Episode Transcript
[00:00:00] Speaker A: In this episode, we discuss how the Lindsey Clancy case, which involves a mother killing her three young children, exposes some key fault lines in our society and in our legal system.
Hello, welcome to the Call I Got See it podcast. I'm James, and joining me today is a man whose seasoned appearance and takes show that this is not his first rodeo. Tunde. Ogunlana Tunde. There's a lot of BS out there, bro. Are you ready to give the people the antidote?
[00:00:46] Speaker B: Yeah, man, but you saying like, I'm washed up and you're making me insecure as a middle aged man that I don't got it anymore.
[00:00:54] Speaker A: Sometimes you say I put too much pressure on you. Now you're saying I'm not putting enough pressure on you.
[00:01:00] Speaker B: No, this is a lot of pressure because now I'm gonna think about that while I'm trying to have a show.
[00:01:04] Speaker A: Hey, seasoned, man.
[00:01:05] Speaker B: You're seasoned.
Yeah, but that's like the polite way of saying somebody's old. So let's just have a show.
[00:01:13] Speaker A: How about that?
[00:01:14] Speaker B: You're walking yourself into this corner. It's not gonna get better.
[00:01:19] Speaker A: But before we get started, if you enjoy the show, I ask that you subscribe like the show on YouTube or your podcast app. Doing so really helps the show out. We're recording on September 1st, 2026 and Tone Day. As it happens from time to time, a court case has really captured the attention of Americans. In this instance, it is the murder trial of Lindsey Clancy that's going on in Massachusetts. And briefly, Clancy has been accused of killing her three children, her three young children, and has admitted to doing so, but also claims that she was suffering from postpartum psychosis and was being given, which she sought treat for, you know, many times and was being given so many psychiatric meds that she essentially, her defense team is saying she should be considered insane for the purposes of the law.
Now, people have expressed a lot of strong opinions about this and I mean, have donated money and have talked a lot of stuff and everything like that.
And you know, these opinions range from, hey, this is a clear case of first degree murder and this is what's wrong with society, to another yard on the other end saying, hey, this is an example of society failing women or a woman who had. Was dealing with something post pregnancy from the postpartum standpoint, which is something that affects many women. So Tunde, to get us started, what stands out to you about the discussions? We'll start there because we're still waiting on a verdict in the case. So I want to look at kind of what these discussions people are having says about us in our society. So what stands out about these discussions people are having about Lindsey Clancy, particularly how different groups seem to want to either focus or shift the blame, depending on, you know, what. Where they're. Where they're coming from, or what the agenda they may have.
[00:03:03] Speaker B: You know, that's a good question, man. I think what. What stands out to me initially, when I first kind of got into this story, because I was seeing it on my feeds and all that, and part of me on purpose was trying to avoid clicking on it because I just was kind of like, all right, I get this is the next thing everyone's going to be hysterical about. And I don't. I didn't see anything that.
That drew me initially. Sorry. And so, you know, my first thought initially was kind of like, oh, here's another topic that's probably pretty nuanced, but everyone's gonna have an opinion, and we're gonna just do rush to their various corners of the Internet. In terms of our opinions. When I say our, clearly, I'm not talking about you and I. I'm talking about collectively us as a society. And so. But the other thing that stuck out to me and more because I thought about things like the OJ Trial and certain things, you know, in the last even 10 years that. That we've seen that have captured, like you said it well, kind of captured the nation.
[00:03:57] Speaker A: Casey Anthony, like, there have been. This happens from time to time, you know, where. Case. Case.
[00:04:02] Speaker B: I think that one thing that I realized is I. This was. I'm. I'm emotionally distant from this, which is in a good way for me to be able to step back and assess it a bit. And I do see a lot of nuance even then. Just. I know we'll talk about it, but the way you let in was very good.
The way both opposing sides see it. And it really reminded me, I was thinking in my head, like a joke, like, man, it's just like the Salem witch trials, but in the digital age, you know, like, everyone.
Like this mob and herd mentality of a population, but instead of it being played out physically, like people showing up to somebody's house with pitchforks or like they did in the Salem witch trial, to drag some lady out of her house or burn her at a steak or what they might have done with a lynch mob or a pogrom or somewhere in history where people get riled up over something and just go somewhere and deal with it, right? Then, you know, what's interesting about that, by the way.
[00:04:56] Speaker A: Just real quick is that maybe that's because it's online. Like in the past, you would have had to gather to do the. To have these conversations. And then the mob might just get out of control because everybody gets angry. Yeah. And so. But everybody's at home. And so nobody's kind of mobbed up already.
[00:05:11] Speaker B: And that's what I mean. That's exactly. It's like a keyboard herd, a keyboard mob, you know, and it's. It's interesting. That's what I'm saying. It's like. And I think we're observing this because. Because of the technology, this has never been available for humans before. Like the way to just get all this emotional energy out. But like you said, it's all online, so it's not. There's no physical manifestation of it really.
At least at the moment. Right. So I just found all that interesting and I'll. I'll leave it at that. But also the.
[00:05:40] Speaker A: Can be disconnected from the physical assembly know. Which may actually make it a little less likely that things swing out of control physically.
[00:05:47] Speaker B: Yeah.
[00:05:48] Speaker A: Who knows?
[00:05:48] Speaker B: Maybe this is a way for people to blow a pressure valve emotionally get it out of their system. And you're right. Maybe they'll be less inclined to show up somewhere and break something. Right. Because they've already online. Been able to just get it out. So I don't know. That's why it's.
Various observations come out of the initial thought of, oh, this is pretty nuanced. See everyone. And. And also I'll end with this. And I wouldn't mind your thought. It kind of solidified to me that we're in the era of confirmation bias due to the algorithms.
[00:06:15] Speaker A: Yes. Like, that's where I want to go.
[00:06:18] Speaker B: Yeah.
[00:06:18] Speaker A: Lead into.
[00:06:19] Speaker B: So okay, then I will hand it over to you, sir.
[00:06:22] Speaker A: There's two things really that stood out when one gets into that. Like, I've always fascinated by when people have a thought and the. All the evidence points against that being true, yet they just can't. Like they'll double down on the thought. Even in that case. And we see this from time to time. We get to see it more, I think because of the online and people talking like the. The that. That there are people out there that'll be like postpartum depression and postpartum issues aren't even real. And I'm like, yo. Like, if you said like, okay, we have a line of demarcation when the three kids get killed. But if you look before that, this person clearly is having problems. You know what I'm saying? It wasn't somebody who had these kinds of problems their whole life. Like, this person, after they gave birth, was clearly having, like, going to see all these doctors trying all these meds. Like, this is this.
I don't see how you can look at all that and then become away. Like, man, that's not even real. It's like, what?
[00:07:16] Speaker B: Hey, look, I'm gonna say this. I just want to jump in and say, as a man, I want to point out that the people saying that are people who have never even had babies or have been planning to have babies.
[00:07:27] Speaker A: I get that. If you haven't had a baby and you're like, yeah, I don't know if that's real, yada, yada, yada. But I don't see how you can look at this situation and be like, man, that stuff's not even real. Like, yeah, this lady who's going to tens of doctors and taking all these meds, like, it's like, yeah, clear something's going on there. You know, this isn't somebody that's been on meds, you know, like, that their whole time. Something happened. And so that just. That part was just like, you got to be kid. Like, the confirmation bias thing. Or you can look at something that directly contradicts everything that you would want to think and still walk away. Say, you know what? I don't even think that thing is real. You know, but nonetheless, that. That. That's. That's the wonders of. Of the human mind, so to speak. The other thing, actually, it's. It's the cultural piece that I think there's a. There's an underlying debate happening here that I think our society should maybe have more often and have more directly. And that's kind of this debate between this. This. There's some people that romanticize in their mind, like, hey, our culture and, you know, the American culture is about individualism, and everybody's on their own, and you do your own thing. And, you know, and so from that mindset, it's like, hey, you know, this lady, you know, like, she. She didn't handle her business, and then she did something terrible. Throw the book at her. And then there's other, you know, like, another kind of cultural mindset to look at this with and say, like, kind of we owe something to each other, you know, and we owe ourselves to build, like, a society where people can thrive and people can, you know, like, can. Can grow people. If you're having a problem, we can. We can Deal with it. And I would think that this one's a little more kind of evolution because people throughout history and throughout evolution weren't just wandering around by themselves, you know, like being by yourself was a death sentence. So humans are tribal. Humans are group creatures, you know, like, so hunter gatherers were roved around in bands and tribes, you know, like, so I'm. I would look more and say, hey, the people that think of this individual thing is kind of. That's kind of in your mind, you know, like, you're. It doesn't work like that, you know, like from a human being standpoint. But those people will be like, looking at this and be like, oh, society has failed her, you know, which, that while it may be true, once you're getting into a legal analysis on whether. Whether somebody should be culpable, we. We may get different mileage out of how far that, how far do we go if, if we say that society failed her, how much does that change what the law should do to her? We can have that discussion separately. But I don't even think the. This underlying thing of are we all. Is our culture based on individualism or, or is the ideal of individualism and this fantasy kind of a rot in culture that makes it for. When it's convenient for people to say, oh, we're all by ourselves. But hey, you know, like, the one that always makes me laugh is like, oh, yeah, the billionaires telling everybody like, hey, you know, I made this all on my own. You know, society, everybody needs to be out on their own. But when you guys are, you know, I need you guys to build a new stadium for my sports team, it's like, what I thought we all doing this on our own, but we got to build this stadium. Yo. Freaking.
[00:10:26] Speaker B: Like, how about James? How about James that when the banks fail, then the individual goes out the door because, because, you know, then all of us got to pitch in with our tax dollars.
[00:10:36] Speaker A: So I. They're always like, you know, from the people that sell us individualism, there are always these little things when something happens and it's like, hey, we got a band together. So, you know, like. But nonetheless, we should have the conversation out loud is kind of what I want to really look at from that standpoint. All right, so one of the other things that I think is interesting about this and worth kind of looking at is, is, you know, the prosecution has a fairly straightforward case. Again, like, it's not a question of whether the kids are alive or not, and there's not a question on whether on who actually caused them to not be alive anymore, who killed them? And so the more question and this is, you know, gets into, I'm not going to go into the legal aspect of it, but the state of mind, you know, kind of determines a lot of times. First degree murder, second degree murder, or in this case, the defense is pushing for insanity, which would result in her being sent to a psychiatric facility instead of jail, you know, whereas first degree murders, life in jail. So Clancy's defense team, you know, points to, and has pointed to. Part of their defense is pointing to saying, hey, she was undergoing a psychiatric issue during this time and repeatedly sought help, which is all documented.
But they'll point to, they're pointing to the doctors and saying that the doctors kind of were prescribing Willie, like the way the doctors were prescribing her meds, the amount of meds she was being taking and then the actual pharmaceuticals and the side effects of those and all those kind of things actually are a big part of bridging the gap from having an issue to murder or killing, I should say, because again, murder is a legal conclusion, more so the killing is actually what happened. So what, what do you make of, you know, them piecing that part, that argument aspect of this and saying, hey, actually we should be looking at, you know, the practice of medicine and big pharma here as far as how, how this lady got from troubled mother to killer of children.
[00:12:24] Speaker B: Yeah, I, I mean, this is pretty serious, like you're saying. I mean, let's, let's recognize that there's three dead children while everyone's trying to be an expert on things that they're not experts in. So, you know, just recognizing dad, recognizing that, you know, the father showed up to a house where his wife was, you know, jumped out of the second story of their house and basically was half dead on the ground. And then, you know, goes into his house and finds this dead kid. So this is a pretty serious situation. And I agree with you. This, this is abnormal behavior from the average mother or average father, you know, like the average person to behave. So then let's, let's look into what was going on before this took place. And I agree with you. Clearly it appears that she was suffering from some issues.
What I read was she spent four months being given a cocktail of nine different types of pharmaceutical drugs that all have their different side effects. And, and I think that's something that can't be ignored. Right.
Whether it was directly responsible into driving her to psychosis that caused this is part of the due process where we're watching play out now, that's the whole point of a trial and a court case and expert witnesses and good attorneys and all that stuff and a jury and all that. So that's part of this.
[00:13:40] Speaker A: And just to add to that real quick, and the goal isn't that we will come to some answer that is divinely inspired, but it's the best answer that a society that we've come up with that we can get to that's reasonably fair and allows somebody to have their piece heard. It's not just somebody summarily declaring, okay, this is what's going to happen. Like, everybody gets to make their argument. We're going to have people who are. Don't have a dog in the fight, listen to all that, listen to how the legal system is set up and to deal with stuff like this and make the call. So it's not to say we're going to find some answer that everybody's going to be satisfied with, but it's going to allow for due process, allow for a process that is something that we can all live with in terms of how this ultimately plays out.
[00:14:24] Speaker B: Yeah. And so I think that, you know, with that said, that's where I guess the point of our discussion today is, right? Trying to cut through some of that noise, assumptions, confirmation bias, and just recognize that this is very nuanced and we're dealing with a human being and what was going on in their head at a given moment. And of course, that's going to be very hard to discern. And now you put all these other layers of importance, right? It's a trial. Some somebody's, like you said, no one's disputing the fact that she killed her children.
Now the question is, how is the law going to interpret this? Is she going to go to prison for something like murder or manslaughter, or is she going to be found to be insane at that time and that she's going to be in a psych ward? So one of the things I did, James, I just want to read this real quick because I got curious and I wanted to go online because I'm not a medical expert.
So let me just acknowledge that. Be one of the few people doing a show on the Internet that's going to acknowledge he's not an expert in every single topic that he talks about.
But so I just went to online and I said, I typed in the four. Sorry, the nine specific pharmaceutical drugs. And I just typed in kind of, hey, if a woman was given these Drugs over a four month period.
What would be, is there any risk that we should be concerned of? Because I just wanted to see what would come back from a Google search. Right. Like the basic way that if somebody wanted to know and there's some pretty serious stuff under self harm, loss of normal fear, inhibition leads to carrying out self injurious or violent acts, extreme panic and suicidal ideation during inner dose withdrawal spikes. So I thought about that. Something I didn't even think of. Did she stop taking it right stuff and did she have withdrawals?
[00:16:09] Speaker A: Part of the thing is that she was starting and stopping on doctor's orders, you know like the doctor.
[00:16:13] Speaker B: Okay, no, don't do this.
[00:16:15] Speaker A: And it's like so. But yeah, go ahead.
[00:16:16] Speaker B: I'm sorry, yeah, so that's what I'm saying. Like all right, so that, that has its own issues of stopping and starting. Then I'll just be quick here. Antidepressant activation provides the physical drive to execute self harm plans. Paranoid aggression, colon delirious, misinterpretation of caregivers slash family as threats.
That's interesting. And then severe depressionalization, depersonalization, detachment from reality, exacerbating depressive despair.
So it's like all right, well as a layman who's not a medical doctor but understands the idea of pharmaceutical drugs could throw somebody off mentally and as a layman who's watched a million pharmaceutical drug commercials on television at this point over the last 30, 40 years of my life and who sees that that quick way that they say all that fine print stuff at the end and what is a lot of it is may cause suicidal thoughts or homicidal thoughts if you, you know, see a doctor, if you feel any of this stuff. So I think in general as the public we know that these pharmaceutical drugs have a risk of having some of these psychotic side effects. And as a layman, just putting it in here again now I can be sympathetic to the idea that someone prescribed this type of medication in a four month period and as you well said, being dosed differently, being told to get off this, get off that could create the environment where that person does harm somebody that's close to them.
[00:17:39] Speaker A: Yeah. And so you, so you're sympathetic to, or at least you have a receptive ear to hearing this. You're not dismissing it out.
[00:17:47] Speaker B: That's a very good way to put it. I have a receptive ear and I think for people are so polarized online that I could see somebody listening to me saying that and hearing that and saying oh man. See you're going to give her, it's like, nah, like you said, I'm open minded to the idea that this could have happened.
[00:18:03] Speaker A: And this actually, this actually leads perfect into where I was going to go. I don't think the law is equipped to deal with this because all of that stuff being said in the court case we're trying to figure out, so what does that mean from a liability, from a culpability standpoint, does that mean that she's supposed to get off or does that mean that she's supposed to have a lesser charge? Because the law again distinguishes your state of mind when it comes to things like this. And so, and then up until, you know, insanity, meaning you're not going to be guilty and instead of going to jail, you go to a psychiatric facility.
The reason I say the law is not equipped to is because the, the, the allegation here is not that I am a lunatic, not that I am generally insane. And you know, obviously there's times people say, oh, I was temporarily insane and stuff like that, but this is temporarily insane by action of doctor.
Temporarily insane by action of big pharma, potentially. And it's like, well, hold on so. And don't say this softly. You said, oh, you know, she's taking these drugs and they could alter her state of mind. Like, no, no, no, she's taking these drugs and they are supposed to alter her state of mind. They are mind altering drugs. That's their point, that's all. That's what their point's supposed to do. And they do it in ways. And the one that's always concerning to me, and this is concerning to me from the standpoint of when we have, you know, mass shootings, when we have in any type of things where it's just like, oh, what, what was really going on in somebody's head there, you know, like versus somebody get mad at somebody and shoot them. It's like, okay, yeah, you can get with somebody going in somebody's head, but hey, I'm gonna go shoot a bunch of people I've never met before or that I vaguely know. And it's like, what's going on there? And it's the side effect and you touched on it briefly that they talk about with these things. A lot of times where people who are having disturbances have a lot of thoughts that may be out there, but then if they take these drugs, the drugs might get rid of those thoughts, but the drugs also might, or alternatively might actually make them more likely to act on these thoughts. And it's like, whereas the person not taking the drugs, I had a thought but then is they're thinking about something else or they just don't have the motivation to do it or you know, whatever. And so that's so, you know, you're taking something that may make you act on some of your more wilder things that pop into your head. That seems like a terrible idea. So I don't think the reason I say I don't think the law is equipped to handle this is like so is a psych ward the place for somebody like this? Because it seems like that once the drugs and the doctors are removed, she's not going to be doing this kind of stuff anymore. Like so we put her in a psych ward because we want to punish her that way. You know, like, so the psych ward is supposed to be there for somebody who has these disturbances and we can try to help them, work through them, you know, and so forth. But what about a person who has disturbances and then because of the things they're taking that are told that they're told and again, she's not self medicating, which get into a whole nother thing when people self medicate and then do things and yada yada, I'm not going to get down that, going down that path. But she's not self medicating, she's doing so under supervision of physicians. And then she ends up doing something that, that these things may have lowered her inhibition to do.
Then what do we do? You know, like, because again, I'm not saying that she shouldn't go to jail. Like I'm not, I wouldn't say that. I'm an attorney. So I'm, I, I'm walking in saying I'm not seeing enough information to be able to say where, how legally this should be handled because I'm not sitting in the jury box, I'm not looking at all the briefs, you know, like I want to look at all that stuff before I'd say exactly what I want to happen. But I don't think any of the alternatives that are laid out right now actually are, are a good fit if what we're, what we're acknowledging true, is true that she did do the killing, but that she was for months seeking treatment for something and they're just jamming her with pills that alter your mind and may make you more likely to do crazy things.
[00:21:49] Speaker B: Well, I will give you the prize of being the most offensive content creator on the Internet that I've ever seen.
Only because you said that. Yeah, no, you. You know, it's a high bar and you cross it. Because you're the first person I ever saw that says I can't make an opinion until I actually see things like legal briefs and hear what the jury heard and all that. I mean, geez, James, you're gonna ruin this whole Internet thing, man. Come on.
[00:22:14] Speaker A: I'm talking about the ultimate result. I can comment about the whole thing.
[00:22:18] Speaker B: You know, the mob needs to be whipped up here. You know, you're gonna. You're gonna get dirty.
[00:22:22] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:22:22] Speaker B: One way or the other.
[00:22:23] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:22:23] Speaker B: You're gonna get us all wonky trying to look at facts and stuff. Like, Jesus, man, you forgot about the game here. It's about fun. You know, we gotta just call mine, man.
[00:22:32] Speaker A: It's about engagement. But.
[00:22:33] Speaker B: But call people names. You know, Misery loves company, man. Come on. It's just. Get with the program, bro.
[00:22:39] Speaker A: Well, tell me this, man.
[00:22:40] Speaker B: No.
[00:22:40] Speaker A: Well, we'll go.
[00:22:41] Speaker B: Let me go. I want to respond.
[00:22:42] Speaker A: Yeah, I know you got something, because.
[00:22:44] Speaker B: No, it's on a serious note, because as you're talking, there's a term that comes to my mind, and I think this is the issue with this specific case, too. And then I'm disgusted when I think of this term, when I think of those three kids, honestly, because I'm a father and it's a crime of passion.
Because what you're describing to me is what I've. As a layman outside of the law. Right. You're the attorney, so this could be a good way for you to break this down. I understood always that a crime of passion would be like, hey, you know, I came home from a hard day's work and found my wife in bed with some other dude, and I was so crazy, I just shot them both. And that there's. If I can prove that I've never really acted like this, but in this one instant, because it just, you know, I just lost my mind and all that.
There hasn't there been times in the law where they have let someone off kind of, and said, all right, we recognize that you are not in your right mind in this very moment, and you're not behaving in your normal way. And we don't. We do not think you're a threat to society going forward. So we will. Like, maybe they'll do something if I murder someone, but they won't give me maybe the full on.
[00:23:46] Speaker A: Well, no, that's what I mean when I say that, like, when you kill someone, there are. Is first degree murder, second degree murder, depending on the jurisdiction. But there's all these different degrees in manslaughter, and the reason they're the different degrees is to account for your state of mind.
[00:23:59] Speaker B: So, you know, that's what I'm saying. So I'm thinking of. That's why I said I'm. I'm offended hearing myself talk about this as a crime of passion because of the three children, I don't think. Well, we put passion.
[00:24:09] Speaker A: It's a crime of passion in that sense. Because one of the words you said was detachment, you know, detachment from reality. And when you were talking about those medications and so this could be a crime.
[00:24:20] Speaker B: That's what I'm saying is.
But that's what I mean is. Well, I guess because I've never heard that term. I didn't think of it, but. But just the idea that. Because you bring up a good point. If someone is proven to not be who they are in this circumstance, but otherwise, like you said, if you remove the drugs and the doctors, which would be removed in prison or anywhere else. Right. Would she then be a normal person that wouldn't be doing this? And that's a conversation. And I think that. That.
[00:24:45] Speaker A: Well, but that is why.
Just so it's said, though, the purpose of. Of having punishment is on one hand, it is, you know, hey, a threat to society, but on the other hand is to have a deterrent factor in society. So you. It's not only turning on whether or not the person is a threat to society. That is a consideration, but it's also saying, hey, if this happens, we can't just have people knowing that you get off, you know, for stuff like this. Like it. So it. Again, but that's what I mean. I don't think that the law. I don't think that we. The law is like, can we solve what we're trying to solve with either one of these things?
[00:25:19] Speaker B: You know, the sad part, James, is that it's the. It's. It's the way you're describing it is like. Now I feel like. Like one would have to say, well, this would be unfair if we didn't look at the medical system too, in the community and how she was prescribing.
[00:25:33] Speaker A: I'm about to ask about that. So that's great that you bring that up.
[00:25:36] Speaker B: Let me shut up. Unless you ask the question. Go ahead.
[00:25:39] Speaker A: Well, then, I mean. Cause this is. To me, I mean, and this is hard and you know, so I. I know you. I imagine you're gonna start hemming and hawing after I ask you this Question.
But between Clancy and then, we've seen people, you know, even on the Internet, they're like, oh, we got to take a closer look at her husband, you know, and like, okay, yeah, you know, maybe. But I mean, I don't know when we're talking about. For the Myrtle trial purposes, you need to look at her husband, you know, but maybe bigger picture, you know, I don't know. But Clancy, you know, her husband, the doctors that she saw, pharmaceutical companies, you know, that. That made the meds that she's on.
Like, how in the world can you. Or can you come up with a way how we can apportion blame in a situation like this? Like, is. Is there a way to kind of parse it out, or is there a way to. To. To say, hey, all this group, they're all 100% responsible? Or what do you think?
[00:26:32] Speaker B: That's very interesting. I think this goes back to a little bit of the. The way, you know, we're wired as humans, that we want an answer.
[00:26:39] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:26:40] Speaker B: And we want, you know, people generally want a head to roll right when there's something happens. And it seemed that someone is at fault. And I think that's maybe explains the. The way that, you know, portions of the public who have been focused on this have gone into their different corners.
Because I think, you know, you've got, let's say, the misogyny crowd that looks at this as a woman who's. Who's. Who's trying to, you know, just be sympathetic and that she's really a bad person, but she's trying to use all these excuses and da, da, da, da, da. And then you've got the other side. Maybe the more the Luigi Mangion type of supporter side, which is the health care system. If you already feel the health care system in the United States is draconian, and, you know, we've had a lot of people with emotional high emotions about pharmaceuticals since COVID you know, so then. Then. Then that's going to be, you know, kind of your bogeyman. So I think that you have this. This. Everyone wants to be able to solve it by pointing the blame and having a scapegoat, literally, and saying, hey, it's that this is the reason. And that's why I said this. This idea of nuance.
And like you said, too, like, maybe, you know, for. For a system that was created in the late 1700s, you know, like a constitution, our laws and due price process, was it equipped because at that time, people assumed things about how people were in terms of mentality and behavior.
Now, we've learned a lot more about the human brain and all this stuff, but then also we have pharmaceutical drugs that can alter the human. Yeah. So how do you deal with all that? And I guess this is part of the reality of us learning how to deal with it as a society. Kind of building the plane as we fly.
[00:28:19] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:28:20] Speaker B: Because this case probably will play out to be significant going forward in this type of issue, you know, with this postpartum and pharmaceuticals and all that. And that's why I think it's important, too, James, that if the medical community is found to be liable in any way, and this is why this is very interesting in the United States with how we deal with our healthcare, medicine, because I can't help but thinking about the Sackler family that owned the largest opioid distribution company and pharmaceutical company in the United states, and for 20 years, it was found that their products killed around half a million Americans. And I remember joking with you in a discussion we had that said, imagine if we found out that half a million Americans have been killed by Islamic terrorists over the last 20 years. This country would have mobilized differently against that. Well, think about something.
[00:29:11] Speaker A: Just let me add something to that.
The Sackler family had to pay a bunch of money, Right. But it's not like if. Yeah, if Islamic terrorists had killed half a million Americans, they'd be like, hey, guys, hey, we're going to fine you.
So you got to pay some billions
[00:29:26] Speaker B: of dollars, and then it's all good.
[00:29:27] Speaker A: Like, no, that's ridiculous. Like, how. How were they not on trial for murder? You know? You see what I'm saying? The way we. The disconnect that we have with this kind of stuff doesn't make any sense, which is ultimately going to result in us having an unsatisfying answer in this case.
[00:29:43] Speaker B: Hold on, man. I got to say this joke. I'm thinking, as you said it, I'm thinking of that. That. That amazing recreation in the movie Zero Dark Thirty of how, you know, the Navy seals took down bin Laden with the stealth helicopter and going in the house, you know, with the. Tapping each other on the shoulder.
[00:29:58] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:29:59] Speaker B: And imagine if they get to him and they're, like, serving him with a freaking. Like, yeah, yeah, freaking.
[00:30:04] Speaker A: Gotta give us $30 billion, bro.
[00:30:06] Speaker B: Yeah, that. That. That cost a lot of money knocking down those tires. Yeah, yeah. Hey, hey, man, we'll leave you. So, yeah. And imagine if it's separately, if we use the Navy SEALs to go into the Sackler family or go into these pharmaceutical companies and say, you know, you're killing Americans. This isn't good.
We need it. We need to put you in a. In a, In a, In a. In a C130 and bring you back and for some interrogation.
[00:30:29] Speaker A: So.
[00:30:29] Speaker B: Yeah. So.
[00:30:30] Speaker A: Well, no, I mean, I, to me, I just.
[00:30:32] Speaker B: I just imagined a different order that was kind of cool, but interesting.
[00:30:35] Speaker A: Well, to me, I look at it, I, you know, and again, you know, like, I look at this as Clancy has to be responsible in some way.
So, you know, like, if you do an act, I definitely am sympathetic to, and I think that, you know, it's something that should be considered in terms of how much effort she put into. Try to.
To. To. To. To get out of the spiral that she was in. So that has to be accounted for in some way.
That's why I said, in this case, I just don't. I think we're going to have an unsighted, satisfying answer because I don't think that we're capable of dealing with this, because I also think that the doctors and the pharmaceutical companies need to be, you know, like, whether in the same boat with her or on another boat that we're going to be interrogating and finding out, you know, exactly what's going on here from their internal files, from, from how much care they're giving and the doctors in terms of prescribing these things and with the pharmaceutical companies, how aware they are of potential downsides and so forth, and whether all that information is out there, whether all that information is given to the doctor, if the doctor, if the disconnect somewhere. There's a disconnect here on how risky what the doctors and the pharmaceutical companies combined were doing. And so that part that, that level of, I'll use a term, negligence, you know, it's like that there needs to be something there, too. I think that has to. And the husband. I haven't seen anything that makes me think we got to be that, like, he. He may have been a bad guy, you know, but I mean, being a bad guy and murder and all that kind of like those things don't automatically mix just because if you'd be a bad guy or a good guy, but you don't automatically go down with the ship, so to speak. So, yeah, but to me, like, unless and until we can figure out a way, like, remember I told you, it's not just whether or not you are a threat to society, but also you have to create deterrence for certain behavior. Well, unless we can create.
Unless this opens our eyes to to make us say, hey, we got to create a deterrence for doctors and for pharmaceutical companies for situations like this as well, then we're just going to set ourselves up for this kind of thing to happen again, which I think should be the ultimate goal. You know, what's happened has happened. People have to, there has to be a punishment, you know, but you know, from a societal standpoint, but the, the big goal here needs to be to say, hey, how can we, whether it be more support for mothers, young mothers or, and, and, and, and more consequences for, for doctors or companies that might be doing things without really paying attention or trying to just maximize dollars, some combination of that, we have to do something to make our legal system more responsive to something like this so that everybody knows, hey, if you're, if you're being willy nilly with your prescriptions or hey, if you put these drugs out there and then people kind of get detached from reality and start killing people on your drug, then you know, it's going to be something we're going to look at all you guys, you know, I can say, hey, you know, there were nine drugs there. Well, nine of you guys are coming in because none of you guys can prove that you had no role in this, you know, so to speak. So that to me is the only way to like it has to be more forward looking.
Like something has to happen here, you know, like I don't think you just get off, you know, in this type of situation. But you know, it's instructive all of these factors and looking at the, where we may not be able to address these as a society to try to create situations or to avoid situations like this in the future. We need to be paying particular attention to that.
[00:33:59] Speaker B: Yeah. And I would finish off our discussion with kind of saying, you know, I agree with everything you said. My concern and half glass empty today is going to be that, you know, the track record we have of holding big corporations, especially American Healthcare, accountable for their role in certain things that are negative to the American people has not been a great track record. So let's see how that plays out. And what I would say is this is, I think this is a lesson also for those of that want to pay attention to what I'm saying to us in the public of how we digest information online.
And I guess like I said, maybe because I'm a little bit more emotionally distanced from this case and all that and just coming into it kind of a little bit late, I'm just amazed at the crash out that I See from the people kind of in the polar opposites of their corners and how they feel about this. I started thinking, James, about the free Britney. Remember the people that were standing outside of Britney Spears courthouse. And I remember seeing people like our age, their 40s and 50s. I was like, what are these adults doing spending their emotional energy and their time on someone else, you know, like through online. This is so unhealthy. And I could get it. The parasocial relationship with a celebrity. And as some people get a little take it too far, then I'm thinking like, this reminds me of that. And this lady is not a celebrity.
[00:35:22] Speaker A: It's just she comes out of nowhere for many people. It touches on. This is where you started the confirmation bias or just touching on something that's very meaningful to you. Also, it could just be. It could be a cognitive, you know, bias.
[00:35:33] Speaker B: No, I agree.
[00:35:34] Speaker A: It also could just touch on something like if you passionately believe that society lets women down in this scenario, then this, you would see this in a way is like, geez, no, I get it.
[00:35:45] Speaker B: But that's why. Maybe because I'm dis.
[00:35:47] Speaker A: But it may be more urgent to you, but because you also mourn that there are three kids there. You know, I'm saying that. And so I can see how people can get there. But again, I'm just trying to make sure we focus some of that energy towards how can we make things better.
Because right now it's just not. This isn't going to be a scenario again where we're going to get a satisfying answer, most likely.
[00:36:07] Speaker B: Yeah, well, that's where I'm going with it. Is that because I'm emotionally distant from this one, Unlike other topics like politics and racial stuff and all that we've covered.
That's what I'm saying is that I think that we all should slow down and acknowledge when we don't know facts. And if we have friends in our lives telling us that they know so much about because they saw this on TikTok, just remind. Hey, guys, you know, there's a lot going on. Like you said, we're not in the jury. We don't see any evidence. All of it, all that. So I think this is again, just a lesson for all of us to be a little bit more responsible about how we consume the Internet. And I'll leave it at that.
[00:36:41] Speaker A: Hey, man, I'll have to say that that was said like a very seasoned person.
So I thank you for laying that out for that guidance for these young folks and these old folks.
[00:36:52] Speaker B: You know, but. But it's a good thing that we're in separate places where we don't have. We don't share a studio.
[00:36:58] Speaker A: If you reach it over.
[00:37:00] Speaker B: Oh, yeah.
[00:37:02] Speaker A: So. All right.
[00:37:04] Speaker B: Microphone. We've been making a scene. It'll be. It'll be fun.
[00:37:07] Speaker A: Well, we appreciate everybody for joining us on this episode of Call Like I See It. Subscribe to the podcast, rate it, review it, tell us what you think, send it to a friend. Until next time, I'm James Keys Tunde All right, we'll talk soon.
