Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong

If it's true what that program said, and we need to go validate that, but that's what was claimed in that program, that 97% of Americans have a PFAS level higher than what is normal or safe, then yes, the meat that we eat, it's like the salmon. Everybody thinks fish was fantastic except until they found it had mercury. The milk that we drink, if it's filled with PFAS,

Why are we not addressing it by actually just studying it? And I think this is the conflation that when I listen to the criticism of Robert Kennedy, where he is saying, let's just study it and understand the facts and understand the data. We talk about the polio vaccine. He wants to just study it, but it's not the polio stock vaccine. He's talking about a different vaccine.

Why are we not addressing it by actually just studying it? And I think this is the conflation that when I listen to the criticism of Robert Kennedy, where he is saying, let's just study it and understand the facts and understand the data. We talk about the polio vaccine. He wants to just study it, but it's not the polio stock vaccine. He's talking about a different vaccine.

He's talking about a vaccine that is generated out of a cancer cell, a monkey cancer cell that has never been studied. So I think the complexity of this issue needs to be raised, not in a soundbite, but we need to break it down. So you could say red meat, yeah, but what's in that red meat? Is it PFAS? Well, the problem is we've never measured it.

He's talking about a vaccine that is generated out of a cancer cell, a monkey cancer cell that has never been studied. So I think the complexity of this issue needs to be raised, not in a soundbite, but we need to break it down. So you could say red meat, yeah, but what's in that red meat? Is it PFAS? Well, the problem is we've never measured it.

So you've never measured it and you've never studied it. And somebody is asking for it to be studied. Then you throw out a conjecture and then you call that a quack. That's actually wrong because the idea is I'm such a scientist. I just want to understand the data. And if only we can then have opinion based on facts rather than opinion based on speculation, we'd have a better society.

So you've never measured it and you've never studied it. And somebody is asking for it to be studied. Then you throw out a conjecture and then you call that a quack. That's actually wrong because the idea is I'm such a scientist. I just want to understand the data. And if only we can then have opinion based on facts rather than opinion based on speculation, we'd have a better society.

Not only is it going to be tested, what one farmer did, according to the story, and I want to go do this investigation myself, is because I think either the families or the son was getting cancer, they tested themselves in their milk and in their blood, and it was exceedingly high. to the extent that what he's doing to all his cattle and his milk now, he's throwing it down the drain.

Not only is it going to be tested, what one farmer did, according to the story, and I want to go do this investigation myself, is because I think either the families or the son was getting cancer, they tested themselves in their milk and in their blood, and it was exceedingly high. to the extent that what he's doing to all his cattle and his milk now, he's throwing it down the drain.

And then he had to actually, unfortunately, euthanize his dairy cows. This is the tragedy that we're facing as a nation. And the good news about all of it, it's fixable. And that's what's so exciting. It's fixable. So, you know, when President Trump went out and said, they broke it, we fix it. I don't mean that as a political statement.

And then he had to actually, unfortunately, euthanize his dairy cows. This is the tragedy that we're facing as a nation. And the good news about all of it, it's fixable. And that's what's so exciting. It's fixable. So, you know, when President Trump went out and said, they broke it, we fix it. I don't mean that as a political statement.

There are so many things that we can do now because we can measure it, understand it and fix it, which really means we need to measure it so that we have a quantifiable data fact and no speculation, no right, no left. It's not a political statement to say you have cancer with your Republican or Democrat or centrist or liberal. You're an American and we have to fix it.

There are so many things that we can do now because we can measure it, understand it and fix it, which really means we need to measure it so that we have a quantifiable data fact and no speculation, no right, no left. It's not a political statement to say you have cancer with your Republican or Democrat or centrist or liberal. You're an American and we have to fix it.

OK, again, I don't want to get political, but I presented this to President Obama. Think about that. And I visited the White House with Dr. Jim Weinstein, who was the president of Dartmouth. Dr. Jim Kim was the president then of the World Bank and myself, because we had a solution.

OK, again, I don't want to get political, but I presented this to President Obama. Think about that. And I visited the White House with Dr. Jim Weinstein, who was the president of Dartmouth. Dr. Jim Kim was the president then of the World Bank and myself, because we had a solution.

The solution was to identify a system where the people who care for the patient, meaning the doctors, have real-time information about the chronically ill. The chronically ill represent about 10% of the population, but cost 80% of the healthcare costs. At the time I was presenting to President Obama, I think our healthcare costs were maybe in the 3 trillion. It's now 4.8 trillion.

The solution was to identify a system where the people who care for the patient, meaning the doctors, have real-time information about the chronically ill. The chronically ill represent about 10% of the population, but cost 80% of the healthcare costs. At the time I was presenting to President Obama, I think our healthcare costs were maybe in the 3 trillion. It's now 4.8 trillion.

We are spending more money than the rest of the world and have about a 49th outcome, best outcome. The solution we put in there was to have real-time data in every geography so that you can incentivize the physician to induce health into the patient rather than illness and provide a financial incentive from the fee-for-service to really a mechanism.

We are spending more money than the rest of the world and have about a 49th outcome, best outcome. The solution we put in there was to have real-time data in every geography so that you can incentivize the physician to induce health into the patient rather than illness and provide a financial incentive from the fee-for-service to really a mechanism.

We have the best doctor in the best region and the best location looking after the patient and in reducing health. So for example, you have a patient that is a pre-diabetic, the patient is not diabetic yet. Your job then as a doctor is to keep the patient in that status as a pre-diabetic and make sure it doesn't become diabetic with a kidney failure. Well, guess why the system now works.