Dr. Jen Gunter

And so it kind of gives this different weight that, you know, like if somebody is talking about a supplement,

how i don't know how much money they got or maybe that company bought 20 000 of their books like i don't know like what was the deal behind that so i think that the problem when you only have partial transparency is you know it it creates this former show yeah uneven playing field yeah sure because i just um i did a debate against 20 anti-vaxxers vaccine skeptics and one of the individuals that sat across from me started taking me down this lawyer-like line of questioning where he's like uh

Yeah, I mean, my answer is, I'll be really honest, I love pharma.

I would have no children if pharma didn't exist.

My kids would have died without surfactant.

Because somebody decided they wanted to design a catheter, my son was able to have his pulmonary valve opened when he was three pounds.

Because somebody invested in creating a heart valve that could fit a pulmonary valve, then my kid got to have his heart valve replaced.

because somebody decided we needed to learn about erythropoietin, my kids were able to get that in the NICU and have less blood transfusions.

So I'm all about innovation.

And I also don't think that, I do think we have a huge problem in the United States where a lot of the basic science research is done by NIH funded and then pharma takes it over and then we're paying for it twice.

Wait, I paid for that with my taxes?

So I have a huge issue with that.

And I do agree, I know a lot of scientists that work in pharma who are like incredibly dedicated and they wanna solve problems, they really do.

And so you do have to separate that from the marketing.

But it is different, I mean, think about it.

Think about the, I could do a great ad for EPO, couldn't I?

I could do a great ad for surfactant, I could do a great ad for a lot of things that are also all being used now, I think.

I couldn't live with myself.

Yeah, yeah.

I don't know.