And of course, if Ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine were found to be such an effective med, there's no money in that either. So their entire market would have disappeared. So the billions of dollars and all the cash cow that was going to rain down, which they were securing contracts with the federal government before a moment peer view was even approved, they had a contract with the government. I think it was $30 billion, something like that, of advance order where the government wrote the check and said, as soon as this is approved, we want X number of doses and we're here's a $30 billion, $3 billion, I can't remember the number check for this. And all Merck had to do is sit around for a few months till the FDA approved it like wink, wink, right, you know, how much influence does the federal government have over the FDA and Merck, they're all sitting there around the table like, you know, twilling their thumbs until the FDA's like, oh, I think this looks decent, you know, and what's so hilarious and sad about that is the FDA even has a bit of a like a scientific oversight committee and I write about this in my one of my articles on sub sec, where it's supposedly, you know, especially independent panelists and they reviewed the Merck application for moment peer veer, which was Merck's answer for Ivermectin, essentially, and they barely passed it, okay, I think I can't remember the numbers, but it was almost like a hung jury, they barely even got passed because moment peer of year was looking like such a nasty little med, which in fact it was, but it would end up being rubber stamped, Merck got paid, the federal government got all these doses of this med, which was inferior to Ivermectin to begin with, but, you know, didn't have cash associated with this, that's one example of corruption. And so basically, yeah, follow the money, they were basically protecting their market share and using the FDA and contracts to do so and excluding competitors and killing competitors and vilifying competitors and doctors who might prescribe that. Again, if you look at it from the point of view of a drug company, they have a bit of a problem. Think about it. If you had a product that you couldn't directly distribute, right, because you have to have doctors distribute only the doctor can write prescription Merck can't say call this phone number and here's your med, we'll send it in the mail like Amazon, you know, selling a TV or something. So they now have doctors in the way, so to speak. So you're creating a product but you're relying on this, you know, diffuse number of people out there who are your sales people, but they can't directly be your sales people, right? So they got to be controlled somehow. And so that's where you have to control who controls them, right, which is FDA and state medical boards and things like that. So in order to get your product to market and keep it safely in market, you've got to become a master. It's an existential challenge to your business model, but you got to become a master at controlling people downstream to prescribe your product and not have any alternatives. Hence massive levels of misinformation, censorship, denigration, vibromectant, hydroxychloroquine, all that was meant to kill the idea that in the public's mind and in the healthcare professionals mind, make it seem like it was force paste, malpractice, ridiculous, hokey, likely to hurt you, et cetera. And once it was successfully poisoned into the level of people's minds, they would stop asking for it and they'd be too afraid to prescribe it, voila. Our dirty work is done and we can continue getting paid. So that's what that was all about. But to take it, what you got me on a roll here, I'm sorry, it's good. To take it one step higher, Robert Malone talks a lot about this. And when I interviewed him on my podcast, if your readers are interested, he gets into this. It was really one step higher, which gets to the Department of Defense, which gets into the idea of it was really a DOD operation in, it was considered kind of a wartime mass pandemic, mass bioterrorism event that required a national defense department initiated and administered solution. So pharma and corruption and fall of the money is smaller. It's actually down here and the larger TP is the Department of Defense. They were the ones pulling the strings. The Department of Defense directly was involved in establishing Moderna as a company, first of all, and they were the ones who basically tried to get all partners of all parts of the government on sync on script and say, FDA, we need you to fast track deaths, Merck or Pfizer, we need you to produce this. Just like when, you know, in World War II, we went to Henry Ford and said, we need you to make tanks. Okay. The DOD went to Pfizer, Merck and all these places and said, we need you to make vaccine. We got a national emergency on our hands. This is operational works. We came down from the president, Bam, you know, Manhattan Project of a new age, get this thing to market, roll the assembly lines. So the pharmaceutical companies had contracts that came down from the DOD ultimately to mass produce this stuff. And of course, they're saying, well, we don't, this, we don't want, this could be rushed to market. This thing is maybe not safe. We don't want to be suited to living in DODs like, don't worry about that. We got the immunity covered, right? So there we have EUAs, we have immunity, we got all the paperwork settled and then the FDA, we get them to rubber stamp the thing. So that it was ultimately a coordinated response by the DOD as a, in their minds, necessary response to a bioterrorism event. Now you can perhaps critique that and say that was overreach or whatever. All right. Like that's a real high level military societal question. And I don't want necessarily to sit in judgment to that. But to give them the benefit of the doubt, it was a novel pandemic. It was a bioterrorism weapon that was released, whether accidentally or on purpose. It was a bioweapons lab in China and it was now devastating the US economy and killing a bunch of people and senior citizens and it's all over the news. So we need to be able to respond to bioterrorism events in a timely fashion. Maybe we do need operational war speed of some type or other. So that was, that was their thought and their safety and typical protocols was thrown out the window because it was, you know, considered an exigency of, of the times that was needed. And you, and you, you mentioned EUA, emergency use authorization. So what that does is that indemnifies all of the pharmacy and drug companies and the, and the drug makers, right down the line, right? They are, they are covered. They can't be sued. They can't be gone after because the government has said the, the need is greater than, you know, than, than worrying about the fallout. Right. Right. Which I haven't followed the legal case closely, but apparently in some of the legal arguments against Pfizer, where the plaintiffs, you know, in a clash action way had said, this vaccine is hurting people and killing people. This is a, a serious problem. This is a faulty product. Let's just say consumer liability viewpoint, Pfizer's defense from what I understand has been, well, this is the faulty product that the government told us to make and that they gave us the paperwork that says we're not responsible. So complain to them. That's basically has been their take as far as what I understand. So that'll work for maybe the United States. I know Louisiana has a case that's pending that's already made it to that next level. But the UK has a class action suit against, against Pfizer and a couple of others. So I expect that to, to, to really take, you know, come to market. Good. Lately. They should be out of business. I hope they would cease to exist as a company. Honestly, they've shown themselves to be bad actors. Yeah. And this is not even the first time. So I get a little tickle of cosmic justice and karma when I see the Pfizer price keep falling. They're stock. You know, one point it's skied because again, all these, all this corruption and guaranteed paychecks from the government, you know, was causing the bottom line to be inflated. But I think the quick lack of uptake of COVID boosters, all the negative publicity around the vaccine, their own exposure and complicity and stuff has gotten out and it's a bit of a burning ship, at least the stock price was as far as I was falling it, you know, not too long ago. Here the government is still buying plenty of doses on behalf of the people at this point. So doctors were given financial incentives to promote vaccines, meaning that for every, if you prescribe a hundred, if you give a hundred vaccines to your patients, you receive X amount of dollars, is that a degree of malpractice to some degree? I would push back on that characterization. That's a good question. I see your point there. The way that the way that it's thought of conceptually within the medical system is like incentive based pay, pay for performance, pay for good care, okay? And then we just have to define what good care is, right? So let's just say you had a panel of 100 patients, let's say 1,000 patients, and we know the good care is that people shouldn't be more than, let's say, 30 pounds overweight. Let's just throw out a number, okay? So if you're a good primary care doctor, we're going to audit you. We know what the national obesity rate is per 1,000 patients. If you're doing your job to really help people get healthy, we want to see our beta CD rates fall lower than that. And if they do, we're going to pay you. You're going to get an incentive. In other words, we're not just paying you to show up and talk to Sally or Sam and just give you the same amount of money. We're only going to pay you or we're going to reserve a bonus proportion of it at least if Sally or Sam's belt line starts changing because that's good medical care, okay? And that's a fair enough concept. I think if you can come up to terms with, you know, outcomes and metrics and paying doctors for performance, they're going to be a little more invested and they're going to be creative and find ways to get those outcomes down. Now, the rub was what got included as an outcome for so-called good medical care was your COVID vaccination rate, okay? Which turns out to be disastrous medical care now, from our viewpoint, but from their viewpoint, especially initially out of the gate, it wasn't. It was just a part of appropriate pandemic response medical care. Hey, if none of your people are COVID vaccinated, you're obviously not pushing this thing enough. You need to get a little more, you know, educated and excited about this because we're trying to, you know, save lives in the middle of a pandemic. You need to get on board, Charlie. So that was a bit of their logic. And that's not malpractice on its face. It's not. Now, from our perspective now, knowing how noxious and terrible the vaccine is, yeah, I would say it's malpractice, but the idea of incentive-based pay, not per se, no. Do, all right, let's brass tax then. Do COVID vaccines prevent you from spreading COVID or prevent you from acquiring COVID? You know, the best of my understanding at this point, they don't do a great job really of either, they don't do a great job of either. And the problem, the reason is, I mean, and by the way, it's always evolving, right? There's a new strain of COVID, you know, the data on any given vaccines are already old to a certain degree. So they're retesting it and repackaging it and there's studies all the time. I'd have to be a full-time medical professional just to read on all the studies about different, you know, vaccines and efficacy rates and all that. But the logic of it is the vaccine has an existential problem. It's can never keep up with the virus, right? The virus mutates and changes the vaccine is always, you know, a couple of years behind in terms of its R&D. So it's just, it falls, the logical test to think, how could this thing really accurately be preventing and treating something where it's mutating faster and changing than you can mutate and fast and get the vaccine out and scale it up and roll it out? So it's always one or two steps behind, therefore, limited utility. As a physician, would you prescribe or would you give COVID vaccines to your patients or their children? No, at this point, no, nobody ever. What's myocarditis? Inflammation of the muscle of the heart. So people need to understand your heart's a muscle. I mean, we kind of think of, we know that conceptually somewhere, but we don't really think about it too much. So it's the size of your fist, it's squeezing. It's a muscle, just like your biceps muscle, okay? Now the structure of the muscle tissue is a little different, but that's immaterial distinction for us right now. This muscle can become inflamed. If you think about a hard workout and you've got soreness and your thigh muscle is tender to the touch, right? In the same way, you can have your heart muscle inflamed tender, you know, ultimately speaking, if you were down in there, and in this case, the trigger and cause of inflammation was the viral infection, or infiltration by the spike protein in the case of the vaccine. And that's a very dangerous concept. All of this is actually very serious. Dr. McCullough talks a lot about this, a good man, eminent cardiologist. But the heart's very sensitive to inflammation. If you think about it, you've got the heart's four different chambers. It's not just one chamber, okay? And there's four different valves. So you have these four different chambers that have to be in synchronicity with four valves between them. One tube bringing in the blood, one tube exiting the blood, that's just the big tubes, okay? But then smaller, little recirculating arteries to feed the heart, and then a complex burst of electrical signals that have to cascade over the heart muscle so that the four chambers be in synchronicity. If they did not, you'd get a vacuum at one point, right? You'd have like one chamber expanding, and the other one didn't contract in the right time and way. So you get a little back pressure or vacuum concept. Your pump wouldn't keep everything filling and moving smoothly forward. So to synchronize the four chambers, you have a burst of electrical activity that propagates through the heart in just the right way. That's very delicate. So if your heart muscles inflamed or disturbed for other reasons, you get a disruption of electrical activity. That's sudden cardiac death. I mean, that's, you know, if you clutch your chest and you fall down because your electrical activity is just disturbed, outcomes to AED, we try to zap you back, all right? But you don't want to mess with electrical activity at the heart, and that's ultimately it would be the most catastrophic outcome from the myocarditis concept. And is it fair to say, given what we've talked about today, well, we know it very specific who, who myocarditis, who was getting these cases, it was, it was, it was younger males correct from ages five to 15, were these the primary five, 15, five to 17, were these the primary victims of the reaction to the vaccine? They seem to be most affected as far as myocarditis. Yes. A lot of that data came out of, well, a couple of different journals, there was a good say they come out of Taiwan, I believe at one point, but then especially here in the U.S. Joe Lattepo, Surgeon General of Florida. That was his basis to get very concerned and, and start to write some letters and create a bit of a media publicity in an uproar, as Surgeon General saying, look, we're looking at our data and the myocarditis rates are unacceptable for these young men, vis-a-vis the risk of anything serious that happened to them from COVID with this is absurd. This is not a good public health. So, so if we, if we, if we take that on its surface, what we just said there is it fair to make the assessment that each time a young person is given, let's say, what they're calling boosters or the new COVID vaccine or the new strain vaccine, is that continuing to put more strain on the heart and more children in danger? Yes. As long as they're spike protein-based. Yes. That's true. And the spike protein has a bit of a cumulative buildup concept too. So your body has a natural rate to detoxify from the spike protein. We don't know exactly what that is. Dr. McCulloch has talked about it. He's probably the most red up on that. But let's say it's, it's, it's months. It's going to be solidly a year or a bit more. They've even isolated spike protein off of one exposure from the vaccine from different parts of the body. So your body, if, if the natural processing detox arc is a year, but yet you get boosters short of a year, then you're getting cumulative dosing. You with me, not that even, even one arc of spike protein is terrible and nothing good for your body, but the chance for cumulation is certainly there. And that's quite a concern. Is, you mentioned the spike protein. Is that a natural protein in the human body? Um, no, it's not. It's not. The spike protein is derived from, I think, some of the original strains of the SARS virus, but it's been modified a bit. And so again, to help put this in perspective, SARS virus is a bio weapon that was released from this lab in Wuhan. Best we can all tell. Correct. That means it was designed to kill people. Let's start there. It was designed to kill people. And they took the cold and some of the other initial cold viruses and they've been working on them with gain of function research for a while and we outsourced that to China basically for them to do our dirty work, but at least we could keep an eye on it somewhere. And so they started creating mutations in this virus that would make it more nasty, including modifying the spike protein. So we have a spike protein on steroids that's an artificial and noxious agent now getting released into the human body. So we have a strong reaction against it by our immune system. When the spike protein hits your blood, it immediately promotes blood clotting. It promotes spasm. It promotes thickening of the blood. It promotes inflammation immediately wherever it goes. And if it ends up in your brain, you have inflamed neural tissue. If it ends up in your heart, you have myocarditis. If it's in your ovaries, the woman's going to have irregular menstrual periods. If it's in your testicles, your sperm and tea levels will drop. So the spike protein is a toxic little agent. Think of it like a splinter. Just like you have a splinter in your hand and your immune system swarms and you get swelling, redness, discomfort, imagine a bunch of microscopic splinters scatter throughout your body, now creating redness, swelling, discomfort internally in all these different areas. Okay. And if it happens in your heart, you got myocarditis and you've got some serious problems. So the spike is definitely a foreign nasty protein that promotes immune reaction. However, besides that, it turns out to unfortunately be a little bit similar in shape to many human proteins, and there were some papers studied about this, and this is unfortunate. The spike protein bears some resemblance to human proteins. And so your immune system sometimes gets confused. Again, understanding that everything from the immune system's viewpoint works on shape. It's based on three dimensional shape. And antigen is a three dimensional structure that's meant to bind something that's foreign. Think about a hand in a glove. That's the best metaphor I use when I talk to patients. Okay. And then you've got a glove that sits right on top of it. So the hand of the spike protein comes in your body, your immune system says, Hmm, we need to create something that's going to put a glove on this and neutralize it. And at the same time when a antibody binds that form product, it also signals it for destruction. It doesn't just neutralize it, but it signals cells to come along like Pac-Man basically and gobble up the whole thing and destroy it. Okay. So what happens if the five-fingered hand of the spike protein is somewhat similar to the five-fingered hand of, I don't know, a molecule in your brain, okay? Then every antibody that gets created against the spike protein is going over here. We use the word cross reactivity, but that glove is fitting on that molecule that antibody is now going over here and three dimensionally binding with some stuff and targeting it for destruction by your immune system. That's actually a natural, native, helpful, and necessary part of your body. Now we have officially an autoimmune problem and that is terrible. So the spike protein is structurally similar to at least 200 important human proteins. And so if we're thinking, as in the vaccine logic, let's create a bunch of antibodies to the spike because that way, if we ever see the spike protein again from a new COVID infection, at least we have an army of antibodies at the ready. The first problem with that is the spike proteins that we introduced are toxic all by themselves. Okay. So it's not like you just have an inert substance that's going to create a bunch of antibodies that then be helpful in fighting off a further infection, in creating spike protein, you're actually creating a toxic substance. But besides that, my point here is that you're creating an antibody response and an army of antibodies, which are basically foot soldiers of your immune system, that now look, they're looking around your body and they're seeing 200 friendly fire candidates that look very, very similar. Okay. And so it's a little hard to put the smart bomb in the right place when the flags don't look that different, and that's, that's the problem. And so you end up with a lot of autoimmune problems in the wake of exposure to spike protein, especially the vaccine. As a physician, have you seen an increase in autoimmune diseases, a Guillain Bar syndrome? Oh, yes. I've, I had probably three patients today who said, I never had allergies before. But now I've got all these food allergies. Like one guy who's 31 years old, call me from Florida, he's like, I had COVID once and I had a vaccine once, he goes, ever since then, it's weird. I'm like allergic to everything and congested all the time. He goes, I make smoothies with strawberries and bananas and raspberries is like this stuff out, my throat will swell up. I get rashes. He's like, I used to be able to drink smoothies all the time. So that's just an example, but the autoimmune reactions are way up. Another example would be, you know, thyroid problems, you can get autoimmune destruction of your thyroid, AKA Hashimoto's thyroiditis, and so you can end up with, you know, autoimmune problems along those lines. So I guess my question, and I'm getting the, I'm getting the five minute signal from the producer. I have probably a thousand more questions, but we don't have a lot of time. Have you treated vaccine injured patients and what are their therapies available for these individuals? Yes, they are. I've treated plenty of them. Yes. And they can get better and they can resolve. That's the first message. There's a message of hope. The first thing I'll answer is go to the FLCCC. Look them up. Frontline COVID critical care lines, FLCCC. They're important. They got started by Dr. Corey, Dr. Merrick, who I'm proud to say our colleagues and even friends on some level. Great men. It's a great organization. They have a vaccine protocol. It's not a big secret. You can read about it and there are research based ways that you can help detox people and help their system rebound from vaccine problems. So I want to get that message out there. First of all, there are a boatload of doctors who are ready and willing and able using FLCCC protocols to help people with vaccine problems. If you know someone who's just struggling not getting answers, find the right doctor. Go to FLCCC. Look up. Find a doctor. There's a whole database there. I'm listed. I help people all over the country. Find the right person. You can get better from these vaccine problems. There's ways to detox from spike. There are ways to limit and ameliorate some of the histamine and autoimmune problems that happen. There are ways to dissolve blood clots. There are ways to rebuild your mitochondria. There are ways to reduce inflammation in the heart muscle. There are ways to stabilize your cardiovascular system, your blood pressure fluctuations. They're actually known treatment remedies, but you will not find them from like a traditional corporate doctor, unfortunately, because the knowledge is just too controlled and limited. So it's like asking, they may be willing, but they don't have the knowledge base to draw on to help you, unfortunately. Dr. Turner, you're a hero in my book, and I could sit here and ask you questions all night and man, just what we've endured here, the people, yourself, those trying to help and cure the sick are put in this spot where you're now persecuted. It's so offensive to my core as a law enforcement official, as a political leader and all the above. I want to apologize at some degree, but it's not for me, it's for the calamity to take in place in front of us. But anyway, how can the folks get a hold of you? I know you mentioned your sub stack and your websites and your groups. Why don't you rip them off? We're going to have them on the rumble show, so why don't you tell us? Well, fantastic sure so Michael Turner MD dot com, all one word, all lowercase, M-I-C-H-A-E-L-T-U-R-N-E-R-M-D dot com. My main web page, you can get in touch with me there, be happy to treat you and provide you some educational material. And then my sub stack, which is DR Turner, D-R-T-U-R-N-E-R dot sub stack dot com. I've been privileged to be able to be a guest on podcasts at a very high level, as well as have people on my podcast, like Dr. Malone, Dr. Corey, Dr. McCullough. So I've got a lot of my best information out there on sub stack, whether in podcast form or written. I also wrote an article called "Losing My Vaccine Religion, A Doctor's Journey from Hope to Despair." That was sort of my signature piece that got me featured on some national media. And so I encourage you, if you have questions about the vaccine, or even to someone you know someone who you'd like to have their mind open a little bit, get them that article. I wrote that actually as chronically my own journey, but ideally a way to begin a conversation, a rational conversation with someone who's perhaps pro-vaccine or on the fence. My doctor's medical, rational, scientific journey through the whole vaccine, from beginning to end to show why they are basically a terrible public health concept at this point, you know? Last question. Are you taking new patients? Yes. Good. Good. All right. Well, I wish you all the best in all your endeavors. I know it's Silent Majority Foundation. We are in your corner and I smell success in the future, and not just for yourself but for every other physician that, and really every other first responder that stood toe-to-toe with medical tyranny. So thank you, Dr. Turner. Thank you so much for taking the time for your schedule and joining us here tonight and God bless. Thank you. I really enjoyed it. Great to be here. Thank you for having me. You bet. Have a good night. Senator Janice Spelling, Tennessee District 16, and I am ready to be on the Heartland Journal dot com Tennessee podcast. Sing a song about the heartland, the only place I'm feeling at home. Sing about the way you're getting there, the words until the day light's gone. Friends, welcome back to the show. What a great guest. You just heard from the subject matter expert, the SME. And friends, the pandemic years are one of those subjects that I can probably sit around and discuss with you for hours and hours and days and days and never get through any of it. So many theories and hypotheses, we wouldn't even touch a fraction of it, probably not even close. But from day one, I smelled a rat and I've never wavered. Here's why. I'm going to go a little deeper, some of my listeners. Motive is something that most people don't talk about. In 2019, China was theoretically on the ropes economically due to the Trump administration's quote, "get tough on China policies," end quote. The redefining of the WTO trade agreement and signing of the new China trade deal placed the Chinese government in a position of vulnerability that it hadn't seen for decades. Crippling sanctions for currency manipulation and intellectual property theft left them reeling with uncertainty. The CCP had not seen an economic decline of this magnitude since the Clinton administration in the early '90s. This interrupted their plan to be the world economic leader going forward. Many had to be done, especially with potential for more years of Trump as president at the time. When you start to do the math and then you add other factors, China's willingness to control its own population through family size restrictions, forced abortions, forced sterilization, organ harvesting, labor camps, and especially its indifference to its senior population, to me the picture becomes abundantly clear. It's not about people in the Chinese Communist Party. It's about keeping the cost of survival at a minimum. And no, I'm sure I'll get a comment that I'm xenophobic. That's not xenophobia. That's communism, folks. Look it up. Emails and other communications uncovered through FOIA requests are shedding new light on the likelihood of the virus emanating from the lab in Wuhan. But that's only the beginning, because it also shows America's involvement and gain a function research at that same lab. And I was going to get into that tonight, but we ran out of time. Evidence has emerged showing the likelihood of the genetic engineering of the COVID virus, but we already knew this. On January 30, 2020, Dr. Fauci received an email correspondence from Kristen Anderson, who is the director of the Scripps Institute stating that, quote, "the virus had features that potentially look engineered," end quote. And his best friend and colleague at the National Institute of Health, Dr. Francis Collins, made the same allegations in 2020 calling it, quote, "genetically engineered." We now know that the NIH provided over $800,000 in grant money to the Wuhan lab from 2015 to 2019. For wait for it, you guessed it. Coronavirus transmission from bats to humans. That's a matter of public record. Beyond me, why the good doctor isn't in prison. I've always held out hope that the mainstream media would eventually do its job and investigate, and of course, of course, report truthfully on the matter, but now it all makes sense why Fauci would lie and downplay his role and gain a function research, as well as his connection to the Wuhan lab because he was neck deep in it. He helped create it. But at this point, Dr. Evil and all the progressive Democrats had already picked his football up and they were going to run with it. They were going to provide cover for one another as they manipulate elections, redistribute wealth, and ultimately centralize their power. My opinion, this is the biggest crime ever perpetrated on the American people and a true crime against humanity. Lastly and probably the most troubling for me is Fauci's continued pursuit of gain of function for coronaviruses. We now know he pursued gain of function research for monkeypox, and wait for it because it's going to be the next pandemic, bird flu as well. Despite American law that prohibits it, which raises some alarming questions because he was quoted as saying, "The benefits of resulting knowledge outweigh the risks." So I'm left to wonder if the victim of these lab engineered viruses would agree with him. Law enforcement and journalists have a duty to investigate the matter and let the chips fall. Otherwise, the next pandemic is just an election cycle away and maybe this time if you're a skeptic, you don't survive it. Friends that's it for today's show. I really hope you enjoyed it. What a great guest. Once again. Thanks so much for tuning in. What a true patriot, dedicated physician. How many people would stand up against the groupthink and pretty much potentially throw their career out the drain or down the drain against the woke groupthink mob? I have nothing but admiration for Dr. Turner. A special thanks to the Silent Majority Foundation for taking his case. Thank you, Steve, for producing and all the work you do behind the mic. Thanks to my friend Steve Abramowitz for keeping us on the air at Heartland Journal. Lastly, I want to thank you at the Heartland Journal audience for listening. That's no easy trick bringing you the truth in today's America. But as I always promise, that's what I will endeavor to do. So until next time, I'm Mill Creek City Councilman Vincent Cavalieri and I wish you all God's peace. Take us home, Steve. Any of yous or opinions represented on the podcast are personal and belong solely to the creator and do not represent those of people, institutions or organizations that the creator may or may not be associated with in a professional or personal capacity unless explicitly stated. Thank you. (upbeat music) (upbeat music)