Rozhovor s nejvyšším zdravotnickým představitelem Floridy o jeho specifickém přístupu ke covidu a dalším aktuálním otázkám

People are pretending that they can continue skating along with the clinical trials that happened four years ago to justify approvals today. In this episode, I sit down with Florida Surgeon General Dr. Joseph Latipo. He recently issued new guidance for the state on COVID-19 boosters. We are reminding Floridians that these are not products that we recommend they put in We dive into the latest studies and data surrounding the COVID-19 boosters and discuss other health concerns facing Floridians. This is American Thought Leaders, and I'm Jan Jekielek. Dr. Joseph Latipo, such a pleasure to have you back on American Thought Leaders. Thanks very much, Jan. Recently, you issued guidance advising against the use of this new batch of the COVID-19 genetic vaccines. I want to get you to explain your thinking. I have been really mesmerized by the degree of gaslighting that's happening on the part of the CDC and FDA who are cheerleading these new vaccines for customers as young as six months old. They're cheerleading in a way that makes it seem normal, but people should understand that we are an outlier here. You look at countries in Europe, and I don't know that a single country there encourages these new mRNA boosters for children or for young people. There might be one, but basically, they're really focused on people who are older and or have comorbid conditions. Really beyond that, it's not normal to be recommending them in European countries. In this country, it's completely insane. There's no data. Literally, there is zero data for these boosters in terms of clinical data showing that they will do even a drop of good. They're being promoted like everyone should get them. It's just the most bizarre situation we're in right now. It's gaslighting at the highest levels, and it was just important to do a little reality check for people and just remind people about what the data actually show. What do the data actually show? First of all, again, there's no clinical data that shows a benefit. And people should know that what's happening now, and it's been happening now for a few years, is completely abnormal. When the COVID-19 vaccines were first approved, there were definitely issues with the clinical trials, but at least there were clinical trials and people had something to talk about. With the boosters, you had advocates who were deferring or referring to the initial clinical trial data, but there's obviously a huge problem with that. And we actually see that problem with new studies of Paxlivid. The original clinical trials of Paxlivid for COVID-19 treatment showed benefit in many populations, but now you have a population of people who are almost entirely have some degree of immunity to COVID-19, and the Paxlivid studies aren't showing a benefit anymore. It's just not clear that anyone's benefiting. And the same is almost certainly true for these mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. And in fact, the story's worse because their side effect profile is much worse. But that's the problem, that people are pretending that they can continue skating along with the clinical trials that happened four years ago to justify approvals today. So what is the uptake of these genetic vaccines these days look like? Very low. I actually haven't even seen the latest numbers in Florida. I would be surprised if they even break 10% in terms of that threshold, but thank goodness it's very low because these are very bad vaccines for people's health. We reached out to the CDC and the FDA for comment, and an FDA spokesperson told us via email, The FDA strongly disagrees with the State Surgeon General of Florida's characterization. Vaccination is safe and effective and continues to be the cornerstone of COVID-19 prevention. The updated COVID-19 vaccines meet the agency's rigorous scientific standards for safety, effectiveness, and manufacturing quality. It's been quite a while since we've talked about these in detail, at least from the beginning of this year. Maybe lay out why you believe that. Take someone who is skeptical, who believes that how could a product be out there that isn't good for your health? Explain how you came to that conclusion and why it is valid today. Thank you for that question. I want to acknowledge that I know that there are a lot of people who have a reaction of opposition immediately. They may think that someone like me or other people with similar opinions may be voicing those for political reasons or for some other agenda. I understand that. I completely get that. Certainly, there's a lot of that happening out there. I care primarily about health. That's my primary motivator for pretty much everything I've said or done as the State Surgeon General of Florida and really in interviews and that sort of thing. I do recognize that some people are just so opposed to someone with a different opinion that it's just a non-starter even listening to them. Irrespective of that, I want to invite people to just listen. You don't have to agree. You don't have to change anything that you're doing or change any decisions, but I invite you to listen. I invite you to talk about and have conversations about it, whether that's with friends or doctors. I invite you to take good care of your health because that search for good health is an important search that almost all of us are on. In terms of some of the reasons I have concerns, I want to first start by addressing this notion that you often hear when someone brings up an adverse event such as myocarditis, inflammation of the heart. You hear often people say, well, that's true, but it's more common with the virus. It's more common with COVID. Sometimes that is true that some condition is more common with COVID. That's actually not always true. For example, with myocarditis, it actually seems to be that if you take a cohort of people, young people, particularly young males, and you leave half of them alone and for the other half, you give them Pfizer or Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, the half that got those vaccines is going to be in worse health in terms of cardiac issues than the half that didn't. But the distinguishing thing to remember here, and I don't think there's any debate about this, is that it's actually not a one or the other situation. In this situation, we're not talking about something like the measles vaccine. So the measles vaccine is highly protective against a person developing an infection that is clinically significant. That's how we used to think about vaccines working. This is not that. Everyone knows that everyone gets COVID. You get the vaccine, you get COVID. In fact, some studies show that you actually over time get more COVID, which is another major issue. And if you don't get the vaccine, you still get COVID. So I want to invite people to put aside, which is not to say to abandon all your beliefs, but the notion that the argument that, oh, it's one or the other, it's actually not the case. It's usually both. So now we have multiple studies, Cleveland Clinic, Saudi Arabia, South America, other sites in America that show that after a few months, three months, four months, five months, the people who are receiving boosters have a higher incidence of COVID-19. The finding now is something that has been shown in different countries with different cultures in different parts of the world. And in fact, there are also studies that show that the type of immunoglobulins, the antibodies that are in our bodies that are produced by people in response to any type of potential infectious insult or in response to a vaccine, change when people receive boosters. And they change in a way that suggests that those people become more tolerant of the infection, which would partially explain why people may be developing a higher incidence or higher risk of developing COVID-19 over time after the boosters. If you care about people's health, you should care about this. And you just hear no discussion about it. So it's a health problem. And it's also a moral problem, a moral problem with the leadership in much of our public health infrastructure in this country. So that's one piece that is a major concern. Another piece resonates with what you hear people often or not, or at least sometimes talking about, which is a concern that these COVID-19 vaccines are causing people to be more likely to develop other evidence of immune dysregulation. So recently there was a paper, a study that was published that used Korean data that demonstrated that there was a higher incidence of things like lupus, rheumatoid arthritis, other autoimmune conditions after COVID-19 boosters. There are other studies that have looked at that, but this particular study had a very strong study design. And we highlighted that in the guidance that we put out. Another concern that is certainly worth noting is something called POTS. And it's this syndrome where people become lightheaded. They have problems regulating their heart rate and their blood pressure. They can feel pretty crummy. It affects their physical function. And it's definitely something that unfortunately happens to people after COVID-19 sometimes. It's also something that happens to people after COVID-19 mRNA vaccination also. And people compare, oh, it's worse after COVID. Well, I should hope it's worse after a virus than it is after a vaccine. But it being worse after a virus doesn't make it doesn't justify the fact that people are getting it after the vaccine too. A lot of people know someone or themselves have developed symptoms like that, that they believe are related to the COVID-19 vaccines. But again, no acknowledgement of vaccine injuries by our public health leadership. It's a moral tragedy. It's a moral failure. I have to believe that history will see it that way. What new information has come out in the past, say, year around the use of these COVID-19 genetic vaccines that you can point to? Well, the autoimmune data, I think, is relatively new data. There was actually another study from the same database in Korea that was published and demonstrated actually an increased risk of Alzheimer's disease, but not Parkinson's disease. And it's unclear to me whether this is related to the brain fog that people sometimes report experiencing after COVID-19 vaccination. But that's another relatively new development. There have been other studies too, but in terms of the higher quality studies, those are the ones that come to mind. We already have had now for a few years, studies that show that for some people, unfortunately, the mRNA continues to circulate in their bodies for months afterwards. And spike protein continues to circulate in their bodies for months afterwards, after vaccination, which obviously is not a desirable outcome. But there are many other issues. Tinnitus is an issue with people having hearing problems. Another one actually that I remember recently reading related to optic issues, thromboembolic events involving the eyes and the vasculature of the eyes after COVID-19 vaccination. But unfortunately, I think it's an endless list with these particular vaccines. In January, we made an announcement related to the fact that in terms of the DNA contamination, there's not been an appropriate assessment of whether the presence of lipid nanoparticles increases the risk of DNA integration into cells because of the amount of DNA that's moving into cells. So in light of all of this, we are reminding Floridians and people around the country and really around the world that these are not products that we recommend they put in their bodies. I have relatives who really believe in what the FDA and the CDC says about most things. How would you suggest I tell them this? It's tough, especially if it's a loved one, because you want the best for your loved one. And the decision that someone makes, because I love them and I want them to do what I think is going to be in their best interest. But at the same time, everyone has their path in life. And it's important to recognize, as painful as it can feel, it's important to recognize that people have autonomy over what they think and what they do. And I think that before having those conversations, it's valuable to have that conversation with yourself. Ironically, having that conversation with yourself will actually make you a more effective communicator to your loved one, because sometimes investment can be off-putting. It feels like coercion is too strong of a word, but it doesn't have the same cleanness and clarity as someone who's simply providing you information certainly would be happier if you followed that information, but also respects your right to make whatever decision you want. That environment is more conducive to someone actually deciding to make a different decision than coming in there with all your passion and on your investment in the choice that your loved one makes. I think it helps when people communicate that, hey, I want to share something with you. I'd like to have the conversation because I care about you. But again, if you don't want to have the conversation, we don't have to have this conversation. And if they're open at that point to having a conversation, I think the next thing to do would be to just assure them that, hey, my goal is just to provide you with information. You don't need to feel any pressure or any need to change anything, change what you do, change what you believe. And I appreciate that you are open to me, allowing me to provide you with information. Maybe they have questions. They'll probably share some of their preconceptions and some of their reasons for hesitancy, especially in an environment, a field that's so open and doesn't have all the investment and the tentacles of trying to move you here and shift you over there. And nothing may change, but they would have heard you. And I think that's really the best you can do in terms of ethical approaches to addressing the fact that people have different opinions. So let's say I'm your relative. And I don't know if it's three sentences, some limited amount of things to be able to say. What would you tell me? I'd say, I know that you receive a lot of information from these news sources. I want to share with you that there are other board certified doctors who see patients, went to very good medical schools and actually have a different opinion than the doctors that we see on television. And finally, in my third sentence, I would just share that these doctors think that these vaccines are actually unsafe and are hurting people's health. And if you want more information, I would be happy to share more information with you. And that's what I'd say. Something like that. What are the studies that should be happening now to help understand what's going on? For one thing, we should do randomized clinical trials and we should follow patients for longer. It's the simplest study design. It has the wonderful advantage of being a way to reduce the thing we are saddled with right now, which is bias in terms of the differences between people who choose to get additional COVID-19 vaccines and the people who don't. They're very different people. So it's hard to compare them by just looking at their outcomes. It's very hard in some ways. Often it's impossible to do it in a way that is free of bias, but the randomized clinical trial allows us to do that. And those studies aren't perfect either, but they provide us with more information that is free of bias. And it would give us not only more information about effectiveness and long-term effects, but it would also give us more information about safety. And the money's there. The resources are there. These companies have made billions and billions and billions of dollars. What's not there is the leadership and the moral leadership and clarity to do what is in the best interest of people's health. A lot of the best safety work is not coming from the United States. It's coming from other countries. So even more concerted efforts in this country to use study designs like self-controlled case series with large data sets, we could do more of that. And we're not doing a sufficient number of that. And it's unfortunate. There is unfortunately a feeling on the left of the political spectrum that bad news about the vaccines hurts them and hurts their legitimacy and their authority, particularly because they more than the right, although the many components of that group were really often mandating, strongly encouraging, making people's lives difficult if they didn't. You can't eat at this restaurant. You can't come to the movie theater. For some of them, they view it as a political liability. For other people, particularly people in public health, physicians, I think they are struggling with what I would call threats to their identity. So it's very difficult, extremely difficult for people who generally people are well-meaning to come to terms with the possibility that their recommendations or in fact what they force people to do hurt them, hurt those people. Also think about what else you can do for your health. We know some major risk factors like obesity, diabetes, heart disease, hypertension seems to be a risk factor. Addressing factors that make you less healthy, that make you more unhealthy is probably the best way to fight COVID. And by the way, it will reduce your risk of cancer, and it will reduce your risk of having a heart attack, and it will reduce your risk of stroke. So what is today if someone ends up having COVID-19? What's the strategy for dealing with it? What is your recommendation for dealing with it? Of course, it can be individualized per person, but what is the suite of possible ways to do that? Sure. Well, right now, Paxilivit is an option. Again, the data are not strong, but that is an option. I never recommend Remdesivir. Many people don't know that even though it was treated, it was given to many patients during the pandemic, right before the pandemic, a clinical trial concluded that used Remdesivir for treatment of Ebola. And the patients that were randomized to the Remdesivir arm were actually terminated in terms of their participation in the trial early, because there was evidence that it was causing a lot of adverse effects, and it was increasing mortality. It's a very toxic drug, so I don't recommend that. The other option is steroids too. That's been shown to be helpful with people who are severely ill, and supportive therapy in general. There is a monoclonal antibody that's preventive, but it's not clear that it's still very active against circulating strains. Some people recommend things like famotidine or metformin, and there's some evidence for metformin. Flavoxamine is another drug for which there certainly was pretty good evidence earlier in the pandemic. It's not clear that it's as strong now. You've been at the helm for three years now. It's been three years, yeah. Tell me a little bit about what you've learned from the health policies that you've implemented. That's a great question. In this area, possibly in other areas. One thing I've learned is that there is, in the public health community, much more interest in fitting in than in doing the right thing. People do want to do the right thing, but fitting in and getting along, those trump doing the right thing. That's especially evident when doing the right thing is unpopular. I don't often, but sometimes I'll look at comments on Twitter, just to get a sense of what people are thinking. Some of the comments that really struck me after we made this announcement, someone would say something like, every other state health official knows this, but only Dr. Latipow is saying something. That's totally true. It's not a mystery. Even these other health officials, I seriously doubt they're running out and getting these vaccines. They're not getting them, even the older ones. They know that they're bad vaccines, or at least they're not vaccines that are helping people. Even if they disagree about the adverse events and the risks, at least implicitly, it can be deduced from their behavior that they believe they are better off not getting it than getting it because they're not getting it, but they're not saying anything. It's really sad that almost all of my colleagues choose comfort and safety over courage and righteousness. It's really kind of almost hard to believe, isn't it? Yes, it is. Are there any states that are consulting with you, taking some of the ideas that you've used and the guidance before? Sure, yeah. We've definitely had states reach out, not a ton, but a few states have reached out. And I don't follow things super closely, so I'm not sure how they're putting some of our conversations into effect. Tell me a little bit about some of the other health realities. Actually, one that comes to mind is your guidance around the measles outbreak was maybe different than many might expect. Yeah, yeah. Sure, yeah. I'm happy to talk about measles. So I'm thinking again now for the people in your audience who read the news stories, oh my gosh, that guy was sending people with measles into schools and everyone was getting measles and how could he possibly do that? And that is a very understandable impression to have after reading the news articles. And I want to invite people to open themselves up to the possibility that they may not be getting the full story. So measles is extremely contagious, as we all know, extremely contagious. And in terms of protection, there are really two ways. One way is through prior infection and the other way is through measles vaccination. And fortunately, both of those ways provide high levels of protection, very high levels of protection against developing measles. And one other point to keep in mind that's important is that measles can be particularly dangerous for pregnant women. We had a measles outbreak in a school in South Florida. And most of the kids at that school, I don't remember the exact percentage, but over 90%, I believe, had some degree of protection from measles, whether from vaccination or from prior measles. And what the CDC advises is that when there is a measles outbreak in a setting, in a school, the kids who did not receive the measles vaccine should stay home. And I think the period of time is something like 21 days. And it relates to how long people are contagious with measles, both before they develop a rash and afterward, when they have a fever and a rash and things like that. And that's the recommendation. Obviously, that's an extremely long time, that's tough on families and extremely disruptive to the kids' education, social relationships. So what I said was very simple, which is that let the parents decide, let them choose whether their kids go to school or not. This is not complex policymaking here. And for that position, I was lambasted. And all these stories, everyone's getting measles, measles. You think that there was this measles apocalypse happening in South Florida. It's important to know that overall, there was something like 10 cases of measles. I mean, that was it. I think it might have been a little smaller than that. First of all, the recommendation worked in the sense that families were able to make the choices they wanted to make about kids going to school or not. And again, the vaccine or prior infection is highly protective. So people who had a history of either one of those were at the very least safe or at the most safe, but at the very least, weren't being exposed to any risks that are unusual, any risks that are different from the risks that we typically experience just walking around in the mall. I personally believe that that's how outbreaks should, with the exception of extraordinary circumstances, be handled in terms of putting as much responsibility, personal responsibility and choice in the hands of people in the community. That you provide education, you provide resources, you provide medication, you provide preventive therapies, if those are available, and then you let people make their decisions. Again, with rare exceptions. That is what I believe is the most auspicious path for managing public health infectious disease risk. In this case, often, as there is, there's guidance. For example, with these genetic vaccines, your guidance is, don't use these boosters. In this case, your assessment was, it's totally up to the parents. You weren't giving them any guidance as to what was the better thing to do. Why were you so sure it wouldn't outbreak? I wasn't. I wasn't sure. I have many talents, but I can't see the future. That's at least not yet. But we did provide the parents with information we felt would help them make an informed decision. We provided them with information about the measles vaccine. Our departments of public health provided, I think they visited schools, they offered vaccination in other locations also in the community to anyone who wanted it. At this point, if you're a parent and you know the data about effectiveness and you have access because it's in your community and you choose not to, you've made a decision that's informed based on your preferences. Your body is yours to make a choice with in terms of what you put into it. Parents get to make that choice for their kids until their kids are older. I wasn't certain, but I was certain that it was the right thing to do to put the power in the hands of parents. Is this then a high priority for your administration to basically create a culture of the parents or individuals themselves taking more responsibility for their own health? Oh, totally. That is the best way to live life, to take as much responsibility for things as possible. Unfortunately, I know Governor DeSantis feels very similarly and he's an enormous advocate for parental rights. Parental rights and personal responsibility go hand in hand. It's such an important concept. Boys, society suffers when there's less personal responsibility. They need to learn that it's really important. A key part of living a happy life is taking on responsibility for your life, for your actions. You're looking to be blaming this person and that person, which we saw during the pandemic, right? Oh, everyone else is responsible for my risk of getting sick, so you wear that mask and you take this vaccine and you do this and you do that. Well, the world goes to hell in a hay basket. It's a miserable place when people don't take as much responsibility as possible for themselves. This is what I'm getting at. What I'm hearing, right? Your decision was, it's more important for me to give people that sense of personal responsibility based on the best information I can give them than to, let's say, guarantee safety. I would say it's more respecting people's autonomy and their responsibility for their own lives. The pursuit of safety is a good thing, but has to be done thoughtfully. The pandemic is such a terribly beautiful example of that. How many more people, how many more kids during the pandemic who lost the schooling, who fell behind in math, fell behind in reading, picked up drugs, alcohol, marijuana, other drugs? How many more of them will be worse off, not only now, but a decade, two decades, and three decades from now, because of some heartbreaking zealots who were seeking safety and closing down their schools and keeping them closed for prolonged periods of time? You really need to approach safety in a very thoughtful way. I think what you're saying here, there's a cost and benefit to every policy. Yeah, absolutely. As I understand it, there's multiple other vaccines that are being developed using these genetic platforms. What are your thoughts on that? Many, many, many, many clinical trials right now. I think it's a bad thing. My hope is that we stop this tide and really learn more about what we're doing before these companies that are marching off to make another billion dollars here or billion dollars there get their way. There are alternatives. You don't have to use this novel platform that is not fully understood. Where there is no other alternative, I think that there's more space to play, if you will, in terms of experimenting. But the whole thing stinks. It sets a terrible precedent that you can bring in this new technology and just run as fast as you can with it, safety be damned, and start putting it into human beings. It's a bad precedent. In some cases, it's like there's an inordinate focus on safety. In other cases, there's not enough of a focus on safety. That's what I'm hearing. Do you have a sense of when each of those scenarios happens? Are they backwards? This is something I've been thinking about a little bit. People have called that out. Physicians have called that out. Scientists have called that out, particularly with the FDA, where it just seems like the bar is this high for this drug, this high for another drug, and it's this high for something else. I think that it's important to always prioritize safety, but to consider costs and benefits, and also to consider the patient's situation. That even, in some ways, brings up this issue of right to try. I tend to favor it. I think you have to, again, be very careful because when people are desperate, it may not be ethical to be participating in certain options just because desperation is, in some ways, a form of coercion. Sometimes it feels like the drug that has the better marketing team shapes where the emphasis is. Tell me a little bit. Of course, this isn't the only issue you're dealing with as Surgeon General in Florida. I understand there's, for example, a couple of pretty significant health amendments on the table. You can tell me about those. Sure. There are two amendments that are receiving a lot of attention right now in Florida. One of them has to do with abortion, and the other has to do with marijuana. I'm going to paraphrase here, but the abortion amendment basically states that abortion won't be restricted before viability or to protect a woman's health and can be provided by a healthcare provider and does not require consent for minors. Really, it says that there's notification, which isn't the same thing as consent for a minor. The marijuana amendment removes any restrictions, legal penalties, or anything from the use of marijuana publicly. That's another one. Primarily, my understanding is that it's been funded by a large company that's in the marijuana space, including the medical marijuana space. My understanding also is that that particular law doesn't allow people to legally grow it in their backyard. It requires that they purchase it from specific sources. Those are two amendments. It's going to be a very interesting November, no matter what the outcome is of these amendments. In Florida, people will vote directly on each of these. These are constitutional amendments, so it's a 60% bar? I believe that's correct. I believe it's a 60% bar that has to be reached. I may be wrong with that, but I believe that's correct for a constitutional change to happen. What would the impact of these be on your work? I don't know that it will impact my work. It may impact my work. I think that there are, particularly with marijuana and other substances too, there's a lot of, hey, here's one for you, misinformation about those drugs and their effects on people's health. I want to say that I'm definitely not personally supportive of anyone going to jail for having marijuana or anything like that. That's not up for contention. That's not an issue in Florida. What I think is really the major issue is that there are health costs to some of these issues and encouraging them that really don't receive sufficient sunlight. There are also societal costs to some of these issues. I don't even want to single out marijuana. It's really something that is relevant to all substances, whether it's marijuana or alcohol, or believe it or not, even caffeine. The medical issues with marijuana, there are many. One that is very important is that in young people, particularly young males, there's very good evidence now that it increases the risk of schizophrenia and other psychosis, which is terrible. It's just a terrifying and tragic outcome from someone using a drug that they probably believe is harmless. That seems to be very clear, both in males and females, much more so in males. Early use of marijuana seems to increase the risk of schizophrenia. Marijuana also kills brain cells. There's good evidence for that too, that with long-term use, people's IQs tend to drop. There's also good data from states that legalized it and people are using it more, that it also increases traffic fatalities. That's probably not a surprise. The substance is available. People use it. Sometimes they get behind the wheel. Unfortunately, that can impair their judgment, their driving skill. Unfortunately, people can get injured and people can die. Multiple studies support all of those findings. I personally believe that it's not in our interest to be encouraging the use of substances. I want to really be clear that I'm not judging anyone. People do what they have to do, and they can do what they want to do. I know from my experiences that if you can get on a path where you're addressing those underlying issues, the stress, the discordance, the conflict, the fear, the pain that's causing you to want to separate, boy, there's just a much, much bigger payoff at the end of that road than using substances. We mentioned the abortion amendment. Right now, the law in Florida prohibits any abortions after six weeks with some exceptions. Some of the exceptions may require two physicians. Sometimes that's an important thing to have. Things like the tragic situation of rape or incest and a mother's health. There may be others. I haven't read the statute recently. Even more importantly, if you're a minor, you just need to notify the parents. The parents don't even need to be involved because it's notification. It can occur after the fact. It's not consent, which has to happen before a procedure occurs. I don't know honestly how to feel about the current situation. I don't know how to feel because the issue of an abortion is it's really only going to have losers in the sense that everyone loses. Whether it's the right of a person, in this case a woman, to control what's happening with her body or the right of a small being to live. My sense is that probably the most virtuous path is to find a path that minimizes how much loss there is. Minimizes the harm, if you will. My sense is that restrictions that literally push people into one extreme or another are worse than something that tries to balance the two against each other. They leave people in a position where they feel like they have to choose an extreme. There's nothing in between. There's no other alternative for them. You end up with one extreme or the other. That translates into a certain time period when a woman's autonomy prevails. After that time period, my opinion is that the child's interest in life should prevail. It's completely imperfect, but I think that it creates more justice and more virtue than the extremes, which right now is what Florida voters have to choose between in November. Thank you. Any final thoughts as we finish up? I think it's such an interesting time in history and an interesting time to be alive. I'm grateful for you all at Epoch Times. I hope I pronounced that correctly. I'm grateful to you, Jan, for your interviews and your investigations and for the insights that you've uncovered over these past few years. I feel like we are not done yet. This story is still being written. Dr. Joe Latipo, it's such a pleasure to have had you on. Thank you very much, Jan. Thank you all for joining Dr. Joe Latipo and me on this episode of American Thought Leaders. I'm your host, Jan Jekielek.