Alan and Andy both lived through COVID not on the sidelines but in the center of it all. Both took care of patients directly, Alan in a hospital for weeks at a time in the epicenter of the pandemic, Andy in multiple long term care facilities. Andy also wrote a book about COVID communication and studied the virus and public health responses in other countries. So what do we think about Anthony Fauci's leadership, and about the Congressional hearings? Well, this is a 45 minute podcast, and we could have spoken for hours, so that's what we think about him.

There are two issues we discuss. One is whether Dr. Fauci committed criminal acts. This is what he was being investigated for, and after being pardoned and then still pleading the 5th over 100 times, it is likely we will never know. Clearly the nation deserves to know, and that may or may not happen.

But to us, the second issue is more crucial. Did he do a good job during COVID, and even more significantly, did he cause harm. The United States suffered the worst outcome in the world during COVID; the most deaths from both the disease and from our response to the disease, a response largely orchestrated by Dr. Fauci. Under his leadership Dr. Fauci dictated our response to COVID in an atmosphere that turned its back on science. Dr. Fauci made multiple policy declarations automatically taken up by our nation's leaders, none of which had any scientific basis of reality, as we knew then, and we have truly come to terms with now. He did not instigate a single scientific study nor did he take advice from other nations who were conducting research and opening their societies, all with fewer deaths. He advocated censorship of those who disagreed with his policies or who suggested other policies. And in the end, he did not educate doctors or the American public about how to best protect the most vulnerable from COVID, how to open society for those less vulnerable, and which drugs likely would rectify the manifestations of the virus (which we already knew about before the virus hit our shores but which he never advocated) and which were experimental. Needless to say, Alan and Andy believe that his leadership during this crisis was non-scientific and dangerous. And if we're going to learn anything before the next crisis, it is crucial we stop politicizing this man and his actions, and have a full accounting of his actions and what could have and should have been done differently. Science is about discourse, study, disagreement, trying new things when what we're doing isn't working. None of that occurred under Dr. Fauci's watch.

So as we think about Anthony Fauci we must reevaluate what we expect from our medical leaders and from the medical system. To us, it's not about him not remembering what color tie he is wearing, or even if he was responsible for the lab leak. It's about our medical leaders and our medical system. In these arenas he failed us miserably, as does our medical leadership on a daily basis.

We are hearing more and more about amyloid, a protein that can be deposited in the organs of humans and cause great harm. Or is that too simplistic? We now have very expensive and poorly tested drugs that will reduce amyloid load in the heart and brain. Because the drugs are available, now amyloid has become testable and has reached a level of great importance. But just how accurate is it that we need to look for amyloid in these organs and if we find it we must treat it with drugs barely old enough to have any validity? Is amyloid really the cause of disease, or is it an innocent side product of that cause, or is it even a way for the body to protect itself? We just don't know. We do know that the one study showing its impact in heart disease was financed and designed by the drug company that makes the amyloid-busting medicine, and the study is so flawed that even we can tear it apart. And we know that the drug that treats amyloid in the brain has never been shown to improve cognition but does cause a huge number of brain bleeds. How do we assess new technology and new ideas in a scientific manner when specialist doctors and drug companies leap on them as being the next coming of God? We'll discuss the facts we have and the uncertainly that exists, and show how amyloid is much like other miracles in modern medicine: the next great discovery until it's not. The end of this podcast was struck with technical issues, so please pardon the abrupt ending!

The cardiology community is quite adamant about their newest guidelines, whether it's about pushing LDL cholesterol below 70 or driving systolic blood pressure under 120. The patient's age, wishes, symptoms, and even the full breadth of science behind these dogmatic declarations is irrelevant; protocols are above all that. We will discuss the truth behind the dictate that lower blood pressure, especially once it slips below that magic threshold of 120, is always helpful. In fact, as most studies show, it's dangerous much of the time. While guidelines reduce complex human beings to simplistic allorhythmia, some doctors are pushing back, and we will look at their critiques. In this podcast we discuss why lower blood pressure is often the wrong choice, how the guidelines are more about pushing drugs than helping people, and why specialist doctors so often fall into the pit of treating people robotically rather than within the nuanced world of medical science that values care and compassion, that is patient-centric, and that is tempered not only by a few drug company studies by rather by the full spectrum of medical literature sprinkled with the lessons of experience. That was Osler's message, and through the lens of hypertension we'll see how far off the rails our medical community has drifted.