MDMA's Corrupt FDA Resubmission
Psymposia discusses the resubmission of Resilient Pharmaceuticals' MDMA for PTSD application.
Footnotes:
Transcript
This transcript was generated automatically from YouTube's captions, then cleaned up by removing filler words, repeated words and background sounds. It may still contain errors.
[00:00] Rather than complete an entirely new phase three study in house, Resilient chose to reference other group studies of its candidate. Part of the issue with the even the original data set is that I heard some of the researchers talk about the fact that the reason that they only had to have a few hundred people in their phase three was based on the effect size for phase 2 research and the phase two research being bunk as well and having these like fatal flaws in them. the premise of having so few num numbers of people as the basis for approval is like really shady just on its own in addition to the other issues. The it seems like the bet is that the political tailwinds of the administration right now is just going to let them submit basically the same thing with a little extra and hope that politics goes in their favor, right?
[00:51] Like they're not actually doing new science. Resilient Pharmaceuticals has resubmitted their application for MDMA assisted therapy to the FDA. Resilient Pharmaceuticals is the product of licose therapeutics, MAPS, the MDMA research that started in the 80s. They recently resubmitted their application to the FDA after being rejected and asked to complete another phase three clinical trial. What is notable here about the resubmission is that they appear to not be having to conduct that phase three clinical trial.
[01:37] Here's a quote from Rick Doblin, the founder of MAPS and essentially the founder of Resilient, who says, "Two years after the FDA rejected the initial application for MDMA assisted therapy for PTSD, Resilient's new drug application is being submitted without a new phase 3 study. We knew the FDA wasn't saying no, just not yet. We believed the data were valid and that adverse events and clinical outcomes were reported accurately, though positive adverse events had not been gathered at that time. Despite partial functional unblinding, the therapists provided high quality care in treating the placebo subjects as well as the subjects who received MDMA. I'm grateful that everyone who contributed to those trials, the donors, researchers, independent raiders, and most importantly, the participants will see a new evaluation by the FDA.
[02:28] So that comes out and there's some discussion around like how this is being submitted without new phase three and there's some confusion about whether data is or isn't like new data is or isn't being included in this trials. So here's kind of just an illustration of some of this confusion. Journalist Jack Gorsine puts out a tweet saying like, "Update per an official press release from MAPS this morning and steady reporting from Psychedelic Alpha, Resilient Pharmaceuticals has officially resubmitted their in original new drug application for MDMA assisted therapy to the FDA." And he claims that in a later tweet that no new data was added to which Josh Hardman of Psychedelic Alpha clarifies there is new data and he doesn't specify it there.
[03:24] There is an article in Psychedelic Alpha that goes on to specify what he's talking about there which is this. He says that rather than complete an entirely new phase 3 study in house, Resilient chose to reference other group studies of its candidate. We understand that data set includes a small VA study with a long-term follow-up component as well as at least one other third-party data set. A memorandum of understanding between FDA and the VA announced last month invis invisages data sharing between the two federal bodies. Given that it was apparently responsive to the executive order, it's a safe bet that any data flows might include information from psychedelic studies such as those triing MDMA.
[04:12] The company also ran a new phase one study of its MDMA candidate in 32 healthy volunteers. Safety assessments in that trial included monitoring of adverse events as well as labs and cardiac related measurements like EKG and assessment of corrected QT intervals. According to the registry entry, these were specifically recommended by the agency in its additional comments in the complete response letter. Elsewhere, Resilient conducted an audit of its phase 3 data. As we have previously reported, Resilient is presumably hoping that it has addressed the FDA's deal breakers and it is now up to the agency to appraise the reconstituted package and decide whether to approve the MDMA candidate, which we understand may be called Ranso if it reaches the market.
[05:01] So that is kind of the current standing of this resubmission of the MDMA data post rejection. So Rick Goblin is is explicitly saying so he's saying that we believed that exactly the opposite of what the FDA response letter said, right? He's saying we believed despite partial functional unblinding and you know the data were valid and adverse events were reported correctly besides the positive ones which was the thing that you know the FDA asked for. He didn't talk about the other thing they asked for about diversity. And maybe this VA one has a long-term follow-up component to it, the durability effects, but like Yeah.
[05:46] But like it doesn't sound like they're giving the FDA what they're asking for at all, which was first of phase three study, right? It's so small. I mean, the numbers of people in the new studies that they I mean they referred to in some other studies, so we don't know the full number of people, but one of those was like 30ome people. And I was talking to some cancer researchers at Hopkins and they were talking about the numbers of people involved in like phase three trials of cancer drugs and interventions and it's so much larger than what we're talking about here. And part of the issue with the even the original data set is that I heard some of the researchers talk about the fact that the reason that they only had to have a few hundred people in their phase three was based on the effect size for the previous research phase 2 research.
[06:34] And the phase 2 research being bunk as well and having these like fatal flaws in them that the premise of having so few numbers of people as the basis for approval is like really shady just on its own. In addition to the other issues, it seems like the bet is that the political tailwinds of the administration right now is just going to let them submit basically the same thing with a little extra and hope that politics goes in their favor, right? Like they're not actually doing new science or resolving anything. That would be my guess. That appears to be the case. And it just seems bizarre to me to that instead of an entire new phase three trial that was asked to be conducted, they just get to basically present a collage like, "Hey, you know, you didn't like that original one, but we like stapled a few small studies on here that maybe give you what you're asking for." question mark.
[07:32] Kind of reminds me of like a really wealthy like well-connected family with a ch child in a university who's failing a class and then they make a call to the dean and they just accept like this very different substandard product. Yeah. I just think it's very like telling that you know there they're what was it mitoamineetamine was the previous name when it was lyos therapeutics but now it's resilient pharmaceuticals with ryan so they've changed like all of the surface level identifiers like for a reason we rebrand when we want to distance ourselves from a smoldering trash heap the LOS rejection is and now it you literally trip up any ability to discuss this in a clean way because you know it's oh well you know the LOS rejection but the resilient resubmission but wait it's a
[08:33] Resubmission but resilient didn't exist and it's just it's intentionally obtuse you know well that that smoldering trash heap was bought by Elon Musk's henchmen Antonio Gracias. Just understand that that's the owner. This is it's a shell game. Yeah. This is the guy that got on stage with Musk in Wisconsin. This is a Doge guy. Like sounds like a straight shooter. Made a bunch of misstatements about social security. And to the Rousanso point, it made it's not exactly a rebranding, but an extension of the branding because I'm sure midomine will remain the generic name, but they have now chosen a brand name that it will fall under as Ranso. So so happy for them. Yeah.
[09:18] I just think this is just obvious blatant corruption. Their whole plight here is to get RFK to greenlight this, which it would have to be. And he I looked into it. He directly there is precedent for like the Secretary of Health to override a decision made by like a committee in the FDA. It's happened I think once, maybe twice ever. And I think that's just their whole entire bet is like it's the same psychiatry committee or whatever that's going to say, "Well, this is the same data." No. And then RFK is going to be like, "Well, we want psychedelics, so yes." Right? Maybe unless they're pressured. This is so this is the division of psych psychiatry products, psychiatric products that is in charge of this. And what was her name?
[10:04] Is it Tiffany Fouchi or Fouch? Yeah. Fiat. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. It was something like that. So my understanding is it's going to it's going through that same division. We know there's tremendous political pressure on that division. Well, not even just political pressure, but like it's not just stick, it's also carrot. You know, it's like there's heavy lobbying and wooing going on right now. And you know it's happening because many of the people at the FDA who are engaged in this new psychedelic medicine sector have been going and speaking at conferences saying lines from the psychedelic hype propaganda. And so it's like they are becoming their own little vectors. So I don't even think it's purely pressure in the like coercive sense.
[10:51] I think it's also the classic lobbying you know levers. And as we've covered in a previous episode, this FDA is historically paytoplay, you know, in a way that it didn't used to be previously. I'd be curious if there's going to be some kind of donation from Gracias or Resilian to like a Maha pack like it was done with like I wouldn't be surprised if something like that happens. I mean it we're just in we're in open corruption with everything now. Like Trump is Trump and Trump media is is openly selling faster access to his tweets for 100k months. Yeah. So it's not conspiratorial anymore to just call out or to think that this is, you know, going to be pushed through just because they want it to.
[11:45] I the FDA at this point I think and all the federal agencies at this point are just rubber stamps and just as stressed I mean the previous phase three research was like many of the participants were recruited from the underground communities where the PIs were also practicing. So it was not a welldesigned like the data was meaningless in terms of the way that they went about collecting it because people were feeling this pressure to you know need to present how they were doing in a certain way as part being part of this movement. So it's like that there there were just everything wrong with the research before. It's not just like a few things. It was really undermining the reliability of the data as the original C the complete response letter from the FDA acknowledged.
[12:35] It was like the problems were such that none of the safety data could be trusted. Well, you can't Yeah. The that's this is the thing that everyone has pretty much ignored entirely. It's not even the data that they have that they even submitted. Like it's not the data that they submitted was just unclear. It was that maps therapists and I brought I was on a call with Doblin after we had a call with Doblin after John Semley published the Wired piece. We had met with Doblin and the maps team at South by Southwest, me and Nay, and we had a long discussion and we talked a lot about this stuff openly and maps, Rick Dolbin's assistant in the meeting, there was like five people in the room.
[13:25] Rick Doblin's assistant in the meeting requested that this was an off thereord meeting and we agreed to that. And then when John with Wired when he was writing the piece in Wired, Rick told John that he had met with Psymposia at South by Southwest. So the cat was kind of out of the bag and Rick broke the agreement. So he that his team wanted to and this is also the reason that that that the Lost leadership had Rick be quiet because he's incapable of shutting his mouth. But anyways, so we had another Zoom meeting with those people that MAP's team and on that call I had told Rick I was like Rick the elephant in the room here on the data is that your therapists like around the country like everybody knows that your therapists are doing underground sessions with people outside of the clinical trial and then you were recruiting these people into the
[14:26] Clinical trials. So, your therapist had these pre-existing relationships and business deals with clients who you're then recruiting into the study. And he was like kind of flustered about that. But this is open. It's like an open thing that everybody knows that they were doing. My point here is that the data that and then that data was then submitted to the FDA. that data is not it'd be like me running a clinical trial and then like recruiting you guys and my family and friends into it and that I had been like going on camping trips giving them m MDMMA before like what are we doing here? Are we trying we should call that by a more like precise name that that kind of collusion and subtrauge that that's fraud.
[15:18] It's organized fraud 100%. Yeah. The FDA called it out too. They said that one of the big reasons that they're, you know, rejecting is because what was it? 80% of or something 40% clinical trial participants Yeah. had prior MDMA experience. But even that covers up from the fact that we don't know what was the number 40 40 42%. I recall 40 and that's just for reference. compare my question is of that 40% what percent were doing underground sessions and we're already in a therapeutic relationship with MAPS's therapists we don't know anywhere from 100% of that 40 to some other fraction but know that that number though you know 40% it really is a problem because you know psychedelic and or I guess what are these stimulant hallucinogenic stimulants
[16:20] Phenthylamine use in the broader public is nowhere near that number. It's much closer to something like, you know, 11 or maybe 15 12% of the American public. And so you have people who are already sensitized, you know, to this who's going to join this kind of study, you know, not somebody who had a horrific experience on MDMA the first time they tried it in a right in a nonclinical setting. that person's never going to join that study. You know, the data is contaminated and it's contaminated because they spiked it. They colluded to fabricate to, you know, send ringers into the clinical trials to say what they wanted them to say, what they dearly hoped was true about this revolutionary therapy as they think of it.
[17:09] I mean, just imagine another pharmaceutical company that was running clinical trials if this was imagine it and they would be fraudsters. Yeah. But you know it's like people make an exception for this because it's their thing. They like MDMA. But if there was any other if Johnson and Johnson was running clinical trials where the PIs and the therapists in that clinical trial were engaging in fraud like this, it would be a major story. And in here like people have just entirely ignored it. But I don't think they even realize it's a thing. Yeah. I mean there there's just a very huge lack of coverage of what you know normie in previous discussions you've called a huge story which is this organized attempt to beguile and mislead a federal agency.
[18:03] And it's and much of it's quite out in the open. you know, there's a lack of interest from people other than really ourselves and a few other fellow travelers, you know, to really warn the public about this. Except there has been something recently, what was it? An LA Times article that had some interesting information. You want to talk about that? You were quoted in this. Yeah. Well, I mean, it's an interesting and also concerning article because the author is an op-ed by Laures who was involved in a MDMA for couples. So, and the trial was they took part in the trial in early 2023 and it was a DIAD program, couples program for cancer patients and their caregivers.
[18:51] And the author of the op-ed had a very positive experience with MDMA, but unfortunately her husband experienced severe and lasting negative effects that required months of extensive rehabilitation. Yeah. So, in the piece, she describes that during the dosing window of the trial, the first two months afterward, the medicine seemed to work. We both had more resilience regarding Curt's cancer. past, present, and future. Concurrently, though, my partner had depressive dips, giving rise to suicidal thoughts, something he'd never had before. We were told MDMA floods the brain with mooden enhancing neurotransmitters, and afterward there would be a temporary crash. Then things shifted. I didn't notice it at first, given 8 weeks of expansive joy, but my husband's brain worked differently after taking MDMA, and he began spiraling.
[19:44] At 68, he suddenly had obsessivempulsive disorder, manifesting as ruminations he could not turn off. He stopped sleeping. Gripped by suicidality and explosive emotions he had no container for. It was as if his psyche had been cracked open, potentially making matters worse, Curt's integration provider stopped working with him in the middle of the crisis, switching to only ketamine patients. Over the next six months, my spouse was institutionalized five times for suicidal ideiation and a nervous system he couldn't control. With his symptoms deteriorating, doctors recommended electrocombulsive therapy and he got 16 rounds of that which affected his memory. When the FDA declined MDMA therapy in 2024, it cited concerns about inadequate tracking of adverse events, a gap already exposed by Psymposia, a psychedelic harm reduction nonprofit.
[20:33] Nishe Devon, a psychedelic researcher and Psymposia board member told me the true frequency of negative outcomes remains unknown because quote the therapy model was designed to reframe harm as healing. Along these lines, one of our researchers suggested that Kurt's unraveling was evidence of progress. Accelerated FDA approval attracting many suffering individuals will invite recklessness. The field is not ready. And this was something that I think we had been highlighting for some time was and Nishay especially was this like tendency of the people conducting the trial to say that things like dipping into suicidal ideiation and things like that were proof of progress from this therapy that this was a natural part of the progress part of the process. and then providing you know either directly providing or directing people towards additional drugs like a ketamine 5 DMT in order to work out that lingering process of the trauma being purged from the body.
[21:36] Yeah. I mean, for a group that has a therapeutic ideology that specifically references like a like sort of shamanic death and rebirth process as being central to a healing journey. Yeah, if you say I feel like I'm dying or I'm having thoughts of dying, they of course they frame that as like that's normal. Oh, that's even a sign of good things. And it's just there's no evidence for these assertions. And there's been no real reckoning with the pseudocience and the therapy model and the implications of that both for ongoing public health you know implications but also for the quality of the data that they collected and I find it so funny that you know as we and I individually were being so attacked you know over that like two-year window around the initial rejection you know I extend ensively proved like even citing the original
[22:39] Treatment manual to show that what I was talking about was being was built into the manual itself in a euphemized way. But you can see it there. Like no one has really talked about that bes besides us. And that's part of what I find so concerning about this resubmission is that well there there have been some like Jules Evans has covered that like some of the cultist therapists are like very pissed at us still because they feel like they have lost some of their power but there remains a lot of cultist ideas pseudoscientific ideas in great prominence within this field and until that has been acknowledged and really like faced up to the public will be at risk. I don't think it's going to be acknowledged or there's going to be accountability until these therapists kill someone and it comes out in a high-profile like trial in the defense of like really examining the beliefs that the therapist held, you know.
[23:35] Yeah. I don't really think it's going to happen until there's some real, you know, a big true crime type thing like showing putting one of the therapists on the stand and just really going after them. Maybe you'll see me one day being called to explain the therapy model, right? Yeah. I don't I think that's the only reckoning that's going to kind of come. It's a difficult thing to even it took us as a team it took us a long time to even like come around so many years inquiring like actually what is because the way that it progressed is it's like first you're in the mindset of decriminalization prohibition sucks control substance act sucks MDMA shouldn't be illegal then that progresses into well legalize MDM MA legalized psychedelic therapy and then you come to the point of what is
[24:36] The psychedelic therapy even like consist of what does it mean and everybody's like kind of still stuck oh this is just a good thing without even looking into what the therapy even consists of and like not realizing it's like some bizarre scientology like ritual it's really clever misdirection like a slight of hand trick you know like pay attention into the, you know, controversy about the drugs. And then right over here where you're not looking is some really ripe new age like cosmology, you And one of the reasons that there hasn't been any real analysis on on any of this or any push back is because all the various groups like psychedelics today and all these other like fly by night psychedelic pro- psychedelic in some way shape or form they hitch their wagon to therapist training because it's like the only way you can really make any money in this space.
[25:34] And so now they start like propagating all the MAPS protocols into the space. And so by us calling out, hey, look at what you're doing there, the psychedelic therapy, they can't even comment on it because they're now stuck in this loop of pushing something. So they can't go how do you go backwards on that? How do you even be critical about it when you've been pushing this? There's like a sunk cost there. and everyone's like implicated. So, but I was going to say just earlier when you were mentioning how long it took us to come around to realizing what was going on with the therapy, we were not always on the having the position we have today about this. It took us a long time, even a group of us looking at this together.
[26:20] So, it makes sense, as you were saying, Normie, that the public at large is just not really aware yet. I actually watched last night your I think it was like your first live stream ever with David was there and I think all of you were there. I think it was 2020 and you all were like opening beers and [expletive] to celebrate profit and it was a really I it was like this weird transitionary conversation of you sort of all coming to with the medicalization thing like you were all sort of like yeah we're not like strictly against medicalization or something but then you're kind of like but actually we're starting to wonder if that really is true or it was very like I saw the point at which you noticed that maybe this is something to like really be worrying about.
[27:05] Yeah. You know, I mean, I would say that from that time in there's one thing that really hasn't changed, which is that, you know, like for instance, if somebody were to find that MDMA, you know, healed a specific kind of, you know, brain bleed or had something with very good data showing a medical use for it, like of course I would support that. the situation as it stands now, you know, there the state of the evidence is contaminated. It's garbage. It's worse than garbage. It's intense in intentionally spiked with nonsense. And that is not how we approve medicines. You know, I think that nevertheless with whatever you want to call it, rice, MDMA should not be illegal, should not be criminalized, you know, and so it's in many ways the core of our sort of stance hasn't changed.
[28:02] It's just that the quality of the medicalized product, the project that was put forth is so poor that it doesn't qualify as in my opinion, my non-medical opinion, but still my opinion. I guess it's also my professional opinion. Anyhow, that it's not, you know, that that should not be a medicalized option. So, as like a final addendum on this topic, we did we were saying we wanted to jump into the congressional letters. Yeah, just because we haven't not the original ones, but we hadn't talked about the fact that there was a newer congressional letter that came out I believe in May of this year. So, we have talked about where did we talk about the other letters? Was it in the syndicate? I think we mentioned it on like the like leftist primer or something like that that we were but either way it's definitely in the syndicate where we talked about the fact that this 80 plus 80 members of Congress like signed an open letter to President Joe Biden there.
[29:01] There was a House letter and a Senate letter. Yeah. And we were without naming us. We were scapegoed in the House letter, I think it was, for being, you know, the reason we know that it was us is because the heroic cards veterans group described us as the problem that they're alluding to in their paper, the special interest group that didn't want, you know, veterans to heal themselves or something. Yeah. So, I mean, there was ridiculously cartoonish. There was only two groups. It was Psymposia and Ier like that's it. Yeah. Who we talking about here? Yeah. No, no, but it was definitely really referring to alluding to us in there. And so I wanted to just take a look at the more recent letter which came out, you know, more in the proximity leading up to the Trump when was the Trump executive order date?
[29:54] It was right around it was right around bicycle day, right? Yeah. Yeah, it was on bicycle day. Yeah. So So this was kind of like what? Right after then, correct? Yeah. This would have been like almost a day or two after that. So, right after Trump's executive order, this new congressional letter came out and it took a very different tone to the their original letter. Like instead of scapegoating us, they mentioned the CRL. Like if you scroll down a little bit, it says like it's important to So, yeah, that right there, regulatory Oh, yeah. At the same time, we understand and respect the AY's role in ensuring that any new treatment meets rigorous standards of safety and efficacy. Recent regulatory actions, including the issuance and public release of the complete response letter for MDMA assisted therapy, highlight the complexity of evaluating innovative treatment modalities and underscore the need for clear consistent expectations for this emerging field.
[30:46] And when I read that, I was like, it's so like ridiculous and shitty that they can just like target us and smear us and then just backtrack it completely without amending it, you know? It's just like they as if they never did that. Now there's actual nuance here that deserves to be taken seriously, which is what we were saying in the first place. Right. Right. Yeah. It's ridiculous. Just wanted to emphasize that just to show the minations that are occurring politically behind the scenes here and just how many narrative shaping projects there are in order to finesse this into an acceptable situation for the public. So yeah, just to end on that point.
[31:32] So do you all think it's gonna get pushed through? Do you think we're gonna get medicalized MDMA? I think so. I mean there's so much money I was sharing in our chat just recently about the Tesla strike failed Tesla strike in Sweden. So I was reading How Things Work by Hamilton Nolan and he was talking about the fact that like the state of inequality right now and how wealth is concentrated meant that like new frontiers and new tactics of strike breaking were able to be implemented even like despite the fact that that that country has really strong protections for labor. They were still just able to blast through those protections in a way that no one had ever seen before. That's what's happening at the federal level here now as well where it's like the amount of wealth inequality that we have allows these oligarchs to just get their way.
[32:23] Yeah. I mean there was a what a Yale or a Harvard study not that long ago. I mean, it probably was a while ago, but regardless, that essentially said that, you know, when you compare the sort of policy objectives of the sort of the extremely wealthy versus what, you know, public opinion is, like for instance, on Medicare for all or something like that. There's basically no daylight. They essentially concluded that the public has effectively no input on policym at a federal level in the United States. And you know, I don't know that that's always going to be the case, but I mean, the idea that we are a democracy certainly isn't this is how the system supporting with reality, right? And so, I mean, I guess the thing that that we haven't talked about that is a bit of like an open question at this point is, you know, the whether or not the MAPS therapy methodology will be endorsed or discouraged.
[33:24] What will that look like? And if so, you know, are is there any teeth to it? I highly doubt it because right now you have a workforce that has been trained in these methods. And you know, if what becomes standard post approval is, you know, go ahead and give them, you know, the some other manualized, you know, therapeutic modality with rice. So, are they going to adhere to it? you know, and if so, when things go wrong, will it be will it map back to the maps method? You know, yeah, that's what you what people should be paying attention. I think it's a pretty ripe target for, you know, if there is a Democratic Congress or executive moving forward.
[34:10] Obviously everything this administration touch touches has to be like reanalyzed and like what you know what was going it has to be a rebuild of HHS and FDA and FBI and obviously all these institutions. So you know what I if it does go the way that I don't see I the fact that they are even resubmitting to me means that they've already been green lit or they I don't think they would be resubmitting. So it's either going to be rubber stamped by the division or RFK is probably going to override them. So if I was going to bet on this, I would bet that this is going to be green lit.
[34:56] But that is going to come with the vulnerability I think in the years ahead of potentially you know recalling it from market if they actually dig into the data. I don't know. That's just my sort of speculation. I would say as I, you know, I've was asked about this around when all of the rejection was happening. You what role could RFK play in all this in a salon article on it? And you know, I said then that making any kind of public health policy by edict and contra the sort of evidence base available, that's always going to be a bad move, right? And you know, we see this a lot with MAHA, you know, the Make America Healthy Again.
[35:47] This is a right-wing movement. It's a part of a coalition that, you know, the Trump administration essentially made promises to and said, "We will make room for your raw milk or whatever under RFK Jr." And I think that inevitably given that this resubmission by Resilient Pharmaceuticals is going to be under the ages of the Trump administration without you know some of the things that the CRL seems to have demanded means that that you know approval by edict is likely going to come to pass. And if that's the case, it will, as in MDMA assisted therapy for PTSD, forever be maja tagged along with the, you know, greatest hits of COVID deniialism, currently ballooning, childhood diseases preventable by vaccines and, you know, junk nutrition, things like what
[36:49] Beef, tallow, fries or whatever as you know, as policy, as health public health policy. I think this is making unavoidable. This is making some people uncomfortable getting in bed with RFK and doing this. I think Andrew Penn had put out a statement or put out a tweet on like what does it mean that this that that the administration who you know is I'm summarizing here but is so antiax you know proepide yeah is is this the whole quote this is the end of his Facebook post on it or his tweet whatever it was he says so what will it mean if the same HHS that is d priory Prioritizing children's immunization schedules and promoting health falsehoods is the same administration that ends up greenlighting MDMA for PTSD.
[37:42] You should read the next part, too. Is it is this just a case of the ends justifying the means of a stopped clock being right twice a day? What ever happened to all our all of our idealism? I know those are rhetorical questions, but I'm gonna answer the first two, you know, and the idea that like that this is a clock that was stopped and it's right twice a day. It's not right. It you know what they are putting forth as a protocol for MDMA is not something that is going to do what they say it's going to do. going to balloon the harm and misconduct that that already occurred in the clinical trials themselves, you know, as well as the underground.
[38:27] This is the result of when you put a wacky new age movement as like an aesthetic to as a health aesthetic, a public health aesthetic to hide the horrors of corporations of what they're actually doing. That's the point of Maha. That is the point of RFK. Put him out there to sell to your ignorant chud, you know, voters who are really and I shouldn't do that. You know, so many of the MAG of voters are the people who have been cast aside by the system, who have not had health care, who have been, you know, just run over by the whole system, they're, you know, they're out.
[39:15] And so when anything that that and this is why Trump was elected. There's a reason why low-income voters like one of the first times in history actually voted for the Republic. And there was that 2016 flip. But this is the result of when you give that this wacky new age movement. You put it out there aesthetically. So it's not Monsanto anymore, but whoever is making Roundup now so they can continue doing what they're doing behind the scenes. So they can continue degree of water. Yeah. Whatever. But this is it. It makes a lot of sense when you realize that that's what this is. Yeah. I just wanted since I said I would answer those questions, you know, is this a case of the ends justifying the means? Well, no.
[40:01] Because the justification of this poor science policy is not going to come to fruition. It has not been proved to be this revolutionary treatment for the population at large. it's a subsample of highly biased data with question, you know, the whole project is is in question. And this last question about what ever happened to all of our idealism, as we've talked about this entire episode, this whole project is just about the most cynical thing I've ever seen. Idealism isn't here as we are, you know, horse trading with billionaires and, you know, pushing this through regardless of what the science says or who's been harmed in a clinical trial and the, you know, congressional letters to moving on on what their assertions or who's to blame is.
[40:51] None of this is idealistic. This is politics, baby.
