Latest / Beyond Labels Premium / Episode #225: Gene Editing at Home & Falsified Studies Shaped Our Food

Transcript

Episode #225: Gene Editing at Home & Falsified Studies Shaped Our Food · Beyond Labels Premium

0:00
SPEAKER_00: Hello, everybody.
0:01
SPEAKER_00: Welcome to another episode of Beyond Labels, the podcast with yours truly, Joel Salatin, the farmer, and our favorite researcher, Dr.
0:09
SPEAKER_00: Cena McCullough.
0:11
SPEAKER_00: Today we're going to delve into a few current events, some things that are going on that Cena especially has been watching up.
0:20
SPEAKER_00: And we'll just kind of skip through a number of these and hopefully it'll be very helpful to you.
0:26
SPEAKER_00: So without further ado, uh Cena, what you got?
0:30
SPEAKER_02: Great.
0:31
SPEAKER_02: Okay.
0:32
SPEAKER_02: The first one, hot off the presses, is there's a glyphosate safety study that after about 25 years is being retracted.
0:44
SPEAKER_02: Like this is a big deal.
0:47
SPEAKER_02: So this article alone was widely recognized as a hallmark paper in supporting the conclusion that glyphosate and Roundup do not cause cancer.
0:59
SPEAKER_02: I mean, Joel, in the 2015 European Expert Report, that that's the report that led to the reauthorization of glyphosate in 2017, this study was cited 40 times alone in just that one report.
1:15
SPEAKER_02: Millions of pounds of glyphosate had been approved, defended, and sprayed worldwide based on this article that has now been deemed to be fundamentally compromised and scientifically invalid.
1:30
SPEAKER_02: So this was a 2000 glyphosate safety review.
1:35
SPEAKER_02: It was published in regulatory toxicology and pharmacology.
1:38
SPEAKER_02: So again, this is a peer-reviewed, you know, reputable journal.
1:42
SPEAKER_02: And now it's come to light that they've retracted it for uh a few main reasons.
1:49
SPEAKER_02: Here they are.
1:51
SPEAKER_02: The data that was used to determine that there was, quote, no cancer risk relied solely on Monsanto's data.
2:00
SPEAKER_02: This is their data that we're not allowed to see.
2:04
SPEAKER_02: Even worse, at the time that this article was published, there were multiple long-term mouse and rat cancer studies that were already in existence.
2:15
SPEAKER_02: And these this also included a multi-year toxicity study that all showed there were tumor signals.
2:22
SPEAKER_02: And none of them, none of them were mentioned in this article, which I mean, that's just scientific fraud right there.
2:31
SPEAKER_02: You know, if there's evidence there, you can't ignore the evidence and just only write in your article the stuff that supports what you want, right?
2:40
SPEAKER_02: Then, number two, there's also evidence of ghostwriting by Monsanto.
2:44
SPEAKER_02: So what they're saying is their employees secretly co-wrote parts of this paper and they were not listed as authors.
2:53
SPEAKER_02: So this also is against scientific integrity.
2:57
SPEAKER_02: Um, the author, the authors appear to have received compensation from Monsanto, and that was not disclosed, which also violates our the journalistic standards.
3:09
SPEAKER_02: Um, and they're saying that this misrepresentation misrepresented this paper because by ignoring the financial ties, not disclosing these things, you know, that you wrote part of this, it creates this illusion that this paper represents independent science, right?
3:33
SPEAKER_02: That this is an independent evaluation, which it was not whatsoever.
3:38
SPEAKER_02: This was a corporate-driven paper.
3:41
SPEAKER_02: It acknowledges more regulatory capture, right?
3:44
SPEAKER_02: The same thing we've been talking about now for years, you know.
3:48
SPEAKER_02: So it has helped to set that tone that glyphosate is safe, and it's been setting that tone for decades.
3:56
SPEAKER_02: And now we find out that it is compromised in in some of the most egregious ways you can, you know, in the world of science.
4:06
SPEAKER_00: So who so who um how'd this come to light?
4:11
SPEAKER_02: Yeah, so it stems from a US litigation uh in 2017, and it revealed Monsanto's correspondence, like internal correspondence, about this study.
4:25
SPEAKER_02: Um, so that came to about.
4:26
SPEAKER_02: But here's the thing.
4:27
SPEAKER_02: So that was in 2017, right?
4:29
SPEAKER_02: This was just retracted.
4:31
SPEAKER_02: And when people asked, you know, that um that paper, like, why did this take so long?
4:39
SPEAKER_02: And the the guy who's in charge of that journal, the scientific journal, said, quote, it simply never ended up on my desk being at first primarily a US situation with litigation.
4:52
SPEAKER_02: So then there's um two authors that wrote an article uh this summer in environmental science and policy.
5:00
SPEAKER_02: And those authors made an official request and a complaint about that study.
5:07
SPEAKER_02: And so that's that's what tipped them off.
5:09
SPEAKER_02: And then, like, oh, well, let's look into this study.
5:12
SPEAKER_02: So then the guy says, Well, if you have any more papers regarding Roundup published, you know, in our journal with possible problems, let me know.
5:22
SPEAKER_00: Well, you know, yeah, you know, it's amazing how how much has been uh quote unquote established in the culture.
5:34
SPEAKER_00: I was in um I was in DC last what's today?
5:40
SPEAKER_00: I was in uh DC uh last just last Monday, uh a little over a week ago with the um kind of the the Maha um action corps.
5:51
SPEAKER_00: Uh Bobby Kennedy was there.
5:53
SPEAKER_00: Um uh you know uh Robert Mul Dr.
5:58
SPEAKER_00: Robert Malone, um uh Lee Zeldon from uh EPA uh came over for it.
6:05
SPEAKER_00: It was a group of about 150 of us.
6:07
SPEAKER_00: I got invited.
6:08
SPEAKER_00: There were eight eight speakers that each had about 10 minutes.
6:11
SPEAKER_00: I was one of them.
6:13
SPEAKER_00: And um and Bobby Kennedy said that of all the vaccines used I I don't think it was in America.
6:26
SPEAKER_00: I think it was uh the child child child vaccines, the kind of vaccines that children get.
6:32
SPEAKER_00: Of all of them that there are, whatever there are, you know, 70 or something, he said only one has ever had a you know a um a scientific double blind um placebo, you know, control group um study.
6:56
SPEAKER_00: So so all of this bruhaha, you know, uh yelling at people like us for questioning vaccines well the vaccines have never have never had the kind of testing that anything ought to have before it's released.
7:18
SPEAKER_00: And and uh and so the whole think about that, you know, the the whole country, the conventional, the conventional medical community, the whole country, uh and and and moms uh give these sh shots to their kids, go with the flow, and only one, only one has been subjected to true uh what about you know this com compared to compared to those.
7:50
SPEAKER_00: And and and what they're finding is when they now do meta-analysis of kids that haven't been vaccinated versus kids that have, the differences are are unbelievably uh large.
8:07
SPEAKER_00: I mean, including things like like um well and he and he said, he said, does the measles vaccine make you not get measles measles?
8:18
SPEAKER_00: Absolutely.
8:19
SPEAKER_00: But he said, now we know that measles vaccine also makes you more susceptible to prostate cancer.
8:26
SPEAKER_00: To there were like five things he said, and so so nobody is actually looking at the at the he said, nobody's ever died from measles, ever.
8:37
SPEAKER_00: So why would we give something that nobody dies from anyway, that later in life puts you in jeopardy of these chronic morbidities?
8:48
SPEAKER_00: Anyway, it was it was just a really fascinating.
8:51
SPEAKER_00: I mean, he he he talked, he talked, you know, it wasn't long, but um, but the the the fact that only one of the entire consort of vaccines has ever truly been tested to rigorous uh control is pretty mind-blowing.
9:10
SPEAKER_00: And and that that's what you're dealing with here with the glyphosate thing.
9:13
SPEAKER_00: You know, this is this is established fact for whatever, you know, 10, 12 years.
9:19
SPEAKER_00: And then suddenly, oh, oops, oops.
9:24
SPEAKER_02: Yeah, no, it's you're exactly right.
9:26
SPEAKER_02: It's the same thing, and then and it just becomes the mantra, right?
9:29
SPEAKER_02: It's just repeated over and over again.
9:32
SPEAKER_02: And I think it's really important for us to keep bringing, you know, examples like this retracted study to our listeners because this is the pattern.
9:42
SPEAKER_02: Like there becomes what's called this established science, right?
9:46
SPEAKER_02: Right, the establishment.
9:48
SPEAKER_02: And this is the accepted science.
9:50
SPEAKER_02: And a lot of times it is based on you know, cherry-picked, fraudulent, industry-funded um data, and that becomes the settled science.
10:04
SPEAKER_02: And then it takes us decades to be able to debunk it, you know, and by that point, by that point, it's already in the mainstream narrative, it's already, you know, in the minds of Americans and people throughout the country that, oh, this is the way it is.
10:20
SPEAKER_02: So then we're on the fighting this uphill battle to try to correct, you know, some of this thinking that was false to begin with.
10:27
SPEAKER_02: You know, there's the whole, I wasn't planning on talking about this today, but you brought the vaccine.
10:31
SPEAKER_02: So I'll just piggyback on that for a moment.
10:33
SPEAKER_02: There is now a slew, I have these printed out here.
10:36
SPEAKER_02: There's the slew of articles that have recently come out that are it's it's almost like, you know, we reported on Dell Big Tree and that birth cohort study out of the Henry Ford Health System, and how it showed that, you know, this was the this was really the first time that we had a solid study showing vaccinated versus unvaccinated that were tracked, you know, and not tracked based on a parent saying it, tracked based on the healthcare system.
11:07
SPEAKER_02: So this is um the gold standard for how the CDC said that you should uh uh conduct these types of studies where you're trying to compare vaccinated versus unvaccinated.
11:20
SPEAKER_02: And since that happened, there's been all these other studies that have now been published.
11:25
SPEAKER_02: So I feel like that study, um, Dell Bigtree leaking that out helped to kind of start shifting the narrative here.
11:34
SPEAKER_02: So, for example, um as you know now the hepatitis B vaccine is no longer universally recommended, and Trump has now ordered a comprehensive childhood vaccination schedule review.
11:47
SPEAKER_02: Um, there's this cohort study that came out about um common vaccines and the risk of dementia, right?
11:56
SPEAKER_02: That there's um a 38 to 50% increased risk of dementia in Alzheimer's just from common vaccines.
12:02
SPEAKER_02: You know, I'm not talking about even the mRNA ones.
12:06
SPEAKER_02: Then there's another study that just came out, and this was a review of 109 studies, and it found that 56% of the papers that they review suggest there is a link between the mRNA vaccine and six major autoimmune diseases, including MS, lupus, type 1 diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, graves disease, and Hashimoto's thyroidis.
12:29
SPEAKER_02: Um, and I have that whole review here.
12:32
SPEAKER_02: Then there's another one that this is a peer-reviewed paper again that the mRNA vaccines um did cause widespread silent heart damage.
12:44
SPEAKER_00: Now just make sure everybody's with us.
12:46
SPEAKER_00: The mRNA, you're talking about COVID.
12:50
SPEAKER_02: Yeah, I'm talking specifically about COVID in that one.
12:52
SPEAKER_00: Yeah, because the mRNA did not really did not exist until COVID.
13:00
SPEAKER_02: For humans.
13:02
SPEAKER_00: For humans, yeah, yeah, it did for animals, but it didn't forget.
13:06
SPEAKER_00: Yes, exactly.
13:08
SPEAKER_00: So here you have so this is all very, very recent, recent doctrine.
13:14
SPEAKER_02: Yes, this is very recent doc connecting, and it's not just the mRNA vaccines, it's also, you know, the more um the vaccines, for example, on the childhood uh vaccination schedule.
13:27
SPEAKER_02: Okay.
13:28
SPEAKER_02: Now, so much information has come out recently in the scientific literature, and so much has been uncovered that four states have actually called for moratorium on mRNA injections.
13:42
SPEAKER_02: Those are Michigan, Minnesota, Idaho, and Washington.
13:46
SPEAKER_02: And these are legislators and county government officials that are calling for moratorium.
13:51
SPEAKER_02: And when they when asked why, they said because of the information coming out about the vaccine injuries, also the scientific evidence in these studies, and because of public distrust.
14:04
SPEAKER_02: So, you know, and this is a positive thing because unlike glyphosate, where it's taken 25 years to retract this study, this is gaining momentum fast.
14:16
SPEAKER_00: Yeah, like very quickly.
14:18
SPEAKER_00: You know what's interesting is that um three of these four are blue states.
14:26
SPEAKER_00: Yes.
14:27
SPEAKER_00: And and and so far, I don't want to go down a partisan rabbit hole here, but so far, it's the Democrats who have kept coming to the aid of the pharmaceutical companies.
14:40
SPEAKER_00: Yeah, it's been very political.
14:41
SPEAKER_00: It's been very, very political.
14:43
SPEAKER_00: I mean, look at look at COVID, you know, the uh and and so so to see to see Michigan, Minnesota, and Washington um uh come out on this is is quite that's really profound.
14:58
SPEAKER_02: Yes, it's it is truly incredible and I think very encouraging.
15:02
SPEAKER_02: Yeah.
15:03
SPEAKER_02: That I think there's so much evidence coming out now that I think this crosses party lines, you know, at this point.
15:09
SPEAKER_02: And I and that's what we're seeing here, I believe.
15:12
SPEAKER_02: And you know, um, Dr.
15:13
SPEAKER_02: Peter McCullough's um organization, they actually took that birth cohort study that Dell Bigtree leaked out, the Henry Ford study, and they reanalyzed it because they said they didn't agree with the statistics, like the statistical approach that they used.
15:31
SPEAKER_02: So they actually reanalyzed it and they showed even more extreme disparity between people who are vaccinated and who were not.
15:44
SPEAKER_02: Um, they said that the schedule now contains at least 81 doses of vaccines by the time somebody reaches 18.
15:52
SPEAKER_02: I mean, 81.
15:54
SPEAKER_02: I mean, just even common sense, 81 doses.
15:57
SPEAKER_02: Um, which by the way, I think is fascinating because if you think about it, when you're a a mom of you know, a baby, a toddler, they tell you for food, right?
16:08
SPEAKER_02: To not um to to try to stave off a food allergy or food sensitivity, they tell you introduce one food at a time, right?
16:18
SPEAKER_02: One food and then wait and see.
16:19
SPEAKER_02: Uh-huh.
16:20
SPEAKER_02: But right?
16:21
SPEAKER_02: When they do vaccines with vaccines, let's do a cocktail.
16:24
SPEAKER_02: It's it's cocktails.
16:26
SPEAKER_02: So they're not getting stabbed 81 times, right?
16:28
SPEAKER_02: These 81 doses, you're not stabbing them 81 times.
16:31
SPEAKER_02: It is these large cocktails of things injected right into the body.
16:35
SPEAKER_02: That doesn't even make sense to me, right?
16:38
SPEAKER_02: But anyhow, so when Dr.
16:41
SPEAKER_02: McCullough reanalyzed uh his team reanalyzed the data, they showed that the vaccinated children were sicker in all of the 22 chronic disease categories that were listed.
16:51
SPEAKER_02: And see, see, one thing that stood out to me in that Bell Dell Big Tree League study is that they said, Oh, in these different conditions, the um vaccinated children were all sicker, but interestingly, they weren't in the category of autism.
17:10
SPEAKER_02: And I said, Well, that's really interesting.
17:14
SPEAKER_02: Why that one?
17:15
SPEAKER_02: Because here they even concluded there's a six-fold increased risk of developing an autoimmune condition, and they all these different conditions under that category, but not for autism.
17:25
SPEAKER_02: I thought that's really odd.
17:27
SPEAKER_02: Well, when Dr.
17:29
SPEAKER_02: McCullough's team analyzed it using different statistics, they showed that there's a 549% higher risk of autism associated neurodevelopment conditions in people who in kids who are vaccinated.
17:44
SPEAKER_02: 549% increased risk, along with a 54% increased risk in childhood cancer.
17:50
SPEAKER_02: But I'm thinking, okay, so number one, I don't it tells you what you can do with the power of statistics, right?
18:00
SPEAKER_02: The stuff that we talk about on this program is that this is how much power a scientist has, right?
18:06
SPEAKER_02: When they're when they are crafting studies.
18:08
SPEAKER_02: So this the design of your study and then the analysis of your study, you have a lot of control on the narrative, right?
18:16
SPEAKER_02: The outcome of this study.
18:18
SPEAKER_02: And Dr.
18:19
SPEAKER_02: Peter McCullough just showed that in just simply choosing a different statistical analysis.
18:24
SPEAKER_02: We went from there's no association with autism to now 549% increased risk of it.
18:32
SPEAKER_02: That's huge.
18:33
SPEAKER_02: I don't know why the authors of that original study chose the statistics they did.
18:38
SPEAKER_02: I don't know why it seems a little odd to me that autism was the one category that, oh, we see no difference, right?
18:46
SPEAKER_02: Um, because you change statistics and now it's a huge increase.
18:49
SPEAKER_02: So I don't know.
18:50
SPEAKER_02: That's all speculative, but it just goes to show that there's still narrative there that that needs to be uncovered.
18:58
unknown: Yeah.
18:58
SPEAKER_00: You know, and hopefully it doesn't take 25 years to how how they came to that conclusion was that they all huddled together and emerged from the room with a with a plan.
19:10
SPEAKER_00: I mean, that's that that's what happens.
19:13
SPEAKER_02: I mean, that is oftentimes what happens.
19:15
SPEAKER_02: I don't know what happened to them in particular, but that is often what happens, especially because the uh the primary author of that study has been outspoken on so many different cases of toxicity, you know, in our country.
19:28
SPEAKER_02: So it was really some i I feel like this is totally speculation.
19:32
SPEAKER_02: Somebody got to him.
19:34
SPEAKER_02: You know, I mean, that's a big difference between those two analyses.
19:39
SPEAKER_02: But okay, so moving on to something that's a little bit hopefully lighter, but I still think fascinating.
19:46
SPEAKER_02: So, Joel, you will never guess what my son, my 16-year-old son, wants for Christmas.
19:54
SPEAKER_00: What he wants for Christmas.
19:56
SPEAKER_00: What he wants for Christmas.
19:58
SPEAKER_00: Well, um, I'm my first thought is he wants a gun of some sort.
20:03
SPEAKER_02: I thought you could say video game.
20:05
SPEAKER_00: Oh, no.
20:06
SPEAKER_02: It could have been that too, right?
20:07
SPEAKER_02: That's a common request.
20:09
SPEAKER_00: It could have been that from teens.
20:11
SPEAKER_00: He's pretty, he's pretty techy.
20:13
SPEAKER_02: Yeah, so it was not a video game, it was not a gun.
20:18
SPEAKER_02: It's actually these CRISPR kits.
20:22
SPEAKER_02: Goodness, Joel.
20:23
SPEAKER_02: You know how we talked about CRISPR, the gene editing technique.
20:27
SPEAKER_02: You can now order your own CRISPR kits on Amazon and do this technology in your kitchen.
20:37
SPEAKER_02: I kid you not.
20:39
SPEAKER_02: So I'm gonna share some of these with you.
20:41
SPEAKER_02: I mean, this is crazy.
20:42
SPEAKER_02: Did you ever think this would ever happen in our lifetime that kids can be in their kitchen, like you know, changing the genetic makeup of things?
20:52
SPEAKER_02: It's crazy.
20:53
SPEAKER_02: Okay, so here's the first one.
20:56
SPEAKER_02: Uh, this is one of them that's what he wants.
20:58
SPEAKER_02: It's called a bacterial CRISPR kit.
21:00
SPEAKER_02: It's$278.
21:03
SPEAKER_02: And this is the description.
21:06
SPEAKER_02: Want to really know what this whole CRISPR thing is about, why it could revolutionize genetic engineering.
21:12
SPEAKER_02: This kit includes everything you need to make precision genome edits in bacteria at home, including CAS9, and then blah, blah, blah.
21:21
SPEAKER_02: So, what they do in this kit is they send you all the supplies you need, and you are going to make a genome mutation in this bacteria.
21:30
SPEAKER_02: So, you're gonna change an amino acid, the lysine, to a threonine.
21:35
SPEAKER_02: And what happens is when you change that amino acid, it changes the structure of the ribosome that's produced in that bacteria.
21:42
SPEAKER_02: And get this it prevents the streptomycin antibiotic from binding to the ribosome so that your ribosome can grow on a media, right?
21:54
SPEAKER_02: This like um uh in a petri dish that has a strep media on it.
21:59
SPEAKER_02: So basically.
22:00
SPEAKER_02: you just created an antibiotic resistant bacteria in your kitchen for 278 dollars my goodness me okay so we're gonna we're gonna we're gonna create some some mad mad uh mad anthonies here mad scientists here yes okay so here's another kit that that is being sold this is a yeast kit this is literally what it says our goal with this kit is to begin to integrate synthetic biology and genetic design into people's everyday life we see a future in which people are genetically designing the plants they use in their garden eating yogurt that contains a custom bacterial strain that they modified or even someday brewing using an engineered yeast strain like that you've actually modified yourself.
22:54
SPEAKER_02: And then they talk about how engineering yeast in your home seems like science fiction but actually it's now a reality using your kit you can make yeast fluoresce and glow by inserting a gene from jellyfish.
23:09
SPEAKER_02: This kit comes with everything you need to engineer a mead yeast that we provide or you can provide your own favorite yeast most any yeast you can buy from a store you can engineer like oh my goodness and then at the end it says this yeast and plasmid are being released through a Creative Commons non-commercial license we encourage you to share it so create it and share it okay and then there's two other there's a couple others that I was going to mention this one is actually only$99.
23:42
SPEAKER_02: You can actually learn to genetically engineer plants using agrobacterium and this is a big deal because agrobacterium is it's a plant pathogen that is commonly used in genetic engineering to deliver desired genes into plant cells.
23:57
SPEAKER_02: So it's a vector for transgenic crops like BT corn and non-browning potato and basically um you use this bacteria and it it can insert its DNA into a plant's genome okay so using this kit it it allows you to engineer the leaves of a tobacco plant and turn them red.
24:18
SPEAKER_02: So do you remember in school I don't know if you did this Joel in school but we had white carnations and you would stick it in a jar with food dye and it would turn the petals red, right?
24:29
SPEAKER_00: Sure.
24:30
SPEAKER_02: Yeah yeah it was all about um uh what's it called the you know where they where the it's uh where they suck up you know where the plant well you do you did uh celery too celery would do it yes yeah like osmosis yep yeah yeah yeah yeah so that's how we turned plant leaves and stuff red and now you can actually get this in your kitchen and you can engineer it to make its leaves turn red like that's that is just crazy and and for only$99.
25:00
SPEAKER_02: Okay then there's this one this one's only$40.
25:04
SPEAKER_02: This one you can buy on Amazon.
25:06
SPEAKER_02: This kit teaches you how to insert a jellyfish gene into bacteria so that the bacteria glow green when you shine a light on them.
25:14
SPEAKER_02: All right$99 Joel and then here's another one this is$165 on Amazon.
25:21
SPEAKER_02: You're using CRISPR to improve crops food crops.
25:27
SPEAKER_02: So it says students will assume the role of a plant geneticist working to develop to develop corn crops that are capable of surviving and thriving in a changing environment it's going to allow you to understand CRISPR Cas9 applications, cleave DNA and examine the results like so that's food.
25:47
SPEAKER_02: It's wow so so you can imagine my dilemma when my 16 year old son comes to me and says this is what I want for Christmas.
25:56
SPEAKER_00: Yeah I'm like I want to foster your passion but oh my goodness like and how do you dispose of these things once you've created like this strep resistant bacteria what are you doing with that I'm sure a lot of people just throw it in the trash like right I mean so one thing one thing this tells me is um if this is true and and all these kids deliver on these promise it tells me okay this is how easy it is to engineer something on one hand and on the other hand this is a good lesson to teach children about there has to be has to be unintended consequences if it's that easy to do this in your kitchen what are you actually changing in their genome right I don't think you can be so precise that you're changing one amino acid only in your kitchen yeah wow right did I shock you with this one yeah you shocked me with speechless you you you know I you know I'm not I'm in my little silo here I don't get on Amazon or anything uh Teresa and I did we were on Amazon uh uh last week actually she helped me try to find uh chainsaw files and um and we couldn't find the ones that I wanted so uh she's been working on it and I think we finally found the ones I wanted not from Amazon from a local uh local tractor supply dealer so that that chainsaw files is about as far as I go on Amazon you know and so uh so I don't search that's unbelievable um you know it'd be interesting to get one just to see if it really does I mean I'm assuming they work I I'm assuming it must work or to some extent I mean because it's and it's not just Amazon I mean there are companies that this is what they do they sell these kits so you don't have to go to Amazon to get them but I mean so I've grappled with this a lot and I I discussed it with Donnie because I was like well he's really he's really into microbiology is what it is and you know I've it's really my fault because because because I you know I've taught him chemistry and now microproduct microbiology and genetics and stuff and so he loves these things and I I don't want to stop him from doing it but I was like you know what okay maybe we'll get you one and I'll do it with you and we're gonna I'm gonna teach him the safety practices as though you're in a lab like this is how you handle a sample like this and this is how you dispose of it and and just the whole pros and cons of of all of it so that maybe maybe it will it will really ring true like I said that um this is not as precise as they're saying because you can literally mix this in your kitchen.
28:56
SPEAKER_00: It'll be interesting to see what the directions what the directions in the kits say about um you know about biosecurity biosafety you know within the within the process uh yeah it brings up for me lately I've had this um this concept it it's it's a new uh phrase I've started playing around with our our country is suffering from decision deficit disorder decision deficit disorder what I'm saying by that is that uh we have too many um too many uh safety nets too many things out there that keep you from having to suffer the consequences of your decisions and um this is all part of course of the of the book project I'm working on but um but how do you how do you create how how how do you build up decision making muscle well it starts by by the having the consequences of what you've you know what you've just what you've done and um and so decision so so this this really plays into that you know uh decision deficit disorder uh okay so you want to do this well what about you know the um the consequences that you might not see how about we study the microbes in compost or something you know instead uh you know we we only we only we've only named 10 I mean here'd be a good good would wouldn't it be a neat kit to uh to uh have a uh a find find a new soil microbe uh and we've only named 10% of them 90% of soil microbes are unnamed and unknown so it seems like it'd be pretty easy to um put a kit together in which some some you know some soil some compost some something would come and um and you'd have a you know you'd have a list of the of the ones that are known can you find one that we haven't found yet or you know something.
31:18
SPEAKER_02: Anyway I love that it's like a treasure hunt.
31:20
SPEAKER_00: Yeah yeah yeah yeah like a treasure I mean here here's here's the problem we have become so um enamored of our of our human capacity that when we talk about microbiology we immediately go to what we can manipulate rather than discovering what God already made that we don't even know how it works.
31:53
SPEAKER_00: So one goes off a spectrum toward human interference and one goes off a spectrum of of human humility and discovery of trying to figure out what already exists those are those are two almost opposite ends on a teeter totter.
32:15
SPEAKER_02: Yes yeah no that's so true you know that's I mean I can think of lots of things where they went in opposite directions like herbals and pharmaceuticals.
32:23
SPEAKER_02: Right you know I mean they're just polar opposites and even even like you said in that initial ideology of your pursuit of it why are you pursuing it?
32:32
SPEAKER_02: It's just a polar opposite you know it would be kind of cool if we had a kit like that to really inspire kids and then I mean to inspire them they need like a prize at the end right for nowadays.
32:43
SPEAKER_02: But even like a cash prize like you discover a new you know soil microbe and it's kind of like kind of like yeah name name a star I love that yeah I actually got that for Donnie one year uh for Christmas I named a star after him.
33:02
SPEAKER_02: Yeah he he was not thrilled like oh that that was not that was not the most um uh practical gift no no yeah Donnie's very practical and very thrifty so he's like that was a waste of money like oh maybe that was a better gift to give to me as a girl like you yeah yeah but no yeah uh so I I will get one of them and um and I will get the instructions and I'll report back to you and let you know like are they even disposing of these things safely or even telling you that or even bringing up the question of the pros and cons.
33:40
SPEAKER_02: Like don't just so we can do it.
33:42
SPEAKER_02: Yeah but there should be some kind of follow-up questions about like you know what could go wrong.
33:50
SPEAKER_02: I mean that's just basic science what could go wrong what are the unintended consequences should we be doing this yeah we're we're talking about uh Wuhan we're talking about you know the the Georgia Georgia poultry lab you know with um H1N1 I mean yes yeah this is crazy I know I tell you when he first told me about this I thought he must have misread that like there's no way like you did you didn't know this existed either no I had no idea like why would I ever search that you know like oh let me have my own CRISPR kit uh to change our food supply in my kitchen like I mean you know and because that's not even the way I think like you said that that's my initial thought process.
34:31
SPEAKER_02: So when he told me I didn't want to say to him okay I'm sure you got that wrong you know I was trying to be more supportive I was like okay well let me see it and I was fully prepared to be like well I'm gonna have to tell him this is not science speak and whatever and then I read it and I was like oh and then he showed me look and you could get it here and you can get it here and I was like oh my goodness it's not even just one company it's yeah it's multiple like this is a thing like man how many of those are going to be distributed all over the country this Christmas with who knows what uh just released out man.
35:05
SPEAKER_02: Well also how many of them are being used in schools already like some of them are advertised for classroom like um I couldn't even get it if I wanted because it's so expensive because you buy it in bulk for a classroom setting oh uh so it's like people in you know in high schools and stuff are doing this apparently so wow like I said far cry from when we were in high school like times have changed yeah yeah but okay so uh long are you ready for me to move on to the next one yep okay this one I think you are going to love this is a new study they're calling it a groundbreaking new study just came out it's flipping the script on this global narrative that animal protein kills and plant protein heals and is our savior okay so let me lay the groundwork here for you in 2014 the journal cell metabolism published an article um by Levine uh that's his last name this article used um the third national health and nutrition examination survey the NHANES survey from 1988 to 1994 and for those not familiar NHANES is a big deal right NHANES is um it's it's run by the CDC and it's widely considered high quality data for population level health and nutrition assessments so this is like a gold standard population level for understanding health and part of that's because they actually physically examine people it's not just the questionnaire it's been going on since like the 1970s we use NHANES when we're tracking things like nutrient deficiencies in America or obesity trends or changes in level of fat consumption things like that so it's a big deal to be um using data from an from NHANES okay so back in 2014 Levine and his team used this data and they concluded that protein intake from animals resulted in a 75% increase in overall mortality and a fourfold which is a 400% increased risk of cancer in adults age 50 to 65.
37:41
SPEAKER_02: So this was a the one of the big studies that was like plastered across headlines uh they became media darlings and it it set off this whole thing of oh well we really should be consuming our protein from plants right yeah no no doubt this was uh a lot of the basis for like the documentary you know cow um cowspiracy and then what the health uh that was the follow-up to it yes yes so um okay now what's happened is a separate group uh has re-examined the same exact data set okay so they took the same exact n haynes data and they have re-examined it and this is what they're saying there was an inverse association between cancer mortality and animal protein so there was actually a protective effect so the more um the animal protein consumption did not lead to increase in cancer and mortality so here's here's the direct quote from them our analysis revealed no significant adverse associations between dietary protein from either plant or animal origin and all cause or cardiovascular disease related mortality so they're saying that's not actually true that the if you look at the data it doesn't say that there's higher risk of death and higher risk of cancer if you eat meat so um they also show that in the other study they talk about you know the original 2014 study they said that oh well plant protein consumption would actually is healthier it it could decrease your mortality risk this new re-examined data set they said we did not find beneficial mortality outcomes with increasing plant protein consumption in contrast with previous reports so again total opposite findings same same data set total opposite findings so how did this actually happen okay so what they're saying in here and Joel I'm telling you I've never seen anything like this written up in a discussion of um you know in a peer reviewed published scientific journal I've never seen somebody write this in a discussion before okay so first what they did because you know to try to defend their position and get published they circle the wagons you know you don't you don't upset their fraternity that's right so here's what they first said okay first they're citing a study from 2022 okay and this study also used this same NHANES data set okay this is what they said oh okay and of course that study also concluded that animal protein is bad for you okay so this is what they said our data are at odds with those reported by the 2022 study which also used NHANES but only reported data on 2605 participants from 30 to 65 years a reason for this choice was not immediately clear so that's the best you can ever say in a scientific discussion of a journal is you can say oh this is not clear you point it out you point out the flaw not immediately clear it's not immediately clear so they skewed the data they cherry picked in that 2022 study they cherry picked the data and to get the result they wanted just like Ansel Keys did yeah and they're and they're saying it's not clear to us why they did this.
41:48
SPEAKER_02: Okay then they go on and now they're talking about this 2014 study which kicked this all off right the manlotein's bad was it's one of the things that kicked it off it says our results are in stark contrast to the conclusions from Levine you know from 2014 given that we use the same data set we're unable to fully account for the marked discrepancies between our data and those of Levine we propose that many of the previously reported relationships you know in that study were spuriously high due to uneven numbers of participants in their respective groups and small numbers of cases of all calls and disease specific mortality artificially inflating risk when comparing arbitrarily defined protein intake groups they did not use usual intakes but actual intakes so basically they're saying they arbitrarily defined what they wanted and skewed the groups in order to get the conclusion.
42:58
SPEAKER_00: Yes I mean Ansel Keys that was that's the one of the most egregious but uh but where you have this well I will throw out those five countries and we'll just pick these five countries and uh and this is exactly the same thing.
43:13
SPEAKER_02: Yeah and now and but it's published it's like it got through peer review it's actually there in you can't really argue that at this point it's there it's it's published it went through peer review this is published in applied physiology nutrition and metabolism I mean this isn't just some fly by the the night journal so you're saying you've never I mean you've certainly read tons and tons and tons of studies and you've never seen anything like this before what do you what do you think's going on are it what what's what's um is there a is there a a philosophical shakeup going on in the scientific community so so let me say what you do see is because in every study you can find a study to contradict it and you can find a study to support it.
44:00
SPEAKER_02: So in every discussion, if you're a good scientist, you present both sides.
44:06
SPEAKER_02: Okay.
44:06
SPEAKER_02: So that's not unique.
44:07
SPEAKER_02: You are supposed to present both sides.
44:09
SPEAKER_02: I have never seen somebody call it out like this, like so blatantly call it out.
44:15
SPEAKER_02: And so I'm thinking that I'm thinking again that Kennedy did his job.
44:24
SPEAKER_02: Right.
44:25
SPEAKER_02: That just having him in there and chiseling away and having people attack him and he's still standing there.
44:33
SPEAKER_02: Right.
44:33
SPEAKER_02: He's not been booted out yet.
44:36
SPEAKER_02: I think it's it's giving an opportunity for some people to finally speak some truth.
44:46
SPEAKER_02: They're doing it in a very respectful way in here, but they're finally able to actually start speaking out.
44:54
SPEAKER_02: And because before it would be hard to get stuff like this published, you know.
45:00
SPEAKER_02: Certainly, there's going to be some examples in other fields, but in the nutrition field, on such a highly debated topic where there's so much money behind it.
45:11
SPEAKER_02: This this was to me a big deal that a journal is willing to publish that and then an author's willing to say it, and a journal is willing to publish it.
45:20
SPEAKER_02: And hopefully they stand by it.
45:21
SPEAKER_02: I mean, you know it's going to be attacked.
45:24
SPEAKER_02: So we'll see what's going to happen.
45:26
SPEAKER_02: I mean, the plant, the plant-based food industry, Joel, is projected by 2030 to hit 162 billion dollars.
45:38
SPEAKER_02: So they have every incentive to demonize meat at any at every turn.
45:45
SPEAKER_02: You know, that there's a lot of money on the line, you know, and and in contrast, this article actually supports reasons why you should consume why you should consume meat.
45:55
SPEAKER_02: Like they went the opposite, you know.
45:57
SPEAKER_02: I mean, even talking about traditional cultures like Inuit and the Maasai thriving on these, you know, meat-heavy diets.
46:05
SPEAKER_02: So so this is this is a great example of like I think things being chiseled away.
46:10
SPEAKER_02: We'll see how this holds up.
46:12
SPEAKER_02: Um, hopefully they don't have to retract it, but it's also a great example, I believe, for our podcast in particular, because it shows how you can take the same data set and have extreme opposite conclusions.
46:27
SPEAKER_02: Right.
46:28
SPEAKER_02: Again, the power that a scientist and and a journal that's going to publish that actually have.
46:35
SPEAKER_00: Except not to argue, but it's not exactly the same data set.
46:40
SPEAKER_00: I mean, the two people.
46:51
SPEAKER_00: Yeah.
46:52
SPEAKER_00: And and so um so they're not actually looking at the same.
47:00
SPEAKER_00: Yeah, it's a nuance that they are looking at the same numbers, but they have they're they're looking at um they're they're looking at different numbers.
47:10
SPEAKER_02: Yes.
47:10
SPEAKER_02: So what I mean is you could start with the same set of raw data, right?
47:14
SPEAKER_02: They both have access to the same NHANES raw data, and that's how much power you have as a scientist to create the narrative because you can cherry pick it.
47:24
SPEAKER_02: Right.
47:25
SPEAKER_02: So this is the perfect example of how that actually happens.
47:28
SPEAKER_02: So instead of believing somebody like us, and we talk about, oh, they cherry pick the data, here is a real life example of a study that was just published where they just did that exact thing.
47:40
SPEAKER_02: And look, look at the magnitude, the ramification that came with them cherry picking that initial set of data.
47:49
SPEAKER_00: It's huge.
47:50
SPEAKER_00: Yeah, yeah.
47:51
SPEAKER_00: And and and no doubt, I I remember because I was involved with some of the shenanigans behind um cowspiracy and then uh what the health, and um and with Alan Savory.
48:06
SPEAKER_00: Uh, you know, I I've never seen either of those.
48:09
SPEAKER_00: You've never seen either one of them?
48:11
SPEAKER_02: No.
48:12
SPEAKER_00: They're um yeah, they're they're powerful.
48:16
SPEAKER_00: Uh, I mean, if you're if you're not if you're not thinking, uh you'll never touch meat again.
48:23
SPEAKER_00: And they've you know, they've got this guy, this bodybuilder, you know, pulling a track, pulling a pickup truck, you know, on a sled, you know, I don't eat meat, you know, that sort of thing.
48:33
SPEAKER_00: And um, and of course, you know, what turned out was that he did eat meat up until six months before the movie.
48:40
SPEAKER_00: And um, and and you know, it there's all kinds of shenanigans.
48:45
SPEAKER_00: But but anyway, um, Alan Savory, who of course is you know, holistic management international, he's he's one of the probably the top the top voice in livestock management in the world, uh, met with those guys and and presented his information, and and he he couldn't he couldn't get a uh a word in I mean he couldn't get any uh progress whatsoever.
49:12
SPEAKER_00: That they wouldn't even give him the time of day.
49:14
SPEAKER_00: Well, why?
49:14
SPEAKER_00: Because they had this study here in front of them, and uh and here we here we go.
49:20
SPEAKER_01: Yeah.
49:21
SPEAKER_00: And so, you know, that movie's out there, and those movies are out there.
49:25
SPEAKER_00: They're you know, what's done is done, and uh, and it's you know, it's part of the part of the public psyche at this point.
49:33
SPEAKER_00: And um, man, how do you how do you unring a bell?
49:37
SPEAKER_00: You know, the the it's hard, it's hard to unring a bell.
49:40
SPEAKER_00: You ring a bell and then you want to unring it, and it's hard to unring it.
49:43
SPEAKER_02: Yeah, I mean, it it it gives it's part of why we still have the dietary guidelines that we have, where they're they're pushing uh toward plant protein um and away from animal protein.
49:56
SPEAKER_02: It it's studies like this that Monday night.
50:00
SPEAKER_00: Um I don't remember if it was Bobby, I think it was one of the other guys said that um they're gonna come out with a new guy, dietary guidelines that's gonna go back to the pyramid, and I think meat is gonna be on the bottom.
50:19
SPEAKER_00: Can you imagine what that's gonna do to things if they if they come out with a new dietary guideline with meat on the bottom, you know, with animal protein, we'll just call it animal protein on the bottom, you know, instead instead of you know, way up at the top.
50:39
SPEAKER_00: Um so so uh that that they said they said uh wait, you know, as soon as the first year comes, that new that new pyramid is gonna be published.
50:50
SPEAKER_02: Oh wow, okay.
50:51
SPEAKER_02: Is it is it like the one that we talked about?
50:54
SPEAKER_02: Um where we had Nina Ty Schultz on and she was working with them and it's the for metabolic illness.
51:01
SPEAKER_00: Yes, I think it's very, very similar.
51:04
SPEAKER_02: Okay, a replay they're gonna replace the food pyramid, or is this gonna be a second pyramid like like Nina was asking for?
51:09
SPEAKER_00: Or do you know?
51:10
SPEAKER_00: Yeah, uh there so you know, right now it's my plate.
51:15
SPEAKER_00: Yeah.
51:16
SPEAKER_00: Okay, so the old food, the old pyramid from 79 will be scrapped.
51:22
SPEAKER_00: Okay.
51:23
SPEAKER_00: The my plate will be scrapped, and this is gonna be a brand new pyramid back to the triangle, yeah.
51:33
SPEAKER_00: Um and and have a have a completely different set of uh of uh foundations.
51:40
SPEAKER_02: Well, the cereal company is gonna be up in arms.
51:43
SPEAKER_00: Oh, yeah.
51:43
SPEAKER_02: Like they're gonna really go after him now.
51:46
SPEAKER_00: Yeah, yeah.
51:46
SPEAKER_00: When when eggs and milk and meat go on the bottom and uh instead of uh Cheerios and Fruit Loops, um Kellogg's is gonna have a conniption fit.
51:56
SPEAKER_02: Yeah.
51:57
SPEAKER_02: Wow.
51:58
SPEAKER_02: That'll be interesting to see.
51:59
SPEAKER_02: Well, yay, something to look forward to in the new year already.
52:02
SPEAKER_00: Yeah, yeah.
52:03
SPEAKER_00: And they they said it's it's very close that they said literally in another couple weeks it'll be out.
52:08
SPEAKER_02: Oh, that's so great.
52:10
SPEAKER_02: Yay.
52:10
SPEAKER_02: Okay, well, we'll I'll look out for that too.
52:12
SPEAKER_02: Um, how are we doing on time?
52:13
SPEAKER_02: Do we have time for one more?
52:15
SPEAKER_00: Uh, yeah, quickly.
52:17
SPEAKER_00: We've got about five minutes.
52:19
SPEAKER_02: Okay, I'll try to be quick.
52:21
SPEAKER_02: Okay.
52:22
SPEAKER_02: So do you remember in like 2006, 2007, where thousands of Americans learned that their pets were eating something deadly, and the cats and dogs start showing up at the vet clinics and they would suddenly have kidney failure.
52:36
SPEAKER_02: There was like no infection, no injury, just the kidneys would start shutting down, and a and the FDA would later log that more than there were there were more than 10,000 complaints, and thousands of our pets were actually killed.
52:47
SPEAKER_02: Do you remember that?
52:49
SPEAKER_00: Yeah, yeah, yeah.
52:50
SPEAKER_00: So so that was when um I thought it was China or something.
52:54
SPEAKER_02: Yes.
52:55
SPEAKER_02: So uh in the early around like 2000s, China had become the major exporter of different feed ingredients that were used all over the world.
53:02
SPEAKER_02: Some of those were wheat gluten, rice protein concentrate, corn gluten meal, and these were cheap, concentrated, concentrated inputs, and they were designed to boost the quote protein content in a food.
53:14
SPEAKER_02: Okay.
53:15
SPEAKER_02: So, Joel, do you remember um recently when you were talking with me about how someone could game the system, uh, like to circumvent a label?
53:24
SPEAKER_02: This is a good example of that.
53:26
SPEAKER_02: So when we look at for most of the time, you know, protein is on the food label.
53:32
SPEAKER_02: When protein level is measured in a food, it's not actually measured by amino acid content.
53:39
SPEAKER_02: It's measured by nitrogen because protein contains nitrogen.
53:44
SPEAKER_02: So when regulators test, they they test for nitrogen and they just assume that means protein.
53:51
SPEAKER_02: So they make the assumption that all nitrogen comes from protein, but that's not actually true.
53:55
SPEAKER_02: It can come from amino acids, but it can also come from non-protein compounds and also industrial chemicals that contain nitrogen.
54:04
SPEAKER_02: But because nitrogen-based testing is cheap, it's fast, it's standardized, it's globally accepted, and it's easy to enforce, that is the default method used for routine protein labeling.
54:14
SPEAKER_02: Okay.
54:15
SPEAKER_02: So in China, yeah, there was a surplus of the industrial chemical, melamine, which just happens to be rich in nitrogen.
54:24
SPEAKER_02: So that means melamine can work as a fraud tool.
54:29
SPEAKER_02: You can add it to low-quality feed, and suddenly those ingredients would pass quality control.
54:36
SPEAKER_02: And on paper, everything looks fine, right?
54:40
SPEAKER_02: The first victims weren't actually pets.
54:42
SPEAKER_02: They were actually infants.
54:43
SPEAKER_02: These were babies that were fed the adulterated formula in China.
54:47
SPEAKER_02: They developed things like kidney stones, kidney failure, and some of them died.
54:51
SPEAKER_02: Um, and then by around 2006, the wheat gluten and rice protein from China were showing up in U.S.
54:58
SPEAKER_02: pet food, even in some familiar brands and some that we had like the natural claim.
55:03
SPEAKER_02: And this is when we had that crisis amongst our pets.
55:06
SPEAKER_02: Well, uh halfway around the world, the same thing was happening.
55:10
SPEAKER_02: That was in South Africa.
55:11
SPEAKER_02: Dogs began dying mysteriously, too.
55:13
SPEAKER_02: And investigators traced the cause not to wheat or rice, but to a corn gluten.
55:18
SPEAKER_02: It was a different ingredient, but it was the same outcome that was happening.
55:22
SPEAKER_02: It was because of this fraudulent vector.
55:25
SPEAKER_02: Um, so this is the part of the story, though.
55:29
SPEAKER_02: So I thought that was fascinating because that tells you one way that they can game the system and one way in which that has actually happened.
55:37
SPEAKER_02: Um, but there's a second part of the story that most of us never knew.
55:42
SPEAKER_02: And this was actually sent to me by our good friend John Clark.
55:46
SPEAKER_02: So he tracked what happened to all of this feed, you know, this tainted feed.
55:52
SPEAKER_02: Um, companies face the problem because millions of pounds of this pet food were recalled.
55:58
SPEAKER_02: And if they dispose of it, they lose money, right?
56:01
SPEAKER_02: So they figured out how to turn a liability into an asset.
56:04
SPEAKER_02: And some of the tainted pet food was actually, according to John Clark, diverted to pig feed.
56:11
SPEAKER_02: At least 6,000 pigs in six states in the U.S.
56:15
SPEAKER_02: were potentially exposed.
56:17
SPEAKER_02: Um, there's even a big poultry farm that was involved too.
56:21
SPEAKER_02: And in California, it was a big thing.
56:24
SPEAKER_02: State officials quarantined a Stanislaw County hog farm after they found melamine traces in the urine of the animals.
56:30
SPEAKER_02: Now, this is where it gets kind of uh ridiculous, but you got to kind of laugh at these things.
56:36
SPEAKER_02: The officials said that the risk to human health was, quote, minimal, even though they had just started investigating, right?
56:43
SPEAKER_02: Already, nope, it's minimal.
56:46
SPEAKER_02: Um, now some of those animals actually did enter the food supply before anyone actually realized what was happening.
56:53
SPEAKER_02: And this was an official statement that was made.
56:58
SPEAKER_02: Okay, ready for this?
56:59
SPEAKER_02: The California Department of Health Services is recommending that pigs in question not be consumed.
57:05
SPEAKER_02: But California state public health officer, Dr.
57:09
SPEAKER_02: Mark Horton, considers the health risk minimal if the pork has already been eaten.
57:17
SPEAKER_00: Oh my goodness, talk about doublespeak if it's already.
57:21
SPEAKER_00: Oh my.
57:22
SPEAKER_00: Literally, that's a direct quote.
57:24
SPEAKER_02: So don't eat this.
57:26
SPEAKER_02: It's you know, it's bad for you don't consume it.
57:28
SPEAKER_02: But if you already do it, don't worry because we don't have any evidence to support this statement, but the risk is minimal to you.
57:34
SPEAKER_02: So to me, like this whole story, it's not about China, it's not really about pet food or pigs, it's a story about our systems, our food systems.
57:42
SPEAKER_02: We have this global food system that is built on long supply chains, shortcut testing methods, and regulatory agencies that are constantly balancing public health against economic stability.
57:55
SPEAKER_02: And like basically, they don't want to alarm the consumer unless it's absolutely necessary to do it.
58:03
SPEAKER_02: The most to me, too, it means that the most dangerous phrase in food safety isn't it's toxic, it's really the risk is minimal.
58:14
SPEAKER_02: Right?
58:15
SPEAKER_02: That is the most dangerous phrase that we have in our food system.
58:19
SPEAKER_02: The risk is just minimal.
58:21
SPEAKER_00: Yeah, well, it's all about circling the wagons.
58:24
SPEAKER_00: You know, you you've you've got to keep this the you know, this um uh facade of everything's under control, you know, there's nothing to see here.
58:35
SPEAKER_00: Uh we're all you know, we're all happy, we're all good, because the system works.
58:41
SPEAKER_00: Because if they ever if they ever lose the faith of the people in the system, it collapses.
58:49
SPEAKER_00: Yeah.
58:50
SPEAKER_00: So the system has to has to uh continue at all costs.
58:56
SPEAKER_00: That's the way it is.
58:58
SPEAKER_02: Yeah, even at the expense of you know, potentially having somebody die.
59:03
SPEAKER_02: I mean, babies died, pets died, you know.
59:07
SPEAKER_02: Yeah, what would have stopped it from us dying?
59:09
SPEAKER_02: I mean, it's it's just crazy.
59:11
SPEAKER_02: And if you don't know, if you if you suddenly had, let's say, a kidney issue, if it's not public knowledge that this was tainted the food supply, how are you ever gonna know that that how you address it?
59:23
SPEAKER_00: Yeah, cause it or not cause it.
59:24
SPEAKER_00: Yeah.
59:25
SPEAKER_00: Wow.
59:25
SPEAKER_00: Well, these are really good, Cena.
59:27
SPEAKER_00: Thanks for uh bringing us up to speed with some of your um gallivanting through the current uh issues.
59:35
SPEAKER_00: So so here's my question.
59:38
SPEAKER_00: Uh question for our our listeners this week.
59:43
SPEAKER_00: So everybody, so that everybody knows, Cena and I do not discuss this question.
59:50
SPEAKER_00: She kind of lets me ask the question.
59:53
SPEAKER_00: So here so I'm just putting that out there.
59:55
SPEAKER_00: Uh-oh.
59:56
SPEAKER_00: Here's the question.
59:59
SPEAKER_00: Should Cena buy a CRISPR packet for Hunter?
1:00:04
SPEAKER_02: I like that.
1:00:07
SPEAKER_00: I mean, this is it's a little bit funny, but it's a little bit serious too.
1:00:11
SPEAKER_00: Um if you were Cena and you had a 16-year-old that wanted a CRISPR, um, would you get it?
1:00:18
SPEAKER_00: Why or why not?
1:00:20
SPEAKER_00: And um weigh in on that.
1:00:22
SPEAKER_00: I think that's that'd be a this would be a really thought-provoking, uh, thought-provoking question.
1:00:28
SPEAKER_02: I love that because it really is a big dilemma for me.
1:00:32
SPEAKER_00: Yeah, yeah, it it it is a big dilemma.
1:00:35
SPEAKER_00: Yeah.
1:00:36
SPEAKER_00: Wow.
1:00:36
SPEAKER_00: All right, everybody.
1:00:38
SPEAKER_00: Tell tell Cena whether she should or shouldn't.
1:00:40
SPEAKER_00: That's the question of the day.
1:00:42
SPEAKER_00: We thank you.
1:00:43
SPEAKER_00: We thank you for joining us on another episode of Beyond Labels, and we look forward to being with you again next week.