One Judge Just Froze Your Kid's Vaccine Schedule: What Every Parent Needs to Know

One unelected judge just halted every change RFK Jr. made to the nation's childhood vaccine schedule. What does that mean for your family? 

Dr. Ryan Partovi, JD, NMD, MIFHI, and Mrs. Madi Partovi break it all down, plus they tackle the Trump/Iran "betrayal" myth with receipts going back to 1980 and get into a raw conversation about cancel culture, woke ideology, and why platforming bad ideas might be the real danger.

In this episode, the Partovis unpack the unprecedented court ruling that blocked RFK Jr.'s overhaul of ACIP, the advisory committee that shapes every vaccine on your child's schedule. Madi calls the move un-American while Dr. Ryan offers a legal counterpoint, and both spotlight the IMA's new Parents First Project as a free, independent resource for families caught in the middle. They also share heartfelt family stories, debunk the claim that Trump's Iran stance was a bait and switch, and close with a sharp take on identitarianism, cancel culture, and the cost of giving fringe ideas a bigger stage.

HIGHLIGHTS FROM THIS EPISODE:

• A single unelected judge blocked RFK Jr.'s restructuring of the vaccine advisory committee, leaving parents without clear guidance and raising serious questions about judicial overreach in medical policy.
• The Independent Medical Association launched the Parents First Project, a free, evidence-based childhood health resource at imahealth.org/parents for families navigating conflicting guidance from the CDC and AAP.
• Dr. Ryan presents decades of Trump's own words on Iran to dismantle the "broken promise" narrative, then breaks down why platforming fringe identitarian voices does more harm than debating them.

We love hearing from you! Do you have questions or want to suggest a future podcast topic? Email us today at thepartovieffect@gmail.com — your input helps us create content that serves you best.

Ready to take charge of your family’s health? Visit https://www.aspenwellnessinstitute.com to access personalized wellness solutions, expert guidance, and a community that supports informed, empowered health choices.

The contents of this podcast are for educational purposes only and do not constitute medical advice. Talk to your medical professional before starting any new treatment.

Don’t forget to subscribe for more enriching discussions, and leave a review if you loved the episode!

Transcript

 📍 Welcome to The Partovi Effect Welcome to the Partovi Effect. My name is Mrs. Maddie Partovi. And I'm Dr. Ryan Partovi. And today we're going to cover one of the most un-American things that is happening in the judicial system. And what, What Is ACIP and Why It's Under Fire what's happening with the, with acip, the advisory committee on immunization practices, uh, which shapes the entire vaccine schedule. Okay. And we know that, um, that RFK Junior made several changes, you know, to the, the members and such. Um, and there's a, he drained the swamp. Yes, he drained the swamp. And a particular judge just at that, just kind of put a, put a stop to that. And I just wanna say whether you agree with RFK Junior or not. There's something deeper that's happening here that I think a lot of Americans should be absolutely concerned about. Okay. Okay. And that's, that's putting medicine or medicine going into the legal, the, the slog of legal, the, the courtroom is what happens once that happened. Once medicine gets stuck and all these, all these decisions, you know, around the vaccine schedule, around the food pyramid, around, you know, what if it gets stuck in the bureaucracy of the law. Mm-hmm. And that's what I'm alluding to, that that is the most un-American thing that is happening right now. And just to give you the facts, ASIP has not been disbanded. You know, we're ki kind of in this limbo right now, whether, you know, RFK Jr is going to either disband or, or take it to court. So that's what I have to say about that. One Unelected Judge Halts RFK Jr.'s ACIP Reforms Well, I have a question and a comment about that. Um, first my question, what is it that is particularly un-American about it from, in your view? Well, that one judge can halt. One judge has halted this process. Like, what if somebody else doesn't like somebody something else, something that that's happening, you know, in the government saying, no, can't do that. We're gonna put you through the legal system and halt everything. Mm-hmm. No amended. C, d, c schedule nothing. You, you guys don't get that right? Okay. This sets a, a very, uh, un-American, and I say dangerous precedent. It so it's un-American because it's basically one person making a decision for the whole country. Well, technically one person, but you know who, who, who knows what kind of strings he has on him. Yeah. And it's an, it's an unelected person, right? Right. An unelected person throwing a monkey wrench into this whole system. Yeah, I guess, I guess my, you know, just to play the devil's advocate for a minute, I guess my question would be, but, but I mean, they can appeal it. The, you know, Republicans hold the Supreme Court. I mean, there's at least a decent chance that the Supreme Court will end up striking this down and upholding what, what Kennedy has done. So I'm wondering, given that sort of, there seems to be a way of dressing this that will inevitably unfold. And that is kind of like how the American system is designed to function. I'm just not seeing the UN americanness very, very slowly. Slowly. That's your concern. Yes. I think that's a legitimate concern. While it sows division, you know, and uncertainty. Do you get that? Do you get what this whole thing is doing? Mm-hmm. Like here are our parents having babies, you know, wondering who to look to. For the vaccine schedule and for, for, for recommendations and for sound science. Right? Right. Yep. And they're not getting that. IMA Launches the Parents First Project Oh, I do wanna mention, you know, as all this HA is happening, the Independent Medical Association, um, is, uh, is giving birth to a new entity, uh, forget what it's called. Um. Something Parents. Parents first a resource. You, you wanna look it up real quick? I do. Okay. It is a resource for parents that are independently minded, you know, and, and this is bipartisan, you know, scientific information that they can, that they can go to, that they can Parents first project. Yes. It's an, it's an independent pediatric led resource center with plain language guides free to parents who need them. Cool. Yes. I wonder if they have a direct, uh, so this is gonna be a free, searchable, it says, childhood Health Resource, created by independent pediatric experts and funded entirely by donors like you. Can I read you, you wanna read this When the CDC and the a a p publicly disagree, parents shouldn't have a have to choose a side. They deserve a calm, evidence-based place to go. One that explains what changed, where experts differ, and what to ask at their child's next visit. That's why IMA. The Independent Medical Association is building the Parents' first project. With your help, we're creating a comprehensive childhood health resources resource that is independent, evidence-based and free to every family that needs it. Families do not need another institution telling them what to think. They need an independent parent's first voice that they can trust to walk them through the changes and help them make the decisions that are best for their child. It says Your gift make that makes that possible. And right now it goes twice as far. They're doing matching. Yes, they're doing for, uh, I think for the first $250,000 that people contribute, it's gonna be doubled. Um, and you can donate by going to ima health.org/parents. Let me just quickly share this screen so everybody can see it, if it's watching on YouTube. Um, okay, great. So, um, oh, I wanna make sure I'm doing the right thing here. Uh, we have to, we have to allow this. Okay. Well, we can't record the contents of the screen until it's quit. All right. Um, you want to do that and then parse the videos together, or how do you want to handle this? Oh, I have another idea of how we could share it. Hold on one second. Um, I am hoping that that's gonna work. We shall see. It's sharing. It's sharing, but I'm wondering. Okay, so you can see here it's ima health.org/parents and this is the Parents First project. So this is exciting because I feel like that, um, you know, on one hand I think that the CDC C'S guidance is probably gonna be born out in time, and I think that ultimately it will win in the courts. Um, it could take a long time, and I think in the meantime, you're right. I think that the, I think that's probably one of your best points is it kind of sows that division, but I could see a potential positive benefit of that, which is people are gonna start doing more and more of their own research. They're not gonna just trust the CDC or just trust the a a p. They're gonna actually start to do their own research. And my view is the more people do their own research. The more they go down that, that rabbit hole of moving from the, you know, a vaccine advocate to being down the seven stages of being an anti-vaccer. I give you, I give you that and, and, you know, for the diehards that will, will stick with, you know, the, the ever expanded CD, C or, or let me say the American Pediatric Association because they're, they are just American Academy of Pediatrics. Um, yes, they, they. They are, how do I not, I'm, I don't wanna enter the realm of, you know, AED at Ham attack. Well, I can just, I can say something briefly ahead if, if that's okay. Mm-hmm. Um, The AAP, Industry Control, and the Vaccine Schedule they are a trade organization, right? They're like the union essentially. Not, not technically, but like, they function as like the trade guild or, you know, almost like a union for pediatrician. And so, you know, whatever they say, you kind of have to tow the line because if you don't then you know you're gonna get in trouble and potentially have your license or at least your board certification be threatened. And they have threatened, and in some cases revoked the board certification of pediatricians who have too vociferously, threatened the orthodoxy of the vaccine, um, industry. And I am just saying, you know, they still have the COVID vaccine on the schedule for babies. The a a P does. Yes. Yes. I mean, pretty much the a a P is a pro-vaccine entity, so they are like all the vaccines all day, all the time. Their schedule is basically the, the most aggressive, uh, pro-vaccine sort of schedule you can find. The, the CDC schedule under Kennedy is sort of a. I would say in some ways a middle ground between the, the extreme of the a a P and the other extreme being no vaccines. I don't really see that as super extreme anymore. I used to, but not so much anymore. And um, you know, and I think that that's probably why the CDC will be born out in the end. But in the meantime, IMA is stepping up and saying, Hey, you know, we're actually doctors. You can trust us, and they're gonna find pediatricians that are not part of the big hospital. Networks that are independent pediatricians, and that's an important distinction. Do you, do you want to talk about the difference between doctors in private practice versus, uh, doctors who work for, you know, hospital systems? Or you want me to talk about it? Or we could just refer back to the other podcast that we Yes. Spoke on this sound link. I'm sure we talked about that. Yeah. Do you remember which one that was? Um, I'll, I'll, I'll note it. We can put it, we can put it in the show notes. Okay. Do you get how, I think it's a total un-American move. Well, and I get, I get why you think it's an un-American move. You know me, I have, Courts vs. Medicine: Ralph Rigo and the Right to Try I come from a law background, and so this is the second thing I wanted to bring up, which was my second question. I, I guess my thought is I see the other side of every issue, and so to me, I think about Ralph Rigo. I think about. Uh, you know, the law getting involved in the practice of medicine during COVID to allow people to try the right to try ivermectin, the right to try hydroxychloroquine, and I, I feel like that Ralph Arrigo did fantastic work and people on the other side were saying, well, how could this judge tell me how to practice medicine? This is the most un-American thing in the world. And I would just say from a, from sort of a, a sort of a lawyer mindset that's a little bit different. These families were calling on. You know, Ralph Rigo to support them with saving their family members' lives. Sure. But I, but there's a different distinction that I'm talking about here. Well, about one unlicensed judge, you know, not, not part of the, well, I'm sure he has a law license, but law license. But unelected, I think you meant unelected. Unelected, yes. That's different. Well, I, I guess I would say I see it as fundamentally different because primarily, and you may disagree, and I want to hear your pushback because we disagree with the judge versus we agreed with Ralph Rigo, and to me both of these are sort of the American system working as intended. First, hold, hold on. I don't understand. Okay. These families hired Ralph Rigo to do that, right? This judge in what? Boston. Okay. You're right. I didn't address that. You're right. I'm sorry. So they felt like, Hey, I'm protecting the life of my, of my, of my family member. Right. That's why I'm hiring Ralph Rigo to advocate for Right To try. Correct. Mm-hmm. Right. So the argument being made by American Academy of Pediatrics and all of those vaccine supporters is. The CDC D'S recommendations risk the lives of millions of American children. And so we have to prevent these new guidelines from coming into to prep, to, to play. That is exactly the same argument they're making, but they're saying this is a societal risk, not just an individual risk. You see what I'm saying? Again, I'm playing the devil's advocate, so you, so you say, because I don't agree with them, but I, I mean it's, I, you know, to me, if you're gonna call something un American, you gotta really think that. Turn true. So do you, do you think that this judge's ability to cock block, you know, the, the, the new, the new AIPs new members and their, their, their decisions? I'm calling that very action on American. Not, I don't, I don't care if you're for RFK junior or not for him. You know, this one action, right. Well that thwarts the, uh, a government, you know, organizations already, you know, completed Yeah. Advisory board. Yeah. So I guess, and the, the, no, I get your question because I see it, you know, where that same ability to issue an injunction has been issued to stop polluters from polluting the environment, for example. And so that same ability, you know, you don't wanna get rid of the ability of a, of a lawyer to issue a stay or an injunction to say, Hey, you cannot implement this new guideline or this new rule because it's gonna harm more people, or it has the potential to harm people and we need to fully investigate this and work it up to food chain. That, I think is an, a necessary part of, right. The jurisprudence, this, this is, and the judicial system. Do you see how this is unprecedented though? I don't wanna get rid of that either, because you know it, that definitely has saved lives. But do you see, so you, you think that they, they're thinking like this judge is thinking that he's a, some kind of da David and this is like Goliath's story. He, he's gonna try to save millions of lives. You think this is the case or do you think maybe he has strings on him? You know, farm has given him a big check, you know, which is not beyond. I, I mean, I would never wanna say that because that's slander potentially. I mean, I don't know whether that's true or not, but I would just say that, um, and I know, I don't think you're saying that, I think you're saying it's possible. I'm, I'm speculating anything is possible. I'm speculating. But what I would say is that, um, yeah, I mean, what I think is interesting about this situation is could this be. The judge's political views coming into play and saying, well, I don't, I disagree with this administration, so I'm gonna try to block 'em wherever I can. Sure. But I think there's an even more interesting point that comes up from what you just brought up, which is, is this unprecedented like that? That's a really good question. Mm-hmm. And I'm not certain like how precedent it is in terms of. Other areas of governance, but I know that within, with regard to medicine and health and in general, and specifically with regard to asip, the Advisory Committee on immunization practices, it is 1000% unprecedented. You know? No thank you. No, no judge has ever blocked the administrations. Of course, the thing that, that I will tell you though. Is that every administration up until now has simply kept the same members, and as somebody retires, they'll replace them. But it's just been one daisy chain after another of pharma representatives being appointed to this advisory committee that basically rubber stamps every new vaccine that comes out. There's maybe a couple of exceptions you can point to and say, well, this one maybe they said this version of this vaccine was not okay, but a different version of the same vaccine was fine, because who knows why they did that. I mean, you could speculate, but, um, no, I mean, for, for the entire history of the FDA up until now, and this is just, this is what a disruptor Bobby Kennedy is. Is he's willing to say, look, you know, we need to get non-industry insiders to provide advice over products produced by an industry. What a shocking idea. Right? And, and, and the pushback on this, of course, is fascinating and telling and unprecedented because what he's done is unprecedented, right? What he's done, which is to say, we're gonna clean out all of these pharma shills. And we're gonna put people who are truly unbiased in there, and guess what? We're gonna remove some of the vaccines that probably didn't need to be in there and keep it with just the ones that are probably the most crucial. And we're gonna keep evaluating it and keep collecting data. And when we do, we may change it again, you know? But for now, let's, let's dial it back just a titch, which is what they've done, you know? Unprecedented Moves on Both Sides — Where Does It End? So I guess what I'm hearing is like, here's to one unprecedented move to another. Right? Well, and that's what they've done. They basically said, well, you've done this unprecedented move of totally reconstituting asip with, you know, non-vaccine, you know, industry insiders. Guess what we're gonna do an unprecedented move, which is we're gonna block it. Right? Which is something that's never been done before, because why would there need to be? Because it was all very establishment friendly. Um, so yeah, I mean, I think that the whole thing is unprecedented and we have to realize we're in an unprecedented fight because of the decline of our healthcare in this country. And I think Bobby Kennedy knows that better than anybody. Um, and so I trust that they will do the proper appeals and they're gonna make this happen, uh, one way or the other. Uh, but yeah, I mean, he's not had an easy time of it. They still haven't approved Casey means. Which Callie, oh, is Callie. I always get the two confused. They haven't approved Callie means as the new, uh, and I was kind of like ambivalent about her, but I'm just like, what the heck? You know, this person that's like very to me, moderate, uh, on so many of these issues. Supposedly. I was reading something the other day claiming, and this was on a very pro a MA, you know, um, uh, blog that I subscribed to, just to kind of get in the mind of what's going on over there. Um, they were talking about how they, there were concerns about her views about vaccines. I'm like, what views about vaccines? Has she ever expressed I couldn't find nothing? You know, maybe about the COVID vaccine or something. I don't know. But I mean, it's like, but supposedly that's why she hasn't been confirmed. Have you heard anything about that? No. No? Okay. What else did you do? Anything else you wanna talk about with the asip? No. To be, you know, to be determined. To be continued. Yeah. No, I mean good though. I mean, good. I think it's, uh, I think it's a, you know, it brings up a really interesting point of like the fact that it has, you know, spawned, uh, parent, the parent's first project. You know, I am a independent medical association, is responding to that. That's, you know, that's very American. That's very American. And honestly, I think replacing the industry shills with. So I think I now understand your claim about this. This is a very un-American thing. I get it now. Thank you. You're basically saying, look, because Kennedy did this thing, which was cleaning house, which is getting the industry shills out of the government advisory board, very American. And then basically this judge is blocking that and basically trying to defend industry, uh, using the power of the judge, power of the, the court, you know. I, I think that I can see how that is un-American in the sense that it is, uh, in, in favor of the corporate kleptocracy, right? It's in favor of, uh, what would be sometimes called an oligarchy or like a corporate oligarchy. Like we're gonna, you know, the, the, we're gonna allow corporations to seize the, the machinations of government and to work. Very tightly with government and you know, it's, it's very much, there's another term for that which is, uh, which we know from, um, you know, the 1930s Germany as fascism, and that's the tight marriage of state and corporate power, which is what we've been seeing more and more in this country. And I think, frankly, I think that we're seeing a lot of attempts to disrupt that. That are being opposed by those, uh, who are in bed with the establishment. Do you agree with that? I do. Yeah. Thank you for getting what I said. Yeah. Well just, you know, sometimes it takes me a while. I'm a little slow. Um, did you have anything else? No, I, I know that you have something pressing that you wanna communicate regarding that. Oh, I have a few things. I'm, I'm ready. Did you have anything you wanted to share about the kids? Oh, more than just that. Oh my gosh, I do. Yeah, why don't you do that. Family Moment: Kids, Empathy, and Life's Big Questions We'll have an intermission here and talk about the kids. Uh, I just had a conversation with my sweet mom. Oh my God, I love her so much. You know, growing up, um, our relationship was a bit contentious, you know, and then having done the personal. Like the inner work that I've done, I can now receive her love fully. And man, it's a lot. That's why I like, boom, I'm crying at the drop of a hat. 'cause moms are so precious, you know, there are, they're just tremendously precious in our lives and mm-hmm. Just to feel the, the love of my mother, the way that I feel. It's so abundant and expansive and so she's so joyful and so cute, you know. And she's, uh, she's right there with us actually on this vaccine issue. Um, so I appreciate that. You know, she's, uh, she's definitely a seer, you know, she's always, um, been a, uh, very progressive for her time. Mm-hmm. And I think that's. I am imbued with her spirit, like her full, fully self-expressed spirit, and I get to wield it in ways that, um, you know, maybe she didn't. And so I, I feel her with me all the time and I just love talking to her. And I shared with her today that, you know, we, we went to visit some family on spring break and, um, Ryan, our, our 8-year-old has a, a favorite cousin. Um. Well, who, who shared with him, uh, that she just started her period. And I'm gonna re re-say that so that it doesn't point to his cousin. Okay? Mm-hmm. Um, we. We went to visit family on spring break and you know, this family's, we, we love this family. They're, they're our closest and they're just really fun to be with. And, um, there was a family member that shared with Ryan that she had just started her period. And, um, you know, she'd been dealing with that and he was kind of observing this, you know, her, um, emotional tenderness. You know, and this, the, the whole logistics around it. Hmm. Yeah. And we were going to bed. I was tucking the boys in, and Ryan looks at me, he says, mama, I feel like girls have a harder life. You know, they, they have to have a period and they have to have the babies. And I was so moved by this. And I just, I looked at him and I said, son, I acknowledge you for your, um, for seeing this, you know, for really forgetting the whole picture. You're, you're going to be a wonderful partner and daddy when you grow up. Yeah. I was just so struck by that. And I told my mom, right, and she was so, she was struck as well, and. She said, let me, let me remember what she said in Vietnamese. Um, like he's, he thinks about his life, you know, he thinks about life, the, like you are, you are very pensive about life. You know, like the soul, the soul of life. Mm-hmm. And it's so true about him. 'cause he's just, he is very connected and very like in touch and observant and, and, and. His emotional quotient is so, um, high and so aware. So that that was just really beautiful and yeah. Isn't that, yeah. And uh, the most recent answers to, you know, what was hard about today, and I received very similar answers from both boys. Separate separately. 'cause I never asked them, you know, together. What was hard about today? Art? No. Uh, no. What was good about today? Art. Both of them answered. Art. What was hard about today? The big one answered nothing. The little one answered. Art. And where did you see God today? Both of them said art. Yep. Yeah. And I am, um, with the big one, I'm having more conversations about, he had a karate tournament this last, uh, this last weekend. And so we're, we're talking about like the wisdom of the body and, and also being quick with your, you know, your, your mind. Um, and then both are very much, um, interrelated and I said to him, you know, when he gets frustrated, like the power that we have. As, as humans, we are able to change our thoughts like this, you or, or reshift, you know, so that something that we are very frustrated about. You know, it completely changes, you know, to an opportunity. And he really, I, I feel that he really gets that. Like he embodies it. He, he notices. He notices. And so this morning, you know, when we were, uh, dealing with, um, um. Some pretty, he was having some very, uh, he was upset. He was upset. Yeah. And I, I just quietly mentioned it from the kitchen. I said, remember what I said fie about, you know, we, we are able to change our thoughts like that. Yeah. And I think he took it on. I really do. Oh yeah. I think he heard that. Took it on and you held him. And he, he started to calm down. Yeah. Yeah. The opportunity as, as parents to, to guide, to lead and to also be taught and to also have that like the goodness reflected back to you is so powerful. I feel that we just, I, I really want to, you know, head into the education portion of. Um, our podcast, you know, in the next couple. Yeah. Since No, I agree. And I would say that, I think that, um, just to pick up on that story, you know, on the way to school, we continued talking about what he was upset by, which is basically the, it's all related to a project he's got for school that's currently a little past due, and he's a little stymied on. Um, so I just wanna mention about the past due that, you know, when the child has a vision for, um, his work, his art, he likes to take time with it. Um, and I'm, it's an art project. Yes. I'm clear. Raising a Systems Buster: Art, Deadlines, and Mindset We're we're raising a systems buster, you know, because he's more committed to his vision and executing on that vision. Uh, rather than arbitrary due date. And, you know, when we live in a system, uh, we as parents are, are trying to guide him and lead him. Like there will be, you know, deadlines, whether you're an artist, whether you're a writer, you know, and, um, so that's, that's where we are as parents right now. Without tying the, without stymie, is that a word? Mm-hmm. Uh, the artistic expression. Expression. Yeah. Yeah, absolutely. And that is the tension we've been finding ourselves in. It's like, how do we empower him to both honor the deadline as well as honor his creative impulse and his vision for the, for the, for the work, right? Mm-hmm. And that's, that's kind of the dance that we've been in. And, you know, suffice it to say, I don't think we've necessarily resolved the dance as much as the, the way that he was left today when I dropped him off at school. Was very much in the space of, regardless of how the morning went, right? Like you can create this day as the best day that you have ever had. And all you have is now and now. And now and now. Yeah. And he was like, I know Dad. See you later. You know, love you. He's, he was very cute just getting out and walking down the hall through his, to his classroom. But, um. Yeah. I mean, I think, and it's funny because he, he kind of, he even said to me, we went to go see the back of the Future musical this last weekend, and he said, um, he, he said to me, we were, he was getting out of the car. He's like, I wish I just had a time machine and I could just kind of go back and redo this whole morning. And I'm like, I get it. Um, so Oh yeah. And all we have is now. And now and now. So. And we went out to eat and we got number 90 for the table and he said, I wanna change it to 88. Right. Which is clearly a back to the future reference. I love it. Yeah, that was very cute. He, um, he also said something really that struck me, which reminded me of you actually when he said, uh, we were talking, I don't remember. What were we talking about? And he said, I wanna have five kids. Oh my gosh. And then, then he was like, well, no, wait, no, no. He said, I, I know exactly what he said. Okay. Okay. Um, I wanna have five kids, but I don't really wanna have five kids. You know what I mean? I'd be happy with three or four. Yeah. Yeah. It was the greatest. Like, little, little aside. I just thought that was so funny. Yeah. I don't, do you remember what we were talking about? Um, I don't, no, it's okay. I don't, and I, I do know that it came up that, you know, they both are constantly asking me when Jean-Luc was on the potty, he, he said, mommy, when are you gonna have another baby? Said? And he said, it's gonna be a boy. No, it's gonna be a goyle, but I don't really like girls. But maybe I'll like a baby girl. The musings of a 4-year-old while, while on the plotty, right. No, it's funny. And I think that, um, oh man. I mean it's just, uh. I was trying to, there was something else that John Luke had said recently that I thought was so funny. Oh, he, you know, Ryan did ask me, um, how many kids can you, no, no. He, he said, is it possible to have 100 kids? Mm-hmm. And I had to pause for a moment because I really didn't want to go into the whole IVF, you know, like the horror story, IVF stories. Yeah. I wouldn't have gone there. No. So you heard, you overheard, and you said. I, and I, I said, you know, not with the, the one woman that you'll be married to, you know, he, and yeah. And I said, had nine. Yeah, I said had nine. So, you know, and, and I've, I've heard of, you know, um, like, uh, more possible he, and then he looked at me, he said about 15. Yeah. That's funny. I, I wasn't there for that conversation and, you know, and the little one's been very preoccupied about who he's going to marry. Yeah. You know, and on one token it's, it's, it's great because he sees fatherhood, you know, as his future. And yet we have to say, you know, son, you got, you're, you're four years old, let's take this time to figure out what you like, you know, and what you want. Yeah. And he says funny things. I mean, just, you know, I think it's, it's, it's worth mentioning this because I think it's like, you know, gender is such a topic, such a hot topic these days. And, and just as an example of like how we handle stuff that comes up. He said, I think it was this morning or last night, sometime in the last 24 hours, he's like, I wanna be a godmother. Right? And we, and you were like, uh, well you can, you can't be a godmother, but you could be a godfather. Like, and then I said, yeah, like uncle, like Uncle Scott is his godfather. And he said, oh, okay. I'll be a godfather then. Right? So it was very cute. But I think that there's so many different ways of responding to these things, and I think that the way we handle it is just real matter of fact. Mm-hmm. Just like at that age, you know, they're just, they don't know any better, so you just have to like, just tell 'em what's so. What's so, yeah. Yes. Without charge really. Yeah. Just have nothing about it. Mm-hmm. Great. Great stuff. Yeah. Right. Yeah. All right. Did Trump Betray Voters on Iran? The Evidence Speaks I've got a few things which, um, uh, we may not have time for all of 'em, but I definitely wanted to catch Yeah. At least one thing here. Um, I'm gonna do a share screen. Because I, oh, actually, before I do the share screen, I just wanna talk for a second. You know, one of the things that I have seen in the last couple weeks that I think that I have been the most sort of puzzled by as someone who has been following current, current affairs and politics for a long time is people who say, oh, I can't believe Trump invaded Iran. Uh, what a betrayal. You know, he promised no new wars, no foreign wars. Uh, this is, you know, this is not America first. Um, you know, what are some of the, have you heard anything about the, along those lines? Uh, yeah, I hear it all the time. I hear, I see people posting about it and yeah, absolutely. Like, this is not what I voted for. Deception, like no wars with the Middle East. Yeah. I, I felt deceived, so I just wanted to address like. I, you know, is that sort of, is that reality or is that a reality distortion? And that's really the question that we're gonna be taking a look at. And my, uh, I would say one of my favorite sources, if not my favorite source, okay, let me be honest, he's my favorite source for, uh, geopolitics, especially Middle East related, is, uh, my Artusi, who is the, uh, host of two CTV and, um. He, um, let's see. I don't know why I can't get this to work. He said we're using a new program and I'm still figuring out how to work it. Uh, okay. And I want to share it with you. So he made this great compilation of videos, and I'm not gonna show the whole compilation, but I'm just gonna show a few of the videos that he had put in the compilation. And I encourage you guys to go watch the original. Um, assuming I can get it to show up. There we go. Here we go. Browser needs permission. Okay. Uh, browser screen share. Screen recording. All right. We may have to edit this out 'cause I gotta apparently change some setting here. Okay. Uh, screen recording. Okay. There's gotta be a way to pause it. I mean, why isn't there? Don't stop it, but. You don't want me to stop it or else The problem is, is I may have to reset it, um, in order to get it to, um, in order to get it, to allow me to do the screen share properly. And I'm worried that my timestamps have been messed up. 'cause I had to reset it. Shoot. Yeah. My timestamps got messed up. Can we do, can we, can we stop it and restart everything and then, yeah. Well, I have to be able to share it though, is what I'm saying. So I have to be able to go back and forth and share the screen. Follow you, follow me. Okay. So here we are and I'm gonna share my screen. And so here we go. This is Trump. In the early, we're gonna watch a few clips. Uh. Of from Trump's own mouth. This one from the early 1980s. When you get the respect of the other countries, then the other countries tend to do a little bit as you do and you can create the right attitudes. The the Iranian situation is a case in point that they hold our hostages is just absolutely and totally ridiculous. That this country sits back and allows country such as Iran to hold our hostages to. My way of thinking is a horror, and I don't think they'd do it with other countries. I honestly don't think they'd do it with other countries. Obviously you're advocating that we should have gone in there with troops, et cetera, and brought our boys out. I absolutely feel that, yes. I don't think there's any question. There's no question in my mind. I think right now would be an oil rich NA nation. And I believe that we should have done it. And I'm very disappointed that we didn't do it. And I don't think anybody would've held us in a ance. I don't think anybody would've been angry with us. And we had every right to do it at the time. I think we've lost the opportunity. Okay. All right. So that was from the early 1980s. Uh, and here we have. From 2011 in 2011 and other countries where it looked like it was an impossibility, and it looks like that one's gonna collapse also. So Iran can be taken. I would never take the military card off the table, and it's possible that it'll have to be used because Iran cannot have nuclear weapons. Iran can't have nuclear weapons. All right, so that was 2011, you know, uh, apprentice days, and now we've got, uh, this is 2015, you know, April, 2015, and the run up to the first Trump administration, and here we go in 2050. We do have to get strong and we have to get strong. Fast. We can't let Iran get a nuclear weapon. We can't do it. Can't do it. We cannot let that happen. You know, in the old days, I would've said a hundred years ago, 50 years ago, 30 years ago, pull out, let them fight each other. Here we are in Syria. We're fighting people that want to overturn Syria. Think of this. We're fighting isis, but ISIS wants to overturn the government. Maybe you let 'em fight for a little while, and then you take out the one that remains, okay? Think of it. Now think of it, ISIS is fighting them and we're bombing the hell outta 'em, but we want Syria to fall. Uh, there's so many things. There's so many things, but the one game changer that we have to be careful with, that we never really had to think about too much before, other than a certain number of years ago, is the nuclear. Nuclear today. It's not like soldiers in uniform shooting rifles. You can take out the east coast of this country, you can take out large sections of the Midwest. You can take out things that were unthinkable, the power, and we have to be in a position where that never, ever, ever happens. We Okay. And, uh, one more clip here in the 2020 campaign, um, the lead up. To the current administration during the campaign. But if I were the president, I would inform the threatening country, in this case, Iran, that if you do anything to harm this person, we are going to blow your largest cities and the country itself to Smither Marines. We're gonna blow it to Smiths. You can't do that. And there would be no more threats. There would be no more threats. But right now we don't have that leadership or the necessary people, the necessary leaders. We have two people, not one. We don't even know who our president is right now, who is our president right now. We really don't know. But we have two people, not one that only keep looking. And when you do that, when you just look, trouble always ensues. So it's big trouble for our country. Meanwhile, we have the president of Iran in our country this week. We have large security forces guarding him, and yet they're threatening our former president and the leading candidate to become the next president of the United States. Certainly a strange set of circumstances, and he promised during the campaign if, uh, the Islamic Republic Orran continues to be a threat, we will take them out. All right, so let me unshare the screen, stop sharing back to just us. So I'm gonna ask you, do you, after watching those clips, do you feel like this was a bait and switch that Trump lied to us? Or do you feel like this is a more of a, you know, promises made, promises kept kind of a situation? I am sorry I can't keep a straight face. I really wanted to, I really was gonna be, was gonna be like, so what do you think? I just wanna say that I do trust to see, to source videos that are not deep fake, you know, that are, that are legitimate. Um, and I do, I have seen all of those videos on other channels as well. Not just on two C, but Go ahead. Yes. So I'm gonna say that first. Yeah. So I do trust his, uh, his resources. Um, and it seems like from the mouth of the horse that he's, that President Trump is very consistent. Yeah. Okay. I just wanted that out there because frankly, I'm tired of hearing the opposite and I feel like it needs to be, I, you know, you may not agree. I'm not, I'm not saying to agree with the intervention. I'm saying to claim that this is somehow. Trump deceived us. This is a bait and switch. He promised no new wars and he's, you know, broken his promise. That should be completely, you know, off the table because it's just not correct. Alright, uh, Woke, Cancel Culture, and the Danger of Giving Bad Ideas Air one more thing I wanted to address 'cause I know we're almost outta time. We have to to end a little quickly today. Um, there was an interesting conversation that, um. Uh, Brett Weinstein and Heather Ing had on one of their more recent episodes of the Dark Horse Podcast, in which he's, he's getting, he's trying to get it like the definition of woke. And really what he ends up describing is he kind of talks about woke ideology, which he describes as basically a predominantly, or actually he says exclusively a left wing phenomenon, um, specifically around critical race theory, uh, diversity, equity, and inclusion. Uh, gender theory, queer theory, you know, basically the cluster of radical left social ideologies. And then he distinguishes that from what he calls the woke toolkit, which is basically what I would call cancel, cancel culture. So to him, the woke toolkit, which is cancel culture, whether it's wielded by the left or the wi or the right, is a harbinger of woke. And that makes sense given his history as a professor who was essentially one of the first people in the country to be canceled, uh, by his own academic institution. Uh, that being said, I think that the distinction is, um, misplaced and I wanna harken back to our previous episode that we did looking at Identitarian politics and the distinction between the. Uh, identitarian, right, and the Identitarian left. And that being the primary, most important distinction when it comes to understanding Wokes. I agree that there's a cancel, uh, a cancellation problem. Uh, this idea of like, we're gonna use cancel culture, and I wanna talk about that for a second too, but to conflate cancellation or cancel culture with woke, I think is actually incorrect. I think the fundamental. Characteristic of Wokes, whether it's on the right or the left, is that it focuses on identitarianism. So the idea as well, if you're black, if you're LGBT, you know, if you have some sort of a disability, et cetera, then you know you there, there's gonna be different treatment, there's gonna be different way of understanding you and a different way of relating to you. On the left, on the right, it's if you're Christian, if you're white. Um, you know, if you are a native born citizen times a certain number of generations, et cetera, there's gonna be certain, um, ways that we're gonna relate to you that are differently than say if you're Jewish or if you're, you know, Muslim or if you're an immigrant or whatever, right? So there is this sense of, the identitarianism is the common theme between right and left, and that unifies both under a common. Umbrella of woke is that really is sort of regardless of which side it is, it's focusing on the identity rather than the person's ideas, right? Their, their fundamental core. Well, yeah, their, their, um, no, I think ideas. I'm gonna stick with that. Um, now getting back to what Brett ca calls, I think somewhat incorrectly, the woke toolkit, which I would just call cancel culture. The interesting thing about cancel culture is that was applied. Very aggressively by the, what I would call the identitarian left or the woke left right against all basically everybody else, right? For the last, I guess I would say, four to five years before Trump 2.0. But what's fascinating in the current Republican sort of right wing civil war is sort of both sides of that. Both the identitarian, right? And the more traditionally liberal, right? That basically is saying, well, no, we need to have acceptance of all people regardless of race, greed, color, and, and basically the standard values that have been the values of America since about 1960 to the, to, you know, five minutes ago. Um, both sides are trying to use that. What, what, what Brett would call the woke toolkit, what I'm calling cancel culture against each other. Her and saying, well, the other guys, they're not really maga, they're not really America first, and then the, the, the woke wright, the the ones who are identitarian rights say, no, no, you guys are trying to cancel us, and so instead we'll cancel. You. We're just wanting to have a conversation, you know, and, and see that's, that's the trap is because the research shows and our experience from COVID as you may remember, teaches us that cancellation is the single most effective way of, of silencing an idea. It, and we talked more about this on a previous episode, but I just wanna bring it up again because it, it continues to be a very current topic that people are still mis misapprehend. And that is that when people are coming up with ideas which are identitarian and they're putting forward ideas, whether that person be Nick Fuentes. Uh, or whether that person be imex Kendi, those ideas will gain traction. The more you talk about them, the more you give them oxygen, right? And so really the solution is not to continue to breathe life into them by having those people on your podcast, which Brett did recently have. Tucker Carlson, who is part of that identitarian, right? Uh, now he's. Firmly identified himself with that. It identitarian, right? Um, having people like that on the podcast, look, I'm not saying that we should somehow get rid of Tucker's channel. Tucker's allowed to have his channel. Nick is allowed to have his channel. You know, everybody's allowed to have their channel. But when you help that person grow their, their network and grow their viewership by having them on your podcast, you're actually fueling the fire of. That viewpoint. So just be aware of that and be aware of who has who on, because that's really an interesting thing. And honestly I was pretty upset to see that Brett had had Tucker on because to me that's, I think, I think he did it in sort of a naive way, I think, in a way of trying to maintain open communication and avoiding this sense of cancellation. And look, I'm not advocating cancellation, but I am advocating. That we be judicious about who we have on and who we engage with, because that gives that person legitimacy. It gives that person another platform for which to spread their ideas. And if they, if you truly believe their ideas are wrong and harmful, you may be under the misapprehension that, oh, having the debate and winning that debate is going to change the hearts and minds of people. But here's the problem. A lot of those people who have very fringe identitarian views on both the right and the left are really good at talking. They're really good at debating. They're really, and, and that's the thing, it's, it's who wins. The debate is not determined by whose ideas are better. This is a pollyannaish fantasy that I think a lot of people have. It's like, oh, well I'm just gonna be swayed by the correct ideas. I'm, I want the truth. It's like, no, the truth requires that you dig a little deeper and actually get at what's underneath what they're saying. And that's the tricky part, because sometimes what someone's saying is what they think that is going to get into your ear and make you feel like, oh, that person's right. And that's what makes somewhat a good debater. That's why Sam Harris is so successful. He's an excellent debater. Right. Do I think Sam Harris' ideas are correct more often than not? No. You know, his ideas about Islam, frankly I agree with, but I think a lot of his other ideas are, should be questioned quite vociferously. But I think what makes Sam Harris a successful personality is that he's a good debater. And so he's a great example of how someone whose frankly ideas are off and wrong. Um. Can be very successful at debate and conversation. And I think Tucker Carlson has a slightly different strategy, which is that he has people he agrees with, come on, come on his show, and then gives them softball interviews where he basically just allows them to sound like the most reasonable person in the room, which, you know, in, in any reasonable room, they wouldn't be. Um, but that's the nature of his platform. So it's really interesting to see how these conversations are, are coming out and, um. You know, I don't know. Do you have any thoughts about any of that or you don't think that what you're suggesting is, is in the world of cancel culture? Well, and so that's the thing. That's what I'm trying, I'm trying to create a distinction. So thank you for making it clear that you hadn't gotten the distinction. 'cause I'm sure if you didn't get it then that means nobody got it. I'm saying that there's this tendency to want to use cancel culture against our enemies on, you know, on. Regardless of which side they're on. Right. Cancel, co cancel culture has become sort of in vogue. Yes, it was started by the left wing people, but now it's adopted by the right wing and even by the, that's what's interesting is, is I even think in some ways the call to cancellation from the traditional liberal side, the sort of more moderate centrist, uh, reasonable. You know, center right coalition that has made up the MAGA base for so long is saying, oh my God, you know, Tucker Carlson, Nick Fuentes, we gotta cancel those guys. Right? And I think that's the wrong impulse, but I also think it's the wrong impulse to have them on your podcast because the research and the data and the lived experience from COVID teaches you that the best way to silence ideas you disagree with are simply to not give them voice. We experienced that live, did we not? Yes. And what about we, well, we actually got censored, so I'm not advocating that, but I'm just saying that the way that the algorithm suppressed it, the way that any talk about COVID dissidents, about ivermectin hydroxychloroquine being opposed to the COVID vaccine, all of that conversation was just simply suppressed. It wasn't like there was a lot of people and then, and then they blanketed the airwaves with like it's safe and effective, safe and effective, and look. 80 plus percent of the people bought it, you know? And so unfortunately, what does that teach us? It teaches us that that is actually the most effective strategy. And, and I could go back and show you history, but anytime you give air to an idea, it actually tends to feed it versus keep it. At a low level, you're never going to get rid of antisemitism. Jew hatred. You're never gonna get rid of right. Identitarianism left. And these ideas will always exist, but the degree to which we give them air and breadth and breathe life into them and, and you know, have people who espouse those views onto our shows is the degree to which those ideas will actually enter the mainstream and the Overton window will shift to include them, and those ideas will then become considered acceptable. The degree to which we refuse to entertain them and keep them on rumble and keep them in sort of, or blue sky and you know, keep them on platforms that are considered more on the edges will actually help to maintain that center as a bulwark. And I'm not saying, again, I'm not saying anybody should Tucker, you know, cancel Tucker. I'm not saying they should de platform anybody. We were de platformed essentially. Not completely, but we certainly were, uh, had videos taken down. Uh, videos that were private videos that were for my patients about how to take ivermectin for prevention and treatment of COVID, so we know what that is like, and I'm not, I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy, but I also don't think that means that we need to engage bad ideas with the people who have them. What if their intention is to create the consensus? I mean, what if that's your intention? I mean, isn't that what the, this, this show is about, you know, creating the consensus? So that's a great question. So the way that this show creates consensus, and I think that we need to get, do we need to do this a lot more, is by bringing people on who frankly either disagree with us or have different views than us, but that come from different disciplines so that we can all work together toward a common consensus. Because I think that one of the problems we have is we have people that do politics and they're the only ones that talk about politics. And you have people that do medicine and all they talk about is medicine. And you have people that do engineering and all they talk about is engineering. But I wanna hear on how, I wanna hear about how you apply engineering to politics or politics to, you know, medicine or medicine to engineering. You know, I want to think outside the box and that's why I, as a physician, am talking about politics. You know, I'm talking about education. Well, I think Brett w even though I'm not an educator or a politician, I think Brett Weinstein is a, you know, a, a mind to mind match for Tucker Carl Carlson. I mean, what I am pretty sure his listeners will discern, you know, and will like, will, will really be with their discussion and make up their own mind. Well, I think so, I think that's an interesting point, but what I would say, my concern is this. My concern is I know how Brit historically has always been, which is someone who basically is a listener and someone who gives people, Brett. Well, how did that episode go then? I haven't listened to it yet, and I need to Okay. Obviously, but I, I've been hesitant to do it because I don't want to give air to it. You know what I mean? So this is, this is the dynamic I think we're in. This is the tension. It's like, do I want to give air to any. Anyone who is giving Tucker Air now, that he has really made his, his, his nature clear. And I think that's, I feel very torn because, you know, I love Brett and I love Heather, and to me they're, you know, they're my, that's my favorite podcast. Well, I think because I understand your point, our intention is to create the consensus that you listening to. It would make sense before you even, right. Well, I can listen to it and that's fine because I can. Listen to it and then, you know, give it a thumbs down. But, uh, you know, like my dad sent me, uh, basically this, uh, Iran video that was, um, essentially, you know, from a, a, um, uh, Iran professor from Johns Hopkins, um, who's has a lot of ties in his family history and personal history to. Islamism and to the regime, but he sounds very reasonable. So you wouldn't necessarily know that and you know you, but you do a little digging and it turns out okay. You know, um, Vale Nassar is his name and basically he is someone who advocates for a rap proma with the Islamic Republic versus an actual regime, new regime. Right. Which is what I advocate for certainly when it comes to Iran. And I think that. Um, you know, there's a tendency to say, I, I have the kind of mind that can listen to someone like that and say, okay, well here's all the places where they're wrong. But I guess my worry in just knowing how I feel like, 'cause I've seen him do this before, where he approaches someone as like a friend. And I think when Brett gets in the mindset of like, this person is my friend. I want to hear them out. I think his tendency is to be less critical than, uh, perhaps maybe I, I might be, or I might wish that he, I don't, I don't wanna change Brett. I'm happy with Brett being Brett, but I would just say that my concern is that it's, again, it's giving someone the ability to come and basically breathe air into ideas around, you know, anti-Semitic tropes. Uh, ridiculous conspiracy theories around, you know, Jews supposedly controlling the world with the Jews in their 1% of GDP globally, to, you know, to that they've controlled the world with that 1%, though, you know, I'm supposed to believe that. It just makes no sense. And that's not the state of Israel, by the way. That's all Jewish people in the world, 1% of GDP. So, you know, I don't know if you believe that. I think that, um. I think that I have a great piece of oceanfront property in Arizona that I would love to sell you, and you should, you should contact us at the partovi effect@gmail.com. And once again, that's the partovi effect@gmail.com. But, um, you bring up a good point. It's like, you know, uh, and I need to watch it, but I just, I think I had a gut reaction and I needed to share that. I just was like, I can't believe that he would, that he would have him on, but. Anyway. What, what do you have to say? Anything else about that? Nothing. All right. Watch it and then we'll watch it and I'll let you guys know. No, you can watch it. I'll let you guys know not to watch it, but I'll, I'll tell you, I'll tell you all the ways in which it's problematic, which you know, that'll be fun. That way you won't have to watch it all. Thanks for Watching | Subscribe & Stay Connected 📍 Thank you all for watching. This has been the Partovi Effect, and I am Dr. Ryan Partovi. And I'm Mrs. Maddie. Partovi be well.