Because Lex quack is an idea, one could say a media one, probably of a government representative or someone who wants to raise the temperature of this bill and, in my opinion, perhaps stigmatize part of the community that approaches issues related to medicine quite holistically. I think that this procedure is a procedure that inhibits the development of medicine. Do I think this will lead to a regression in the development of medical science? Well, who can afford to conduct research now for 100 million or even 20 million dollars over the course of 7-15 years, because it is so assembled, it is so conditioned that it blocks intellectual activity and at the same time annihilates the experience of outstanding doctors. Today with me is a professor at the Nicolaus Copernicus University in Warsaw, Professor Mariusz Miąsko, a lawyer, academic teacher and entrepreneur. Hi. Hello, good morning. In this episode, we'll be looking at the Lex Charlatan bill, and my first question is, do you think the Lex Charlatan bill could be signed by the president in its current form? And without even opening the whole gift that is this episode we have prepared today, what do you think about the president's approach to this? Mhm. Let's start with the fact that the name of this bill itself seems intriguing, right? Mhm. Well, actually her name isn't Lex Sharlatan. In fact, it is an amendment to the Act on Patients' Rights, which grants competences, precisely defined, completely new competences to the Patient Rights Ombudsman. Lex quack is an idea, one could say a media one, probably of a government representative or someone who wants to raise the temperature of this act and, in my opinion, perhaps stigmatize part of the community that has a rather holistic approach to issues related to medicine, whether healing , naturopathic therapy, etc., etc. I really, really don't like this at all. I think it's very unfair to immediately stigmatize the community, because please note that this law, because when we talk about electro-quacks, we think that maybe it only applies to some non-medical communities, right? And few people know that in fact this act divides its tasks, competences and responsibilities into two such boxes. The first box uh, these are the ones it 's addressed to, these are doctors. These are doctors who have the necessary qualifications, are registered with medical chambers and this is the first part, so to speak, of the content of this bill called Lex Sharlatton. And the second part are all people who do not have formal medical qualifications. And this is the second box. And it is very important to know that what we call lex charlatan is divided into these two subjective scopes. Well, that's like assuming a priori that some of the doctors with formal qualifications are charlatans, right? And it's also like assuming that some of the people in this box who don't have these formal medical qualifications are also charlatans. But that's not the case. Well, there are a whole lot of, you could say, specialists in the field of herbalism, yoga, other forms of, one might say, health support, which have absolutely nothing to do with any kind of quackery. Meanwhile, this message is already there, and I don't like it very much. I think he is very dishonest. I believe that it does not reflect the content of this act at all , because this act is about something radically different. Well, that's what it's supposed to be about . But getting back to the first question, do you think he, the president, can sign it in the form it was written in? You know what, I don't know how this bill will be presented to the president by his advisors, because the president is neither a lawyer nor an expert in medical law, and I don't think he has such knowledge. And now the question comes down to how the president's advisors will present the content of this bill to the president. And let's remember that we are only talking about the draft bill, because it only entered its first reading this week, meaning it has actually moved from the committee to the subcommittee and there, with the participation of the social factor, it will continue to be shaped, meaning it may be subject to changes and modifications. Therefore, it is actually difficult to say now whether the president will sign anything, because we do not know yet what the final content of this bill is, right? Because we are only talking about a draft bill, but we obviously know the framework of this bill, this bill. In principle, we know what the intention is, and of course I will be happy to explain it in a moment, because the whole community is probably interested in where this law came from, where this concept came from. Well, generally speaking, this is a government project, purely formally, but in fact the initiator of this project was the patient rights ombudsman. So why a patient rights advocate? If you like this material, click the thumbs up button under the video and leave a like. Thanks. He is calling for such a law. Well, because so far we have had such an uneven lack of symmetry in supervision over the broadly understood area of ​​health. Well, please note that the Supreme Medical Chamber monitored the quality of both education and the quality of the medical profession, but only in relation to people with qualifications, i.e. those who completed medical studies and later acquired formal qualifications, completed internships, acquired formal qualifications and became members of medical chambers. and there the spokesmen of these um these chambers um the Supreme Medical Court, he ensured a certain quality. However, it has been noticed over the years that in relation to the second group, i.e. people who are not doctors in the formal sense or are doctors but do not belong to medical chambers, there is de facto no supervision whatsoever. Well, yes, they were not subject to the supervision of the medical chamber, because formally they were not doctors, right? In connection with the above, of course, the patient rights ombudsman could theoretically file a complaint with the prosecutor's office against a person who was obviously misleading patients or people who wanted to receive treatment. Well, apart from the possibility of filing a complaint with the prosecutor's office, he had no additional instrument to, for example, temporarily exclude people who had committed certain unworthy practices. And it was here that the Patient Rights Ombudsman came up with what seemed to be a certain idea, a certain concept, a good idea, to also extend supervision and control to this area, to those people who are not doctors but provide medical-related services. Attention, when referring to, or using, one could say, two such phrases, when in relation to people who refer to the fact that they heal, they use the term that they heal, even though they are not doctors in the formal sense and receive remuneration for it. taking remuneration for this, we will come to this remuneration in a moment or they diagnose, because what this act in this Act Learlatan is really about is excluding the possibility for people who do not have formal, but also actual competences, i.e. are not doctors, to invoke the thesis that they perform treatment and diagnosis. This means that we can only be treated by a doctor with appropriate qualifications, and diagnosis can also be made by an entity or person with, yes, confirmed qualifications. And in fact, this lex, wrongly called Lex Sharlatan, is what it says. She is not talking about there is no stigmatization of such a community in the content of the act itself, of this medical community, nor of the medical community. And in this area, if this bill were to boil down to this only, so to speak , then it would seem that at the level of intentions and ideas, well, that would be good. The point is that people who are not engineers should not claim that they have construction qualifications, and that people who are not doctors should not claim that they have medical qualifications. True? And people who don't have a pilot license should not get into the cockpit and claim they have one, right? And they didn't bother to fly by plane. Mhm. You at the level of the idea and direction itself. This is smart. it is balanced. The problem, of course, lies in the details and that is why I do not know how the president will react, because I do not know how these details will ultimately be regulated, because there is full agreement that all people who do not have the title of doctor, yes, can support treatment. Mhm. True? They can improve the quality of life. They can do this through supplementation, through massages, through all these elements, of which there are probably dozens here, but they also support life in some way, but strictly speaking they are not, in a formal sense, such treatment, although it is not entirely clear what this treatment is in a formal sense. Well, we'll get to that in a moment, but okay, here we understand that they can't do that. What else can't these people do with this, I would say, broad medical background? They cannot suggest, according to the content of this act, they cannot suggest that the patient abandon traditional, conventional medicine in favor of only medicine, or actually no medicine, i.e. these, one could say, supportive medical activities, right? And this is penalized, so this law basically says this, we are still at the level of this generality and this intention, which is of course very right. He says: "In principle, we have nothing against you taking vitamin C infusions, some left-handed vitamin, or whatever you deem appropriate, as long as you give up, do n't give up, I mean, you can give up on your own, because you are a free person. As long as you are not persuaded by a person who is not a doctor or is a doctor to give up conventional medicine at the same time , right? That's the point, so that you are not persuaded, so that there is no situation where someone, for the sake of pursuing their economic interests, for example, motivates patients, motivates sick people, motivates sick people to give up conventional medicine in favor of replacing it exclusively with unconventional medicine, or basically not medicine, because if unconventional, it is not classical medicine, you could even say medicine in a purely formal sense. I mean strictly statutory provisions. And okay. And we also understand that there is logic here, because the truth is, such a construction does not attack the medical community. Because everyone can sell supplements, as long as they don't harm health. Anyone can provide other services, so to speak, as long as basic medical treatment, classically medical, goes hand in hand. Okay. The thing is, there are several areas that are highly controversial. The question is , what exactly is this? Well, as we've established that there are two areas this act is focused on, namely the medical one, and we've already explained that a bit, now let's move on to the strictly medical one for a moment, where we have licensed physicians. Hmm. And here's an interesting story, because this act essentially in some cases excludes the freedom of action of these physicians, i.e., licensed physicians. So it says that it's not like you can make your own assessment and your own life experience, even if it were the richest, that you can perform certain procedures that you weigh, that they will be effective and most appropriate, even if you have exactly the same life experience and even if it were extensive. It's not So you can do them freely, because there is such a thing as current medical knowledge. This current medical knowledge exists, and here's an interesting fact, it's just a catchphrase. There we have a certain general standard, a general one, applied in the act in this particular case. This concerns the act on the professions of physicians and dentists. And the act doesn't explain in detail what this current medical knowledge is. Well, it doesn't explain it in detail. What it is, what is treated, what is assumed to be current medical knowledge. It's a collection of information from many different databases and guidelines. And this is a dispute that has been going on in the medical community among doctors for years. Many doctors in Poland have had and are still having disciplinary proceedings, temporarily or indefinitely excluding them from the medical profession because there's no clarity on what this current medical knowledge is . An example was the famous amantadine, an example was, let's say, the pandemic. Hmm. And proceedings that are still ongoing today, and doctors who lost their licenses because they had a separate concept of knowledge, an ontological scope, or the ontological scope, that is, the set of information contained in such a general concept. Current medical knowledge. This is what we count as current medical knowledge. And what I'm saying now stems directly from my experience, I'll emphasize here, not only from theory, but from my experience representing outstanding Polish doctors. This is generally very important in proceedings before the Supreme Medical Court, before the Supreme Medical Chamber, because what turns out? It turns out that we have, yes, we have a database of permissible and acceptable treatment methods. For example, an international database. We have a database of the United States, we have a database of methods recognized by Polish countries, by Poland, we have databases, I would say, diversified, and they do not at all overlap in this subject matter. That is, they differ from each other, to put it simply. Now, it's also important to know that problems arise from the fact that often what was current medical knowledge at a given moment is already, for example, outdated, obsolete. And here, the situation is in In practice, it's very, I'd say, unsatisfactory for doctors. These are, let me give you three such examples. One doctor, a prominent figure in his field, received, if I remember correctly, a 30-year ban on practicing his profession. The second, eminent, equally prominent in his field, received less, a 15-year ban on practicing his profession. How did this happen? Ultimately, I'll say right away that in both cases we managed , one could say, to annihilate the initially issued bans. But how did this happen? It turned out that both outstanding representatives of medical science, because they are not only doctors, but generally in one case a doctor, in the other a habilitated doctor, that is, representatives of the scientific world in general. Hmm, they came to Poland full of enthusiasm, full of energy, and confidence that they would treat using the methods they had learned in the United States and Great Britain, because both here and there they practiced at outstanding, excellent universities, and, interestingly, at absolutely Top world scientists in the area in which they specialized, had specializations. Mhm. And it turned out that they did n't fit at all into the framework of methods recognized and known by, for example, the provincial health consultant. And both of them received, at different times, charges for various incidents. First, the disciplinary spokesman, initially believed there was no issue at all , because they had led to a complete recovery of the patients. I was just about to ask if the patients suffered any harm in connection with this treatment? Yes. The strange thing about these cases, in fact, in all the cases we handled, was that in none of them were there— firstly, a cure occurred, secondly, there were no lasting side effects. In one case, there was a rash that lasted, if I remember correctly, for about seven days. But clearly, it was within the community, because all these incidents were reported, as it later turned out, meaning they didn't come from patients. No. They came out. One came from a patient. Um, the other two were from reports from the community. Clearly, there was some element of, I would say, competition, let's put it mildly, and, well, anyway, these proceedings were initiated. Even the disciplinary ombudsmen didn't want to initiate these proceedings. Ultimately, they did, and ultimately, they had such an effect that, as I said, in one case, it ended in 30 years in the first instance , in the second, 15 years. But okay, the patients were cured. So where was the problem in the social network? Where was the problem? Well, the problem was precisely in those databases. That means they were treating using methods that were not recognized by the consultants. In one case, and in the other, the provincial one, as currently applicable methods, uh, that can be used, and in the other, uh, case, they weren't recognized and accepted, uh, because there was also a female doctor, that's a separate case, recognized even by the national consultant. And now the problem is Doctors rightly pointed out that these procedures may not be well-known in Poland, but they are effective and well-known in the most top academic centers. And here's the problem with this law. This is precisely the problem with this law, that if it's not properly configured, so to speak, it might attack outstanding scientists, outstanding representatives. It shouldn't generally operate this way, because it's also very important to understand that, generally speaking, the Patient Rights Ombudsman has a slightly different approach, a different scope of action than the Supreme Medical Chamber. It's also important for doctors to understand this, because I'm sure, when talking to doctors about this law, unfairly called a quack, that they don't understand its scope. Very often, I hear doctors criticize this law, but they don't understand a fundamental fact: that these powers were acquired by the Patient Rights Ombudsman, who has now acquired them. They are in a slightly different area. In fact, they are in a completely different area than the powers of the Supreme Medical Chamber. Medical Chambers and the Supreme Medical Court, because the Supreme Medical Court actually evaluates procedures in force in Poland based on Polish guidelines and indications. Whether or not the Medical Chamber actually does this is actually implemented by the Medical Chamber, and it verifies whether doctors in Poland are actually using Polish practices. Hmm. Yes. Yes. I'll simplify this greatly , but that's what it boils down to. However, the Patient Rights Ombudsman, who acquired authorizations under this particular act—he hasn't acquired this yet, but is about to— has different competencies and a different scope. He will be examining whether, I emphasize, the current draft version is consistent with the provisions, which may turn out to be different in a few weeks. But for now, this is quite wisely conceived, because he will be obligated to investigate whether the doctor has also violated the principles stemming from international databases or individual countries or guidelines. This is very important. So there 's a safety valve, you could say, when it comes to doctors themselves, right? Because it means that a doctor shouldn't be attacked. by the Patient Rights Ombudsman in a similar manner to what happened in the two cases I described here, which were attacked by the Supreme Medical Chamber. The channel's partner is Nutrity, supplements that contain as many as 48 active ingredients, 100% natural, without artificial flavors, sweeteners, or fillers. Produced in Poland, each batch is tested in an independent laboratory. With the "muddle" code, you'll receive a special discount for doctors when ordering, because they assumed this didn't fit Polish procedures. Yes, it was known in America, for example . And the Patient Rights Ombudsman is supposed to investigate whether Polish regulations have been violated, of course, but also whether international ones have been violated. If no international regulations have been violated, the Patient Rights Ombudsman won't initiate draconian measures and draw consequences from them. And these consequences are indeed draconian, and they are identical for both the medical community and the non- medical community without authorization. Because that's what it is— sanctions up to one million zlotys. Right? The minimum wage will be increased, because it used to be up to 500, but only for doctors. Currently, it's up to one million zlotys. Mmm, and under the immediate enforceability regime, in administrative proceedings, an immediate ban on the practices being performed will be issued. This ban applies to both licensed physicians and those from the medical community. And now, to make things even more interesting, this order applies not only to doctors, but also, to put it simply, to the health center where they treat, the organizational unit where they treat. You might wonder, why is that? Exactly, because for now, when we're talking about this law, we think everything's fine. The RFP is logical, consistent, so there's no problem. Okay, now let's move on to, let's imagine a few doctors we know from the media who say that, for example, vitamin D should be dosed differently. That, for example, anything should be dosed differently. There are many doctors known in the media space on YouTube, watched by millions of people, and they say something completely contrary to the official narrative stemming from the current medical knowledge, collected in a wide variety of databases. It 's so current that it's basically unclear which one is current. I mean, it's supposedly known in some cases, but in others it's not so obvious. Now, please note that until now, it was possible to file a complaint with the prosecutor's office, for example, with a patient's rights advocate. He didn't like what a famous doctor, one or another, said. He could file a complaint with the prosecutor's office, and after some time, the prosecutor would take some or other action. And now, such a patient's rights advocate won't like what a distinguished doctor said. Let's emphasize that a patient's rights advocate doesn't have to be an expert, and very often isn't an expert at all. Unlike the eminent scientist, Professor Belwederski, because here I have a specific face in my mind right now , who is completely contrary to the current in He speaks in many areas. He's a distinguished expert, certainly the best in Poland, and perhaps one of several, perhaps one of the five best in the world in a given field. But he won't be the one deciding what happens in a moment, as I'll discuss in a moment. It's the patient rights advocate, who has a keen understanding of this area , but isn't an outstanding expert. So what can he do? He can issue an administrative decision under the immediate enforcement rule that immediately suspends the provision of these medical services by this distinguished doctor, immediately and with immediate effect, and imposes a fine of up to one million zlotys, which will prohibit him from imposing a million, for example, one million zlotys on this facility, a specific health center, let's call it that. Hmm. Why is it done this way? So that other, uh, entities can exert pressure to stigmatize and eliminate from the market freethinkers, doctors, even outstanding ones, who have the audacity, courage, and competence to question what has become accepted as current medical knowledge. Aha, that's the point. So it means that now, in reality, the system will exclude all those who speak, think, and perform even effective procedures, even 100% effective ones, like with the doctors we treated, but who think differently than the system. So, it's no longer the system that will fight in the sense of some kind of patient rights advocate , but in reality, these health centers (in quotes) will eliminate these doctors because they will be afraid to employ them. They will be afraid that they will have their practice in this building, because they will be afraid that they will be fined a million, million zlotys. And this is the roller, as you asked me at the beginning, whether the president should or shouldn't sign such a bill. If this model were to continue, in my opinion, the president shouldn't, because of this one aspect , but it's incredibly difficult, incredibly difficult to explain, because you see now, ladies and gentlemen, you see now, as we speak, that the fog is only just beginning to dissipate and begin to clear. We'll understand that under the guise of these very sound ideas, it suddenly turns out there's a certain built-in systemic mechanism that eliminates doctors who, even if they develop this particular area of ​​medicine, don't fit the system and the system doesn't want them. The system has introduced another link in the elimination of such freethinkers. I just wanted to say that there's an excellent film that shows how the medical system eliminated them 200 years ago, thanks to a surgeon who noticed that, in fact, most infections are the result of something like some certain microbial agent introduced into the body during surgery, which caused, right, sepsis and infections in general. So what did the system do with the doctor who discovered this? He eliminated it, got rid of it. And there are thousands of such examples worldwide, I think, and that's the dangerous aspect. Okay, but now let's go even deeper. Let's examine what it's like, what the procedure is like , what the procedure looks like. Entering these treatment methods into these international databases, for example, EBM, right? Well, how is it , this is such a leading international database, how is it that... What exactly needs to be done for our method to be considered as a study? Sure, yes, logically, some kind of study. Okay. So, these studies are, to put it very simply, because they are much more complex, but to put it very simply, there are three phases of these studies. The shortest possible time for conducting phases one, two, and three is 7 years, sometimes it's 15 years, and the amounts that need to be secured to carry out these studies range from several to several dozen million dollars, and sometimes 100 million dollars. Quite a lot. Okay. Oh well. I mean, if we're already aware of the circumstances, we can, that a doctor might notice in the course of their life experience, but human life is short in the long run, that the process of implementing a new method is at least several years, if Not a dozen, because if we were to conduct a full study on 2,000 people in the control group, that would be at least 15 years. So, if we understand that this is a time perspective, then from the perspective of a human life and, on top of that, a doctor's professional life, these procedures take an awfully long time, and their professional life is short. So even if a doctor, through their experience, as a result of their professional experience, finds these procedures, they know that these methods are effective, which they use, right, by way of normal testing and elimination of ineffective methods. Hmm. He doesn't have any practical method, he doesn't have any practical method for this. I say more practically, because it's purely theoretical, which I'll talk about in a moment, resulting from the law. The second path. But in practice, well, I don't have the strength, resources, or time to introduce the methods he knows into this mainstream database , this current medical knowledge , and that was the example of Amantadine, among others. That's an example of what was going on with Amantadine. Well, we had the same doctors, or groups of doctors, who reported to them The entire cream of the Polish government came out and begged almost on their knees to be treated with amantadine, right? But officially, amantadine, as we remember, was not recognized during the COVID period because it was not recognized as a method, as a medicinal substance, because despite the empirical experience of even representatives of the authorities, because I personally know ministers who volunteered and were treated with this method, I personally know these people, but formally, it was not, so to speak, in the output, in the database that was treated as an official method or substance. a substance that is also healing. And there are more such cases. This also applies to the treatment of Lyme disease with antibiotic therapy. There has been a huge dispute in this regard for years. Anyway, I will also be happy to tell you about it in this subthread . And now, so we understand that this system does not allow the introduction of, no, I mean, there is no prohibition anywhere, well a bit of , I would use a term that might not be very elegant, a bit of a perfidy of this system is that it does not say there, you are not allowed, right, to try to introduce a given method into the mainstream, but well, life is too short for a person, they usually don't have $100 million in their account to invest in it . There is no institution that would like to invest in it. there is no 7 years of time. First of all, patients do not have enough years to wait until it is legalized to return to the same doctor in, for example, 7 or 15 years , because the same doctor would still have to be alive and the patient, who was sick, would still have to be alive to return. Well, this is unrealistic. How many elements could there be that would be worth updating? And without a doubt. I think that this procedure is a procedure that inhibits the development of medicine. These are basically there, but I don't think they are, I mean, I think there are two, two trends and one intentional at some level of large, large corporations, I would say the pharmaceutical ones, and I think it is absolutely intentional. And the second one is unintentionally somewhere at the level of some officials who very often in good faith create and construct such statutory provisions based on the example of what I am talking about here right now. And now there is a second such procedure. which is experimental, because theoretically even a Polish doctor can conduct a medical experiment. So everyone will think: "Oh, hurray, great, we're happy , so I'll go to a doctor, find a brave one and say: "Doctor, please conduct a medical experiment on me , but that's not how it works. It's not like we'll go to the doctor and he'll say, "Yes, I know what you need. This is something very unique. I know how to drag you along." Unfortunately, the procedure won't allow me to do that because I don't want to get a million zlotys, and besides, I don't want to be stigmatized so that no other center will hire me, because, well, because, well, because, well, because if the first one doesn't hire me, the next ones will hire me even more . At the same time, I don't want to get, for example, a 30-year ban on practicing medicine, and the law says that you can lose your license indefinitely, so to speak . So, I'll put you on this experimental procedure. Therefore, there are five such stages of this experimental procedure. The first stage, the application itself, is 90 days. In practice, it can take a disproportionately multiple of that time. The whole procedure is practical, because one is theory, another is practice, because there are also applications that need to be completed. These applications, no matter how hard we try, are usually not as good as the reviewers would like . Because there are still these appointed scientific reviewers. In practice, it takes years, but even if it lasts a few months, let's say even six months, you have the patient here and now, and they need help here and now, not in six months. Because in six months, in many cases, they won't live, or their condition will have deteriorated so drastically that treatment will be ineffective. And now I would say again, there's no lack of elegance. To put it mildly, this project is based on this lack of elegance towards patients, and towards certain science. It's based on the assumption that doctors or people without medical licenses, for example, cannot perform certain actions that could cause permanent deterioration of health, loss of life, or permanent deterioration of health. Okay. And again, if someone presents this to the president like this , because I keep referring to your question about whether the president will sign, the president said: "No, is it obvious that it can't affect the deterioration of the condition?" That's the right provision in this bill." Yes. Okay. And does chemotherapy cause the old, permanent deterioration of health or not? Because I would like to. And does radiotherapy cause it or not? And does antibiotic therapy cause it or not ? We could probably go on and on . I wouldn't be able to go on for long, because I 'm not a doctor, but if we had a distinguished doctor here, he'd probably go on like that until morning. Oh, okay. And excuse me, and those vaccines for that whole pandemic that was there, for that whole supposed COVID, she doesn't question that there was COVID, that there was COVID. Mmm. I question that there was a pandemic as a lawyer, because whether something is a pandemic or not is not decided by doctors, but by the law, not even by lawyers, but by the legislature, who determined that a certain coefficient must be met . But we'll put that aside because it's a sensitive issue, so maybe it's unnecessary. I even mentioned it, and I withdraw it 100%. I apologize if anyone felt offended. No, that's not my intention. The essence of the matter is, in fact, that the president must have this perspective properly presented, meaning he must understand that, uh, there are vaccines, or not, for this COVID, but you could say some methods that also have negative effects. I even checked recently in a certain discussion, because we're conducting quite a lot of administrative proceedings in these matters, right, in the field of medical law, so I checked the number of serious NPS or deaths after vaccination in the European Union for COVID and after vaccination in the United States. Well, to be honest, that surprised me, because I did n't realize in the official message that this is what the mainstream media is talking about. As it looks, it's at the level of the Nascents in the United States, in the European Union separately, right, not counting, and interestingly enough, only the official message. It is believed in the United States that, uh, these official registers constitute perhaps only Half. That's what I'm getting at. That's not what I mean, because someone will say a lot, not a lot, someone will break it down into percentages. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm saying they occurred. Hmm. So there were cases of mortality, and not just one death there, but some out of 100,000 in a single case, and similarly in the European Union. I'm not even talking about whether there were many or few, but I'm referring to the assumptions of this project. Well, you can't say that we eliminate doctors who are scientists, outstanding doctors, or even not scientists, but with vast life experience, and we don't allow them to use their enormous life experience , very often enormous, confirmed by thousands of effective cures, just because it doesn't fit in one database or another and isn't considered an official method, a current treatment method. At the same time, under the guise, under the cover that it's not allowed because it would, if it could affect health deterioration or permanent damage to health. Or death, as we've already pointed out, there's a whole range of methods that would have to be ruled out this way. I mean, I think this will lead to a regression in the development of medical science. Because who can afford to conduct research now for $100 million, or even $20 million, over the course of 7-15 years? Who can afford it? Who can afford it? Oh , I haven't mentioned yet that if a doctor wanted to perform even this procedure, this simplified one, right, this experiment, then you also have to know that they would have to pay for it themselves, because there are two types of procedures. I mean, there's one for scientists, and you can apply for an exemption there, and then the experiment often costs zero zloty. But if they were to follow this non-scientific path, it would cost around $8,000, or at least up to $8,000. So the doctor would still have to put up their own money to perform the procedure or ask the patient if they'd be willing to pay, put up their own $8,000. For example, 8,000 PLN. And here, you see, the entire falsehood of this construct is now being revealed , because it is so constructed, so conditioned, that it blocks intellectual activity, at the same time annihilating the experience of outstanding doctors. Because if we were to say that this quack drug attacks only and exclusively people who are outside the medical community, it would be a grave insult to 99.9% of cases, I think, people – wonderful people. Well, I have the impression that... But you could also say that it's aimed at doctors. You could also say that it's aimed at non-doctors, but here this system is attacking doctors. Well, yes. I mean, what's the point of educating, in human terms, educating people, and what's the point of them being outstanding scientists, investing their time, their lives, becoming these scientists, and then the system says that if they want to introduce these procedures, they have to undergo procedures that are unrealistic from the outset. Because I believe that the state system should be exactly the opposite, or should the system prove to the doctor? Because once it has developed a system, it assumes that He trained a professional. If that professional changes a certain method, the system should prove through research that this method is ineffective, and then perhaps issue warnings. It is, and I'm a supporter of the solution that works, and it's used by the Polish Financial Supervision Authority (KNF) on the stock exchange, right? And there we have a situation where the KNF issues warnings and says: "Come on, dear citizen, you are responsible." You are over 18 years old. Mhm. It's your money, your life. I think that this stock exchange, this company on the stock exchange, does not bode well. Something does n't feel right about it. We are experts. But we won't make decisions for you or tell you that you can't invest in it . Invest. This is your life. It should be the same here. He said, the system should speak. We have some doubts as to whether the methods are any good. Well, we're just giving you a warning. But you are a citizen of the Polish state, you pay taxes, you also pay for this doctor, for this whole structure. Choose what you think is appropriate. I'm not talking about the case where someone fraudulently claims to be a doctor when they 're not, right? it's a completely different box or someone is doing diagnostics when he doesn't have the competence to do so. This is a completely different box and I think it 's absolutely niche, but in any other case, this is how this system should work in my opinion . Of course, the law is very unfair in the way it is called, maybe let's not even call it that way, this new law. I've been reading comments on the internet and so many people are so happy to write about these herbalists, these people, you know, not realizing that there are two boxes here, there are doctors and alternative methods. They think that you know, and it's a misunderstanding, that people are attacking herbalists in the media, so I must, must, must know that this law not only does not attack herbalists, it does not attack herbalists in the slightest. She attacks almost no one at all except those who would claim to be doctors when they are not and diagnosticians when they are not. And you can't really use the term that they are medicines, that they heal in the sense that you can say that they support, right, the health process there, etc., etc. But you can't say they are medicines, because they are not. Well, herb is not a medicine in the formal sense, right? Maybe it wouldn't want to be either. Yes, yes, yes. Maybe it wouldn't want to be, maybe it would even be a disgrace to the work. Yes. But I would like to return to this topic, because this bill does indeed provide for a warning system. This also needs to be said, a warning system, but I think this law is a bit backwards, but nevertheless it is written. That is, it would be necessary to be more in my opinion, but everyone can have a different one. Well, it's true that Walter Lipman, one of the advisors to one of the presidents of the United States, said that where everyone thinks the same, no one thinks very much. I absolutely do not claim that I am absolutely right, nor that I am the smartest, because you have to listen to different opinions. So, is this the basis of both science and life's wisdom in general, that there are different... I'm expressing one of my opinions based on my life experience, that we should rather move in the direction that this MPC, the patient's advocate, should limit itself solely to warnings and describe why it believes that, for example, a given method is ineffective and the system should prove to the doctor that it is ineffective, and not that the doctor should prove or the herbalist should prove what has been proven for, I do n't know, 1,000 years that a given herb works. Well, what's there to prove, right? Why? I don't think it's like that, because you probably think that I'm here to stigmatize, for example, the institution of the patient rights ombudsman. Absolutely. At least I'm here. I think he's probably a great man. I don't know, I don't know who he is, I don't even know if he's a man or a woman, but he's probably a wonderful man, he's probably a wonderful person and has a noble heart. Because if someone is an advocate in a position such as the Patient Rights Advocate, then they certainly have a noble heart. Well, he cares about nothing but good. Well, well, because only such people probably become advocates for patients' rights. It just seems to me , or even almost, that I am certain that most people, including noble ones, do not understand how the system works and do not understand that the regulations that are created, and they have noble ideas, very often turn against the very superior idea, which is the development of medicine and health protection. they have no experience with this process, for example, administrative proceedings in the course of this path of legalization, de facto legalization, they do not have the truth of the research method or medical substance because they did not do it. They don't understand that this is an unrealistic procedure. This is a fight against windmills. They do not understand how long it takes and what the evidentiary proceedings look like before the Supreme Chamber or before the Medical Chamber in general or before the Ombudsman. And this is the foundation, that first you have to understand how this roller, this system works from the inside, which means you would have to participate in a number of such proceedings, I don't know how many. Well, I have thousands of administrative proceedings , including medical ones. Well, I see it, I experience it every week, how these proceedings are distorted in the course of this progress, how procedures are not followed , how deadlines are not met, how rules are not followed and outstanding people, great companies, enterprises, organizations are crushed. I think that this bill is in the form I see it as a draft or read it when I read it, it is far too premature. What's more, it's unfortunate that politicians give it a strictly political dimension. For example , I don't know if you heard, but Prime Minister Mhm spoke. in the Polish Sejm from the Speaker's Office, and there he talks to a representative of one of the parties that he clearly didn't like politically, and says: "There were members in your party who, for example, treated a woman with something. There were members of your party who treated something here and there, and he mentioned it." Mhm. Firstly, either the Prime Minister has no idea what this act, which is a government act in the formal sense, is about. This is government. It is, of course, prepared on the initiative of the Patient Rights Ombudsman, but formally in accordance with a government act. or the Prime Minister not according to his own bill, because all the cases he mentioned, and he also mentioned vitamin C infusions, well, all the cases he mentioned are current and fully acceptable by the bill that he himself submitted. Well, in the formal sense the Prime Minister reports. Well, the Prime Minister reported it and he doesn't know what he reported. After all, this law is not about someone not being able to use a vitamin or some herb, or some herb that the Prime Minister mentioned. The point is that you cannot use it as the only method and say that it is the only method. Firstly, it is therapeutic, secondly, it cannot be encouraged to give up other official ones. Well, that's what this bill is about, not what the Prime Minister talked about. So why does such a politician come out ? It's not that I'm taking anything away from anyone here, because now those who support this kind of prime minister or whatever he is, there's always someone who is in favor of such a policy, we put it completely, totally aside. Well, why does this Prime Minister, this or that Prime Minister, not an expert who hasn't read his own bill, and says, uses this bill to stigmatize and politically attack some group, not understanding that in fact he is attacking a huge community of wonderful, wonderful people who have devoted their lives to being great herbalists. PRŻ is a huge part, well, I know a huge part of this environment very well . After all, these are people with university degrees, well-educated, doing research, with years of experience. My brother produces herbs, he is a herb producer, right? It has several dozen hectares of herbs. He graduates from the University of Agriculture in Krakow every year, right? Well, he is an outstanding specialist in the field of herbalism. So why talk such nonsense? A politician comes out and talks such nonsense and stigmatizes those who are needed right now just to attack the opposition. So what does that have to do with anything? And m and throws people into some charlatan. It's such an insult to wonderful people like my brother, isn't it? Herbal experts. Mhm. With specialized education. Um, and there are hundreds of thousands of people like that in Poland, maybe even close to a million, who are already involved in a healthy lifestyle and who know that it is effective. Listen, I had, ladies and gentlemen, because for 24 years I was a competitive athlete, and at the same time, professionally, one of my professions is the personal protection agency, well, you are, for over 30 years I was subjected, my body was subjected to extreme effort. Extreme. In fact, it's hard to say what in my life, what in my body hasn't hurt, because probably everything, because everything that could be strained, has been strained many times . I had this condition, a certain ailment for years, a motor dysfunction. I had several of them, but there was one in particular in both lower limbs that made it impossible for me to walk. Well, I wasn't actually able to walk. Over the course of several years, I have probably gone through all the methods known to me for solving this problem from the mainstream medical field. Honors, no honors, what did I not take there? All this cost me a lot of money. And someone once told me: "Listen, go for this treatment, it's amazing." But I say, "No, listen, this is not mainstream, I 'm not going there." And so, unfortunately, I didn't go for at least the next two years. Until finally it happened that when I got up in the living room, I could n't walk to the kitchen until my, so to speak, motor system got moving. Well, I was a wreck and I thought, what do I care? I went, took this one, had this procedure, which maybe lasted a few minutes, definitely not 10. And I came home and thought, I'm not feeling any better, I have n't improved at all. I got up in the morning and in the morning I went out to the forest with the dogs and walked like this, I came like this for almost a kilometer. I think something is different. There's something going on here , there's something going on here. I think something is different, but I don't know what is different here. Well, nothing. I'm going, I'm going, I'm going. In a sense, something is different. And only on the way back I say wait a minute, I do n't have any pain on my left side at all, but on my right side I felt maybe 30% of the pain. I think, wow, this is amazing. I went and took the second one, because that's how it is every week, and then the third one. To this day I don't want to talk because it might hurt someone. Therefore, I say that this is amazing. It costs pennies. It resolved after the first treatment, and after three, so after three weeks, even this one, I had this gigantic swelling on the other side, down to zero. Even in that other leg. I ask why there are no crowds here, and I hear there are crowds here. And I say, yes. Oh, there are actually no crowds. Well, the point is that everyone has their own hour and I started to be interested in who was coming, and what happened. I already left out that the athletes are outstanding, but they are from the Olympic team. Mhm. But what struck me most was that the cream of the crop of doctors come there for these procedures, but I started to investigate even further, because I am closely connected to this medical community, on various levels. We have a lot of doctors in our family, probably 18, and now we have three more doctors being trained. a lot. And at the same time, I represent doctors, protecting them from the Supreme Medical Chamber, and I do it effectively, because for now, I have to say, 100% effectiveness. This is, however, something of a rarity. Well, I started to be interested in who exactly goes there. Well, the fact that they are doctors turns out to be the cream of the crop of university professors at medical universities. cream, only they make it clear not to say that they go, because it is not appropriate, because it is not an official method, it is not the one that does not fit in this box, right, these currently current methods. Mhm. And then I became even more fascinated, I started to delve deeper into the matter, and it turned out that doctors were coming from abroad, flying in for procedures. Mhm. doctors, not people like me who have experienced it empirically, only doctors fly in, and not only from Poland but also from Polish universities, they fly in from abroad for these procedures. So how come it is not in this official method in a very simple way? It is not in the official, it is not found in the official methods, because I have already explained earlier what the procedures look like. There is no $100 million. There is no $100 million. This cannot be done in this simplified procedure either , because although it is theoretically possible , in practice we know that it is almost impossible for various reasons. I don't want to offend anyone here, some scientists, because the last thing I would want is for some great doctor, scientist who introduced a given method, who devoted his entire life to it, to feel offended by what I said here. No, no, please, ladies and gentlemen, as I said, I have a dozen or so outstanding doctors in my family alone . Therefore, I try to be sensitive to everyone, to doctors and the medical community and the scientific community, because I am a scientist myself, and to the patient community. What I mean is, I'm trying to show different sides of this box that we call medicine or what supports medicine, right? We try to represent such different points of view from different sides, right? Because that's how a scientist should approach the issue. he should come and represent one person, because this is an unscientific approach by definition, but he should come and present both this and that view and another view and a view opposite to the one he himself may have originally presented. Because this is a serious approach, this is an honest approach, right? At least I try to do my best, and to the extent that my limited competences allow me to do so , I try to approach it as holistically as possible and honestly from every possible angle. So I hope I haven't offended anyone from any background. was never my intention. I respect every wonderful doctor and scientist here, and I'm sharing my experiences because it's very close to my heart because I represent doctors, and as I said, we have doctors in our family, and I work almost constantly in this medical community, because when you represent them, you have to understand their problems at various levels. Well, I have a different perspective, and I won't attack the patient rights ombudsman for representing patients' rights, but I do have a conviction that there was too little representation at the stage of government work and now, I think, at the stage of this subcommittee. a small social factor, that the medical community has not developed any strong association center that can participate, because the association has not only the right, but even the obligation to participate as a social factor in the work, for example, at the subcommittee stage in the Sejm. And the medical community has not been educated either. That means there is no strong association that would bring together, I don't know, 500 representatives of this industry, and it would then have to be mandatorily invited to work, or it would volunteer to work both at the ministry level and at the parliamentary subcommittee level. Then the arguments I'm presenting here could resonate 100 times better than I'm presenting them, because I'm not an expert, I'm just the truth. I collaborate with these experts, I hear them, and as much as I can articulate it today in my probably very limited way, I'm trying to do it as best I can, but I'm certainly doing it very imperfectly, and the experts would be better able to defend themselves, but they need to understand that associations need to be created. That's why I have been teaching people how to establish associations for many, many, many years . Well, I founded the first association 16 years ago, the Best Road association. Well over 400 interventions of purely state caliber. Mhm. We have managed to introduce top Polish regulations . Hundreds of thousands of people benefit from the solutions we have proposed in Poland. Hundreds of thousands, maybe even over a million. That's very accurate, I don't want to expand on this topic, but it's very precisely described in detail on the best way website. For example, we have developed the most liberal form of employment in force in the European Union for entrepreneurs. 9 years ago. It is in the Polish legal order. No matter how much net salary the employee receives, the employer pays PLN 300 in total gross salary and this has been the case for 9 years now, right? Taking advantage of this, we saved tens of thousands of Polish farms from liquidation. So he runs big projects. And I could go on like this for the next, I do n't know, 5 hours, about what else we've done of this caliber. Big projects. And later I realized that I had to teach others how to establish associations. And so several associations were established there, for example, an ecological building, later the National Shield association was established there, later other associations were established, we the people, we the entrepreneurs, now we are building a government of entrepreneurs within the We the Entrepreneurs association. A powerful project, I invite all entrepreneurs, regardless of micro, small or medium-sized ones, I cordially invite all countries to join the government of entrepreneurs. And someone who is not an entrepreneur, for example an employee but not an entrepreneur, then I invite you to join the My People association. There are incredibly inclusive associations that allow us to actively participate in creating law. And here, in my opinion, it was a bit lacking. That is, there was a lack of top Polish doctors, those known from the YouTube podcast space, and outstanding representatives of the medical community who are very well known, for example those specializing in supplementation, etc., etc. To create a common association, a common association, a large association. strong and participated in all the work. In all works. No, it cannot be so ad hoc that we will now start working only on this project. Are these works amending the regulations related to broadly understood medical law, well, it can be said that they are implemented almost constantly. And such a social factor is absolutely necessary, one that connects these two environments, the medical and paramedical ones. There is no dispute here, because they support each other. These two methods support and complement each other and are coherent. And here we cannot look at it as a dispute between the medical community and the truth of non-doctors. This is completely not what it is about from any social, human, or, I would say, axiological perspective at the level of values. That's not the point at all. This is about the well-being of a person who needs help here and now. m we have to get together, unite, connect and create value and participate in all the work. And then, in cooperation with lawyers, with people with extensive experience in these proceedings, create such structures that will not block either the doctors, these outstanding ones, these freethinkers, or and there are only a small number of them. There are a handful of free thinkers, there are always a few of them, but they are the ones who guarantee social progress the most. Nor the communities supporting these very people. the medical community and I think that's what's missing and that's what's absolutely necessary. I'll tell you, when I decided to integrate the construction industry, because this is the ventilation and heat recovery industry, and there were regulations there, someone who hasn't admitted to this day who authored these regulations tried to introduce them, that all Polish ventilation companies were to be liquidated within nine months , because someone wrote, as it used to be, or magazines, someone wrote there, the word non-flammable, that all systems were to be in place within d months. non-flammable. Non-flammable, i.e. metal, and all of them in Poland were plastic. Therefore, they were not, they were flame retardant, but they were not non-flammable. This would mean that several thousand Polish companies, including garage ones, would have to go bankrupt within nine months and at least tens of thousands of jobs would have to be eliminated. Yes, within d months, who knows who. I say, listen, dear ladies and gentlemen, because there were also ladies and gentlemen presidents, come to me, I invite you here to my conference room, I will connect you and save you, but with our own joint forces. I know you are competitors, with your joint forces save you from the system. They arrived, and believe me, some of them were sitting slightly sideways to each other. This is how they really sat. Well, because it's competition. I look at how they sit. And I say, dear people, sit down normally. I know you are competitors, but we are fighting for something fundamental. So that you survive. You are not the competition now. Now we are all a team and we sat down. That was many years ago. We have frozen these regulations. These enormous actions were undertaken. We put a lot of time, energy and heart into it, including the media. We first froze these d9 months for one year, then for the second year, then in the third year we changed these regulations. Tens of thousands of jobs and wonderful Polish companies are operating, and if they were no longer there, this industry would not exist. And it 's the same here. Incredible. But now we are integrating the shooting community in the same way and it is integrating, and previously we were introducing agricultural ones and integrating them in this way, and previously we are integrating transport ones and integrating them in this way. I am teaching people how to integrate and now I am planning to integrate these 3 million entrepreneurs, because there are about 3 million plus 3 million entrepreneurs within the association, we entrepreneurs and the government of entrepreneurs, we will reorganize the state ourselves, and here I am speaking to the medical and medical-related industries. I cordially invite you. I'll tell you how it's done. I will integrate you, I will establish this state for you. I will even tell you how they should function so that they are an indispensable and necessary element of every subsequent legislative process. We will give you support. We will tell, for example, the patient rights advocate , probably a wonderful person, how to construct subsequent provisions or even this act. Mhm. so that they do not attack the most valuable caloric units or certain areas of the system, so that they genuinely eliminate those who are dishonest, because this law does not eliminate. You must know these dishonest ones. Because what is enough to do if you want to be dishonest, what is enough to do to avoid being subject to the provisions of this act? Well, you just need to register them outside the European Union. All you need to do is register in the UK, for example, and sell supplements from there. The only thing that the Monetary Policy Council, perhaps the patient rights ombudsman, can do in accordance with this act is to strive, because if he were to do it technically, to strive, to place information on the website that he does not recommend this website or warns against purchasing these products, as with the Polish Financial Supervision Authority, right? So what can he do? If he can't do anything, who will actually be limited by this law? on all others. If someone wants to find a lash and such and beat them up, perhaps because they are doing too well , it will be used just as the current regulations are very often used, as I mentioned at the very beginning, against those doctors where the complaint was made, right, from the community, because the patient who was cured of a serious illness, right, had no complaints. She left the environment. So who else will this bill attack? And what's interesting, you may not believe it, but people like you. Mhm. I just wanted to ask about the Internet, I wanted to ask about YouTube, what would the content made available for free on the Internet look like in the light of this law. For now, it's like this: any YouTuber can invite any doctor or non-doctor to the podcast . Mhm. And listen to his opinions about medical or medical-related matters and you will not be harmed in any way. In principle, the change is radical at the level of the draft of this law. That is, the same YouTuber, after these regulations come into force, if he invites a person who has a view that does not fall within the scope of this current medical knowledge and he does not react, does not say that, but this does not fall within the scope or I have, I can have a different opinion on your point of view. Mhm. unfortunately, he will be subject to penalization under this project, at least for the time being. Is this weird? How are you supposed to know? I ask you whether anyone is sitting here before us, even when eminent doctors sent us. And how can even a prominent expert, let alone a YouTuber, know that a given thesis is controversial? Mhm. Well, why assume that she is controversial in advance? Just because most people say it's controversial. It just so happens that in the development of science, the majority is usually wrong. Someone will mention the example of that surgeon who said that they operated with dirty hands. Somehow the majority was wrong. Let me give you a more extreme example. Well, there was a man named Albert, and his surname was Einstein. This man invented something called the theory of relativity. So he decided to present this theory of relativity at the university. he came to this presentation, and I look, there are 100 professors standing there, but not to listen to him, they just prepared a letter and exactly 100 professors at this university signed a statement that Albert Einstein is not a high-class scientist and is definitely not right. The theory of relativity is wrong. There is no such thing in physics. Physically unproven. So what? We don't remember the names of 99% of them, but everyone knows Albert Einstein and from what they know him from, they know him from the theory of relativity, which is basically indisputable today. Mhm. It is individuals who most often develop the world, and this law was written with a good heart, certainly with good intentions, because I do not believe otherwise. Mhm. In my opinion, it will have the exact opposite effect to that intended by the creators, i.e. it will stigmatize people to a large extent. Well, imagine that someone is treating using a given method and suddenly they have no job because no one wants to hire them, because no center, every center is afraid to hire someone who, or imagine that there is an outstanding scientist who has come up with a brilliant idea, a scientist, a doctor and I want to come to you and tell the world about it. Well, I'll say no, because you'll say no just in case. Just in case, no. And this is a preventive gag. Preventive gag. This is my objection to this bill, not that it does not have noble intentions. That's why you see, I have been avoiding a direct answer to your very, very expressive question for a long time. Should the president sign it? Because if I had said at the very beginning that he should not have signed it in such a form, many people who are specialists, doctors and experts would have already stopped listening and would have thought that this was ideology being cultivated. But now that they've listened to the depths of something they do n't need to know about, because the doctor does n't need to know about the procedure in the sense of, you know, administrative proceedings, its complexity, how many loops there are, how cleverly, how cleverly these experts are chosen to prove a specific thesis, right, how other experts are rejected, and so on and so forth. Well, how is a doctor supposed to know? Well, the doctor is a wonderful man. Someone became a doctor. Well, that's because he had a gigantic heart and wants to give himself, his life, to others for the sake of others. No, there are no doctors. I can't imagine doctors. Well, they are known from history, true from the history of Germany. But as a rule, apart from some absolute pathology, to be a doctor you first have to be a great person. Have a gigantic heart. Well, that's the foundation, isn't it? I think we agree on this point. Yes. Well, these wonderful people don't have to understand this, this, this cuisine. Well, they don't have to, they don't have to, how could they know her, even if they do know her, they know her in such an idealized way. Because everyone assumes that the state is constructed in such a way as to idealize. And now this is a gag order being imposed on YouTubers, among others, because it's a different case, a different case is when a YouTuber comes and says: "Well, we recommend postponing cancer treatment with chemotherapy here, because we have vitamin C here and that's why everyone who is undergoing chemotherapy, it's true, please switch to vitamin C here." Well, that would be reprehensible. Well, that would be reprehensible. I think we all feel this. Besides, it would probably fall under Article 160 of the Penal Code even without this Act. But the exchange of views and public positions is something completely different . Well, yes. After all, I, for example, and my scientific research in the field of law concerns the fact that I have been creating a new legal system for 16 years . A completely new legal construct that has never been known to the world before. I have my own team. Additionally, I work with a wonderful professor, Marek Krokewicz, from the Wrocław University of Science and Technology, who has his own wonderful team. We put these teams together for this. Several dozen people from all over the country and parts of Europe joined in. Former judges, mathematicians, philosophers, logicians, many lawyers, practitioners, and they say: "Yes, this is the direction, this is a great direction." Well, what do I say in podcasts, when I am asked about it , I say that the current system, contrary to what is believed, has clearly defined dysfunctions and does not work. To make it work, you have to do something that isn't currently in the books. Nobody thought about it at all . Now let's imagine that someone creates such a law and says: "No, no, lawyers can't just come in and say that they believe that the law or semantic scopes should be interpreted differently, that semantic scopes should be defined differently , or that the ontology of law should be defined differently. Or build a paradigm of legal interpretation there, or differently, or even create one at all, because it's not in the books and it's not in any database. So would that be a blockage? Let's imagine that it is. Well, everyone has said it's irrational. That would be irrational. I agree. And it can't be that we don't a priori refrain from presenting certain views. Everyone is generally an adult. Well, maybe we should say that the film is intended for adults, okay? In the sense that they make their own decisions, and everyone takes responsibility for the content themselves. But why write it if it's already like that. After all, a child doesn't make their own decisions in a hospital anyway. Why even create such a regulation? Well, that's exactly it. Why create such artificial constructs that, to bypass, you just need to register somewhere. Mhm. And that's all it will take is for these people not to be in Poland, but to provide the same services in, I don't know, Belarus or somewhere else. In Belarus now, probably not for various reasons, but somewhere outside the European Union. And if such a creator were to operate outside of Poland, then they can express themselves. Of course, even now, but it's incredibly safe. There are regulations, maybe you don't know, but there are regulations written from the heart. It's called AML. These are regulations on counteracting money laundering and counterterrorism. And the idea is to counteract, as the name suggests, the circulation of money made of blood money, dirty money, blood money. That's how it is. But this regulation is written this way. Yes, in Poland, in Polish regulations, it's written that basically anything can be classified as money laundering, which is, well, Transmitted, so to speak, from Poland, from countries outside Poland, beyond Poland, and especially from Africa and Asia. What happened? What happened? Last year, if I remember correctly, around June, one bank received a fine of 20 million złoty for failing to comply with some procedure to verify whether the money was, let's call it, blood money. After that first fine, all subsequent banks in Poland tightened their controls so incredibly that, just to avoid a fine, they transferred the matter to the authorities, because there's a special procedure there for the authorities to decide whether to block the money just in case. Officials were overwhelmed with these cases, unable to assess the very short deadline specified there . So, just to be on the safe side, they blocked it for six months, then continued blocking it for a few more months because it took so long, and then in the next, and Polish entrepreneurs were blocked in this way, 10 to 15 million złoty from individual transactions on the Asian market. Mainly on the African market. This caused Polish businesses to radically withdraw from this market, meaning we lost resources. This only resulted in taxes not being paid in Poland. The idea was sound. I know this from the theoretical perspective, as one of my doctoral students is currently writing his doctoral dissertation in this area , but I also know the practical side, because such cases come to us and we conduct incredibly in-depth analyses. So, there are few people in Poland who have such deep knowledge in this area as we do. And now these regulations were written in a very good direction, but they were written terribly. They were written in an impractical way, because the people who wrote them didn't understand the consequences, that is, they didn't understand what would happen next. Because how could these people know about this? And here, I'm afraid, it's very similar, and that's why I think this is probably the last call, if it's not already too late. Because, as I said, this is the first reading, and we should possibly try to exclude ourselves at the parliamentary stage, if there are more. Subcommittee meetings on this matter, both for the medical and related communities . And if not, there's still the Senate, and if not, there's still the motion to withdraw this bill anyway, to amend it, so that everyone benefits, meaning doctors, so that they benefit, and the medical community, so that it benefits. Because if this does n't happen, I believe we, the patients, will lose out. After all, it's not about exclusively or exclusively, it's not about the well-being. It's about the safety of everyone, it's about the safety of doctors, the safety of the medical community, but the patient must be provided with the opportunity to choose, and at the same time, of course, they must have minimal safety conditions, but this is obvious. There's no point in mentioning this for the fifth time, and we can't promote pathology. But this bill isn't about... I'm afraid not. Its effects won't be reduced to eliminating absolute pathology, but will be such a broad, broad application of medical and related procedures through the lens of the medical... They fall into this category of current medical knowledge, and from the perspective of the medical community, there might be some overinterpretation, because officials acting in good faith tend to overstate their opinions. So I think I would give myself even more time here. I would include all these groups, I would make friends of these people in the sense that they have to be friends. The medical community, the medical community , the herbal community, and especially the pharmaceutical community, need to start respecting each other. What do I mean, why did I say they need to start respecting each other? For probably two years, I attended regular meetings, every month in the Sejm and Senate, of groups, I would say, medical, medical, and those related to a healthy lifestyle, healthy food, supplementation, as well as representatives of the pharmaceutical community. This was only suspended during this so- called pandemic, and we met monthly, and these groups, specifically the medical community, and especially the herbal community, were brutally attacked at the time. This is my assessment, and I have the right to this assessment as a participant in these meetings. Pharmaceutical. I mean, in an unworthy manner, you don't treat people that way, you don't address people that way . Especially since one representative addressed other people, sometimes older than herself and with higher academic degrees, and above all, even if someone had no education at all, you simply don't address people that way, even if you have some kind of self-image. And then it occurred to me , maybe we're dealing with some kind of promotion of pharmaceutical and corporate circles, and it wasn't just me, but it couldn't be. It simply can't be. It can't be that we exclude herbs one by one. There are regulations that specify which herbs cannot be used in Poland, and in the European Union, there are three groups of herbs, and there are all those related to drugs. Well, that's obvious. Then there's a group that can't be used, that are excessively widespread and harmful, such as Sosnowski's hogweed, so that it does n't go far. Look for it. Okay, I understand that. But there's a third group that's constantly growing. What are the arguments? For example, they tried to exclude pumpkin seeds from sale, claiming they obviously contain cyanide. If someone eats a kilogram of pumpkin seeds, they'll be poisoned. If someone eats a limited amount of other substances, they'll also get a job. If they take antibiotics, and if they take water, they'll burst. Yes. And if they take too many antibiotics, they'll also die. And if they take too much of anything and overdose, they'll also die. Well, and my brother shows it to me every now and then, he tells me which other Polish herbs are being excluded in a given year and what the argument is. The argument is that they have an active ingredient that, when consumed excessively, causes effects like permanent energy damage or something, or liver damage. Well, that's what we're talking about. And if someone eats too many antibiotics, what happens? Doesn't it cause it? Right. And what if they eat too much of anything, and poppy seeds? It doesn't cause anything. Well, there has to be some moderation , because in these regulations, because the law is only transparent, but bars, normal bars. I say this as a lawyer. As a lawyer who creates the law, who applies the law, who, in 26 years, has experience in probably every possible proceeding. After all, there is very little law that grants freedom, and there is a lot of law, and most of the law, contrary to its noble intentions, only gives us additional bars. Don't add, let's not add these additional bars. We don't need them for freedom. We were born free, somehow we weren't aware of the law, and we lived well. Let's also have confidence in ourselves, and that's how people are; they sometimes make mistakes, but that doesn't mean we have to stigmatize them immediately. Where did these fines even come from? Somewhere between a million and a million zlotys. Where did that come from? And why isn't it specified, that if something is a certain amount, it's 5,000, and only if something is a certain amount, it's 10, just like that. to a million. And everyone will come, they will be afraid. Theoretically, with a little lack of good will, who will forbid anyone to give that million, and no one will forbid anyone to give that million. Well, well, ladies and gentlemen, let's respect our own common sense more than we do, and let's not assume that it will solve every problem, every system for us. Let's not allow ourselves to be so forced into the system and let's not believe everything that's being said in the mainstream, because ladies and gentlemen, I mentioned it twice here, I mentioned twice that there was something, that there was a pseudo-pandemic. I don't want to get into this polemic at all, because legally, of course, it wasn't a pandemic, in a medical sense, maybe it was, to balance it out, but I remember that at the time, it was said in the Polish media, they said that the mortality rate in Paris was so high, that people were lying, dead lying in the streets. So, my wife and I got on a plane together and flew to Paris, and I was there for 10 days, walking the streets, and I took photos and sent them on WhatsApp to the minister, I think she was the deputy prime minister at the time, and I told the minister, "I can't find these bodies, I can't look for them, so I went and looked, and I sent a lot of them." I think she got a little offended with me later, but I just wanted to show that it wasn't true, that what was being said in the media was untrue. There were probably some such cases in hospitals, as it later turned out for various reasons, but it wasn't true that it was on such a scale that people were lying dead in the streets. Well, I went there myself and checked. And I want us to believe each other. So, I want you to understand correctly. In what I said, I'm neither for nor against what happened. I have my own opinion, but I won't reveal it here . I didn't mean to offend anyone, because the doctors tried very hard to help everyone. I want you to understand correctly, so that no one here will be offended by what I've said now. But I mean That we should look around and trust each other, we don't have to do everything by law, and above all, how we do it, let's look at what others have to say. Even if we are doctors, and if we're outside the medical community, let's ask doctors what they think. Let's sit down at one table. We've been doing this for 16 years. We connect and listen patiently to what the other side has to say. And then there's some optimal wisdom, because when everyone thinks the same, when everyone thinks the same, no one thinks too much. And this law can't be the result of the half-witness of one member of the community or one doctor. It must be the result of the wisdom of all communities. I'd like to go back to the treatment procedure itself, because I'd like it to resonate even more. What does the treatment process look like? Where did these suspensions of doctors come from, those situations where you defended those outstanding doctors? What does the treatment process look like in Poland ? A patient comes in, and how does it happen? Where do they get their knowledge? How do they get their knowledge? Are they supposed to work? Mhm. Well, I think this will perfectly illustrate a case I haven't discussed yet, of a distinguished Polish doctor, a doctor of medicine, whose doctorate was in the field of treating a specific method—I don't want it to harm her again, just in case—a specific method for a very common, very frequent, or maybe I should say it this way, very common, and very severe disease. She developed this method as part of her doctoral dissertation in the United States, and incidentally, this doctoral dissertation was recognized as one of the five best scientific works in the United States at that time. And of course, like other doctors, she came to Poland and decided to treat here using a strictly defined method. It turned out that her method completely differs from the methods indicated in such an electronic system, because the doctor has, in principle—I'll simplify it a bit , but that's what it boils down to—an electronic system, and there he determines the symptoms, and based on these symptoms, the system tells the patient what the disease is, what the dosage should be, for how long, and so on, and so on. And so on. The doctor fundamentally disagreed with the methods recommended by the Polish Ministry of Health, let's call it roughly. Although it's not entirely the Ministry of Health itself that determines this, and because the National Health Fund and the National Health Fund (NFZ) and, well, she treated with a method she developed, tested, used, and defended, effectively defended, right, introducing it into a certain, I would say, doctrine of medical science, as a standard in this scientific field. So what? I already knew she did it, had the competence, and treated effectively, when it turned out that her method wasn't, for reasons we've already discussed, included in the database of current scientific methods, methods for a moment. It's slowly sinking in. Do I understand correctly? I come to the doctor, he examines me, enters my symptoms into the computer system, and the computer system decides what's wrong with me and what should be attributed to me. Yes. In principle, that's how it works. Of course, this is a simplification, because some doctors may have different approaches, but in principle, in a somewhat simplified way, that's how it works. I didn't realize. That's why I'm surprised. Well, yes , but this was actually resonated from the very beginning of our conversation, meaning we established that a doctor cannot function solely within their own experience. Of course, experience is fundamental, but they cannot function solely within their experience; they must function within the scope of current medical knowledge, right? Well, this may be shocking, but it's by no means some property unique to medicine, because it's the same in law. In law, it's also believed that we have something called principles of legal interpretation, and we do have them, but few people know that they don't exist. We don't have a complete set of so-called enumerative catalogs, and above all, we don't have a paradigm, meaning the order in which they are applied. This means that when we read the same provision, we, as a society, expect to obtain a single result. And few people know that the legal system, both Polish and global, is based on antideterminism, meaning there can be many results in specific contexts. We're only just working on making it different. Here, it can also be shocking that truth in medicine exists. It used to be that many, many years ago, or maybe even ten, you went to the doctor, and the doctor would look, recall what was in the books, or read up on it, apply their experience, and autonomously choose a treatment method. I thought that was still the case. Honestly, I thought so too, until we handled those cases that were solely, because their only source was in all the cases we handled, the only source was the failure to follow or not fully apply procedures, or the expansion of those procedures that are recommended in this system, one could say, medical. I'd like to touch on the other side of the coin, because on the one hand, we have outstanding doctors who, by treating unconventionally, have had problems because of this. But have you also had the experience of someone trying an alternative treatment or recovery method for a given condition, and it was highly ineffective, even harmful? I think we've all experienced this in our lives, or at least someone who has lived a long time has . I'm giving you my own example. After all, I was treated for years for the conditions I mentioned. I said, my body, resulting from overuse, but without success. I tried all the methods. It's not like I went looking for some kind of rescue or alternative method, because I was conditioned a priori to the thesis that alternatives are better than traditional ones. First, I allowed myself to be, so to speak, handcuffed with all the possible preparations available. Mmm. These methods of conventional medicine, which I respect, after all. But when after a few years it turned out to be extremely ineffective, then in an act of, I would say, hopelessness, I started looking for other solutions. And this one, which turned out to be 100% effective. That's why I generally believe that in our best interest, that of us society, of us people, of us patients, is integration, not dividing these types of solutions. Integration. Because, well, I respect the doctors who tried to cure me with conventional methods. That I went to them, and they, to the best of their knowledge, using their best methods, prescribed the prescription for years. What they thought would help me. Well, they didn't do it out of spite. Let's be honest, they did n't do it out of spite. But it turned out to be ineffective. So I went elsewhere and solved my problem in three weeks. And in fact, it was after the first treatment, basically, the quoted majority. Mhm. So there's no need for this division here. He's, um, perhaps created by corporations. He's perhaps sometimes created by ego, because maybe sometimes it's stupid to admit it, and since we're here with qualifications, and there's someone without qualifications, and he's just as effective in some cases. You don't see him, you don't see him as a friend supporting the patient's well-being, meaning ours, you just see him as someone who maybe sometimes a competitor. Well, that's how it was in the legal profession. There was a time, I do n't know if you remember, when you could only be a lawyer if you were a corporate lawyer, meaning you belonged to either the chamber of legal advisers, the chamber of advocates, or the chamber of notaries, and so on. Well, this profession has been freed. And now we have, let's say, 70,000 corporate lawyers, 30,000 non-corporate lawyers. So what did it turn out to be? Has the quality declined? No, it has increased dramatically because competition has increased. It turned out that everyone had the same rights. Knowledge, knowledge in the sense of knowledge. The market verifies who is better and who is worse. The market, the empirical market, is, so to speak, experienced. Well, well, that's it. Well, I'm not saying, there are doctors, I'm not saying that it should be released to such an extent that it sounds good. I am not advocating that the medical market should be so liberalized that, without completing medical studies, equivalent qualifications and competences should be granted to people from the medical field. No, no, no, absolutely, let's understand each other well here. That's not what I mean. Well, we have excellent doctors who for several years have been demanding that medical chambers remove them from the register. They do not want to belong to medical chambers because they do not want to be subject to procedures for verifying treatment methods, which they do not respect because they believe they are extremely ineffective, and at the same time, because they belong to these chambers, they cannot use methods that are effective because they have empirically experienced it, but they cannot formally implement it due to lack of resources and time. So why is the medical community defending itself against this, which has been brilliantly successful, brilliantly verified in the legal community, right? Why? Well, maybe it's about contributions, maybe it's true, it's about contributions, but it was achieved in the legal community and it's a great success and more freedom, and I believe that this is the direction we should aim to build freedom, not how to build further restrictions and further exclusions, because this always attacks patients. Because this is incredibly important, that if someone thinks that as a bill, if this bill will attack herbalists or anyone else, or even some anti-systemic doctors, then the only people it really attacks, in the long run, apart from those extreme cases that we exclude, extreme cases, it attacks patients, because the slower it goes, the more restrictions and limitations there are on doctors and on the medical community, the slower medicine will develop. And the slower medicine develops, the longer medical problems that could be solved will remain unresolved. Look, my case, because I am living proof of this. This is why it is so gigantic. Well, you have to have some reflection. How is it that there is such a gigantic movement, such a gigantic movement of people who use, um, medical-related solutions. Mhm. Well, I myself belong to a group somewhere in one of the areas where there are 1000 such people. There is such a group on one of the messengers. Well, because people visited many doctors, respecting them, valuing their knowledge, achievements, experience, competences, they found that their problems were unresolved and as a result of a kind of despair, some, or hope, began to behave rationally from their perspective. when you are sick. I have used all the methods I knew and are known in medicine and they did not help me. Well, I have two options. Wait for the situation to worsen and perhaps in some situations death, or look for alternative solutions. And so it won't hurt me anymore. Yeah. And people started to notice that when they used some of these methods, they turned out to be just as effective or more effective. Well, there is no, there is no , please note that as a rule there is no promotion of any medical environment here. I mean, no one is putting millions and billions in, like millions and billions are put in the pharmaceutical industry, which constantly broadcasts advertisements for one pill or another. Yes, there is nothing like that on the other side . And this environment is developing. But why does it develop? Well, because he observes empirically and experiences benefits. So why limit the direction and a certain movement that is absolutely natural and develops naturally as a result of empirical experience? Yes. It is through commands that people communicate to each other. Yes. But but of course. And now, about gagging YouTubers, well, that's it, we can say goodbye, right? Well, no, well, well, it's with a certain theme just in case, right? If the president were to sign it, well, would you like the president to sign it, then I'll ask you. Such a law, Konrad? Well, you would like it in this form, wouldn't you? Sure. Well, you know, and it's just that when we started this conversation and you started with that question, it was impossible to answer it right away. Well, you have to go down a few floors to the bottom and understand it from the bottom, in order to build yourself up. That's why I'm inviting all of you here to join the We People association, the We Entrepreneurs association, so that we can participate in the legislative processes and so that we can create such regulations ourselves, because if you were a member of the We People association, so the average person, the average patient, and if you could participate in this legislative process, and as members of the association you can participate, would you create such a project as the one I'm talking about here now, or would you create a different one? I think that another one is definitely needed, because today I came across something amazing on YouTube, an AI doctor's channel that doesn't exist, it 's been running for three weeks and, you know, there's a person who looks like a doctor, he's actually a prompt and he's telling some things, he knows where the marker that it's AI is barely visible. Okay, fine. I'll throw this in now, because you've really taken me to another area. I am a member of the working group for the development of artificial intelligence at the Ministry of Digital Affairs. I am even the leader of two teams, especially one large leading one, namely in the field of legal regulations for the adaptation of artificial intelligence. Mhm. Among other things, I am a co-author of the artificial intelligence development strategy for 2025-2030 in Poland. Anyone can go to the ministry's website, download it and see it on the second page. I am as a co-author. Well, few people probably know that there are countries in the world where artificial intelligence is used for treatment almost without human participation. Well, now it may seem shocking to someone why. But now let's think about it , let's imagine an African country where there is an extreme shortage of doctors. Is it better to enter the symptoms into an IT system which, based on the same symptoms, will determine with some degree of probability that it may be this disease entity and issue recommendations, or is it better to leave such a patient without any treatment? It's better in Australia, where the nearest doctor might be, I don't know, 500 km away and we won't be able to get there in time, is it better to try and risk taking, right, a dead person to such a doctor, or is it better to ask the question? And here too there are no simple answers. You see, there are cases and there are situations where it may be better to ask the system this question . I'm not saying that this is how it should be in Poland. Mhm. We have many other circumstances, but I also wonder whether it shouldn't be like this after all, because I'm not saying it should be, just so you understand. Brainstorming now we think where everyone thinks the same, there no one thinks too much. A purely scientific approach. You asked me a question, and it came through in our entire conversation: what does the current treatment system look like ? This means that it is based on the doctor's intuition, experience and knowledge. Mhm. So it is largely system-based. On the system. And I suspect that AI is also its knowledge of, for example, GPT chat is based on this system. Certainly, I think it's much more perfect, because research shows it. There are studies, I don't know if you know, I don't know if you know, but there are studies on the rate of accurate diagnoses by the AI ​​system versus doctors. Well, no, as a rule, doctors should not be satisfied with the results of these tests, or at least they should be seriously concerned. And they are and they are. I believe that it is a matter of the next few years, I don't know if it's not a dozen or so, but I don't know if it's not several dozen months, when AI systems will generally support every doctor in diagnostics. Mhm. Because they have a disproportionately larger database, access to a database of symptoms and combined symptoms compared to even the most outstanding human mind. Yes. Yes. in such a base 100% right, but I will show you my perspective. There I am , writing a prompt. Write me a script for a YouTube video where, for example, you talk about how some vitamin, let's say X, is an effective treatment for something. It generates a script for me , which is read by a person dressed up, looking like a doctor, generated in her, which immediately gives her authority. This person doesn't really exist. Under the guise of this person, I can introduce, you know, some supplements to the market, so buy them now. When I looked at the comments, many people thanked me so much for this video, not noticing that this person does not exist, that it is a generated character, where his mouth even moves a little in a very, very AI-specific way, as if it were moving, that they believed that this person exists. And if we're talking about GPT chat or some other systems that draw on knowledge bases, here we have an example of how you can literally put anything into this doctor's mouth. And here Konrad you are talking about a completely different box. That's why it scared me. You are absolutely right. I turn it off at all, because that's actually where I should have started, that I turn off such a possibility from my consciousness, from my mind, so that the AI ​​support system would be based on LLM at all. Mhm. I generally assume that it cannot be based on LLM for reasons I don't want to go into the whole structure, but I could explain to you why LLMs inevitably in areas where deterministic results are required will provide non-deterministic results, let's put it this way, meaning no, but I don't want to open this box, because it's a powerful, fascinating box for me, but I don't want to go into it, but the elements are not suitable for this, not only to heal people, but they are not even suitable for supporting doctors for many different reasons. They draw too much poisonous, contradictory information, they are unable to judge which one is correct, because where could they do that from? The whole ontological problem. Later on, there is still a problem, that is, it translates into, among other things , what is called hallucination, but this is a purely operational-engineering problem. Later, for example, there is this information depending on how it is given, how it is cut, how it is vectorized, how it is changed, how these changes are given vectors. It is not suitable for us. That's the point. However, I am talking about cases in which we create an internal hermetic environment, not based on an LLM or LLMs, even the best ones, and we provide a knowledge base there, and this could be a brilliant tool supporting even the most outstanding doctors. And that's what it will be like in my opinion, and it will be quick. It may not be within a dozen or so months, but I think it will be within several dozen. And such systems are already being created and they will brilliantly complement us, support, right, doctors. for our own good. But these are, you know, it's very important to me that we don't equate, that we don't confuse the boxes a little bit, you know? So what? I absolutely agree that impersonating a doctor, an authority figure, is perfidy. This is perfidy. It's not that it 's such an ugly word, but for example in the law of humanitarian war, if, for example, someone impersonates the Red Cross and drives a car under the Red Cross in order to transport their offensive troops there, then that's what it's called in the law of humanitarian war a perfilm. This is what you told here. Well, this is impersonation of a doctor's authority by a system of who knows what kind, whose database it is, and whose source it is. This is pure perfidy. This is something very dangerous in general. But we don't talk about it because I don't want it to be a separate issue . However, I will throw in a little bit of this, thanks anyway, right? Yeah. Well, imagine how this current system works? Does it work, as I said, based solely on the doctor's intuition and experience, or is it based on what he has in this system? write down these symptoms. This system suggests that it is rather this and that, and then says that it should be this and that, more or less, something else to choose from, but generally the directions are outlined. And what is actually the difference between one and the other? The point here is that there absolutely cannot be a situation where someone somewhere on the Internet has developed something for fun, or not for fun, or perhaps even maliciously, because maybe that cannot be ruled out. But such a system, properly parameterized by doctors, with the participation of doctors, of course by a programmer, but with the participation of outstanding doctors and so on, can be excellently supportive. However, and I think that this is perhaps the future of medical science, that is, perhaps such a system will begin to see certain dependencies of cooperation with the medical community, to say: "Aha, but there is a solution here and there that could support this method in this way." So, you know, that's how it's worth looking at the issue of my opinion. Of course, I don't have to be right just because of my position , but I believe that holistically it is for the good of the patients. For the good of patients. What would you change in this bill in its current form? Given this, I would stop her altogether for now and return her to work at the ministry. I would gather a team representing not only the office of the Patient Rights Ombudsman, but also patient associations with various life experiences, because it cannot be assumed that the office representing patient rights, the patient rights ombudsman, has an exhaustive range of experience in relations with the medical community. I would invite doctors, I would invite as many people from the medical community as possible, as large as possible, even perhaps exaggeratedly large, to hear as many different opinions as possible, because there is wisdom in every person, even if it is partial, there is always some wisdom in some statement, and only then would I try to balance it, and only then would I try to introduce this bill in a peaceful manner, without any offensive or malicious naming. Is this nothing more than insulting people? Which means that patients who are desperate about the ineffectiveness of a given method, whether generally available or from the mainstream medical field, are also offended by the fact that they use some quack methods. After all, they are not and do not use any charlatan methods. people with considered. Mhm. Very often I see no other chance because everything else has failed. You know, there are too many bad emotions, and great things need to be built on good emotions. I would withdraw this project. I don't know if the Sejm will be able to afford it , because it would be an image disaster, since the Prime Minister has already imposed such things on so many representatives of other parties, right? Now, if he withdrew it, well, but in a wise country, wise politicians should behave wisely and should once again consult the opinion of the wider community. This is what I would do, I would withdraw it. I already see that there are many inconsistencies here, despite the most sincere intentions of the patient rights advocate, but I see that there are many doubts, which at least I have while climbing this episode. What can people actually do after listening to even our episode, who are in this environment and who, for example, are not doctors? What can we actually do? The first step, which should have been done many years ago, but must be done here and now and immediately, is to create a powerful association. A powerful association bringing together the absolutely widest possible group of people who are in the medical community. Such a basic association. perhaps there should be additional associations created later, i.e. let 's say a month later, additional industry-specific ones, to also represent these industries because the non-existent one has no voice. If you are not there in the formal sense, if you do not have a powerful association that counts, and not then you will not be invited to the Sejm, because the regulations state that social factors are invited to the legislative process. So Kowalski can't come, he's not a social factor. Only an association representing the public interest is the entity that is invited and can participate. So for us as a society to have a chance to participate in such a discussion, we must first unite. First, we need to have a powerful association, and then this association should be reported to the Ministry of Health, to the Chancellery of the Prime Minister, and to the Sejm, to the Senate, depending on the stage of the amendment process, whether it is an amendment or some other project, and with a request to join us, such an association will be included. Because that's what it says, that's what the regulations specifying the rules of procedure on the legislative path say, so it will be included, and then you have to participate actively , prepare your own drafts or amendments along with justifications, submit them personally , because this is very important. to submit it to the chairman personally, so that he can vote on it, express his position, i.e. have such a representative, expert group of people at a high level and with high culture. Because I have watched many speeches from various subcommittees and working groups in the Sejm of the Republic of Poland, where our circles, so to speak, those related to a healthy lifestyle in the sense that I am not a member of any formal one, but I identify with people who promote a healthy lifestyle. That's what I mean in this sense. I have watched these meetings many times, and they often took place in a civilized atmosphere. Sometimes there were all sorts of, I would say, emotional exchanges, er, perhaps unnecessary. Okay. And these were such points. Something happened once, someone came and said something, even emotionally, others said: "Bravo." And what did it bring? Nothing. Because what kind of action is this? non-systemic, and if you have to act systemically, that is, such an association must work 365 days a year. must constantly prepare petitions, drafts of regulations, draft bills, justifications for regulatory impact assessments, EWS analyses, provide, be a partner for, uh, for the authorities, for this system, be a partner, be visible, be respected, do it with class, with culture, very, very competently, at a very high level of competence, i.e. substantive, that's what I mean, caloric. these documents, these letters, must be substantive, we must deliver them and only then are we treated as a partner by the system and this system says it's good, we will be happy to hear what you have to say. I did this for 16 years. These 400 interventions in just one association were built using this model. Hence my effectiveness. I try to do everything I do as conciliatory as possible, politely, cultured, with class, very substantive, without unnecessary emotions, because we are interested, we are interested in the result, and we are not interested in showing ourselves somewhere that we have emotions, we are only interested in the result, right? If the result is good, we will show positive emotions. And before that it was just raw, pragmatic work. That is why we are creating a government of entrepreneurs. Oh, you can merge, join our association of entrepreneurs. I was wondering where to direct all these people who are listening to us. I invite you to join the We Entrepreneurs association, and then to work in the entrepreneurs' government, because many people from this community are entrepreneurs, micro, small, medium-sized, but entrepreneurs nonetheless. And I invite you, and there we will create, so to speak, a thematic sub-box related to entrepreneurship in the medical area. Mhm. and we will represent the interests of this community in relations with all other partners, because we need to look at all of them as partners, not as partners, but as partners, and we will exchange experiences, we will move the understanding, the level of understanding of this community to other areas. Mhm. Because society already understands that this environment has a lot to offer, as evidenced by the fact that a huge number of people take advantage of it. or look at how many books are sold on a healthy lifestyle, the use of alternative methods or complementary methods. True? Society has already bought it, but they don't understand it yet. Perhaps some of the authorities, some of the state apparatus do not understand, some of the officials perhaps do not understand. And maybe they understand, but they don't see the pressure, maybe there is a bit of misunderstanding in the medical community as well. And we have something very fundamental and great to do. it is a connection, an integration for patients. Well, after all, the doctor is not interested in the fact that he personally cures the horse, but that the patient who comes to him and suffers is cured. This is what the doctor cares about. Well, how do we know this? Because he wouldn't have become a doctor. Well, you have to have a big heart to become a doctor, right? So when a doctor knows where he can use complementary therapy that is compatible with his therapy, this main medical one, he will use it, because for him the most important thing is, for 99.99% of doctors, the most important thing is good from the patient. And we have to create this symbiosis for the first time, right? So we need a very strong association. I invite you to join us, the government of entrepreneurs, if you are entrepreneurs. We will create a subcategory here and create narratives with another wonderful community of doctors and create one common wonderful community of people who serve other people to save their health and lives. And if they are not entrepreneurs, we invite you to join the We the People association. Ladies and gentlemen, we, as a social movement, founded many years ago in Olkusz with Paweł Jochynek during this so-called pandemic period, when everyone was in a very bad situation and to unite, and later we transformed it into an association. We people the name comes from I man. And I am a human being because among human rights, at the very top of human rights is the right to dignity. That is, we, people with the right to dignity. We are people who respect other people and who are ecumenical, where we are ecumenical politically, ecumenical religiously. We are interested in ensuring that we take care of each other 's dignity and integrate. Mhm. So if someone is not an entrepreneur, we invite you to join the We the People association and here we will work out the same for a box that deals exclusively with health-related issues and we will broadcast this narrative that is close to us through two associations. This is the only way consistent with the current legal system in Poland. And almost everything that concerns us, this microphone was created under certain legal conditions. This console, this desk, everything that concerns us is in some legal framework, so we have to be able to find our ideas in the context of specific legal regulations and in the context of a certain legislative process, which has a strictly legal dimension and you don't have to understand it. It is important that you tell us what idea you want to introduce, what patients need, and we will put it into a structure and then submit it to the legislative process in such a way that every patient will benefit from these benefits. Great. In that case, I invite you to join the associations, links to which I will also place under this video. If you have questions for Mariusz, comment and ask questions. At most I will invite you to the next episode. And I would really like to , because I think we have added a lot of value here. You provided it, I just extracted this information, so thank you very much. Actually, you did it, because I 'm just a guest here. If you hadn't invited me, I wouldn't have had the opportunity to express my attitude towards you and the state. Thank you also for your time. I hope that's good. I would like you to consider that at least part of it was well used. Great. Thank you very much again. I thank you very much. Yeah.