Pairodocs' Podcasts – Details, episodes & analysis

I was very honoured to speak with Dr. Kanji Nakatsu, a PhD in pharmacology and emeritus professor from Queen’s University, about the interesting and somewhat controversial subject of Vitamin D.

Is D a wonder drug? Or a fad? Should we be supplementing? If so, how much?

This discussion is a little technical, and perhaps not for everyone, but I hope many of you find it of interest.

This should be a scientific, not political, topic. But like everything that brushed up against COVID, it got gooey politics all over it. My hope is that we can return to objectivity and stay away from politically-fueled motivated reasoning regarding this and other nuanced topics. I think we have to be careful not to contract what I call FDS or “Fauci Derangement Syndrome”, where we start to automatically believe the opposite of everything he and The Experts™ said during the last few years - even though in most cases that will lead you to the right conclusion. Even a broken clock is right twice a day, so approaching each topic with a neutral view is the only way to return to real scientific thinking.

It remains a bit unclear to me if we can separate out whether Vitamin D is a risk FACTOR or a risk MARKER. I’m not sure if we have a definitive answer yet, but the bulk of the evidence seems to be that supplementing Vit D is at worst benign, and much more likely very good for your health.

Dr. Nakatsu is an impressive human - obviously brilliant, and at 78 years old about to bicycle across the country as you will hear. He is worth listening to very carefully. You can find info at his website https://areyougettingenough.info/ He is involved with the Canadian COVID Care Alliance (CCCA - which I gather is in the process of broadening its mandate and morphing into the Canadian Citizen’s Care Alliance).

Thanks to Dr. Nakatsu for an interesting discussion. You can find him here on Substack, or at the websites above.

Urban wastelands

One of my friends described our hometown of Sydney’s downtown as looking more and more like a zombie apocalypse.

Those who are addicted to the point of homelessness tend to migrate to larger centres. A rural community won’t put up with Joe Smith, Mike and Maggie’s son, pitching a tent in the field where the kids play baseball, leaving dirty needles around, and passing out on the grass. Cities are big and anonymous and such behaviour is tolerated. More than tolerated, some would say it is implicitly encouraged by the presence of harm reduction programs that make a lifestyle of homeless addiction more sustainable, as well as selective non-enforcement of loitering, panhandling, and other bylaws.

A recent media article I came across referred to ‘safe’ injection sites as “controversial”. This is an understatement. Although harm reduction is preached as gospel truth, one who speaks with a representative sampling of doctors, nurses, or thinking citizens will find mainly dissenting opinions.

Although one can selectively comb the literature to find small studies where harm reduction programs tout their local successes, a look at the big picture suggests a different conclusion. Even though our downtowns are more and more being turned over to addicts, Experts™ tell us to reject the evidence of our own eyes and ears. Harm reduction is working great, we just need to do more of it. Do The Experts™ know something that we don’t?

I recently attended an online education session on a pilot project designed to bring “harm reduction” into the ER. The presenter suggested that we should be screening patients for addiction (requiring another piece of paperwork and a longer triage process), providing naloxone kits, starting “opiate replacement” and “safe supply” immediately, and prioritizing people with addictions ahead of other ER patients (sorry little old lady with the broken hip, I’ll be another 25 minutes…).

At the end of the session I asked if there was actual evidence that this program was helping. I pointed out that although we have invested far more in harm reduction in the last generation, there are more addicts and more overdose deaths, not fewer. ER funding is a zero-sum game: when we do more of one thing we do less of another; when we prioritize one person we de-prioritize others. The answer I got was that indeed, there was no actual evidence that this pilot project was helping, but that we “have to do something”. And that “we think it might be worse if we weren’t doing this”. One presenter suggested that if we could find “the denominator” - ie: the total number of addicts - then we would see that even though there are more addicts, and even though there are more overdose deaths, that a smaller PERCENTAGE of addicts are dying of overdose. Et voila, that would prove that harm reduction helps. It felt like a stretch, to say the least. A moving of the goalposts. (Or for you math-y folks, this is called P-Hacking.)

Data that contradicts visible reality should be treated skeptically

The below article in the Journal of the American Medical Association concludes that “safe supply” (the new golden boy of harm reduction programs) was associated with INCREASED harms - in this case opioid-related hospitalizations - in the area of British Columbia where it was implemented. This data seems trustworthy, given that it matches, rather than contradicts, real life evidence.

There is a joke about academics, who are prone to believing very ridiculous things if they appear in a journal: “one would have to be highly educated to believe such nonsense”. Much of the “evidence” for harm reduction falls into this category. The average joe/josephine who walks downtown, or reads the obituaries, knows that whatever The Experts™ are doing just ain’t working.

Most citizens do not set up tents on the sidewalk and use drugs in public

It’s great to want to help those with addiction issues. But at the same time, what does non-enforcement of loitering, littering, public intoxication, and other bylaws do to the ability of an average citizen to enjoy his city? To play with his kid in the park? To walk down a street without getting constantly panhandled? To not have his car broken into again and again? To not be randomly assaulted?

How is it that we can speak incessantly about the needs, wants, and rights of one group - those who abuse drugs - while at the same time completely ignoring the needs, wants, and rights of the great majority of society who do not?

Consider a law-abiding tax-paying citizen who has no criminal record. He wants to build a garage on his own property, which he owns and pays taxes on. First he needs a permit which requires a trip to city hall housing/zoning department. He has to pay a fee and spend time spent filling forms. The garage is finally built. The inspector comes and finds out that an ‘i’ was not dotted and a ‘t’ not crossed properly on the form. The citizen is forced to either pay a fine, or to have expensive modifications done on the garage to correct the error. (This is a real story, by the way). All this even though his garage affects no one else, and is on his own property. If he does not comply immediately he could end up charged higher fines or interest, and eventually if he did not pay he could be in contempt of court and face jail time. The police would eventually be called to enforce the bylaw. As the saying goes, “All laws are ultimately enforced at the end of a gun.”

Meanwhile, a few hundred metres away, a large group of addicts has taken over a park. Land that belongs to, and is maintained by, taxpaying citizens. They erect tents and more “permanent” shelters of various kinds on land where people used to walk their dogs and kids used to play. No building permits are demanded. No inspections are done. No police are involved. No attempt is made to remove them. No one is threatened with jail. There are no consequences.

We seemingly have chosen to enforce unreasonable laws on reasonable people, while at the same time not enforcing reasonable laws on unreasonable people.

Are “safe injection sites” creating “safety”, or a Zombie Apocalypse?

The first safe injection site in Canada opened in Vancouver around 20 years ago, and since then “harm reduction” has grown massively. It now includes the distribution of seemingly limitless clean needles, free tents, free drug paraphernalia (to crush and melt pills), naloxone kits (an injection drug that can be given to reverse the effects of an overdose) and most recently “safe supply”. In fact, more than 1 million dollars PER DAY was being spent in downtown Vancouver on these programs, even before “Safe Supply” (more properly called PSAD – Public Supply of Addictive Drugs) was added to the tally. We have put a lot of tax money into making homeless drug addiction a practically sustainable way of living.

Many harm reduction advocates lament NIMBYism (Not In My BackYard): that nobody wants to have a safe injection site in his neighbourhood. But there are logical reasons for this. These facilities are bug-lights for criminal behaviour.

Just several years ago, downtown Sydney Nova Scotia was safe. Like many downtowns in North America, suburban malls and online shopping had meant there were lots of empty shops, but it was safe. Male or female, one could stagger home from a bar at 2AM unmolested. Then we went all in on "harm reduction".

The local (taxpayer-funded) addiction help centre has become a focal point of loitering, public intoxication, scuffles and fights, littering, and even middle-of-the-day public sex acts (presumably prostitution-related). Piles of garbage are strewn around. My friend was propositioned by a prostitute while running on lunch break. Another friend saw a "fine gentleman'" receiving sexual services on the stoop of the senior's club just across the street from the help centre, in broad daylight. Panhandlers have become more aggressive and even threatening - a friend of mine now won't use the bank machine in the area after a bad experience.

Police do not enforce vagrancy or loitering laws. I suspect if they did, they would be pilloried for picking on addicts, who have been afforded coveted victim status in our current victim society.

Meanwhile (unless it changed in the last 5 minutes) overdose deaths in Sydney remain at an all-time high, violent crime has increased, and rates of addiction have not dropped. What harms have been reduced?

I drove by the centre last fall. As usual, there was much garbage and debris around. There was a mass of humanity milling about in various states of consciousness. Some passed out, several obviously severely intoxicated. Two were “up in each other’s grille” having a major verbal altercation. Ironically, in the midst of the mayhem, many were sporting brand new T-shirts that said in large letters: "HARM REDUCTION SAVES LIVES!".

The harm reduction advocates I know have never volunteered that one of these centres be located next door to their own lovely home in the suburbs. Instead they criticize others for not wanting it near their neighbourhood.

Where’s the proof?

Even harm reduction advocates will admit it’s not a panacaea, but more of a band-aid. But does it really do any good at all overall?

The original version of “the proof is in the pudding” was: “The proof of a pudding is in the eating”. But either way you phrase it, this adage is apropos to harm reduction. If these programs worked, they should work. We should see fewer overdoses. Fewer deaths. But instead, as we have spent more and more on “harm reduction” we have just the opposite happening. The same BC government that is still pushing forward hard with even MORE harm reduction just reported their 2023 stats and set a(nother) new record for drug overdose deaths at over 2500. Drug overdose is now by FAR the leading cause of death in younger age groups in Canada.

In response to this clear data trend, the main argument of “harm-reduction” proponents is that “it would be even worse if we weren’t doing all of this”. This is not scientific, but rather a statement of belief. And there are logical reasons that harm reduction may be (probably is, in my reading) making things worse.

But it’s probably worse than unhelpful

OK, I’ve pounded home my point that there is, to say it politely, a lack of evidence for efficacy of harm reduction programs. But let me take this one step further and suggest that there are several ways in which harm reduction could be making things worse.

There is a concept in behavioural science called “risk compensation” or eponymously “The Peltzman Effect”. Put a helmet on a kid before he rides his bicycle and he takes more chances. Enforce a facemask-wearing-rule in a hockey league and players aren’t as careful to keep their sticks down. A humourous corollary is this: the best safety device for cars would be a 6-inch spike mounted in the steering wheel pointing at the driver. Suddenly, everyone would drive much more carefully. To summarize risk compensation: the safer something feels, the more chances we take.

I’ll tell 2 real stories (with enough details changed to avoid identifying a patient unintentionally).

Many years ago, working in a big city ER, a young man I’ll call Zach came in late at night. He was in withdrawal from injection narcotic use. He wanted help to get clean. His friend had just died of an overdose the day before and it had hit him hard. They had been using together, and tried a little extra for a higher high. They passed out. Zach woke up, his friend never did. Zach told me he knew the same was in store for him if he didn’t get off drugs. I asked if he had a naloxone kit. Yes, he and his friend both had them. I then asked if he thought they would have used as high a dose if he hadn’t have had the kit. Zach thought for a minute and answered no. The presence of the kit made chasing a higher high seem “safe” to him. Does having these kits kill more people than it saves? We have distributed many thousands of naloxone kits, and yet more people are dying of overdoses. It is easy to point to the lives they save, but are there many deaths to which they have contributed by giving a false sense of security - deaths that we have no way of counting?

Another night in a big ER and another addict wanting to quit – I’ll call him Jimmy. Jimmy’s (latest) girlfriend had just kicked him out. He had nowhere else to go, being estranged from family (having stolen from his parents then grandparents). He had hit rock bottom. He was suicidal. Jimmy was young, good-looking, articulate, and clearly intelligent. I asked him how a guy like him ever got started in the first place? It’s easy to understand how people KEEP using, but what about the first time you pick up a needle and shove it into your own arm? I asked him wasn’t he worried about OD’ing? He explained that he was at a party, drinking with friends. He went out back to the garage where some of the guys were hanging out. A friend of his was experienced with injecting narcotics and encouraged him to try it. The friend allayed any fears about overdose. “What about catching diseases?” I asked. “I’m not stupid enough to use a dirty needle” Jimmy said. There was a large container of clean needles there, supplied by the local harm reduction clinic. I asked if he would have used had there not been fresh needles. He was adamant that no, he never would have used a dirty needle, and that in his several years of using he never had used anything but a fresh needle – all provided free of charge via “harm reduction”. Have we made it easier and “safer” for people to develop a drug habit in the first place? Would Jimmy ever have taken the first step onto the path that wrecked his life (to that point – I hope he recovered) had we not made that step seem “safe”?

At the same time these aspects of harm reduction have made drug use appear “safer”, the destigmatization movement is likely having an effect in lowering or removing one of the barriers to starting a drug habit by making use appear more normal or socially acceptable.

And finally, diversion of “Safe Supply” drugs is extremely concerning. This is the phenomenon where taxpayer-funded opiates are provided to addicts, with the assumption that they will replace opiates like fentanyl that the addict had been buying on the street. But just giving someone a less potent drug doesn’t automatically make them stop wanting the more potent one. Instead, it appears that many addicts take the free opiates and sell them, using the money to buy their drugs of choice.

Although advocates tend to downplay this issue, evidence suggests that it may be extremely common. (I highly recommend reading this well done article by Adam Zivo.) Basic economics dictates that increasing the supply of a product lowers the price. If a bunch of “free” opiates are suddenly given to addicts in a community, and those opiates are diverted and end up on the street thus increasing supply, this lowers the black market cost of these drugs. In some communities, a huge drop in the price of opiates has now made them a cheaper option than beer or marijuana for youth who want to get a buzz on before the Friday evening high school dance. Some believe this mass prescription of “Safe Supply” is creating a whole new generation of addicts, just as the mass prescription of Oxycontin and other opiates may have triggered round one of the opioid crisis.

Harm Reduction had noble intentions. But by making drug use appear safer, appear more normal and socially acceptable, and most recently by releasing a deluge of cheap opiates onto the streets of our communities, it is very likely part of the reason we see an ongoing increase in addictions, homelessness, and addiction-related deaths.

Time to change course?

We can’t “harm-reduce” our way out of the addiction crisis. But “harm-reduction” may be part of what has gotten us here in the first place. In a recent media piece lauding a “safe supply” physician who had received an award for his work, he unknowingly gave support to those of us who think it may not be helping. In the concluding paragraph he is quoted as saying “I’ve been doing this for 20 years and there’s more demand now than when I started... it’s worse”.

Einstein is credited with having said “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result”. Just as there are those who still advocate for communism by saying that we haven’t tried REAL communism yet, continuing to think that harm reduction will work if we just do more of it is, by this definition, insane.

If you’re interested in more…

To those of you who took the time to read or listen to the Is there Harm in Harm Reduction series, thank you. I’m happy to hear your thoughts, positive or negative, either by private message or here in the comments. Whether I’m totally wrong, totally right, or most likely a bit of both, this is an issue that needs a fulsome discussion and debate.

For a more positive view on the potential of addicts than you’ll get from Bonnie Henry, The Pairodocs recommends this recent Free Press article on the success of Hazard, Kentucky which is rebuilding out of the ashes of addiction and despair called Recovering Addicts Save an Opioid Town.

For a thoughtful and deep perspective on how Harm Reduction became “The Science”, I recommend my colleague Dr. Rick Gibson’s Substack “Wishful thinking about addictions”

If you want to hear me try my best to explain how the through-line runs from The Enlightenment through Freidrich Nietzsche, Carl Jung, and eventually to modern 12-step programs, have a listen to my conversation with David Gardener on his new Freedom Convo Podcast

And finally, for a hard-hitting critique of our current lenient, harm-reduction-only approach to addictions and homelessness, I recommend watching “Canada is Dying” by Aaron Gunn.

Did you know that Anthony Fauci’s wife is the chief bio-ethicist at the National Institute of Health in the USA? Does this strike you as a little odd? Knowing that, is it somehow less surprising that vaccine mandates are “ethical” according to Fauci and his minions?

Many of you who follow our Substack will already know what the Nuremberg Code is, it’s approximate history, and why it is foundational to medical ethics post-WW2. Twenty-six years ago, even the very “woke” New England Journal of Medicine thought that the Nuremberg Code was essential. Then COVID hit, and suddenly it wasn’t anymore.

But some people still thought it was. Aaron Kheriaty did. He thought it was important enough to lose his job over.

Dr. Kheriaty is an important figure in 2023.

Aaron is a litigant in the seminal Missouri v. Biden case (which, if you don’t already know about, you should familiarize yourself with here). It is currently wending its way towards the Supreme Court of the US. Many people think this will be the most important case to reach the SCOTUS in 50 years (and I agree).

In addition to this incredibly important endeavour, Aaron is a fellow of the Brownstone Institute, a consultant to a Washington-based medical ethics think tank, a practicing psychiatrist, a father to 5 boys and husband to a wonderful wife. He is also the author of a recent book entitled “The New Abnormal: the rise of the biomedical security state”. Not many people could manage so many important roles, but he manages to do so, and even found an hour to spend with me. I can’t thank him enough.

We are at a point in society where one has to have his vax QR code scanned in order to go to the gym, or might have his bank account locked for contributing to a protest. How the heck did we get here? As you’ll hear, Aaron has important insights into the societal trends that have led us to this point.

FSIM is VERY honoured and blessed to have the well-known Dr. Gad Saad as our lead-off speaker for FSIM 2023 in Baddeck, Nova Scotia from the evening of October 27th to afternoon of Oct 29th.

Dr. Saad is fearless. He is not bully-able. He says what he thinks, without any virtue-signalling filter. He believes what he says, and says what he believes. As a bonus, he is hilarious and fun.

Over the last few years, Dr. Saad has become one of the most prominent, outspoken, and important voices fighting back at the forces which are encroaching on free speech and open debate in Canada and across the western world. In short, he is perfect for our conference.

Dr. Saad was invited to Dr. Jordan Peterson’s ARC initiative, which sadly overlaps with our conference. But due to other commitments he was unable to attend ARC. Their loss is our gain.

Thanks to Dr. Saad for speaking with me for this podcast, and thanks to him for agreeing to speak in Baddeck.

Julie and I highly recommend his popular books - The Parasitic Mind and the recently-released “The Saad Truth about Happiness”. You can pick them up on his website.

https://www.gadsaad.com/

For those of you who prefer video to audio, Dr. Saad has posted the audio version of this podcast on his YouTube channel.

Amy Hamm is a nurse, but has training in journalism, and is an excellent writer. She has written for Quillette, the Post-Millennial, and elsewhere.

However, apparently clarity of thought and communication combined with a deep knowledge of subject matter is not an appreciated skill set in the 2020’s. Amy found this out when she dared to challenge the required thinking around the very difficult and contentious transgender issue.

Amy uses the word “TERF” in our discussion. For those of you who don’t know, this is a nouveau, derogatory term meaning “Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist”. To translate into English, a TERF is someone who believes that there are differences between a man who undergoes a variety of treatments (or in some cases no treatments) and then calls himself a woman, versus someone who is born female.

I often think that if someone went into a coma in 2010 and then woke up in 2023 and saw that people had lost their jobs, been physically threatened, and censored by social media for saying statements like “men are not women”, I think they’d want to be put back into the coma. “Wake me up when things are sane again!”.

Amy is articulate, thoughtful, and brave. Her involvement with paying to install an “I (Heart) JK Rowling” billboard landed her in hot water, and a drawn-out and still-not-complete investigation by the BC nursing college overlords. Like Jordan Peterson and other medical professionals who have been persecuted for their views, the complaints against her have nothing to do with her nursing care or competency, and the complainants have no repercussions to worry about as they are anonymous.

As we discuss in the podcast, the vast majority of trans people, just like the vast majority of non-transgendered people, are not criminals. But we don’t need rules and laws for those of us who are harmless. We need them for the small percentage of the population who are sociopathic or psychopathic, and will use loopholes to take advantage of those who are vulnerable. Opening women’s sports, shelters, and prisons to anyone who identifies as a woman is potentially a buglight to these bad actors. How do we accommodate trans people while keeping this loophole closed? These are complex questions that need vigorous debate, not censorship and coercion.

Apologies in advance for the sound quality, but despite some challenges Amy and I had an interesting conversation about her situation, the state of the gender wars, and the importance of pursuing truth, damn the torpedoes. Thanks to her, and we look forward to hearing her (and her lawyer Lisa Bildy) speak at the FSIM conference Oct 27-29th in Baddeck, Nova Scotia. We hope to see you there.

I remember a few years back when I first started hearing about “The Deep State”. It sounded very dark and conspiratorial. Of course, it was just the “fringe minority” who called it that, so any right-thinking person was supposed to dismiss it. But is it just a more negative name for “the administrative state” or “bureaucracy” or “the civil service”? Since Trudeau Jr. came to power in 2015, we have 40% more federal employees. A whole new department to collect and administer carbon taxes. A whole department to deal with Phoenix Payroll System issues. More regulation. More taxes. Higher debt.

When I started med school in ‘93, healthcare was “in crisis” but the newly elected John Savage liberals in Nova Scotia were set to fix things. They were succeeded by NDP who were going to fix things, then by liberals and conservatives who were going to fix things.

After 30 years in medicine, I can definitively say that no government, no matter what its political stripes, has “fixed” anything. Nurses and doctors and other staff make lots of money, but are less and less happy with their jobs. Patients get less service. Patients die and suffer from lack of care.

The only bright spot is for healthcare managers. We have way more of them and they seem to be better and better paid. When I have a problem with something, it is never clear who is empowered to make the decision required to fix it. There are so many layers that the buck stops nowhere. Fighting with management is like punching a cloud. The Nova Scotia Health Authority org/management flowchart is more complex than many of the ones that I learned about when studying nuclear physics in grad school.

From the point of view of managers and politicians, is this massive, useless, unwieldy, and expensive bureaucracy a feature or a bug? If you read Thomas Sowell (who at age 93 just published his 40th book and is still awesome and articulate), this has not happened by accident. The real purpose of a bureaucracy is not to solve problems but rather to protect their positions and proliferate. And their fecundity is incredible.

How did we manage to so quickly produce “consensus” on our approach to COVID - a brand new virus that we knew nothing about? Suddenly we all agreed on new public health measures: “Lockdown” - until 2020 a term used only in prisons. Universal mask mandates. A brand new “vaccine” that was immediately known to be “safe and effective”. An all-powerful administrative state that can shut down and censor any dissenting voices is required to create The Science™ in such a short time.

Aris has some deep insights into these issues, which he touches on in the podcast and will expand on in his talk at FSIM 2023. We hope you consider coming.

In our chat, I refer to my first experience of running into the guardrails of “professionalism” as defined in our modern age. Thanks to the JCCF I got through it.

In the latest of our 2023 Free Speech in Medicine speaker interviews, I chat with Dr. Julian Somers, a clinical psychologist and researcher who trained with Dr. Bruce Alexander of Rat Park fame. (If you don’t know about Rat Park, you’ll want to take a minute to read about it).

Julian’s life experience and training led him to work in the field of addictions. He has become an expert and important voice in the field of drug policy.

I learned so much from Julian during this discussion (you’ll notice it’s longer than my typical podcast). He describes the “Janus face” of addiction - how addiction is about devotion to something if it’s positive, but slavery when it’s destructive. He elucidates he “active ingredients” of a successful addiction treatment program.

If we really care about people who are addicted, truly see them as having potential, and really want to help them, then what should we do? Certainly more than giving them drugs and needles, and then patting ourselves on the back for our altruism.

Dr. Somers is one of the most important voices in this field and, like many truth-tellers who refuse to bow down to political forces in the age of “cancel culture”, he has paid a price for his efforts. We are flattered and blessed that he will be speaking at the Free Speech in Medicine 2023 conference, and I look forward to hearing more from him there. We hope you consider joining us.

Dr. Ben Turner has a true old-fashioned university degree from a traditional school where they teach how, not what, to think. He has a master’s in healthcare ethics. He is a surgeon. This CV makes him uniquely qualified to talk about British Columbia’s Bill 36, which has been passed and is now being implemented.

This bill should not only be of concern to British Columbians, but to all of us. It is a harbinger of what is to come for all of us in terms of more centralized control of healthcare. Should healthcare decisions be made between a patient and his doctor? Or should a government official micromanage these interactions from on high? Bill 36 is another step towards creating a system that enshrines the latter model.

In this podcast, Ben talks about the organization he recently assumed the headship of: CSSEM.org - the Canadian Society for Science and Ethics in Medicine, and also dissects Bill 36 for us. There were a few minor things he said that are reassuring, but mostly I came away even more concerned than before about the direction this is all heading.

This new medical world - one of proscribed, templated, mandatory treatments and decision-making protocols decided on and enforced from on high - is slowly replacing the traditional doctor-patient relationship. And IMO it will continue to do so unless we push back.

Thanks to Ben for taking the time to talk to me. And please remember to check out CSSEM.org

You can hear another great interview with Ben (done by FSIM alumnus Dr. York Hsaing) here.

Rupa Subramanya is our first guest in this year’s “Speakers Series” featuring our invited speakers who will be there in person Oct 27-29th in Baddeck, Nova Scotia for the 2nd annual Free Speech in Medicine conference.

Rupa is a journalist for the Free Press, has been extensively published in papers such as Foreign Policy and The Wall Street Journal. You can follow her Podcast which she does through True North Canada.

In this podcast Rupa and I cover how the trucker rally drew her into journalism somewhat unintentionally, some of her thoughts on the euthanasia issue (which she has written about extensively), how it is that she avoids groupthink, some thoughts on COVID, and censorship of physicians.

These interviews will give you a little taste of each of our guests, and a teaser of what they plan to speak about. The conference is a great venue to meet our speakers as well as the other attendees over what promises to be an interesting and amazing weekend.

Check out FreeSpeechInMedicine.com for details and conference registration links. Space is limited so sign up soon.

Dr. Roy Eappen is an endocrinologist who works in Quebec, who has been doing work with DoNoHarmMedicine.org - a group founded by Dr. Stanley Goldfarb that is pushing back against wokeness in medicine.

Roy has recently penned a VERY important editorial that appeared in the Wall Street Journal and generated a lot of useful discussion. As well, he recently manned a booth at the Endocrine Society’s annual meeting along with Chloe Cole, a prominent detransitioner. This booth drew endocrinologists’ attention to the lack of evidence, and potential risks, around the medical transitioning of minors.

Roy is a brave voice in a time where we sorely need more brave voices. I am proud to know him, and so happy he agreed to talk with me.

Remember that you can now find details on the event, a list of speakers, and registrationi for the 2023 Free Speech in Medicine conference at freespeechinmedicine.com. The issue of transgenderism is a focus for this year, with speakers like Dr. Ken Zucker, Amy Hamm, and an expert panel which will include them and Roy. Other topics include drug policy and “Safe Supply”, the state of journalism in Canada, free speech limits by professional organizations, and the importance of truth in medicine and society overall. We hope to see you there.