Dr. Ryan Cole: NIH Should Fund Research into Rise in Cancer

[RUSH TRANSCRIPT BELOW] Since mRNA technology was deployed widely in the COVID-19 vaccines, developers have rapidly accelerated research into more mRNA products. Moderna alone has more than two dozen mRNA products in development.

But is the mRNA platform really the revolutionary breakthrough that its champions claim?

Since early 2021, Cole has been at the forefront of alerting the public to an unusual spike in cancer diagnoses following the widespread adoption of the COVID-19 genetic vaccines.

In this episode, Cole explains the risks he sees with mRNA technology and how he sees things shaking out at the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in the coming months and years.

Views expressed in this video are opinions of the host and the guest, and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.

RUSH TRANSCRIPT

Jan Jekielek:

Dr. Ryan Cole, so good to have you back on American Thought Leaders.

Dr. Ryan Cole:

Thank you, Jan. Great to be here.

Mr. Jekielek:

Let’s talk about what you see as the opportunity right now, current governors at HHS and at the CDC and in these agencies. The last time we spoke, it was before a very significant change.

Dr. Cole:

The thing I’m most hopeful about is transparency. Over the last several months, we’ve seen the Overton window shift on things that we never would have talked about before. It’s things that we talked about for the last five years, and a force for questioning and change, I think, is an open new opportunity for people to ask questions. And I’m hopeful that a lot of Americans will wake up to the fact that there are things that agencies and the government have done for many decades that are not true or have hidden information that has adversely affected the health of a nation.

Not everything’s out there yet, don’t get me wrong, but people have the opportunity to see that there are things they haven’t known that will be known. And I think the changes we’ve seen thus far within HHS, CDC, and FDA, are they perfect? No. As much as the MAHA/MAGA movement is kind of divided and angry that things aren’t happening at a pace they want to see, yeah, we hear that all the time. 

But turning government agencies around is like trying to turn a battleship on a dime. It doesn’t happen. And there are entrenched patterns and layers of bureaucracy. I grew up in the D.C. area. You live there. You know, we know. But at the same time, what Kennedy has been able to accomplish without having a full cohort of a team

and the staff that he would like to have and many holdovers is really actually impressive at this point. 

And I would encourage people not to give up hope, because I think things are going to continue to accelerate in terms of the changes that are coming. Of course, you know, do some of us want to see a ban on mRNA technology for humans? Yes. And for animals? Yes, we do. Is that going to happen overnight? We wanted that, but…

Mr. Jekielek:

Why are you so convinced? I mean, there are examples, I think, right, where there’s mRNA gene therapy that’s being used in, you know, for example, a cancer setting that I haven’t heard people complain about. It actually apparently is functional and not in certain settings. But why should there be a ban on this technology? You’re suggesting a complete ban.

Dr. Cole:

To your point, for research purposes, for rare conditions, I think it’s reasonable, because it’s potentially reasonable. The problem is the delivery system. You can’t target these modified mRNA technologies. They go everywhere in the body. That’s the problem. The cells that end up making the protein that one is trying to get coded by, made the machinery from this little sequence of RNA that can go anywhere, and those cells that make that protein are now a target of your own immune system to attack that. 

Mr. Jekielek:

That’s because of this lipid nanoparticle, right? 

Dr. Cole:

Yes, they’re shielded in this little fat bubble lipid nanoparticle. That technology was originally designed to carry chemotherapy to the brain, so we know it goes to the brain. Do you need a foreign protein being made in the brain for anything other than an exceedingly rare condition? You don’t. 

So in theory, it’s a fancy concept. There’s too much money behind it. It became the new scientific rage, but by people that are investors and people that have big money in biotech, not understanding the consequences pathophysiologically to the human organism. So why does it need to go away? 

Because the risk-benefit ratio doesn’t exist. And as a vaccine, it was a failure. For rare conditions, should we allow research into it? Sure. But should we allow self-amplifying sequences? I mean, that’s another issue that’s a can of worms. No, we shouldn’t. Some of the new vaccinations are modified RNA technology and self-amplifying technology. It gives huge potential for mutation.

Mr. Jekielek:

Just very briefly, what is self-amplifying technology, and then why does it create this huge potential for mutation? 

Dr. Cole:

What we’ve done with self-amplifying technology, unfortunately, is we’ve taken rare viruses like an eastern equine encephalitis virus and used that as a vector to put this little gene sequence, RNA sequence, attached to that. The problem with all of these is they don’t have an off switch. They can start producing their product, and that gene has the potential to mutate and shed out of the body onto surrounding individuals. So you can’t find what you don’t look for. 

I’ve said this a thousand times in the last five years. So if you say it’s safe and effective without showing that it doesn’t shed onto surrounding individuals and/or animals or animals to humans and/or mutate, then you can’t make that claim. And so the transparency of any of these products is to say, okay, if we’re going to assess the safety, we need to make sure all those things that I just mentioned don’t happen. Then you can make the claim, okay, there’s no evidence of these things, but you can’t make an ex cathedra pronouncement that that doesn’t happen by not having done the experiment to prove that it doesn’t. 

And so my big concern for self-amplifying, and there’s still a trial that was allowed to go forward with that with the Arcturus strain and bird flu, is what if you create a stronger strain of it? What if you spread it where it wasn’t intended to spread? It could be a biologic disaster. 

Mr. Jekielek:

What does self-amplifying exactly mean in this context? Because technically, okay, just the standard mRNA technology, it enters the cell, co-ops the cell to produce, well, in the COVID-19 vaccines, a spike protein. Okay. So now we have, and there’s, you know, obviously these potential problems because it’s toxic to the body and it’s being produced all across the body. And for some people that’s, you know, particularly problematic. 

Dr. Cole:

It is. Because we don’t know where the off switch is in the human body. Similarly, now they’re giving a lower dose of the self-amplifying, but it still has the opportunity to go inside of the cell, persist in the cell. And that self-amplifying aspect basically means it’s making more copies of itself so it can ramp up more protein. It is self-amplifying and then producing whatever protein the intended protein is. Where’s the off switch? No one knows. And this is the challenge with it. 

Mr. Jekielek:

One final thought on the mRNA, you know, in a situation where someone has some sort of disease that’s going to kill them in two years, you know, 95 percent chance or whatever, you know, you kind of think to yourself, okay, so they’re going to produce a lot of a product in the body and all this, but, you know, but I’m going to be dead in two years. So maybe I’m going to take the chance, right? That’s where your kind of cost-benefit calculation comes in. It’s very different if you’re giving something to a healthy person, right? 

Dr. Cole:

I agree with that. This is where I think having the research opportunity and very limited confined studies for those very unfortunate cases may be scientifically reasonable, but in a limited setting and not under mandates for all. But that’s kind of that right to try, knowing the risks of potentially clotting, hyper-inflammatory conditions, and autoimmune conditions. If you go into it with that full knowledge upfront that all of those things can happen, but you know you’re up against a clock of time in terms of your expiration date, well then I think that goes to that individual choice as long as they have fully informed consent, which we lacked during the COVID vaccine period in terms of all the harms, let alone the contamination of the product. 

And that’s an important paper that just came out from Kevin McKernan, David Speicher, and Jessica Rose, going to the fact that if we have a contaminated product because of how they manufactured it, you know, you go to the store and there’s E. coli in the lettuce, they do a big recall because of contamination. Why haven’t they recalled all these contaminated Pfizer products or Moderna products?

Mr. Jekielek:

So let’s discuss this. This is incredibly important. I was just looking at this paper that came out just a few days ago. I had Kevin McKernan on the show talking about his findings a couple of years ago. And we were talking with him about there actually being DNA contamination, which is hugely problematic, and also endotoxin contamination, which is also hugely problematic. 

And ultimately, there was this kind of, I think maybe you even said this in an interview we did, but there was a switcheroo, right? Where the thing that was licensed was a process that was basically done, well, maybe you can explain. The process that was licensed was different from the process that went into production and foundationally different. But tell me about that.

Dr. Cole:

Yes. So for the 40,000 Pfizer patient trial, they had a very synthetic process for stitching together the sequence of RNA that would go into the little fat bubble and get injected. For mass manufacturing, the switcheroo was the second process where instead they took that sequence and put it inside a little ring of DNA. And then the message is the inverse of that sequence that’s called a plasma, that little ring of DNA, is grown in vats of E. coli bacteria. 

When you want to get the RNA produced by that process, you basically break the cells apart, lyse the cells, and then you’re supposed to go through very specific filtration processes. Enzymes that break proteins down or build proteins are used to break down that DNA, and all you should be left with is RNA and a little fat. 

For whatever reason, they ended up not having a very clean process and ended up with a bunch of garbage at the end, which included the cell wall and some of the toxins that bacteria produce, in addition to multiple-fold excess regulatory-allowed copies of contaminating DNA, which are protected by a fat bubble.

In the second process, we did a trial on 40,000 people. At the end, on 250 people, we looked at the second process where you’re not going to have any statistical signal for harm. Then they rolled that out to billions of people. They said, oh, emergency authorized on these 40,000 patients. The process they rolled out wasn’t really examined, and that’s where we need to go back to see what data inconsistency or fraud actually happened. 

It’s not just that contamination; it’s the fact that they used certain sequences within this little circle of DNA, this plasmid of a contaminating monkey virus sequence, simian virus number 40 [SV40]. The promoter region, not the whole virus, but the promoter region of that, is known to bind to certain families of genes that are supposed to suppress cancer and tumors.

Instead, it binds to and shuts those abilities down. That’s known from the medical history and research literature. There’s just so much contamination, be it the SV40 sequence, which I would consider an adulteration, and having the leftover DNA in an RNA product—that’s contamination. And having cell wall fragments and toxins from literally a poop bacteria, E. coli, can cause anaphylactic reactions in the human body—shock reactions. 

Mr. Jekielek:

This paper looked at just the DNA contamination aspect. Very briefly, if you could tell me what they found. They were extremely rigorous in their methodology, presumably expecting to be attacked for this paper and so forth. So, what did they find?

Dr. Cole:

They used two techniques to detect DNA and quantify it—two different techniques to compare against each other.They found multiple-fold, from 36 fold to several hundred fold extra copies of DNA. The FDA allows 10 nanograms per milliliter, I want to say, of DNA in a product, but that’s naked; it’s not protected in a bubble. What they found was billions of copies, essentially, of DNA in each vial. Why does that matter? 

Well, you do run against the, can it integrate into our own genome, issue. Several laboratory papers suggest that one case report that hasn’t been published yet shows Pfizer integration in a tumor, both pre-death and post-death. That’s a problem with having contaminating DNA persisting within the cell for a long period of time and making atypical proteins—that’s a potential. Causing other autoimmune reactions—that’s a potential. The biggest concern for me is the cancer potential of having that contamination. Of course, we’ve seen an uptick; the National Health Service showed an overall 23 percent increase in cancer above average.

Mr. Jekielek:

From which time?

Dr. Cole:

From 2020 to 2023. But the uptick was after the rollout. It was after the inflection point of the mandates and the shots in 2021 when you see the uptick. Everybody will say, well, correlation is not causation. 

Mr. Jekielek:

Well, it’s an important data point—23 percent. I mean, that’s a hold the presses moment. 

Dr. Cole:

Right. And what new thing happened societally in 2021? The introduction of a gene transfection product that we know was contaminated, given to billions of people. Other people will say, well, it was just the virus. The spike protein is made by the virus as well, certainly, but in a normal immune reaction, the body clears a virus within 7 to 14 days in an immune-competent person. There are just so many questions, and this is where going back and doing a retrospective look with actual data, like it or not—not spinning a narrative from any side or another, being a neutral party and just saying, let the data speak, but let all the data be seen. 

Then we need to fund those projects that haven’t been done, funding the cancer projects that so many of us have tried to do individually and have basically cobbled together a few dollars here and a few thousand dollars there to do the scientific methods and techniques that the universities, unfortunately, very few would do. They should say, okay, let’s take a couple hundred cancers. Let’s look for Pfizer or Moderna sequences in those. If they’re great, then if it’s not great, let us at least look at the truth and find the truth. If we’re right, we’re right. If we’re wrong, we’re wrong. 

The data so far indicate that it has been identified on a small scale. Let’s prove whether those crazy people out there who are saying these things are happening—let’s, and I’m saying that facetiously, but let’s prove it. With the funding from the government that should have been spent on this, they took a billion dollars on a long COVID project and accomplished zero. Well, let’s identify what the body is making. Which project is that, by the way?

That was under the Biden administration, and a billion dollars was put toward long COVID research, of which we have seen nothing of benefit come from that billion dollars. Now that we have a man of integrity at the NIH, some of those funds—look, the universities are afraid to do some of this research because they think they’ll lose their grants and funding. You should never be afraid of basic research. Ask the question, answer the question, put forth a hypothesis, do the research, confirm or deny the hypothesis. 

That’s basic science. The universities are worried about losing their funding from patents on discoveries and then making billions selling it to pharmaceuticals that have intertwined interests. That’s not in the interest of science and the health of people; that’s in the interest of big corporate entities.

That came into being because of the Bayh-Dole Act. If we erased that act and went back to basic science with no conflicts of interest, we could do the research that the inquiring mind would have inquired about and wanted to do in the first place, not being fearful for their job or reputation, but just answering the questions of science, nature, physiology, pathology, the human body, and the better health of a nation. We’ve missed that. We have an opportunity to reset and say, this is how we’re going to do science again. We’re going to do it with honesty, integrity, and transparency. 

Mr. Jekielek:

Presumably, ACIP [Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices] under Dr. Retsef Levi is doing, you know, is looking into all of this, is going to look to make some specific recommendations around a number of these questions. So do you, I mean, where do you see over the, you know, the next few years, are there some specific things? I mean, you mentioned a few pieces of very important research, for example, is there integration of and people? Name a few things that you would expect to see in the coming three years, because that’s how long this will take.

Dr. Cole:

I think the number of products that will come to market under the designation vaccine will be fewer, because I think the criteria for approval will be more strict. I think that protects people. I think that protects children. I think that’s critically important. So that’s one thing I think will happen. They’ll bring things to that committee. That committee really only recommends for or against. The CDC can still kind of override if they want. I doubt that’ll happen now that some of the leadership there has changed. Even on their first meeting together as a new committee, they found out later that they were lied to about certain data points.

Mr. Jekielek:

Dr. Robert Malone kind of notably on this show talked about his regrets about voting for authorizing the RSV.

Dr. Cole:

And I think this is where the committee needs to step forth with their ability and their power to defer an issue, to vote for a deferral instead of a yes or no, or defer until there’s more data.

Mr. Jekielek:

So if you’re looking, if you’re smelling a rat or you’re seeing like, I don’t feel like, that’s actually Dr. Levi. I had them on the show talking about this. Like, why did you vote for, why did you vote against? He said, I just don’t, something, and he’s a very interesting guy because I actually, we kind of bonded around this a little bit at one point because he’s of this massive acumen. I also see patterns and things and when they look off, I just feel like there’s something wrong. And I think that’s what he saw there and just said, I’m not ready to really do this. So I’m going to have to vote no. And I kind of know exactly the way of thinking you might have, even if you don’t have all the information, you kind of sense there’s something wrong.

Dr. Cole:

Yes. And I sit on a health board in Idaho, four counties, about a million people. And there are certain issues that come up among the board of health commissioners. We talk to each other, and sometimes we just say, let’s table this issue. Just because there’s a committee meeting doesn’t mean you have to make that decision. I think there’s industry pressure, and there may be agency pressure, but at the same time, I think our greater interest should be for the people who will be affected by that product. So, we live and learn from that first experience as a committee. 

There are some wonderful people coming onto the committee going forward. One of my favorite people on the planet is Dr. Kirk Milhoan, MD, PhD, pediatric cardiologist, a phenomenal person, a man of integrity, a man of decency. He’s been attacked mercilessly in the media since the announcement, but he’s the kind of guy who will say, let’s look at the data, but give me all the data. I think because we have people who don’t have conflicting interests with other companies, and there’s nothing to be gained in one direction or another for these individuals. 

They’re volunteers. It’s a high-profile position with just about zero remuneration, but they do it out of the goodness of their hearts, their oath, their ethics, and so I’m encouraged going forward. I think seeing better data going forward is going to be one thing that happens. I think the look back is going to be important, Dr. Levi’s project of looking back, because I think people will be surprised. 

But I think it’s going to bring back a demand by the public for people of integrity to be in government going forward.This is a great opportunity to set an example that corporatocracy doesn’t get everything it wants. We, as a people, want to protect each other. Also, the mindset now is that, okay, let’s bring new products forward. That’s fine and dandy. 

But at the same time, let’s never mandate anything again. When we do find something that’s unsafe, let’s remove it. I mean, that’s integrity as well—to say, okay, we thought this worked; it didn’t. A committee 10 years ago approved it, or five years ago or two years ago, but new data has come forth. Let’s protect people now that we’ve found harms. 

So there’s just so much to be done. Am I saying it’s easy? No. Are better people, and that’s somewhat judgmental on my part? Sure. But do people without conflicts now have positions of importance? They do. Is that encouraging? Absolutely. Are they perfect humans? No. Are any of us? No. But are they good people trying to do good things? I think so. 

Mr. Jekielek:

I mean, just because I know a number of people that are involved in these things personally, I know that I can’t speak to whether, in the past, I didn’t know as many people, but I can speak to how many people are good people. It seems like there’s quite a number of people that I know to be, let’s say, unusually decent human beings that are in these positions. And I find just that in itself heartening.

Dr. Cole:

Absolutely.

Mr. Jekielek:

Yes. And of course, you know, it’s also a very difficult job. So I kind of feel for them.

Dr. Cole:

Yes, it is. It is. And, you know, they get maligned by certain media sources. Those media sources, you have to consider their funding sources. And those funding sources are highly corporately, pharmaceutically driven. And so there’s a narrative against these individuals. But if you actually step back and know them like you know them and I know them, you realize, oh, these are just good people trying to do good things. 

And of course, there’s always going to be negative verbiage in so many ways from so many angles. Is it true? Is the question that people ask themselves, oh, he’s such a this and that. Are you sure? How do you know that? And as you said, when you know these people personally and you’ve seen them be consistent time and time and time again, you think, okay, there’s integrity there. 

And so that’s encouraging. I agree with you. I think, again, we’re not going to get everything we want all at once, and nobody does. But that’s part of being in a civil society—realizing that sometimes the answer is somewhere in the middle and not at the extremes.

Mr. Jekielek:

Well, and also just that you need to build coalitions. You need to convince people who, you know, fairly or unfairly, may be unconvinced about things. I mean, we can’t coerce our way. I mean, this is kind of probably a big lesson. I’m adding a little bit of my own commentary here.

Dr. Cole:

Yes, coercion. You may have heard me say earlier, a quote I remember from childhood: a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still. So we have to find a way of allowing people to have civil dialogue, agree to disagree on certain things. But until the dialogue happens without censorship, let one side have their voice. Let the other side have their voice. Let’s come to reason together and come to a good decision for all. And sometimes this side doesn’t get what they want, and that side doesn’t either. 

To me, it’s not about the side. It’s about the person on the other end of what these sides, quote, are trying to do. What’s the impact on a fellow human being, and what’s your degree of curiosity, care, concern, and empathy for that individual? That’s how we make the best decisions—it’s not just a data decision, not a financial decision. There’s humanity on the other side of that decision. And that’s why these committees are important—not forgetting that humanity.

Mr. Jekielek:

You know, you just made me think of this. Are you aware of the presidential memorandum on big pharma advertising recently? I mean, there’s a general kind of interest in looking at that. We heard that from Secretary Kennedy. But now there’s this presidential memorandum. What is the significance of that?

Dr. Cole:

The significance is that the companies have strayed away from what they were allowed to do. In terms of, you know, the glowy lady or grandpa jumping through the meadow and butterflies flying all about and this drug is safe. And then you get this little blurb of, and here’s the risk, you know, of death and explosive diarrhea and blah, blah, blah, all at the end. If you’re going to advertise, I would like to see pharmaceutical advertising personally go away altogether. There are only two nations on earth that allow this: the U.S. and New Zealand. 

But if they are going to advertise, then the transparency has to be there. The memorandum and the new policy through HHS would basically say you have to show all the harms, all the risks versus just the glowy picture of what the corporates want to push forward. I mean, there’s more detail to it than that. But on the simple nature, you have to be more transparent if you’re going to advertise.

Mr. Jekielek:

How’s that going to make a difference? Because, I mean, when I hear some of these things, I watch more TV these days for a whole bunch of reasons, and I see some of those ads, and there does seem to be like a laundry list of things read out, you know, during…

Dr. Cole:

I think here’s where it’ll make a difference. If you restrict what they can say and how they say it, then what the reporters are allowed to or not allowed to report on changes. We go back to actual scientific inquiry and journalism within the journalistic field.

Mr. Jekielek:

Okay. So that’s super interesting. So you’re basically saying, let me see if I got this right. You’re basically saying that while these companies aren’t explicitly telling anybody what they can or cannot say, if your funding comes from a certain source, going against it or having a different narrator of a narrative which might be harmful to that source is difficult.

Dr. Cole:

Yes. It becomes self-censorship, because you’re not going to bite the hand that feeds you. So do they implicitly tell them what they can and can’t say on the news? Maybe, maybe not. However, once that amount of funding from that advertiser shrinks considerably—say it was only 10 percent—and you do find that there’s some corrupt drug companies out there doing corrupt things or presenting false data, I would want a reporter from any entity to say, well, I think that’s newsworthy. Let’s report on that. We will get a little more honesty or integrity in those reports because they don’t feel as conflicted by the financial interest. 

Mr. Jekielek:

By creating more transparency you think that will directly lead to less pharma advertising? That’s what I’m hearing you say.

Dr. Cole:

I think so. I do.

Mr. Jekielek:

Okay. Is it just because people will be like… 

Dr. Cole:

I’m not taking that drug now that they’ve listed those side effects, right? So I think it will be just a natural devolution of how much pharma puts into that type of advertising over time. So I think the net positive will be that people…

Mr. Jekielek:

We met because you challenged a lot of narrative ideas, let’s say, right during the pandemic. And you were also, I mean, you lost your business in the process. How is that all shaken out? I’m curious today, right? You lost your very, very significant business.

Dr. Cole:

I did. And it was basically the insurance companies that ended up destroying my business, in particular, one health system in Idaho, the largest employer in Idaho, St. Luke’s Health System, their CEO attacked me and filed complaints in all the states where I was licensed. Five years later, I was correct on what I was putting forward data-wise and scientifically. But then they used their insurance system to cancel my contracts because of my quote-unprofessional behavior of speaking freely on my scientific opinion based on my background in pathology, immunology, and virology. 

Having been Mayo Clinic trained, I have a breadth of experience and a half million patients of experience. I looked at it and went, I knew what I knew. I didn’t want to be right. Things are trickling that way. So it affected my family, affected my business, and affected 80 employees who I no longer have. And, you know, I saved money for a couple of years. Now I’m transitioning into more of an educational role. 

I’m grateful to be a senior fellow with the Independent Medical Alliance and helping do advocacy work for them and educational work with them. It closed one door but opened others. Am I making what I used to make? No, maybe a tenth of it. And, you know, when these organizations have the power to destroy lives, these organizations should no longer have that power. That came through the fact that they had a captured, paid-for, pharmaceutically funded media to destroy lives, not just mine. Others have gone through what I’ve gone through. 

You can take everything away from me. I don’t care. I’m not a materialist. I’m not here on this earth because of things. I’m here to do the good on the earth I can in the time that I have for the people that I can. And they took material wealth away from me. I don’t care. I would rather know that I made an impact on lives, telling the truth the best I could in the best way I could. And I’ll keep doing that. 

And you know, am I writing some books right now? Sure. Am I slow at it? Yes, I am. Do I want them to come out sooner than later? Hopefully, by the end of October, I’ll have my first one out. Do I still travel and teach? Do I still try to inspire people to be involved in their own health and in freedom and in politics, no matter on which side you fall, but to be engaged in the discourse of a phenomenal nation and republic? Yes, I do. And so it’s forced me into living a life that’s different than I planned. 

But at the same time, sometimes life chooses us, and we don’t choose our journeys in life. The journey chooses us. So I look at it as I am where I need to be right now, trying to do what I can. And so I lost something I loved. I’ve gained other things I love. I’m just finding the positive in something that was a rough experience. 

Mr. Jekielek:

How is your family? 

Dr. Cole:

They are doing okay. I have six daughters. My wife is here at this meeting with me. And you know, the girls have seen us go through it. It affects them emotionally. One daughter at one point said, hey dad, can you, this was early on in the pandemic, can you keep it down? All my friends know who you are. A couple of months later, she comes back to me and says, hey dad, keep it up. All my friends know who you are. 

And so, you know, I’ve seen them go on their own journeys, and, you know, it’s been emotional for some of them and others. It’s fun because they realize that when you see something in the world that’s wrong, you do something. And it gives them an example to stand up for good things in the world. And it gives them the example that they don’t have to do what dad does. Most of them won’t go into medicine, but they’ll choose hard things in life and say, okay, this is going to be hard, but I know it can be done. And so they’re doing okay. Good girls are a blessing.

Mr. Jekielek:

Excellent. And so, you know, you mentioned the meeting, of course, we’re at this Brownstone Institute retreat at Polyface Farm. This is why we’re sitting under a beautiful, I think it’s a sugar maple. You know, we want to tap it and drink some beautiful sap. Sounds good. This spring, we’ll come do that. But so just as we finish up, you know, just kind of the significance of this meeting in the Brownstone Institute. 

Dr. Cole:

Well, first, I think the lesson is there is still so much beauty in this world, especially as you point out our surroundings. The world is a beautiful place. The other thing is, as we sit in a large group of very open-minded, critically thinking people, people are beautiful. This is such an eclectic mix of thinkers that come from all political stripes, come from all sorts of professional backgrounds, and come from all over the country and literally the world, coming together to hear ideas, to challenge ideas, to laugh together, to mourn together, to get frustrated together, to create together. 

It’s such a wonderful experience to see this beautiful paintbrush of humanity across the canvas of life and say, this is how we should engage. This is how so much of this world that’s at each other’s throats should have the opportunity to say, step out from behind that keyboard, meet your fellow human beings in three dimensions. If you can do it in a beautiful place with good company, good laughter, and good food, you don’t have to agree on everything. 

An organization like this is, you know, be it Brownstone or be it some other organization, is a perfect example of how we regain humanity and find hope for a future of people that want the world to be a better place for each other. It’s such a treat to be here with you and all these amazing people. To know that there are these types of thinkers that are actually kind in this world is hopeful.

Mr. Jekielek:

Dr. Ryan Cole, it’s such a pleasure to have you on the show.

Dr. Cole:

Thank you so much, Jan. This has been great.

 

This interview has been partially edited for clarity and brevity.