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 next 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. Because if we were to say that this Lex charlatan only attacks people who are outside the medical community, it would be a grave insult to 99.9% of cases. There is an outstanding scientist and he came up with a brilliant idea, a scientist, a doctor, and I want to come to you and tell the world about it. And you say just in case no, just in case no. And this is a preventive gag. Preventive gag. This is my objection to this bill. The channel partner is Nutrity. Supplements that contain as many as 48 active ingredients, 100% natural, without artificial flavors, sweeteners or fillers. Made in Poland, and each batch is tested in an independent laboratory. With the code mentli you will receive a special discount when ordering . Today with me is a professor at the Nicolaus Copernicus University in Warsaw, Professor Mariusz Miąsko, a lawyer, academic teacher and entrepreneur. Hi. Hi. Good morning. In this episode, we'll be looking at the Lexarlatan Act, and my first question is, do you think the Lex Charlatan Act could be signed by the president in its current form? And so without even opening the whole gift that is this episode that 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? 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, one could say, of 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 the supervision of 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. That is, those people 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. Mhm. 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 about. 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's why I do n't know how the president will react, because I don't know how these details will ultimately be regulated, because there is full agreement that all people who do not have a medical degree 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 a form of treatment, one could say in a formal sense, 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 can 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 anyone can sell Supplements, as long as they do n't harm health. Everyone 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 such 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 like that, That you can do them freely, because there is such a thing as current medical knowledge. This current medical knowledge exists, and here's the interesting thing, it's just a catchphrase. There we have a certain general standard, a general standard 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, including those of doctors who lost their licenses because they had a different concept. on knowledge, on ontolog, i.e., the ontological scope, i.e., 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 circumstance that often what was current medical knowledge at a given moment is already, for example, outdated, obsolete. And here, the situation looks very different in practice, I would say. He said, "Not good for doctors." Here are 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 other, 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 might say, to annihilate the initially issued bans. But how did this happen? It turned out that both were outstanding representatives of medical science—not just doctors, but generally—in one case, a doctor, in the other, a postdoctoral degree, meaning they were representatives of the scientific world in general. Hmm, they came to Poland full of enthusiasm, full of energy, and full of confidence that they would be treating using the methods they had learned in the United States and Great Britain, because both of them practiced at outstanding, excellent universities and, interestingly, with absolutely top- tier scientists. In the area in which they specialized, they had specializations. Mhm. And it turned out that they didn't fit at all into the framework of methods that were 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, did the patients suffer any harm in connection with this treatment? Yes. The strange thing about these cases, in fact, in all the cases we handled, the strange thing about these charges was that in none of them were there— firstly, there was a recovery, 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. They didn't come from patients. One It came from a patient. The other two were from community reports. Clearly, there was some element of, I would say, competition, to put it mildly, and, well, anyway, these proceedings were initiated . Even the disciplinary spokesmen 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 consultant. In one case, and in the other, the provincial one, as currently applicable MHM methods. And in the second, uh, case, they weren't recognized and accepted, uh, because there was also a female doctor. This is a separate case, recognized even by the national consultant. And now the problem is that the doctors very They rightly pointed out that these procedures may not be familiar 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, in its final form, 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 charlatan, 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 Medical Chambers and the Supreme Court. Medical Court, because the Supreme Medical Court actually evaluates the procedures in force in Poland based on Polish guidelines and indications. Whether or not this is actually done is actually implemented by the Medical Chamber, which verifies whether doctors in Poland actually use 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 today, the content, which is currently a draft, is consistent with the provisions. It may turn out that in a few weeks there will be a different scope, 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 is, you could say, a safety valve when it comes to doctors themselves, right? Because it means that a doctor should not be attacked by the Patient Rights Ombudsman in a similar way. The same way as it happened in the two cases I described here that the Supreme Medical Chamber attacked. 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, and each batch is tested in an independent laboratory. With the "mud" code when ordering, you'll receive a special discount for doctors, because they assumed this didn't fit Polish procedures, right? 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 whether international ones have also 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 a million zlotys, right? The M will be increased because Previously, it was possible to have up to 500, but only for doctors. Currently, it's up to one million zlotys. Mhm. And under the immediate enforceability regime, in the administrative procedure, an immediate ban on the practices being carried out will be issued, and this ban applies to both those with medical licenses and those from the medical community. And now, to make things even more interesting, this order applies to doctors not only not primarily the doctor himself, but, to put it very simply, the health center where he treats, the organizational unit where he treats. One might wonder, why is this so? Exactly, because for now, when we're talking about this law, we think everything is fine. The PRŻ 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 vitamin D should be dosed differently. Dose anything. 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, he's not an expert at all, unlike the eminent scientist Professor Belwederski, because here I have a specific face in my mind right now , who is speaking completely contrary to the current in many areas. An outstanding expert, certainly the best in Poland, and perhaps one of the few, perhaps one of the five best in the world in a given field. But he won't be the one deciding what will happen in a moment , as I'll discuss in a moment. It's the patient rights advocate, who has some insight into this area, but isn't an outstanding expert. So what can he do? He can issue an administrative decision under the immediate enforcement rule, immediately suspending the provision of these medical services by this outstanding doctor, immediately and with immediate effect, and imposing 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, to call it current medical knowledge. Ah, 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, 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 rather 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 sign or not sign such a bill. If such a model were to continue, in my opinion, the president should not sign it due to this one aspect , but it is devilishly difficult, devilishly difficult to explain, because you see now, ladies and gentlemen, you see now, as we speak, that the fog is only just beginning to clear and we will begin to understand that under the guise of these very Initially, it suddenly turns out that there's a 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 system and the medical community eliminated them 200 years ago, thanks to a surgeon who noticed that most infections are the result of something like a 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 , what the procedure for including these treatment methods in this, on this, on These international databases, for example, on 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 make someone think of some kind of 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 to conduct the first, second, and third phases 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, quite a lot. Okay. Oh. 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 or so, because if we had To conduct a full study on a 2,000-person control group, that's at least 15 years. So, if we understand this as a time perspective, from the perspective of a human life and, moreover, 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, discovers these procedures, they know that these methods are effective, which they use, right, through a process of normal testing and elimination of ineffective methods. Hmm. He has no practical method, he has no practical method for this. I say more practically, because it's purely theoretical, which I'll discuss 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 case with Amantadine, among others. That's an example of what was going on with Amantadine. Similarly, we had doctors or groups of doctors whom the entire elite of the Polish government approached and asked for help. They were practically on their knees about treating them with amantadine, right? But officially, amantadine, right, during the COVID period, as we remember, wasn't recognized because it wasn't recognized as a method, as a medicinal substance. Despite the empirical experience of even government officials—I personally know ministers who volunteered and were treated with this method, I personally know these people— but formally, it wasn't included, so to speak, in the database, which was treated as an official method or a medicinal substance. And such practices there are more accidents. 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 a, I would use this term perhaps not 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 just not true, but I don't think they are, I mean, I think there are two trends, one intentional at some level of large corporations, I would say pharmaceutical ones, and I believe it is absolutely intentional, and the other is unintentional somewhere at the level of some officials who very often in good faith create and construct such statutory provisions based on the example I'm talking about here. And now there is another procedure, which is also experimental, because theoretically even a Polish doctor can conduct a medical experiment, and everyone will think: "Oh, hurray, great, we're happy, so I'll go to such a doctor, I'll 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 go to the doctor and he says, "Yes, I know what you're dealing with. This is something very unique. I know how to drag you. Unfortunately, the procedure won't allow me to do it 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, 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, 30 years of deprivation of the right to practice a profession, and the law says that you can lose it indefinitely, for life , so to speak . So I'll sign you up for this experimental procedure. Therefore, there are five such stages of this experimental procedure. The first stage of the application itself is 90 days. In practice, it may take a disproportionately multiple of that time. The whole procedure is in practice, because one thing is theory, another is practice, because there are also such applications that need to be filled out. These applications, no matter how hard we try to fill them out, are usually not as good as the reviewers would like , because there are also such appointed scientific reviewers. In practice, it takes years, but even if it lasts a few months, let's say it lasts even six months, you have the patient here and now and he needs help here and now, not in six months, because in six months in many cases he will not be alive, or his condition will have deteriorated so drastically that treatment will be ineffective. And now I would say again that there is no lack of elegance, let me put it mildly, this project is based on this lack of elegance towards patients and towards certain things and science is based on the assumption that doctors or people without medical qualifications cannot, for example, perform certain actions that could result in permanent deterioration of health or loss of life, or permanent deterioration of health. Okay. And again, if someone presented it to the president like this, because I keep referring to your question about whether the president would sign it, the president would say: "No, it's obvious that it cannot worsen the situation. This is the correct provision in this bill." Yes. Okay. Does chemotherapy cause the old, permanent deterioration of health or not? Because I would like to And does radiotherapy cause or not? Does antibiotic therapy cause or not ? We could probably exchange now . I wouldn't be able to do it for long, because I'm not a doctor, but if we had an outstanding doctor here, he would probably go on like this until morning. Well, okay. And I'm sorry, and these vaccines for this whole pandemic that was there, for this whole alleged covid, she doesn't question that it was, that there was covid. Mhm. As a lawyer, I question whether there was a pandemic, 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 there must be a certain coefficient. But we put this aside because it is a sensitive issue, so perhaps it is unnecessary. Even when I mentioned it, I 100% withdraw it. I'm sorry 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, that is, he must understand that, uh, there are vaccines, or not vaccines, like for this COVID, but you could say there are some methods that also have negative effects. I even checked recently in a certain discussion, because we are conducting quite a lot of administrative proceedings in these cases, right, in the field of medical law, so I checked what the number of these serious illnesses or deaths was after vaccination against COVID in the European Union and after vaccination in the United States . Well, to be honest, that surprised me, because I did n't realize that in the official message , that this is what the mainstream media is about, as it looked, they are at the level of the successors in the United States, in the European Union separately, right, not counting, and what's more interesting, only the official message. yyy it is believed in the United States that yyy this may constitute these official records constitute perhaps only half. This is what I'm getting at. That's not what I mean, because someone will say a lot, not much, someone will break it down into percentages. That's not what I'm talking about. I say they occurred. Mhm. So there were cases of mortality, and not just 1 day there, but we are talking about some cases per 100,000 in one case, and similarly in the European Union. I don't even care whether there were many or few of them, I just mean that I am now referring to the assumptions of this project. Well, it cannot be said that we eliminate doctors who are scientists, outstanding doctors, or even not scientists, but with enormous life experience, and we do not allow them to use their enormous life experience , very often enormous, confirmed by thousands of effective cures, just because it does not fit into one database or another and is not treated as an official method, a current method of treatment. at the same time, under the pretext, under the cover that it is not allowed to do this, because it would, if it could affect the deterioration of health or permanent damage to health or death, but as we have already indicated, there is a whole range of methods that would have to be excluded in this way . I mean, I think it 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 dollars over 7-15 years? Well, who can afford it? Well, who can afford Aha, because I haven't mentioned yet that this, that if a doctor wanted to perform even this procedure, this simplified one, right, this experiment, then in addition you have to know that he would have to pay for it, because there are, in turn, such things under two boxes. There is one tax, it is for scientists and there you can apply for an exemption and then the experiment often costs 0 PLN. But if he were to follow such a non-scientific path, then it would cost around 8,000 PLN, I mean from 1 to 8,000 PLN. So the doctor would still have to put up his own money to perform the procedure or ask the patient if he would be willing to pay out, put up his own 8,000 PLN, for example 8,000 PLN. And here, you see, the whole falsehood of this construct is now revealed, 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. Because if we were to say that this quack drug only attacks 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 for doctors. You could also say that it is not directed at doctors, but here this system attacks doctors. Well, yes. I mean, what's the point of educating people, in human terms, 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 go through 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 since it has developed the system, it assumes that it has developed a professional. If this professional changes a certain method, the system should prove through research that this method is ineffective and then perhaps issue warnings. Yes, I am a supporter of such a solution that works, it is used by the Polish Financial Supervision Authority on the stock exchange, right? And there we have a situation where the Polish Financial Supervision Authority (KNF) issues warnings and says: "Come on, dear citizen, you are responsible. You are over 18. Hmm. This is your money, your life. I believe that this stock market, this company on the stock market, doesn't bode well. Something's not right with it. We are experts. But we won't make decisions for you , telling you you can't invest in it . Invest. This is your life. It should be the same here." He said, "The system should speak for itself." We have some doubts about whether the methods are good there. But we're just giving a warning. But you are a Polish citizen, you pay taxes, you also pay for this doctor, for this entire structure. Choose what you think is appropriate. I'm not talking about someone dishonestly posing as a doctor when they 're not, right? That's a completely different box, or someone performing diagnostics when they're not qualified to do so. That's a completely different box, and I think it's completely niche, but in any other case, in my opinion, this is how the system should work . Of course, the law is very unfair in its naming, maybe let's not even call it that, this new law. I've read comments online, and so many people are so happy to write about these herbalists, these people, you know, not realizing that there are two boxes here, doctors and alternative methods. They think, you know, and in general, it's a misunderstanding that people are attacking herbalists in the media, so I must, must, must know that this law not only doesn't attack herbalists, doesn't attack herbalists in the slightest. It attacks almost no one at all except those who would claim to be doctors when they aren't, and diagnosticians when they aren't. And you can't really use the term "medicines," that they heal in the sense that you could say they support, right, the health process, etc., etc. But you can't say they are drugs, because they aren't. Because an herb isn't a drug in the formal sense, right? Maybe it wouldn't want to be either. Yes, yes, Yes. Maybe it wouldn't be desirable, perhaps it would even be a disgrace to the work. Yes. But I'd like to return to this topic, because this bill does indeed provide for a warning system. It also needs to be said, a warning system, but I think this bill is a bit backwards, but nevertheless, it's written. I mean, it would have to be more in my opinion, and that's my opinion, but everyone can have a different one. Well, it's true. 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 much. I absolutely don't claim to be absolutely right or to be the wisest, because after all, you have to listen to different opinions. That's what science and life wisdom are all about, that there are different opinions. I'm expressing one of my opinions based on my life experience, that we should rather move in the direction of the Monetary Policy Council, the patient rights advocate, limiting itself solely to warnings and describing why they believe, for example, that a given method is ineffective, and the system should prove to the doctor that It's ineffective, not that a doctor has to prove, or a herbalist has to prove what's been proven for, I do n't know, 1,000 years, that a given herb works. What's there to prove, right? Why? I don't think it's because you probably think I'm here to stigmatize, for example, the institution of the patient advocate. Absolutely. At least I'm here. I think he's probably a wonderful person. 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 person, he's probably a wonderful person and has a noble heart. Because if someone is an advocate in a position like the patient advocate, they definitely have a noble heart. They care about nothing but the good. Because, because only such people probably become patient advocates. It just seems to me , or even almost, I'm sure, that most people, including the noble ones, don't understand how the system works and don't understand that the regulations that are created, and they have noble ideas, very often turn against the very idea. The overarching idea of ​​developing medicine and healthcare. They have no experience with this process, for example, administrative proceedings along this path of legalization— de facto legalization—they don't have the research method or medical substance because they haven't done it. They don't understand that this is an unrealistic procedure. It's tilting at windmills. They don't understand how long it takes and what evidentiary proceedings look like before the Supreme Chamber, or before the Medical Chamber, or before the Ombudsman. And this is the foundation. First, you need to understand how this roller, this system, works from the inside. This 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 during this progression when procedures are not followed , deadlines are not met, rules are not followed, and outstanding people, wonderful companies, enterprises, and organizations are crushed. I think that this law is in the form I have. I see it as a project, or when I read it, it's far premature. What's more, it's unfortunate that politicians are giving it a strictly political dimension. For example , I don't know if you've heard, but Prime Minister Mhm. spoke from the podium in the Polish Sejm, and he spoke to a representative of one of the parties, which he clearly didn't like politically, and said: "There were members in your party who, for example, treated a woman with some kind of charm." There were members of your party who treated patients with something here and there, and he mentioned it there." Mhm. First of all, either the Prime Minister has no idea what this bill is about at all, which is a government bill in the formal sense. It's a government bill, of course, it was prepared at the initiative of the Patient Rights Ombudsman, but formally a government bill. Or the Prime Minister didn't use his own bill, because all the cases he mentioned, and he also mentioned vitamin C infusions there, well, all the cases he mentioned are current, they are fully acceptable under the bill he himself reported. Because in a formal sense, the Prime Minister reports. Well, the Prime Minister reported it and doesn't know what he reported. After all, this bill isn't about someone not being able to use a vitamin or some herb, or some herb that he mentioned. The point is that you can't use it as the only method and say it's the only method. Firstly, it's therapeutic, secondly, it's not about encouraging people to give up other, official methods. After all, that's what this bill is about, not what the Prime Minister is talking about. " He said. So why does such a politician come out ? I don't mean to discredit anyone here, because now those who support this or that prime minister, or whatever he is, there's always someone who supports this or that kind of politics, we completely, totally put aside. So why does such a prime minister come out, or this or that prime minister, or 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 essence, he's attacking a huge community of wonderful, wonderful people who have devoted their lives to being great herbalists? PRŻ are a huge part of this community, well, I know a huge part of this community very well, they're people with university degrees, highly educated, doing research, and years of experience. My brother produces herbs, he's a herb producer, right? He has dozens of hectares of herbs. Every year he graduates from the University of Agriculture in Krakow, right? Well, he's an outstanding specialist in herbalism. So why talk such nonsense? Come out, politician comes out, and so on. He talks nonsense and stigmatizes those who are needed right now just to attack the opposition. What does that have to do with anything? And he throws people into some kind of charlatan's camp. It's a disgrace to wonderful people like my brother, isn't it? Herbal experts. Mmm. With specialized education. And there are hundreds of thousands of people like that in Poland, maybe even maybe even close to a million, who are already involved in a healthy lifestyle and who know that it's effective. Listen, ladies and gentlemen, I had, because for 24 years, I was a competitive athlete, and at the same time, and professionally, one of my professions is personal protection, well, you know, for over 30 years I was subjected, my body was subjected to, extreme exertion. Extreme. It's hard to say what in my life, what in my body didn't hurt, because I think everything, everything that could be It was strained, it was strained many times . I had this condition, a certain ailment for years, a motor dysfunction. I had several of them, but especially one in both lower limbs that caused me to be unable to walk. Well, I couldn't really walk. For several years, I went through probably every method I knew of to solve this problem, from the mainstream medical field. Honors, no honors, I didn't take any of them. It all cost me a lot of money. And someone once told me, "Listen, go for this procedure, it's amazing." But I said, "No, listen, it's not mainstream, I won't go." And so, unfortunately, I didn't go for the next two years. Until finally, when I got up in the living room, I couldn't walk until my, so to speak, motor system started working, I could n't walk to the kitchen. I was a wreck, and I thought, what do I care? I went, I took this one, I implemented this one. The procedure, which, well, 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 into the forest with the dogs and walked like this, I've already walked like this for almost a kilometer. I thought, something's different. Something's going on, something's going on. I thought, something's different, but I don't know what's different. And nothing. I kept going, going, going. I mean, something's different. And only on the way back I said, wait a minute, I don't have any pain on my left side at all, and on my right, I felt maybe 30% pain. I thought, wow, this is incredible. I went and took the second one, because you take it every week, and then the third one. To this day, I don't want to say anything because it might hurt someone. Therefore, I say, it's incredible. It costs pennies. It resolved the problem after the first procedure, and after three, so after three weeks, even this one, I had gigantic swelling on the other side, down to zero. Even In the other leg. I say, "Why aren't there crowds here?" and I hear, "There are crowds here." And I say, "Oh, yes, there really aren't crowds." Well, it's all about everyone having their own time, and I started to wonder who was coming, which turned out to be the case . I've already omitted the fact that it was outstanding athletes, but some from the Olympic team. Mmm. But what intrigued me most was that the cream of the crop comes there for these procedures, but I started to investigate even further, because I'm closely connected to the medical community, at various levels. We have a lot of doctors in our family, I think 18, and now I have three more training—quite a lot. And at the same time, I represent doctors, protecting them from the Supreme Medical Chamber, and effectively, because for now, I have to say 100% success rate. It's a bit of a rarity, to say the least. So I started to wonder who exactly goes there. Because it turns out that doctors are the cream of the crop, and university professors are attending. Medical universities. The cream of the crop, but they make it clear not to say they attend because it's inappropriate, because it's not an official method, it's not this one that doesn't fit into this box, right, these currently current methods. Mhm. And then I became even more fascinated, I started delving 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 had experienced this empirically, but doctors were flying in, and not just from Poland, but from Polish universities, flying in from abroad for these procedures. So how is it that this isn't in this official method in a very simple way? It's not in the official method, it's not in the official methods, because I've already explained what the procedures look like. There's no $100 million. There's no $100 million. It can't be done in this simplified procedure either , because although theoretically it is possible in practice, we know that it's almost impossible for various reasons. I I don't want to offend anyone, some scientists, because the last thing I want is for some wonderful doctor, scientist who introduced a given method, who has dedicated his entire life to being offended by what I've 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, the medical community, and the scientific community, because I'm a scientist myself, and to the patient community. My point is that I try to show different sides of this box we call medicine or what supports medicine, right? We try to represent different points of view from different sides, right? Because that's how a scientist should approach the issue. They should come and represent one person, because it's an inherently unscientific approach, but they should come and present both this view and that view, and a different view, and a view contrary to the one they may have originally presented. Because that's a serious approach, that's an honest approach, right? At least I try to do my best, on the whole. While my limited competences allow me to do so , I try to approach this as holistically as possible and honestly from every possible angle. So I hope I haven't offended anyone from any background. That 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 my family, and I work almost constantly in the medical community. Because representing them, you have to understand their problems at various levels. So, I have a different perspective, and I won't attack the patient rights advocate for representing patients' rights, but I do have the conviction that there was too little representation at the government level, and now, I think, at the subcommittee level. There's a small social factor, and neither has the medical community developed a strong association 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 level in the Sejm. And the community The medical field hasn't developed either. That means there's 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. After all, 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 try my best, but I'm certainly very imperfect, 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've been teaching people how to establish associations for many, many, many years . I myself founded the first association, the "Najlepsze Droga" association, 16 years ago. Over 400 interventions of a purely state-level nature. Mmm. Top Polish regulations have succeeded. We're moving in. Hundreds of thousands of people are benefiting from the solutions we proposed in Poland. Hundreds of thousands, maybe even over a million. It's very detailed, I don't want to elaborate on this point , but it's described in detail on the " Best Way" website. For example, we developed the most liberal form of employment for entrepreneurs in the European Union nine years ago. It's in Polish law. No matter how much net salary an employee receives, the employer pays 300 PLN gross, and this has been in effect for nine years now, right? Taking advantage of this, tens of thousands of Polish farms, which we saved from liquidation. So we're running major projects. And I could go on for the next, I do n't know, five hours about what else we've done of this caliber. Major projects. And then I decided I needed to teach others how to establish associations. And so, several associations were formed there, for example, the ecological building association, then the National Shield association, then other associations were formed, we the people, we entrepreneurs. Now we're building a government of entrepreneurs within the " We Entrepreneurs" association. A powerful project, and I invite everyone to join us. Entrepreneurs, regardless of micro, small, or medium-sized enterprises, I cordially invite all of you to join the government of entrepreneurs. And if you're not an entrepreneur, for example, an employee but not an entrepreneur, I invite you to join the My Ludzie association. There are incredibly inclusive associations that allow us to actively participate in creating law. And here, in my opinion, something is missing. That is, top Polish doctors, those known from YouTube podcasts, and outstanding representatives of the medical community who are very well known, for example, those specializing in supplementation, etc., were missing. They needed to create a joint association, a joint association, a large association. Strong, and participate in all the work. In all the work. No, it can't be so ad hoc that we're now starting only for this project. Are these works on amending regulations related to broadly understood medical law? Well, you could say they are being implemented almost constantly. And such a social factor is absolutely necessary, one that connects these two communities. Both medical and medical-related . There's no dispute here, because they support each other. These two methods support and complement each other, and are coherent. And here, you can't look at this as a dispute between the medical community and the medical community versus the truth, not the medical community. That's completely not the point in any social, human, or, I would say, axiological, value-based sense. That's completely the point. It's about the well-being of people who need help here and now. We have to come together, unite, connect, create value, and participate in all the work. And then, in cooperation with lawyers, with people with extensive experience in these proceedings, create structures that won't block either the doctors, these outstanding, free-thinkers, or those of whom there are a small number. They 're a handful. Free-thinkers are always a tiny fraction , but they are the ones who most guarantee social progress. Nor the communities that support them, the medical community, and I believe that's what's missing and that's absolutely necessary. I'll tell you when I decided to integrate the construction-related companies, because this is the ventilation industry. and heat recovery, and there was such a regulation, someone who has not admitted to this day who authored these regulations tried to introduce it, that all Polish ventilation companies were to be liquidated within nine months. Because someone added, as it used to be, or in magazines, someone wrote the word "non-flammable," that all systems were to be non-flammable within two months. Non-flammable , meaning metal, and all in Poland were plastic. Therefore, due to the above, they were not, they were flame-retardant, but not non-flammable. This would mean that several thousand Polish companies, including garage companies, would have to go bankrupt within nine months, and at least tens of thousands of jobs would have to be eliminated. Yes, within nine months. It is unknown who will do it. I say: "Listen, dear ladies and gentlemen, because there were also ladies and gentlemen CEOs, come to me, I invite you here ." to my conference room. I will connect you and save you, but with our own combined forces. I know that you are competitors, your combined forces will destroy you. I'll save them from the system. They arrived, and believe me, some of them were sitting slightly sideways to each other . That's how they really sat. Because they're competitors. I look at them sitting and 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 so they 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. For example, we will tell 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 (MPC) can do then, perhaps the patient rights ombudsman, 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 a podcast , listen to their opinions on medical or medical-related topics, and you won't be penalized for it. 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 say about the example of that surgeon you 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. 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, right, from the history of Germany. But as a rule, apart from some absolute pathology, to be a doctor you first of all 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." That would be reprehensible. Mhm. 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, he collaborates with the 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 think 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 built differently, or that a paradigm of legal interpretation should be created differently, because it's not in the books and it's not in any database." So would that be a blockade? Well, let's imagine that this is the case . Well, as you said, it's irrational. That would be irrational. I agree. And it cannot be that we do not a priori forbid the presentation of certain views. Well, everyone is generally an adult. Well, maybe we should say yes, the film is intended for adults, okay? in the sense that they decide for themselves and everyone takes responsibility for the content themselves. Well, why write this if it is like this anyway? After all, a child does not make decisions about himself in the hospital anyway. Why even create such a regulation? Well, then why create such artificial constructs, which, to bypass, all you have to do is register somewhere. Mhm. And all it will do is cause these people not to be in Poland, but to provide the same services in, I don't know, Belarus or wherever. In Belarus now, probably not for various reasons there, but anywhere outside the European Union. And if such an artist were to operate outside of Poland, then he or she would be able to express his or her opinion. But of course even now, it is unimaginably safe. There are such regulations, you may not know them, but there are also regulations written from the heart. It's called AML. These are regulations regarding counteracting money laundering and counterterrorism. And the idea is that they will, of course, counteract, as the name itself says, the circulation of money from blood money, dirty money, blood money. That's how it is. But this provision is written in such a way, in Poland, in Polish regulations, that basically everything can be classified as money laundering, which is transmitted, so to speak, from Poland, from countries outside Poland, outside Poland , and especially from Africa and Asia. What happened? What happened? Last year, if I remember correctly, around June, one of the banks received a fine of PLN 20 million for failing to complete some procedure to verify whether the money was not blood money, let's call it that. automatically, after this first fine, all subsequent banks in Poland tightened their control so unimaginably that, just in case, to avoid getting fined, they transferred it to the offices, because there is a special procedure there for the offices to decide whether to block this money just in case. Officials were inundated with these cases and were unable to make an assessment within the very short deadline indicated therein. So, just to be on the safe side, they blocked it for six months, and then they blocked it for another six months because it had become so long, and then in the next month, Polish entrepreneurs were blocked in this way, PLN 10, 15 million each from individual transactions on the Asian market, and mainly on the African market. This caused Polish business in this market to radically withdraw, meaning we lost our resources. This resulted in taxes not being paid in Poland. The idea was right. I know this from the theoretical side, because one of my doctoral students is currently writing his doctoral dissertation in this field , but I also know it from the practical side, because such cases come to us and we conduct an incredibly in-depth analysis. 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. We write in an unrealistic way because the people who wrote did not understand the consequences, that is, they did not understand what would happen next. Well, how would these people know about it? And here it is, I'm afraid, 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 in this area of ​​the medical and medical-related community. And if not, then there is still the Senate, and if not, then there is still the motion to withdraw this bill anyway, in order to improve it, so that everyone benefits from it, meaning both doctors, so that they benefit from it, and the medical community, so that it benefits from it, because if this does not happen, I believe that we, the patients, will lose out. Well, it's not about the sole or exclusive, it's not about the good, it's about the safety of everyone, it's about the safety of doctors, the safety of the medical environment, but the patient must be provided with the opportunity to choose and at the same time, of course, must have minimum safety conditions, but this is obvious, there's no point in mentioning it for the fifth time, and we can't promote pathology, but this law is not about... I'm afraid not, that it will... Its effects will not be reduced to eliminating absolute pathology, but will be a kind of blunt force on a wide range of medical and medical- related procedures. from the medical perspective, that they do not fit into this category of current medical knowledge, and from the medical- related perspective, that there may be some over-interpretation, because officials acting in good faith tend to over-interpret, so I think that here I would give myself even more time. I would include all these environments, 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, must start respecting each other. What do you mean why did I say they need to start respecting each other? For probably two years I went regularly, every month there were meetings in the Sejm and the Senate of the medical, paramedical and healthy lifestyle and healthy food, supplementation communities, as well as representatives of the pharmaceutical community. This was only suspended during this so- called pandemic and we met every month and these circles, these circles around medicine, especially herbal medicine, were at that time, this is my assessment, I have the right to this assessment as a participant in these meetings, they were brutally attacked by a representative, a representative of the pharmaceutical community. I mean, in an unworthy way, you don't treat people like that and you don't address people like that . Especially since one representative addressed other people, sometimes older than herself and with a higher academic degree, and and above all, even if someone had no education at all, this is simply not how you address a person or people in the world, even if you have some unknown idea about yourself. And then it occurred to me that maybe we were dealing with some kind of community promotion. y, pharmaceuticals, y, and corporations there, and it wasn't just me that thought about it, and it wasn't just me, but it can't be like that. This simply can't be. It cannot be that one herb after another is excluded . There are regulations that say which herbs cannot be used in Poland, and in the European Union there are three groups of herbs and all those related to drugs are there. Well, this is an obvious matter. Then there is a group that cannot be used, that are excessively spread and are harmful, such as Sosnowsky's hogweed, so don't look far. Okay, I understand that. But there is a third group that is constantly growing in number. What arguments are there? For example, they tried to exclude pumpkin seeds from sale, claiming that they obviously contain cyanide. If someone eats a kilogram of pumpkin seeds, they will get poisoned. If someone consumes a limited amount of other substances, they will also be employed. If he takes antibiotics, and if he takes water, too, but it will burst. Yes. And if he takes too many antibiotics, he will die too. And if he takes too much of anything and overdoses, he will die too. Yeah. Well, my brother shows it to me, every now and then he tells me what other Polish herb is being excluded in a given year and what is the argumentation there. There is an argument there that it has an active ingredient that, when consumed in excess, causes effects such as permanent energy damage or something, or liver damage. Well, well, that's what we're talking about. So what happens if someone takes too many antibiotics? Doesn't it trigger? Well, yes. And if he eats too much of anything, but not poppy seeds, it doesn't cause that. Anything. Well, you have to have some moderation , because in these regulations, because the law is only transparent, but there are bars, normal bars. I say this as a lawyer. As a lawyer who creates law, who applies law, who has 26 years of experience in probably all possible proceedings. Well, there is very little law that gives freedom, and there is a lot of law, and most of the law, contrary to its noble intentions, only gives additional bars. Don't add, let's not add these extra bars. We don't need them for freedom. Well, we were born free, somehow we were unaware of the law and we lived well. Well, let's have confidence in ourselves and, well, that's how people are, they sometimes make mistakes, but that doesn't mean we have to stigmatize them right away. Where did these penalties even come from? some million zlotys to a million zlotys. So where did that come from? And why isn't it specified that, for example, if something is there, then for example 5,000, and only if something is there, then only 10, only this is the case up to a million. And everyone comes, they will be afraid, theoretically, with a little lack of good will, who will forbid anyone to give this million, and no one will forbid anyone to give this 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 task, every system for us and let's not allow ourselves to be forced into the system and let's not believe everything that is said in the mainstream, the mainstream, because ladies and gentlemen, I mentioned it here twice, I mentioned twice that there is something, that there was a pseudo-pandemic. I don't want to get into this polemic at all, because in the legal sense, of course, it wasn't a pandemic, in the medical sense maybe it was, to balance it out, but I remember that at that time it was said in the Polish media, it was 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 and I walked the streets and took pictures and I 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 was a little offended with me later, but I just wanted to show that it wasn't true. that what was said in the media was not true. There were probably some such cases in hospitals, as it later turned out for various reasons, but it was not true that it was on such a scale that people were lying dead in the streets somewhere. Well, I went and checked it myself. And what I mean is that we should believe in ourselves. So that you understand correctly. In what I said, I am neither for nor against what was happening. I have my opinion, but I won't reveal it here. I don't mean to offend anyone, because the doctors tried very hard to help everyone, so that you understand this well, so that no one feels offended by what I've just said, but my point is that if we look around and trust, 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 are outside the medical community, let's ask the doctors what they think there. Let's sit down at one common 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 is some optimal wisdom, because where everyone thinks the same, where everyone thinks the same, no one thinks too much. And this law cannot be the result of the half-wisdom of one of the circles or one of the optometrists. It must be the result of wisdom from all walks of life. Well, I would like to go back to the treatment procedure itself, because I would 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 these outstanding doctors? What does the treatment process look like in Poland ? A patient comes in and how does it go? Where do they get their knowledge from? How are they supposed to work? Mhm. Well, I think this will perfectly illustrate a case that I haven't discussed yet, also of a ridiculous Polish doctor, a doctor of medical sciences, whose doctorate was in the field of treatment with a specific method, I don't want it to harm her again, with a specific method of a very popular, very common, or maybe I should put 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 thesis was recognized as one of the five best scientific works in the United States at that time. And she, of course, like other doctors, came to Poland and decided to treat here using a strictly defined method. It turned out that her method was completely different from the methods indicated in such an electronic system, because the doctor has, in principle, I'll simplify it a bit , but it comes down to this: he has an electronic system and there he determines the symptoms, and based on these symptoms, the system tells the patient what the disease is, what dosage should be, for how long, and so on, and so on. And this 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, because it's the National Health Fund, and she treated with a method that she developed herself, which she tested, which she used and which she defended, effectively defended, right, by introducing them into a certain, I would say, a certain doctrine of medical science. as a standard in this scientific area. So what? I already knew she did it and had the competences and was treating effectively, when it turned out that her method was not, for reasons we mentioned earlier, introduced into the database of current scientific methods, methods for a moment. It's slowly dawning on me. 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 is wrong with me and what should be assigned to me. Yes. In principle, this is what it looks like. Of course, this is a simplification, because some doctors may have different approaches, but in principle, in a simplified way, this is how it looks. I didn't realize it , that's why I'm surprised. Yeah. Well, yes, but this was de facto clear from the very beginning of our conversation, that is, we established that a doctor cannot function solely within the framework of his or her own experiences. Of course, experience is fundamental, but it cannot function solely within the scope of its own experiences, it must function within the scope of what is within the scope of current medical knowledge, right? Well, this may be shocking, but it is by no means some property attributed only to medicine, because it is identical in law. In law, it is also believed that we have something like principles of legal interpretation, and we do have them, but few people know that they are not, we do not have a complete set of the so-called enumerative catalogue and, above all, we do not have a paradigm, i.e. the order in which they are applied. This means that when we read the same recipe, we as a society expect to have one result. And few people know that the Polish and global legal system is based on anti-determinism, which means that there can be many outcomes in specific contexts. We are just working on making it different. Here it is also shocking that the truth in medicine used to be that you went to the doctor many, many years ago or even ten years ago and the doctor looked, remembered what was in the books or read, applied his experience to it and chose autonomously, fully autonomously, a method of treatment. I thought it was like that until now. Well, I thought so too, to be honest, until we handled those cases that were solely, because their only source was in all the cases that we handled, the only source was the failure to comply with or not fully apply the procedures or the expansion of those procedures that are indicated in this, you could say, medical system. I would like to touch on the other side of the coin, because on the one hand we have outstanding doctors who, while treating patients in an unconventional way, have had problems in this regard, but do you also have any experience where someone tried an alternative method of treatment or recovery from a certain disease and it was highly ineffective, or even harmful? Well, I think we've all experienced it in our lives, or at least someone who has lived a long time has experienced it. They give their own example. After all, I have been treating the ailments I mentioned for years, which affect my body and result from overuse, to no avail. m all methods, it is not that I went to look for some kind of rescue and alternative method, because I was conditioned a priori to the thesis that alternative ones are better than traditional ones. First, I allowed myself to be, so to speak, handcuffed with all the possible preparations that were available. Mhm. These methods of conventional medicine, which I respect. 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 it is in our interest, in the interest of us as a society, in our people, in our patients, that integration is the key, not dividing solutions of this type. Integration. Well, I respect the doctors who tried to cure me using conventional methods. that I went to them, and they, to the best of their knowledge, using their knowledge in the best way, prescribed for me for years what they thought would help me. Well, they didn't do it to spite me. Let's face it, they didn't do it to spite me . Well, it turned out to be ineffective. So I went somewhere else and solved my problem in three weeks. And in fact, it is basically after the first treatment of the quoted majority. Mhm. So there is no need for this division here. He is, uh, perhaps created by corporations. He is perhaps sometimes created by the ego, because perhaps sometimes it is stupid to admit it, and since we are here with powers, and there is someone without powers, and he is 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, that is, ours, but you see him perhaps as a competitor at times. Well, that's how it was in the legal profession. There was a time, I don'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, or 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 was there, I used all the methods I knew and that 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. It won't hurt me anymore anyway . 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, 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 based largely on the system, on the system. 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 topic . 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 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 extremely 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 at all, because this is merely 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? Taking this into consideration, I would suspend the work for now and return it to the ministry. I would gather a team representing not only the office of the Patient Rights Ombudsman itself, 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 must be submitted to the Ministry of Health, the Prime Minister's office, and the Sejm and Senate, depending on the stage of the amendment process, or any other bill, with a request to join us. Such an association will be included because that's what the regulations specifying the rules for proceeding along the legislative path say, so it will be included. Then we must actively participate, prepare our own drafts, either amendments or amendments, along with justifications. Place them in your own hands, because it is very important. You need to submit it to the chairman personally so he can vote on it, express his position, that is, have such a representative group of experts of high level and 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 how to act systemically, i.e. such an association must work 365 days a year. He must constantly prepare petitions, draft regulations, draft laws, justifications for regulatory impact assessments, EWS analyses, deliver, be a partner for the government, 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, these documents, these letters must be caloric, substantive, we must deliver them and only then are we treated as a partner by the system and the system says: "Okay, we'd 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. this is connection, integration for patients. Because 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 we will create narratives with with with with another wonderful community of doctors and we will 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, the people, got our name from I, the 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 My People association and here we will work on the same thing under the box, which concerns only 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've 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. M.