Latest / DarkHorse Podcast / Idaho’s War Against Medical Tyranny: Leslie Manookian on DarkHorse

Transcript

Idaho’s War Against Medical Tyranny: Leslie Manookian on DarkHorse · DarkHorse Podcast

• 0:00
  Hey folks, welcome to the DarkHorse Podcast Inside Rail.
• 0:05
  Despite all the obstacles, I have the amazing privilege and pleasure of sitting with Leslie Manookian, who is here on island.
• 0:12
  Thank you for coming and being on DarkHorse with me, Leslie.
• 0:15
  It is so exciting.
• 0:16
  I'm so happy to be here in this beautiful place, in your beautiful studio and beautiful home.
• 0:20
  It's just such a pleasure.
• 0:24
  Well, I'm very excited.
• 0:25
  This conversation is long overdue.
• 0:27
  I do have to give you a kind of introduction.
• 0:30
  There's obviously a lot to it.
• 0:32
  Most people I would imagine have probably not heard of you.
• 0:35
  Those who have heard of you will know the things I'm about to say, but you are the president and founder of Health Freedom Defense.
• 0:43
  Also Health Freedom Defense Fund is the full name, but you are also a former Wall Streeter.
• 0:48
  I didn't know that until we talked yesterday.
• 0:51
  You are an award-winning documentary filmmaker.
• 0:54
  We will talk about your film, a general health freedom badass, I would say.
• 0:59
  You are a senior research...
• 1:03
  Senior scholar.
• 1:04
  Senior scholar at the Brownstone Institute, where I am a fellow.
• 1:09
  This is where you and I know each other from.
• 1:11
  And most controversially, perhaps, you are a practicing homeopath.
• 1:17
  And we will talk about that.
• 1:18
  I'm on something of a journey.
• 1:20
  I still have a hard time swallowing the idea that something that on paper looks like it couldn't possibly have a mechanism of action actually seems to have positive effects.
• 1:30
  So I'm grappling with my own skepticism about homeopathy.
• 1:34
  But I will say there are a number of homeopaths in my circle, and you're not crazy people.
• 1:41
  And the evidence you bring to bear is considerable.
• 1:44
  So in any case, I look forward to having that part of the conversation as well.
• 1:49
  But the primary reason that I asked you to come here to have this discussion has to do with what you've been up to in the state of Idaho.
• 1:58
  So I'm in the state of Washington, and things aren't good in the state of Washington, as Heather and I have spent a lot of time covering.
• 2:06
  The encroaching tyranny is shocking, and the breakdown of society here in Washington, especially in our cities, is completely obvious to anybody who's lived here as long as we have.
• 2:22
  You have been fighting back in Idaho and have had some amazing successes.
• 2:28
  In fact, I believe it is fair to say that Idaho today has the absolute best protections for informed consent of any US state because of what you have done.
• 2:42
  So can you flesh that out for the audience?
• 2:45
  Yeah.
• 2:45
  So let me say that I don't think that what's happening in the world is just in certain states.
• 2:52
  I think we're seeing this same kind of constitutional decay, and in fact, that you could argue that we live in a post-constitutional order under the federal government.
• 3:03
  And the reason I bring that up is because before you delve into the Idaho Medical Freedom Act, it's important for people to understand why I started focusing on the state.
• 3:14
  So you mentioned that I am an award-winning documentary filmmaker.
• 3:18
  Well, my film was about vaccines, and that movie came out.
• 3:21
  It was the first major Hollywood production film on vaccines, and it came out in 2011.
• 3:27
  And so I started researching it in 2001.
• 3:30
  It was finally released in 2011.
• 3:33
  And we were told that the programmers at Sundance wanted it in, but that they were censored.
• 3:40
  They were not allowed to screen our film.
• 3:44
  That's a long time before COVID.
• 3:45
  It's important to understand.
• 3:47
  But making that film and understanding vaccine laws, I didn't know my constitution.
• 3:53
  I didn't know the Bill of Rights back then.
• 3:55
  And what I learned was that everything that is expressly delegated in the constitution to the federal government is the purview of the federal government.
• 4:06
  Everything that's not in there is reserved to the states and the people.
• 4:11
  Okay?
• 4:12
  So in 2020, I started Health Freedom Defense Fund, and we sued the federal government over the travel mask mandate in 2021, July of 2021.
• 4:27
  And you will remember in April of 2022, when everybody was able to rip their masks off, that was because of us.
• 4:32
  But the reason that we filed that lawsuit was because I knew that the CDC didn't have the power and authority that it was usurping.
• 4:39
  And so I just thought,"This can't be right." I started talking to our attorneys, and I'm like, "We got a suit.
• 4:43
  We got to do something about this." And they sort of thought, you know, "She can't be right about this." They started digging in, and they're like, "You know, dog on it.
• 4:51
  You're right.
• 4:52
  Let's do it." So we filed suit, and then we won.
• 4:56
  And then I watched what happened over the next couple of years in horror as, you know, the PrEP Act declarations extended, the EUA is not withdrawn, all these kinds of things are happening.
• 5:08
  And based on all that knowledge and what I saw happening at the federal level, I thought, "We really need to take this fight to the only place where it can be won, and that's in the states." And so in the summer of 2024, and this is something that had been brewing in the back of my mind for years, because I had started questioning vaccines in 2001, and chose not to vaccinate my children after doing that research, thinking that I was being reckless.
• 5:38
  Now, I think it was the smartest decision I've ever made in my life together with my then husband.
• 5:42
  And the point is that I knew the law, we had to start focusing on what was going on in the state, and Idaho already good law, like you could, you can exempt your child for any reason you choose and just write on a piece of paper, and my child is exempt for religious or other reasons, signed Leslie J.
• 5:59
  Mnookian, that's it.
• 6:02
  I knew that that was the place.
• 6:04
  And as I watched so much unfold during COVID, it became very clear to me that that's what we've got to focus on.
• 6:11
  And so I started writing this law.
• 6:14
  I spoke with a legislator who said that he would sponsor the bill for me if I wrote it, told him what it was all about, and wrote the bill after an hour and a half conversation with him, sent it to him, and he's like, I'll do it.
• 6:26
  So he sponsored it.
• 6:27
  And then that means that he basically just gets the bill printed and all this stuff.
• 6:32
  And then I had the incredible honor and privilege of going to Boise to the Capitol and presenting the bill and then standing for questions afterwards, in both the Senate Health and Welfare Committee and the House Health and Welfare Committee on both sides.
• 6:45
  And so this bill, what it does is it outlaws medical mandates of all kinds for almost all Idahoans forever.
• 6:57
  In perpetuity.
• 6:58
  Our first sponsor this week is Vanman.
• 7:00
  Here at DarkHorse, we love Vanman's products and are certain that you will too.
• 7:04
  Absolutely everything we've had from them has been exceptional.
• 7:07
  From their pearl eye cream to zinc sunscreen, from coconut and magnesium deodorant to their remarkable remineralizing chewing gum, all of it is superior.
• 7:16
  Today, however, I want to focus on their tallow and honey balm in particular.
• 7:20
  Hallow is the best moisturizer on earth because the fatty acids in tallow are nearly identical to the oils in your own skin.
• 7:26
  One use and you'll feel the difference.
• 7:28
  Your skin will be soft and smooth and a little goes a long way.
• 7:31
  This stuff lasts and it's fantastic for you.
• 7:33
  And tallow balm isn't just a moisturizer.
• 7:36
  It can replace everything from lotions and wrinkled creams to Neosporin and diaper balm.
• 7:41
  It works on rashes and scrapes, acne and sunburn.
• 7:43
  Our boys, young man at college now, swear by it too.
• 7:46
  The ingredient list of Vanman's Honey and Tallow Balm is short and entirely edible.
• 7:51
  It's got 100% grass-fed and finished suet beef tallow, organic raw honey and beeswax, and organic cold-pressed extra virgin olive oil.
• 7:59
  You can get it with or without essential Vanmans tallow and honey balm is powerful enough to heal the skin, yet safe enough to spread on your toast.
• 8:07
  That's real ingredients.
• 8:09
  And unlike many other seemingly small wholesome companies making healthy organic products, van man is the real deal.
• 8:16
  Remember when Burt's Bees made great stuff?
• 8:18
  Native?
• 8:19
  Dr.
• 8:19
  Squatch?
• 8:20
  All of these companies have been bought by mega corporations and private equity firms, which hijacked beloved brands and replace it with the corporate slop.
• 8:28
  Vanman's will never sell out.
• 8:29
  Ready to ditch the corporate chemicals?
• 8:31
  Go to vanman.shop slash darkhorse26 and use code darkhorse26 for 15% off your first order.
• 8:40
  That's vanman.shop slash darkhorse26 and use the code darkhorse for 15% off your first order.
• 8:48
  Vanman, real ingredients, no exceptions.
• 8:50
  Our second sponsor this week is Branch Basics, effective all-natural non-toxic cleaning products.
• 8:56
  We've been using their products for a while now, on counters, floors, in the laundry, kitchen and bath.
• 9:01
  They're all great.
• 9:03
  Products you clean your home with have a huge impact on how your home feels and how you feel.
• 9:08
  The synthetic fragrance compounds, phthalates, and harsh surfactants in many cleaning products all contribute to hormone disruption and can cause fertility issues, mood changes, and thyroid dysfunction.
• 9:18
  And in the US, products don't have to disclose everything on their labels, so you don't really know what's in your products.
• 9:24
  Branch Basics changes this with full transparency about their entire non-toxic, plant and mineral based ingredients.
• 9:31
  Their premium starter kit comes with one powerful concentrate that makes everything laundry detergent, bathroom cleaner, glass cleaner, even pet wash and vegetable rinse.
• 9:40
  It's safe for babies, pets, and anyone wanting to reduce their daily exposure to harmful chemicals.
• 9:45
  They also offer dishwasher tablets with a microplastic free formula and laundry detergent that's safe for sensitive skin.
• 9:52
  Branch Basics is human safe and fragrance free.
• 9:55
  And here's more good news.
• 9:56
  Branch Basics is now available everywhere you shop at Target, Target.com, Amazon, and of course, BranchBasics.com.
• 10:03
  Tossing the toxins has never been more convenient.
• 10:05
  And for anyone grabbing the premium starter kit, you can get 15% off at BranchBasics.com with code DarkHorse.
• 10:12
  The premium starter kit comes with the concentrate and refillable bottles for your surface cleaners, including all purpose bathroom, streak free, foaming hand wash, and laundry.
• 10:22
  It also comes with oxygen boost for extra stubborn stains on pots and pans, laundry, bathroom tile, and more.
• 10:28
  This kit is a great way to kickstart your human safe cleaning routine.
• 10:32
  Just use code DarkHorse for 15% off the premium starter kit at BranchBasics.com.
• 10:38
  After you purchase, when they ask where you heard about them, please make sure you mention our show.
• 10:42
  I look at that and I can't help.
• 10:46
  There's obviously a lot of objective ground to cover there, but I look at it as the subject of a state, a citizen of a state that has literally gone the other direction and carved out in the aftermath of COVID, the right to mandate vaccines in an emergency that is ill-defined.
• 11:06
  There's no standard by which that emergency has to be proven.
• 11:09
  So the state can declare an emergency and it is in so doing declaring a right to vaccinate me and my children if they are here.
• 11:18
  And I know from my journey since COVID began, what that entails.
• 11:26
  I know what they mean by vaccine.
• 11:28
  I know that whatever they might mean is that they have a safe technology.
• 11:33
  I know that I don't trust them to define an emergency in any realistic way, nor is there any likelihood of controlling a real pandemic were we to have one with one of these vaccines.
• 11:46
  So I see them lining me up for a decision that they will claim they have to make in which I have to accept some sort of technological intervention in my body.
• 11:57
  And I think if only I lived in Idaho, I wouldn't have to worry about that because of you.
• 12:02
  So first off, thank you for freeing one of the states.
• 12:06
  Second thing is, you know, I'm still a liberal and I spend a lot of time defending that.
• 12:14
  It's purely a question of values.
• 12:16
  I don't want any of the remedies that the current left is advocating for.
• 12:21
  I think they've lost their minds, but I still hold to the values.
• 12:25
  And one of the places that that has forced me to rethink a former position is on states' rights.
• 12:31
  States' rights always to me seemed like a hazard because there's a game theory problem that unfolds, a collective action problem or a multipolar trap where if you have 50 states, for example, and one state decides that it wants to have a period of growth, it can drop the business taxes to the floor.
• 12:56
  Businesses will flood into that state and every other state will be forced to follow suit in order to capture some of that business.
• 13:02
  In the end, what you've done is you've lowered the taxes nationally and we can debate whether the taxes are a good thing or a bad thing.
• 13:09
  But the point is one state can take advantage of its of being the early mover and force the other states into an action that may be negative once all the states have done it.
• 13:19
  So that problem still exists, but the more important priority is clearly individual liberty and the only place to protect it seems to be at the states at this level because of the seeming capture of our federal apparatus, which I think is under attack by something that is even larger than something national, obviously across the west we're seeing this.
• 13:41
  So, all right, having won a battle at the state level and enshrining a sacrosanct principle of informed consent in Idaho in perpetuity, what would you recommend to those of us who live in the other states?
• 13:57
  Is it possible to reproduce your success or now that Goliath has spotted you, is the door going to close?
• 14:06
  Well, I think there's definitely a bit of a target on my back at this point, no doubt just given the media interest and the number of journalists who've been reaching out and a bunch of other things, right?
• 14:18
  So many hit pieces this year, it's been kind of crazy.
• 14:21
  But I have to say one thing first and that is it, I think that the way that you lay it out is accurate to a certain extent with respect to states rights and the problem.
• 14:32
  Actually, I think it's the gift of our founders, which is federalism, right?
• 14:37
  It's the opportunity for each and every state to choose its own path.
• 14:41
  And I think that's something that we relishing and celebrating because it's what kept us from being Australia or Canada or Britain or New Zealand during COVID.
• 14:51
  Had we not had 50 states who can all make their own choices about how they're going to pursue different policies, we would have been stuck.
• 14:59
  And so I think this is something we should be celebrating.
• 15:01
  And it's the way the system was designed.
• 15:04
  The system was designed so that each state could pursue their own path and basically be an example and show the way.
• 15:12
  And if other states didn't like it, then they didn't have to follow.
• 15:14
  So I don't know.
• 15:16
  I can't imagine that a little state of Idaho with 2 million people is going to force the rest of the country in a certain direction.
• 15:22
  Except I hope that that is what happens, maybe not with business, but I do think that it could happen with health freedom.
• 15:28
  And the reason for that is because I firmly believe that health freedom and medical freedom, and I think they're slightly different things, which we are.
• 15:36
  My point is that power and access are the most obvious moral imperative of our day.
• 15:42
  How can someone possibly argue that they know what's best for you?
• 15:45
  How can they argue that they know what it feels like to live in your being or in your body?
• 15:51
  How can they possibly argue that they have to live with your choices for the rest of your life?
• 15:58
  Or somehow, you know, have the moral authority to make those choices for you?
• 16:01
  There's no way so it's it's utterly above reproach in my view, and it's indefensible to suggest otherwise.
• 16:09
  And so it meets with a great reception when you start talking like this to people.
• 16:14
  And when I introduced this bill in the state of Idaho and first spoke on the Senate Health and Welfare Committee, one of the things that shocked me the most was how so many of the senators were arguing on my behalf amongst themselves.
• 16:27
  They weren't grilling me as much as I thought they were going to.
• 16:31
  They started peppering the opponents on the Health and Welfare Committee with questions and pushing back, "No, the government lied.
• 16:38
  No, the government misled us.
• 16:40
  No, the health department didn't tell us, you know, whatever about this.
• 16:44
  The mask mandate was a fraud.
• 16:45
  The distancing was a fraud." They said all these things.
• 16:48
  And so I think we have a really unique opportunity.
• 16:52
  And right now in the aftermath of COVID when it's still fresh enough in people's minds, but I think we have something else, which is that people resonate with this message.
• 17:02
  We have strayed way, way too far from our constitution and from those founding principles.
• 17:07
  And people now, I did a poll together with Jeffrey Tucker of the Brownstone Institute in February.
• 17:14
  And our poll found that 91% of Americans support the right to inform consent to make medical decisions, including vaccinations.
• 17:24
  And, you know, I think this should apply to everything.
• 17:26
  So the Idaho Medical Freedom Act says, no devices, no pills, no creams, no injections, no masks, no monitors, no chips, no nothing, no medical interventions of any kind can be mandated for almost everyone.
• 17:42
  There's an exclusion for hospital workers because we couldn't get it through if we had that in there.
• 17:46
  But we'll come back.
• 17:47
  But my point is, this is an issue whose time has come.
• 17:52
  And that is illustrated very, very clearly by our poll.
• 17:57
  And so now what we've done is Health Freedom Defense Fund together with Stand for Health Freedom has created the Medical Freedom Act Coalition, okay?
• 18:05
  And we had 13 other organizations join us this year.
• 18:09
  And we were able to get the Medical Freedom Act introduced in 12 more states this year.
• 18:15
  It actually passed both the House and the Senate in the state of Arizona.
• 18:19
  And then the governor vetoed it the week before last.
• 18:23
  And it got passed in at least one chamber in 12 states as well.
• 18:27
  So this is where we're gonna focus a ton of our energy and getting it introduced in 12 states in the first year is a huge triumph, huge triumph, because it can take years to get a bill introduced, seven, usually three to seven to get it passed.
• 18:43
  So this is, I think, very timely.
• 18:47
  Our final sponsor for this episode is Redmond Salt.
• 18:50
  We've been using Redmond Salt as our table in cooking salt for well over a decade now.
• 18:55
  We like it so much we buy it by the bucket.
• 18:57
  Redmond Salt is mined from a Jurassic area seabed in Utah and they've been in the salt business since the Eisenhower administration.
• 19:05
  These guys know salt and they've been making mineral rich non iodized salt available for longer than most people were giving any thought to their salt.
• 19:13
  Redmond Salt has now made the obvious jump into electrolytes because guess what?
• 19:17
  Electrolytes are salt and trace minerals and your body needs them to function.
• 19:20
  So of course Redmond Salt is going to make excellent electrolyte and their Relyte is indeed an excellent product.
• 19:27
  If you're drinking plenty of water but still feel dehydrated, there's a good chance you've got an electrolyte deficiency.
• 19:33
  We didn't think too much about electrolytes until we did a Camino de Santiago last year through hiking in Northern Spain.
• 19:39
  And both Heather and I at different moments felt woozy and disoriented at the end of a long day of hiking.
• 19:44
  Our walking companions, apparently much smarter than we are, insisted that we needed electrolytes and they were right.
• 19:49
  And our favorites of the ones we were given by our friends were Redmond Salt's Relyte.
• 19:53
  When your body runs out of minerals it needs to run, it starts to fritz out.
• 19:57
  When that happens, Relyte gets you back on track.
• 20:00
  And sure, it seems like there are a million brands of electrolytes out there, but Relyte is different and better because of where the salt comes from.
• 20:07
  Because Relyte is made by Redmond, the company behind Redmond Real Salt, their electrolytes start with unrefined real salt that naturally contains sodium, chloride and more than 60 trace minerals from geology, not from the lab.
• 20:19
  And the rest of the formula is just clean.
• 20:21
  Zero sugar, no artificial sweeteners, no artificial colors, no artificial flavors, no chemical preservatives.
• 20:28
  You get sodium from real salt plus potassium, magnesium, calcium, chloride, and coconut water powder in the flavor varieties.
• 20:36
  No filler, no junk.
• 20:38
  It tastes great.
• 20:39
  We particularly like their grapefruit flavor.
• 20:41
  And when it tastes really good, that's your body telling you that you waited too long and you need the electrolytes.
• 20:46
  Whether before a workout, on a flight, or after a dry fast, or during a fast if it's a wet one, Relyte is an electrolyte to rely on.
• 20:54
  If you've written off electrolytes because the category feels oversaturated and gimmicky, Relyte is worth a second look.
• 21:00
  Real salt mine, real mineral heritage, real ingredients.
• 21:03
  That's it.
• 21:04
  Ready to give Relyte a try?
• 21:06
  Go to redmond.life.darkhorse and use the code darkhorse to get 15% off your first order.
• 21:13
  That's redmond.life.darkhorse with the code darkhorse for 15% off your first order.
• 21:19
  Or click the link in the video description, scan the QR code on the screen, or check the pinned comment.
• 21:25
  All right, two points that I wanna make.
• 21:27
  One, there is a long simmering controversy that is ready to boil forth over natural law.
• 21:38
  What you are appealing to is effectively the natural right of a person to say, I don't want your intervention.
• 21:46
  You are affirmatively attempting to intervene in my physiology.
• 21:51
  And I don't need to have a reason to say no.
• 21:54
  The default assumption is you're not gonna get to intervene in my physiology.
• 21:59
  You may think you have the right to do it.
• 22:01
  And I can make the argument as well as anybody.
• 22:04
  If we had safe and effective vaccines, there is a game theory problem where a person gets the benefit of other people vaccinating themselves and doesn't have to take whatever small risk comes with it.
• 22:16
  That game theory problem is real, but natural law, your right to reject any intervention is among our most important principles.
• 22:26
  In fact, in 1947, we hanged seven Nazi doctors for violating informed consent.
• 22:33
  It used to be that clear.
• 22:35
  And so let's just say, I think what you're finding in your legislators who are actually questioning the committee because they intuitively understand they must have a right somewhere not to take some intervention that some laboratory claims is safe and effective.
• 22:53
  That's obvious.
• 22:54
  It's obvious, right?
• 22:55
  You may not be able to cite why you have that right.
• 22:57
  But the point is, how could I not, right?
• 23:01
  But the second point I wanted to make is, okay, you've introduced it in 12 states, did you say?
• 23:08
  And you've run into an obstacle where governors veto.
• 23:16
  Game theoretically, the way to win that fight is to build into the salvo.
• 23:21
  We're gonna introduce this in your state.
• 23:23
  If it gets to your desk and you veto it, we're gonna take you out, right?
• 23:28
  And the point is you just have to, you demonstrate that once, right?
• 23:32
  Some governor loses their job because they overrode the will of the people who are years advancing this policy, and you will then get a game theoretic win because other governors will think, well, I'm not gonna give up my career over that.
• 23:46
  And so it will spread because at the end of the day, we all know we have the right to say no to these things, right, even the people claiming we don't, if they sat down and had a conversation with themself, would understand, well, you know, sure, lots of medications have claimed to be safe and turned out not to be.
• 24:04
  So really you have a right to reject them.
• 24:07
  But even if they're safe, according to common law, natural law, if you going back hundreds and hundreds of years, unwanted touching is considered a battery.
• 24:17
  Yep.
• 24:17
  How is unwanted medical intervention not far worse than if I reach out and touch you without your permission?
• 24:23
  Yeah, of course.
• 24:23
  I mean, this is just outrageous.
• 24:25
  And something that breaks the skin or is forced into the throat, right?
• 24:28
  This is a clear violation.
• 24:31
  There's been a term that people have used for many, many years, medical rape.
• 24:35
  And I know some people bristle at it, but that's what it's tantamount to when someone forces you to do something to your body or put something on your body against your will.
• 24:44
  It's just unconscionable.
• 24:45
  I think the analogy is clear.
• 24:47
  The fact that we even have to debate this is beggar's belief.
• 24:51
  But it comes back to the core problem that I see.
• 24:55
  And that is that people don't know they should care about it until they know they should care about it.
• 25:00
  Until it's too late.
• 25:00
  Yeah, until it's too late, until it affects them personally.
• 25:03
  And then that's why our side continues to grow.
• 25:07
  Because once you've had, once you've seen a reaction in your family, once you've seen some kind of injury or God forbid, a death in your family or your friend's circle or something like that, you never go back to the other side.
• 25:20
  You never seed this ground ever again, right?
• 25:23
  I've been in this now for 25 years.
• 25:24
  And I've, early on, I would sort of soft pedal and oh, you know, I bought into that, in my view, riceable statement, where there is a risk there must be a choice.
• 25:36
  I believed that for a few years.
• 25:38
  And then I got to the point where I was like, hell no.
• 25:41
  I don't care who decides what the risk is, who makes that assessment, and who has to live with the consequences.
• 25:48
  I and I alone have to deal with that.
• 25:50
  So I don't care what you say the risks are.
• 25:54
  I have absolute authority over my health and medical choices.
• 25:58
  That's it.
• 25:59
  Unless of course, I pose a threat to somebody, an imminent threat to myself or others.
• 26:04
  You know, if I'm someone who's gonna.
• 26:06
  If you're psychotic and wielding a weapon on the basis of it.
• 26:08
  Exactly, okay, something.
• 26:09
  I understand that.
• 26:10
  And so I think that's really important.
• 26:12
  And the other thing I want to say on this is that it's very interesting if you look at those seven doctors who were hung, there were a lot of doctors who weren't hung.
• 26:20
  There were a lot of doctors who were brought into the United States and installed in our health apparatus and intelligence apparatus, and a huge problem for this country in my view.
• 26:29
  And you would have thought it's been considered something called a juice cogens norm, okay?
• 26:37
  Which is a universal norm of law ever since the Nuremberg trials that utilitarianism is evil and that we don't experiment on human beings.
• 26:45
  And yet that's exactly what they did during COVID.
• 26:48
  And the notion that someone is still defending it after what happened is just gobsmacking.
• 26:54
  All right, couple of things.
• 26:55
  So utilitarianism in my view is one of the most evil doctrines ever.
• 27:01
  I agree and I've tried to make the case, the problem with utilitarianism, you and I understand why it's evil.
• 27:08
  The problem with it is that 95% of the time, it's a decent guide, right?
• 27:14
  It's the 5% of the time.
• 27:15
  The point is in general, should you want legislation that does the greatest good for the greatest number?
• 27:21
  Yeah, the greatest good for the greatest number tends to be a good guideline.
• 27:25
  But it's a rule of thumb.
• 27:27
  It can justify genocide, it can justify slavery, it can justify experimentation, the Tuskegee experiment.
• 27:36
  All the evils can be justified by this.
• 27:38
  They can march you to the gas chamber, talking about utilitarianism and you'll get it.
• 27:43
  Too late, right?
• 27:45
  So I agree with you about utilitarianism, but the problem is anything that works 95% of the time, people who aren't careful thinkers tend to think, well, that's a pretty good thing, 95, that's a pretty good number.
• 27:58
  But I wanna come back to your point about it doesn't matter.
• 28:01
  You used to believe if there's risk, there must be choice.
• 28:05
  Now I'm gonna argue, this is why the movement has me around.
• 28:11
  In a complex system, the risk is inherent.
• 28:15
  That's why that statement is actually recoverable.
• 28:18
  There is no intervention that you can make in a human body, which is a layered set of complex systems interwoven in a sort of super complex system.
• 28:28
  There's no way to intervene in that system safely, which means inherently anything you're doing, even if you have evidence that we've done X to a million people and nobody had a negative impact, even if you had that data and it was real, it doesn't mean that you're million and first person.
• 28:47
  You are always an N of one.
• 28:49
  You are always an N of one.
• 28:51
  And this is literally true.
• 28:52
  It's like what we say about snowflakes is true of people.
• 28:55
  Each genome makes you unique.
• 28:58
  Each developmental environment was unique.
• 29:00
  Even if you're an identical twin and you share a genome, you are a different individual that may have a different reaction to something.
• 29:06
  I mean, one twin can develop an allergy because of an exposure.
• 29:11
  Another twin doesn't develop that allergy because it's not written into the genome in that way.
• 29:15
  So the point is the risk is always there.
• 29:18
  Always there, can't be done away with.
• 29:20
  So if there's risk, it's like there is risk, therefore there must be choice.
• 29:24
  Yes, yes.
• 29:25
  But I even think aside from that, I don't even care about the risk.
• 29:28
  I don't care about what anybody says about the risk.
• 29:30
  I get to decide.
• 29:32
  This is the most precious thing I have.
• 29:36
  I come in in this body naked and crying and I'm gonna leave with nothing but my spirit, right?
• 29:45
  And people will argue with that, right?
• 29:47
  But the point is we come in alone, we go out alone.
• 29:50
  And there is no justification whatsoever for arguing that someone else gets to make decisions about your vessel.
• 30:00
  Yep.
• 30:01
  And that includes, this is where health freedom and medical freedom actually are essentially the same thing.
• 30:09
  Because if you accept what you just said, I have the right to decide what has done to my body.
• 30:14
  That's a matter of, I would argue, natural law that the risk is inherent.
• 30:19
  That is one of the arguments that supports that piece of natural law, but it's not essential.
• 30:24
  But the point is that means I also have an absolute right to know what you did to my food before I decide whether to eat it, right?
• 30:33
  You can't decide that something is presumed safe and therefore does not need to be put on a label because it's so safe that my being informed about it is unimportant.
• 30:44
  Because now you're making a series of unsupportable assumptions about the relation, about how good your study was that said it was safe.
• 30:52
  You're mis-defining the word safe.
• 30:55
  One of the things I'm proudest of in the way Heather and I comported ourselves during COVID was that we spotted that the word safe was being abused.
• 31:07
  That it's one thing to say this vaccine is effective.
• 31:10
  Maybe you know, maybe you've got data.
• 31:12
  It turns out the data was fraudulent, you could conceivably have data that says this vaccine is safe.
• 31:17
  But you can't have a brand new vaccine that hasn't been around for even a year and say that it is safe.
• 31:25
  You are lying because even if you didn't have a single piece of evidence that a single person had been harmed in a single way, you don't know what happens to somebody who takes it after five years.
• 31:36
  So the point is if I say, well, I got really drunk last night and I drove home, got home fine, it was safe.
• 31:48
  You know it wasn't safe.
• 31:50
  It was harmless in this particular instance, but it was unsafe.
• 31:54
  If I pick up a gun from the table, put it to my head and pull the trigger and it goes click, it wasn't a safe thing to do.
• 32:01
  It was harmless in this case, but not safe.
• 32:04
  So the point is safe does not mean without harm, it means without risk.
• 32:07
  So they were definitely lying when they said that.
• 32:10
  So I believe if we define these terms correctly, that actually the whole picture points unambiguously to your right to say no to any ingredient or technology or practice that you are confronted with.
• 32:27
  And the entire premise that there are certain things that government gets to mandate, including that this stuff can be in your food and you don't get a right to know about it is obvious nonsense from the get-go.
• 32:37
  Yeah, so I kind of think of it as medical freedom is a subset of health freedom.
• 32:46
  Medical freedom is the freedom to make all our own medical choices with the caveats that I've already mentioned, you know, unless you're in a danger, imminent danger to someone, to yourself or others.
• 32:57
  But it means you can't be forced to do any kind of medical intervention that you don't wanna do.
• 33:02
  But health freedom is bigger, right?
• 33:04
  Because health freedom means, well, I shouldn't be forced to drink fluoridated water because that's a violation of informed consent.
• 33:12
  It's medication without my consent.
• 33:14
  I shouldn't be forced to eat GMO food without my consent.
• 33:19
  I shouldn't be forced to eat Roundup and other pesticides and chemicals, all of these things, right?
• 33:25
  So I see it as kind of a bigger pond, which also encapsulates or encompasses medical freedom.
• 33:33
  They're both equally important, and I think we have to kind of differentiate between the two.
• 33:36
  But the point is that so many things that are happening in our world are a violation of the most important ethical principle ever determined during the Nuremberg trials, which was that our informed consent for anything, for any kind of experiment is mandatory, right?
• 33:55
  It's a required step in order to practice ethical medicine or to engage in life, right?
• 34:01
  And that's being violated six ways to Sunday, right?
• 34:04
  In our lives.
• 34:06
  My son used to say to me when he was little, "Mama, wouldn't it be so nice "if we could just go out to dinner anywhere we want "and we could eat the food." And we didn't have to worry that it had pesticides and GMOs and seed oils.
• 34:18
  Cooking a Teflon pan.
• 34:18
  And exactly, and all these kinds of things, because we don't use Teflon.
• 34:23
  We don't use, like, I mean, I was doing this stuff 25 years ago.
• 34:26
  My son was raised without any kind of chemicals, anything, cleaning, you know, we use vinegar in homes to clean the house all these kinds of things.
• 34:34
  And he would say that to me and I said,"Yeah, it would be so nice, honey.
• 34:39
  "It would be so great if that's the world we lived in." But we don't.
• 34:42
  And this is one of the reasons why I argue that we live in a post-constitutional order, because as much as we just celebrated our 250th anniversary, the truth is, our country is violating the Bill of Rights.
• 34:58
  There are many violators of the Bill of Rights every single day in every imaginable way possible.
• 35:06
  Yes, and you know, our language really isn't up to describing the situation.
• 35:13
  So let's just take an example of many.
• 35:19
  So I drink wine.
• 35:24
  I've recently become aware that you can't get wine from California where most of the wine that you buy anywhere in at least the Western US, probably most of the US comes from.
• 35:34
  You can't buy wine that doesn't have significant quantities of glyphosate in it, including organic wine.
• 35:42
  Yep.
• 35:42
  Shouldn't be in there at all.
• 35:44
  I can't drink it.
• 35:46
  But the point is, you'd think that your right to inform consent over glyphosate would be exercisable through the label that says organic on it.
• 35:59
  That I'm choosing not to take glyphosate because I'm concerned about it.
• 36:02
  But the point is, it's not nearly good enough.
• 36:04
  You have to look for, was it, were these grapes grown in California?
• 36:09
  And then you have to figure out what combination of factors has to be true.
• 36:14
  Does wine from Argentina that is not grown organically, is that free of glyphosate?
• 36:19
  You don't have enough information to actually exercise your right to inform consent.
• 36:24
  So what that means is that the Bayer Monsanto Corporation has taken the right to introduce glyphosate into your body and your right to inform consent is meaningless, right?
• 36:41
  You could spend your entire life growing your own food and cooking it yourself in carefully selected cookware, and the ambient level of their product is so high that you won't fully avoid it, right?
• 36:59
  So one struggle is, is medical rape the right analogy for a mandated vaccine?
• 37:09
  I think it's actually a fully defensible analogy.
• 37:13
  Yeah, it's jarring for sure because of the sexual connotation, but in terms of somebody introducing something into you that you didn't accept, it's a fair analogy.
• 37:23
  But likewise, we're gonna spray so much glyphosate on the one planet you can live on that you won't be able to avoid it, you're gonna have it, it's gonna be in your tissues, it's gonna be liberated when you burn fat without you're even knowing it's happening.
• 37:41
  Okay, I don't know what the analogy is for that, but it's like subliminal body violation.
• 37:51
  I don't even know what it is, but it's unavoidable.
• 37:54
  And the point is, if you just simply described the situation to a smart 10 year old, and you said, here's what's gonna happen in the future, corporations are gonna be able to make stuff and distribute so much of it around the planet that it's gonna become part of you, and you can't say no.
• 38:10
  Is that okay?
• 38:12
  Well, obviously not, duh, right?
• 38:15
  So anyway, we are living in a world where because the technology is so novel, and because the scale of manufacturing is also so novel, that we are having the most basic rights that we've got violated just as a matter of living, breathing, and eating.
• 38:36
  Yeah, I think it's not just because of scale though.
• 38:39
  I think it's because of several issues.
• 38:45
  So 1913 in my view was one of the worst years in American history, because in 1913, you had the 16th Amendment, which allowed taxation, and then you had the 17th Amendment, which changed how the US senators were selected.
• 39:02
  It used to be that the state legislators, state legislatures selected two people to go to Washington to do one thing, and that was to represent the state's interest, and to basically serve as a balance of power against the federal government, and they changed that.
• 39:19
  That's another popularly elected, and so they're really answerable to no one, even though they are in theory answerable to the public, but we know how that's working, not very well.
• 39:28
  So you messed with the balance of power there, and then you had the administrative state spring up and literally metastasize into something that strangles and infects and feeds off of every aspect of our country.
• 39:48
  And so what's happened is you have these agencies that are theoretically codified in order to protect public health, EPA, CDC, FDA, this is what they're supposed to do, and they're doing the opposite.
• 40:05
  The exact inverse.
• 40:06
  They are doing the exact opposite, they're protecting the corporation.
• 40:08
  So I don't think it's just about scale.
• 40:11
  I think it's about a complete distortion of what our country was supposed to be, how it was supposed to work, and it was facilitated by these little incremental changes that happened that Americans didn't push back against.
• 40:25
  If Americans had revolted in 1913, the other horrible thing was the Federal Reserve Act, which happened, I think around December 22nd or 23rd of 1913, literally it was during Christmas holidays, they pushed through the Federal Reserve Act.
• 40:39
  I mean, that was crazy.
• 40:41
  Yep.
• 40:41
  Okay.
• 40:42
  So we have the Fed, which is not federal in any way, I'm sure all your listeners know that, but my point is, it's so much bigger than scale, right?
• 40:51
  It's that the structure of our nation has been subverted for more than 100 years in order to harness that federal apparatus to serve the corporations.
• 41:03
  And so I think we live not so much under a republic as we do under a corporatocracy or a crony capitalism, an oligarchy, there are many terms that you could throw around that fit more appropriately.
• 41:16
  So I just have to say, I don't think it's just a matter of scale.
• 41:19
  Yeah, it's not just a matter of scale.
• 41:21
  And I know that I'm not telling you anything, you don't know because of something that you said yesterday, but it is at one level a corporatocracy, but that's not most fundamentally what it is, I think.
• 41:35
  It is, corporatocracy is an element of it, but there's obviously something super national and anti-liberty.
• 41:49
  So in other words, I know I'm just telling you something that you also believe and we can explore it further, but there is always an argument to be made that the driving force is monetary, that this is just about making a profit.
• 42:02
  And of course they will do all kinds of things to make a profit.
• 42:05
  But unfortunately that model only takes you so far because most people, there are things they won't do for a profit.
• 42:11
  And yet we see all of those things being deployed with greater regularity, and we don't anticipate the super national nature of the thing.
• 42:22
  So yes, the corporations and their capture of the regulatory apparatus is an essential feature of what has happened, but it's not the limit up.
• 42:33
  Something detests our freedom and is targeting it systematically.
• 42:40
  It is habituating us to having our rights turned into privileges.
• 42:45
  Those two things don't feel very different.
• 42:46
  If nobody says, you can't do that anymore, you still feel like you have a right.
• 42:50
  But for example, the NDAA of 2012 contained two provisions that said,"Until the end of hostilities in the global war on terror, we can pull you off any street in the world.
• 43:07
  We don't have to admit that we have you.
• 43:09
  You don't have the right to see a lawyer, to see the evidence against you, to confront witnesses against you.
• 43:17
  All that has to happen is the executive, the president, needs to decide that you're a terrorist or a supporter of them.
• 43:24
  So just some kind of danger.
• 43:25
  Right.
• 43:26
  Now my point would be, we don't even know.
• 43:30
  I mean, in fact, a federal court said that Chris Hedges had reason to fear that he could be targeted with that provision because he had interviewed terrorists.
• 43:45
  So the federal court actually ruled that.
• 43:48
  But it was also in the course of that ruling, decided that we didn't know whether this provision had ever been exercised against anybody because how would we know?
• 43:55
  Just somebody's missing.
• 43:56
  Well, lots of people are missing.
• 43:58
  We don't know if any of those are missing because of the provisions of NDAA of 2012.
• 44:02
  But my point is, as far as I can tell, all the rights in the Bill of Rights became privileges the day that Barack Obama signed that law, which happened to be December 31st, signed it from Hawaii late in the day and the importance of that.
• 44:22
  He didn't have to sign it then.
• 44:23
  There was no reason that it had to be signed by the end of the year.
• 44:26
  But by signing late in the day on New Year's Eve in Hawaii, the rest of the country was already drunk and it didn't show up in the New York Times the next day.
• 44:35
  So anyway, point being, you had constitutional rights.
• 44:40
  The day Barack Obama signed that document, those rights with the exception of your Third Amendment right not to have soldiers quartered in your house, every other constitutional right you had got demoted to a privilege.
• 44:52
  And on January 1st, it felt the same.
• 44:54
  So the point is it's a very subtle process by which things as hard won as our top 10 enumerated rights, those things can be demoted without you even noticing, even though a tremendous amount of blood was spilled just to attain those rights in the first place.
• 45:13
  This is why I say we live in a post-constitutional order.
• 45:15
  That's one thing.
• 45:16
  I don't know if you know, but also in that same NDAA, they repealed the Smith-Munt Act, which had been in place for 70 years, which prohibited the CIA from propagandizing Americans.
• 45:27
  Yep.
• 45:27
  Okay.
• 45:28
  As if they hadn't been doing it before that repeat.
• 45:30
  I know, but the point is they said this, and then they said, but you know, don't worry, we're not setting up a program and we don't have any funding for it.
• 45:37
  Well, in 2015 and 2016, they set up the program and funded it.
• 45:43
  Okay.
• 45:44
  So, I mean, and to me, all of these steps speak to something much bigger, which is what you originally brought up in this little portion of the conversation, which is it's not just about money.
• 46:01
  And one of the reasons I say that is you go back to 2001, they passed the Patriot Act within a few weeks of 9-11, which was apparently drafted two years beforehand by, do you know who drafted it?
• 46:17
  Dick Cavanaugh.
• 46:17
  Right, Cavanaugh.
• 46:17
  Oh, damn.
• 46:18
  Sitting Supreme Court Justice.
• 46:20
  Wow.
• 46:20
  He purportedly, I mean, I haven't heard it out of his mouth, but that's what the reports are.
• 46:26
  And then within a few weeks after that, I can't remember, it was like 10 days, two weeks, three weeks, somewhere like that.
• 46:32
  Shortly after the Patriot Act was introduced and signed, there was something called the Model State Emergency Health Powers Act legislation.
• 46:40
  I don't know about that.
• 46:41
  Okay.
• 46:41
  This is crazy.
• 46:43
  The Model State Emergency, the Model State Public Health, what is it, Emergency Public Health?
• 46:49
  I forget what it is exactly now.
• 46:51
  It's like eight different letters in the acronym.
• 46:54
  This legislation affords extraordinary powers to state governors and state health departments in the event of a public health emergency.
• 47:04
  Wow.
• 47:05
  And it's been passed in whole or in part in 43 states last I chose, or I looked.
• 47:10
  So this is insane, right?
• 47:11
  This shows you, this is why people who've been in the vaccine safety awareness and freedom arena have known and knew from the beginning that COVID was a scam because I knew about the Model State Public Health Emergency Act.
• 47:29
  I knew about the Patriot Act, the PrEP Act, the Smith-Munt Act, the NDAA of 2012, all these things.
• 47:35
  I'm like, they're clearly setting us up to do something.
• 47:40
  And then I have to say this is really important too.
• 47:43
  When you look at NGOs and you look at nonprofits who, you know, Britain installed the Nudge Committee, right?
• 47:58
  In order to influence public opinion.
• 48:00
  This can't be just about money.
• 48:03
  These things are so premeditated and honestly so evil.
• 48:08
  And that they can't be only about money.
• 48:11
  And I think the other thing is you suggested this, that you look back to the whole vaccine thing going back decades and we've known for decades that vaccines injure and kill.
• 48:20
  In fact, we have the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, which recognizes that they injure and kill some recipients.
• 48:26
  And then the Supreme Court affirmed that in 2011 in Bruzovitz versus Wyeth, okay?
• 48:33
  And my point is that there's no question that these are, they actually, the Supreme Court actually wrote, vaccines are unavoidably unsafe.
• 48:43
  And so this is not like, this can't be only about money.
• 48:46
  There's gotta be something else going on here.
• 48:48
  I agree with you.
• 48:49
  There has to be something else going on here.
• 48:50
  And the sort of logical and philosophical rules that govern how you try to sort out what is going on when the evidence is incomplete and murky and people are deliberately misleading you is a conversation for another day.
• 49:04
  But I don't think people understand well enough that the whole story, all you have to do is have enough information for the story that we are all being actively peddled to crumble, right?
• 49:18
  The very fact that the immunity from liability that manufacturers of vaccines enjoy was one, because the manufacturers themselves argued to the federal government that they couldn't produce vaccines if they were not immunized from liability, specifically because they couldn't make them safe.
• 49:40
  So the whole, oh, they're safe that your doctor gives you.
• 49:44
  If they're safe, why do they enjoy immunity from liability?
• 49:48
  Why do they need it, right?
• 49:50
  And the answer is they admitted, we can't make them.
• 49:53
  And the threat was, if we take the story of how the provision was granted, the story is they said, if we can't make them safe, I mean, because we can't make them safe, we will go bankrupt if we keep making them.
• 50:10
  So if you don't grant us immunity from liability, we're gonna stop making vaccines.
• 50:14
  That was the threat.
• 50:16
  That was the threat that got them granted the immunity.
• 50:18
  So the point is any claim in modern times that these things are safe and anybody who says they aren't as a crazy person, it's like you're just actually referencing what Wyeth, which I think is now Pfizer said in 1986, right?
• 50:33
  The vaccine industry itself said they're not safe and they can't be made safe.
• 50:37
  No, it even goes back further than that.
• 50:40
  So let me just say, so in our movie, we explore this issue.
• 50:45
  And if you look in the late 1970s, there were a bunch of children who were catastrophically injured or killed by the DPT shot in particular.
• 50:54
  And so we don't even use the pertussis portion of the shot that used to be used.
• 50:59
  It was called the wholesale pertussis.
• 51:01
  And now it's the attenuated pertussis because it was so dangerous, okay?
• 51:06
  And so all of these families sued and juries were giving them huge awards.
• 51:10
  Back in the 1970s, early 80s, getting a jury award of 4 million, 11 million, 17 million dollars was a lot of money.
• 51:18
  And so this is what they did.
• 51:21
  They basically held Congress hostage, the pharmaceutical industry.
• 51:24
  But that's just the modern chapter.
• 51:26
  You go back 200 years ago and more than 200 years ago, almost 250 years ago, and Britain mandated smallpox, okay?
• 51:35
  And after five years of a mandate, 98% of the population was vaccinated and there were massive revolts, okay?
• 51:43
  Because there was the worst smallpox outbreak they'd ever had and it was twice as lethal as it had been before they implemented the vaccine mandate.
• 51:50
  Okay?
• 51:51
  And the citizens of Leicester, they protested and Leicester refused to implement the vaccine mandate and they quarantined people who got sick instead and they had a far superior outcome.
• 52:02
  My point is that this has been going on.
• 52:04
  There has never been public demand for vaccine mandates.
• 52:10
  And the same thing happened in the United States with smallpox vaccines in the late 19th, no, late 20th century, late 19th century and early 20th century.
• 52:19
  Same thing.
• 52:20
  And that's what then precipitated the lawsuit known as Jacobson versus Massachusetts, which the Supreme Court ruled on in 1905 and said that in extreme cases, a state could mandate a vaccination, the smallpox vaccine, which was the only one that was available in 1905.
• 52:39
  But it didn't say that employment could be conditioned upon receipt.
• 52:44
  It didn't say that you could be excluded from society, you couldn't go to school or go shopping or-- Travel.
• 52:51
  Do anything.
• 52:52
  It said, if you didn't get the shot, you could be fined $5, which is about 180 bucks today.
• 52:58
  So it has been so grossly misconstrued and we at Health Freedom Defense Fund tried to challenge that.
• 53:04
  We had a case with the school teachers at the Los Angeles Unified School District and the Supreme Court just declined to actually review the case, even though the Ninth Circuit just ruled in that case, that it doesn't matter whether the shot stopped transmission or infection, the COVID shot, because that's what they mandated for all employees.
• 53:25
  Doesn't matter if it stopped transmission or infection, all that matters is that a state official could have believed that it would help individuals.
• 53:33
  Didn't even have to have a public health justification.
• 53:36
  So basically, they said, as long as the state has some justification and claims a public health interest, then the courts need not get involved, there needs to be no proof of any kind of actual emergency, there needs to be no proof that whatever intervention that they are recommending is effective or safe, they don't have to do anything.
• 53:59
  They literally open the door to, hey, you know what?
• 54:04
  The school district thinks that morale's not high enough and so we want everybody to take an antidepressant.
• 54:10
  Because if they can do that and they can say, look, it's gonna help public health because we don't want depressed people because depressed people might go and do something violent.
• 54:17
  Yeah.
• 54:18
  Like this is where it's going.
• 54:21
  Yeah, it's a public that is not paying close attention, doesn't know how to pay close attention, has now been denied the normal tools for paying attention like a vigorous independent press that chases down stories and things like that.
• 54:40
  So the public is distracted because it doesn't know who to believe if it goes anywhere near the truth, it hears, oh, that person is terrible, you know, they're just slandered.
• 54:52
  So while the public is distracted and not paying attention, something that I can't name, I don't know if you can, but something that we can't name is in motion eroding every real freedom that we have and the more significant the freedom, the more intense the pressure to erode it.
• 55:14
  Right?
• 55:14
  And so it's, you know, I agree, we're in a post, I mean, NDAA 2012 says, this is a post-constitutional era that we still enjoy what were once rights, but we now enjoy them as privileges, which means they can be removed based on, well, the claim is always going to be public health need or emergency or both.
• 55:41
  But of course, you know, I assume people will have caught it from your description, but just the simple fact that you don't even need the ability to block spread in order for this supposed public health justification to kick in, the whole thing falls apart there.
• 56:00
  Why is, you know, if other people can protect themselves with this shot, but it doesn't block transmission, that doesn't make any sense.
• 56:11
  So why do you have a right to force me to take a risk?
• 56:18
  You don't, but why do they want that right?
• 56:21
  Well, who knows?
• 56:22
  They might have a lot of purposes for such a thing.
• 56:25
  All right, I don't know if you have a response there, I'll let you do that.
• 56:29
  Well, I think, yeah, I think that there's, I mean, it sounds conspiratorial, but you don't have to go back that far when you look at technocracy, which was a movement in the 1930s, which wanted to divide the world into technates, which would then facilitate transition to a one world government, right?
• 56:53
  So this is what, you know, George Bush Singer talked about a new world order, and we've heard this over and over and over again.
• 57:00
  And so there's that, and then there's also this, much of what was originally talked about with the UN and people's fears that it was about subjugating individual nations in service to a one world government, there's that all that kind of stuff.
• 57:17
  But then more immediately, if you just look at this sort of marriage as we've already touched on between the corporations and the state, which, you know, people have a pretty nasty word for that.
• 57:30
  That word being fashion.
• 57:31
  Yes.
• 57:33
  I just actually wrote a sub stack, which I called American Fascism, and it was all about the way that the whole vaccine program in the United States works.
• 57:42
  Literally, it's like government money, mandating, licensing, then mandating, then protecting the corporations.
• 57:48
  So you've got corporations, I don't know if you know this, and if most people will know this, but the biggest corporations in the world take in about 600 billion dollars, 600, 700 billion dollars in revenue every year.
• 58:02
  Do you know what the GDP of the lowest 100 countries is?
• 58:07
  It's like 40 billion.
• 58:09
  It's nothing.
• 58:10
  Yeah, these are power structures above state level.
• 58:14
  They're really, I mean, there's that going on, right?
• 58:16
  But I think that you look to a man named Udo Ulfkalte.
• 58:20
  Have you ever heard of him?
• 58:21
  Okay, so he was a editor of one of the biggest newspapers in Germany for close to 20 years, somewhere, give or take a couple years.
• 58:32
  And he came out publicly.
• 58:34
  Whenabouts?
• 58:36
  He died, I think, about five or six, seven years ago, maybe eight, 10, I guess, it's harder.
• 58:40
  So he's modern types.
• 58:41
  Modern times, but he'd been the senior editor, or one of the senior editors, for close to 20 years, okay?
• 58:49
  Mainstream, big paper, comes out and says that all the media around the world, major media, is controlled by the intelligence agencies, okay?
• 58:58
  And he said that he was the person who received the article from the CIA that said Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction.
• 59:12
  And he took it, and he published it.
• 59:15
  And of course, it was around the world in 24 hours, and he realized, oh my gosh, like what I've done and what's happening.
• 59:23
  And that sparked an awakening in him.
• 59:25
  But he basically came out and he said that the intelligence agencies have assets installed, have operatives installed in every media outlet, but that also that they're doing the bidding of the billionaires.
• 59:37
  And so he basically came out, he was like, listen, that's who runs the show.
• 59:43
  We are being paid by intelligence, by billionaires, and by corporations, to publish information that manipulates the public into a certain perspective.
• 59:55
  And so I think when you take all that together, you can see, is it all one monolith?
• 1:00:00
  I don't think so.
• 1:00:01
  I think it's various factions, some coordinating, some not coordinating.
• 1:00:05
  I've heard firsthand that from people who know, who were told that COVID wasn't about a disease, it was about an opportunity to restructure society.
• 1:00:15
  So this is, I think that it's much more premeditated than any of us would like to acknowledge.
• 1:00:23
  And can we put our finger on it?
• 1:00:25
  Can we say it's that person or it's that group?
• 1:00:27
  No, but there's definitely some kind of a coordination happening.
• 1:00:30
  Just look at all the contracts that Pfizer was able to get through.
• 1:00:32
  Yeah, there's nothing that throws me about the idea that we can detect that there's a force, we can know something about what it must be attempting to accomplish based on what actions it takes without knowing who it is.
• 1:00:46
  I also agree it's very unlikely to be one united force.
• 1:00:51
  It's likely to be competing factions, however that works.
• 1:00:54
  They're likely not to have names that we know.
• 1:00:57
  They're probably not entities that we can describe.
• 1:01:00
  They could be mapped by people who understood them, but we can't know.
• 1:01:03
  But there's also likely to be a dynamic where there are certain things on which they agree to act collaboratively.
• 1:01:14
  For example, our rights to informed consent.
• 1:01:20
  It may be that all of the powerful hidden factions find those objectionable.
• 1:01:25
  And so they might act in a coordinated way with respect to doing away with those rights.
• 1:01:31
  And they might disagree over how our tax dollars that go to military spending should be exerted in conflicts around the globe.
• 1:01:42
  I don't know.
• 1:01:42
  But anyway, you would expect them to behave in the sort of quasi-organism way that nations used to behave, right?
• 1:01:51
  Nations ally with each other over certain things.
• 1:01:53
  They fight over other things.
• 1:01:55
  That's the nature of emergent collections of people.
• 1:02:02
  So I think this is all perfectly valid realm for conjecture.
• 1:02:09
  And I would agree as somebody who thinks very carefully about this, yes, money is involved, but something much greater is at stake.
• 1:02:16
  If I had to guess based on my understanding of complex systems and the way nature functions, money is a proxy for power.
• 1:02:25
  That power is really what's at stake.
• 1:02:28
  And that actually us little folks would probably be wise to recognize that money is inherently not a proxy.
• 1:02:41
  A primary factor anymore, because just look at the asymmetry of information.
• 1:02:49
  We know that there is something called the NSA.
• 1:02:52
  And we know that the NSA has an amazing capacity to bank all of the conversations that we have over any electronic medium and increasingly with cameras everywhere, they can probably capture stuff that wasn't exchanged in any officially electronic way.
• 1:03:10
  We also know that they are sure to have the very best AI.
• 1:03:14
  Probably I would argue better than anything we've seen yet, but at the very least they've got the cutting edge stuff and a huge amount of processing capacity with which to wield it against all of the data they collect against all of the things we've said.
• 1:03:30
  Who is dumb enough to think that the NSA will not have noticed that they know about every trade in the market of any significant size before it happens.
• 1:03:41
  If you know what trades are gonna happen, you can position yourself in the market to turn that into money, which means whatever the NSA is and whoever it represents, it is independent of the bodies that nominally fund it.
• 1:03:52
  They couldn't shut it down if they tried.
• 1:03:54
  So I don't think I've said anything particularly remarkable there.
• 1:03:59
  I've just put together a bunch of dots that are pretty well certain.
• 1:04:02
  So that tells you there's a faction out there.
• 1:04:06
  100%.
• 1:04:06
  It has an asymmetry of information about us.
• 1:04:09
  We know nothing about it.
• 1:04:10
  It knows everything about us and it has the ability to fund itself.
• 1:04:14
  Why would that not have resulted in some force you can't name out there that finds our freedoms galling because it's the last thing they can't deal with, frankly, because they can't buy them.
• 1:04:25
  Yeah.
• 1:04:25
  Right?
• 1:04:26
  Yeah, there's one other thing.
• 1:04:27
  This is going back to what we were saying before.
• 1:04:30
  I mean, I totally agree with you.
• 1:04:31
  That's one issue.
• 1:04:32
  And Budo Ufkota, that's what he alluded to, right?
• 1:04:36
  He didn't even allude to it.
• 1:04:37
  He said it's intelligence.
• 1:04:39
  And let's be honest, when have 17 intelligence agencies ever had the same view except for Russian collusion in the 2016 election?
• 1:04:49
  Like that's the only other time, right?
• 1:04:50
  And yet they're all on the same page on COVID.
• 1:04:53
  Yep.
• 1:04:54
  Something's wrong, right?
• 1:04:55
  Something is not right.
• 1:04:57
  What I was gonna say though, is I think there's another factor and that is something that's really, really unpalatable to most people to even discuss.
• 1:05:05
  And that's eugenics.
• 1:05:06
  And I think that a lot of we're seeing is rooted in eugenics and there were big eugenics movements all across the West in the early part of the 20th century.
• 1:05:17
  And that's what spawned Planned Parenthood.
• 1:05:20
  Margaret Sanger was an avowed eugenicist.
• 1:05:26
  And she thought that the most compassionate thing that large black families could do would be to kill one of their babies, to reduce the number.
• 1:05:34
  Literally, that's what she said.
• 1:05:35
  She's like, you can read, you can look the quote up.
• 1:05:38
  It's unbelievable.
• 1:05:39
  And Bill Gates's father was, I believe, the chairman of the board of Planned Parenthood.
• 1:05:45
  And then you look at the Huxleys, Julian Huxley, Aldous Huxley wrote "Brave New World." His brother Julian was the first Secretary General of UNESCO and their uncle was a big proponent of all these United Nations and things.
• 1:06:02
  And he was a eugenicist and he hung out with other eugenicists.
• 1:06:07
  There are, I've read that Darwin was a eugenicist possibly.
• 1:06:13
  Darwin.
• 1:06:14
  I'm just saying, listen, this stuff goes way, way back and there are people who have thought so.
• 1:06:18
  Darwin couldn't really have been because our understanding of genes didn't, we didn't know what they even were.
• 1:06:25
  Okay, but that doesn't mean that you didn't think that some people were beneath you.
• 1:06:29
  Well, wait a second though.
• 1:06:31
  I have to defend Darwin because Darwin is taking a lot of crap for stuff that is not his responsibility.
• 1:06:35
  And I'm not, I don't want to defend him for anything that he's actually guilty of.
• 1:06:41
  Let us put it this way.
• 1:06:44
  When you select a mate, you are engaging in a kind of natural eugenic process, right?
• 1:06:53
  You are selecting for characteristics.
• 1:06:55
  Some of those characteristics indicate genetic quality directly and some of them indicate it indirectly.
• 1:07:03
  The fact that the desirableness of a particular person is not a purely subjective fact, that there are certain things that cause more people to find that person attractive is telling.
• 1:07:17
  And this very process is the one that turned us into the creatures that we are.
• 1:07:22
  And you could say the same thing for every other species, that the selectivity in the process, there's a part where, you know, if you're vulnerable to a disease, then you're dead and not available to be mated with.
• 1:07:36
  So there's a part of this that isn't about choice, but all of the mate choice that goes on is by mechanisms that are both obvious and not so obvious, the process by which creatures get refined.
• 1:07:51
  Where this goes awry is the same place the medical nonsense, where some group thinks they understand this process well enough to shepherd it in some direction that they will inevitably argue is in the interests of the population.
• 1:08:08
  And of course, these people will all being utilitarians become monsters and they will engage in things that couldn't possibly have the benefit that they claim is going to come from them.
• 1:08:20
  And they will do untold horrors in the process of getting there.
• 1:08:24
  So I'm not defending eugenicists, but I am saying that if you start looking, you know, if every woman who's looking for, you know, a tall, handsome man is a eugenicist because she's, you know-- Yeah, but that's very different than starting Planned Parenthood and actually saying that there are people that we wanna get rid of, and this is what these people were doing.
• 1:08:46
  I'm not defending Gates, I'm not defending Sanger, I'm not defending Huxley, I'm defending Darwin because I don't think Darwin-- I will grant you that, okay.
• 1:08:55
  I will concede on Darwin.
• 1:08:57
  I will, however, say that if you even look to the Supreme Court ruling in Buck v.
• 1:09:03
  Bell, which is definitely a moral stain on our country, Buck v.
• 1:09:07
  Bell was rooted in the Jacobson ruling in 1905.
• 1:09:12
  They used Jacobson as justification that it was okay to snip the fallopian tubes of a woman who they deemed too unintelligent to have children.
• 1:09:21
  And unfortunately, if you look, you know, Planned Parenthood, most of those facilities, abortion facilities, are in inner cities.
• 1:09:29
  They're within our, you know, the communities of people of color.
• 1:09:34
  And these people, the eugenicists, wanted to get rid of those people.
• 1:09:37
  And so, I mean, I still think that America is the fairest country that we live in, but you can't deny that there were these people who had a really, really dark agenda.
• 1:09:45
  And so my point is that there's a fact that there was an action of people, or, you know, there was a movement, and I don't think it's died away, just like I don't think MK Ultras died away, right?
• 1:09:57
  That was intent on retaining power and subjugating those who might take some of it, threaten it.
• 1:10:06
  And so I'm going back to the same place where you were, which is it's not just about money.
• 1:10:10
  This is about power, and I think all these things play a role in what's going on.
• 1:10:15
  Yeah, I agree, and I could make a pretty strong argument that evolution, all of it, from the very first instance of something that you wouldn't even recognize as life up through what we currently see as the biota, all of that evolution is actually fundamentally about power of a kind.
• 1:10:37
  In other words, this is going to be too abstract maybe, but if you think about, you are composed of something like 30 trillion cells as an adult at any given moment.
• 1:10:47
  You could be 30 trillion one cell individuals.
• 1:10:52
  By the standard math of evolution, the stuff that you were maybe taught in high school, that would be really a huge success, right?
• 1:10:59
  Instead of being one person, you could be 30 trillion people, or 30 trillion things that had the same genetic nature.
• 1:11:07
  So why would you choose to be only one when you could be 30 trillion?
• 1:11:10
  And the answer is because you have a lot more control over your environment and your ability to get into the future than a puddle of 30 trillion single cells that were uncoordinated.
• 1:11:24
  So it's worth that massive sacrifice in what we would call reproductive success in order to gain agency.
• 1:11:33
  So you can sort of see evolution, all of it, whether you're an oak tree or a coral or a sloth, all of those ways of being are about exerting a kind of control in order to not suffer at the whim of the abiotic forces.
• 1:11:54
  So anyway, what I'm arguing, oddly, is that the game that we can now detect, hey, is somebody targeting my rights?
• 1:12:02
  Are they planning to come up with some shot that they're then gonna force me to take because they've declared some emergency that isn't real?
• 1:12:09
  Why would they do that?
• 1:12:10
  And the answer is, well, actually, they're doing, they're violating the human rules that we have decided would make the world better because they wanna do the biological thing that all creatures are designed to do, which is to try to exert as much control over as many things as can be controlled as possible.
• 1:12:29
  It's that game in a new human landscape where we have words for things and we have the idea of rights.
• 1:12:38
  You go into the forest and you think, well, you know, that creature is violating that other creature's rights.
• 1:12:45
  What are you even talking about?
• 1:12:47
  No, no, there are no rights.
• 1:12:48
  We came up with that.
• 1:12:49
  That was actually an innovation and it was a good one.
• 1:12:51
  And what you're now watching is people uninvent them.
• 1:12:54
  Yeah, so two things I wanna say.
• 1:12:57
  One is that I think that Darwin was wrong about certain things and just evolution in general.
• 1:13:04
  If you look, do you know, plants will huddle together and collaborate, they will stiffen themselves when there's a predator nearby.
• 1:13:13
  So it's not only about that or you look at-- Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.
• 1:13:17
  Where's the Darwin?
• 1:13:18
  Let's say that that's true.
• 1:13:19
  Well, the survival, I think the average person thinks of survival of the fittest and every single thing is out for itself, okay?
• 1:13:28
  That's how the average person sees it.
• 1:13:29
  Oh, I get it.
• 1:13:30
  The average person-- And also just even evolution.
• 1:13:33
  That's what people think.
• 1:13:33
  Oh, it's just like everything happened sort of independently every single thing happened from this.
• 1:13:37
  Well, look, this is gonna be a long lonely struggle.
• 1:13:42
  I know, I'll probably spend the rest of my life on this.
• 1:13:44
  But here's the thing.
• 1:13:45
  Don't misunderstand the misconceptions of Darwinism right up through the top Darwinists we have who have plenty of misconceptions.
• 1:13:55
  That's not the fundamentals of how the process actually works.
• 1:13:59
  And so just, I would just implore you-- No, I totally can see that.
• 1:14:03
  I'm just saying-- Be careful, the failure of our model of Darwinism is not the failure of the underlying process to account for what we see.
• 1:14:12
  Which is not to say that it accounts for it.
• 1:14:13
  I am open to arguments, that there's something out there that defies a Darwinian explanation, something biological that defies a Darwinian explanation.
• 1:14:24
  I'm open to seeing that thing, but I ain't seen it yet.
• 1:14:27
  Yeah.
• 1:14:28
  So what I really wanted to say is that there's much more, I think that there's also, there was a major structural threat that had been building for decades in the country and in the world that precipitated the what we're seeing play out now.
• 1:14:47
  If you look back to, there was the great recession in 2008, nine, right?
• 1:14:51
  And what happened in Europe was that the companies, the banks never wrote off their bad debts.
• 1:14:56
  And they, so they were carrying all this debt.
• 1:15:00
  And what happened in 2019, September 17th, was the repo market, which is where banks interact with each other to park paid off loans or, and basically balance their balance sheets overnight.
• 1:15:15
  And it's managed by the Fed.
• 1:15:17
  They, interest rates spiked to 10% for overnight money, which is huge.
• 1:15:21
  I mean, that's 3000% in a year.
• 1:15:24
  And usually it's risk-free.
• 1:15:25
  It's very, it's almost zero, okay?
• 1:15:27
  And what that indicated, the reason that it happened was that the US banks didn't want to deal with their European counterparts because they didn't want to take on the counterparty risk.
• 1:15:35
  And so I think that it just plays back to the power thing that you weren't mentioning, because that indicated systemic risk.
• 1:15:44
  And the Fed stepped in and backstopped all the banks and said, listen, don't worry.
• 1:15:50
  If Deutsche Bank or one of these other banks, European banks fails, we're going to backstop you.
• 1:15:56
  We're going to take care of you.
• 1:15:56
  It's not going to be.
• 1:15:57
  It became the central bank of the world.
• 1:16:01
  Why would they do that?
• 1:16:03
  People would say, well, they don't want the world to implode, but there's a bigger thing.
• 1:16:06
  And that's because the people in power are the ones who control things.
• 1:16:09
  And then what happened over the next eight years or in the preceding, so in 2014, after the Great Recession, Europe implemented negative interest rates, which destroyed all the pension mark, pension funds and the bond markets, because pensions have to return 7% to 8% every year in order to be able to service their liabilities.
• 1:16:29
  And so you got to a point where come 2020, they'd had negative interest rates since 2014.
• 1:16:37
  In the September, we know that there's a major problem.
• 1:16:40
  And I think that what's happening is that the entire elite need a reset, COVID-19 the Great Reset, as Klaus Schwab wrote, they need a reset because they need to default on their debt.
• 1:16:54
  And the reason nothing makes sense anymore is because the people in power want to retain power.
• 1:17:00
  And the only way they do that is by tightening the screws on the rest of us while they default and reset the system and introduce digital currency and all these other things.
• 1:17:09
  And this is why they're pushing for real ID.
• 1:17:11
  And Trump signed an executive order prohibiting the states from regulating AI and set up a task force to sue the states that attempt to regulate AI.
• 1:17:22
  This is pushing us into this digital control grid that they are constructing.
• 1:17:29
  And so I totally agree, it's not just about money, it's about power and it's about controlling the masses.
• 1:17:35
  Well, and as long as we're down this road, the nice thing about looking at things through the lens of game theory is it depersonalizes it.
• 1:17:44
  You can look at it and you can say, here's what I would expect this entity to do at this moment because it is the sensible thing with respect to a relatively simple to state objective like control.
• 1:17:57
  We're watching the conditions for a massive, in fact, I think unprecedented collapse.
• 1:18:05
  Those conditions are building up.
• 1:18:07
  And I don't think that the people, the true power elites are not unaware of it, right?
• 1:18:14
  The lesser people may be fooling themselves.
• 1:18:19
  What the point is, they know they're building a system that's unstable, that is going to come crashing down.
• 1:18:25
  And that that's a feature, not a bug at this point, that they're positioning for it.
• 1:18:29
  And I agree with you that part of the plan that is looming into view is you're gonna be stuck without options.
• 1:18:39
  They've actually taken steps that limit anybody's option to construct a life that immunizes them from what's going to happen, right?
• 1:18:48
  Including all of the strange provisions that make the most obvious self-reliance very difficult to do, right?
• 1:18:57
  They force you into a system of regulations that make self-reliance impossible.
• 1:19:01
  Then, you know, and, you know, take Aaron Day's line of argument.
• 1:19:09
  They wanna tokenize all of your assets so that it's all basically connected to, you know, that it's cataloged and potentially controllable.
• 1:19:20
  And at the point that you are sufficiently dependent, the money fails, everybody's desperate.
• 1:19:31
  And the point is, well, actually, don't worry, your FDIC insured, we're giving you, you know, the money back as promised, but it's coming in the form of central bank digital currency and everybody will say, well, okay, fine.
• 1:19:45
  And for a while, it will feel like they have money the way they did before.
• 1:19:49
  And the problem is that money is now programmable.
• 1:19:51
  And the next time something, you know, orchestrated like COVID happens, you know, the dissidents are gonna find themselves impoverished in a way that they weren't the first time COVID happened.
• 1:20:03
  So anyway, all of that is foreseeable.
• 1:20:06
  It is readily understandable why some powerful ruthless entity would be interested in having that kind of control.
• 1:20:14
  And the only question is, do you really think they will morally constrain themselves from such a plan?
• 1:20:21
  Is that what you imagine?
• 1:20:22
  After all you've seen in history, you think that they wouldn't do it because it wouldn't be nice?
• 1:20:27
  No, of course not.
• 1:20:28
  That's not how power works, right?
• 1:20:31
  So I see it too, they're architecting it.
• 1:20:35
  And the problem is most people are unaware and therefore they are not defending against the little erosions of their rights that are happening now because it doesn't feel significant.
• 1:20:43
  Yeah, so I have to tell you a story.
• 1:20:45
  I don't know if you've heard this before, but for anybody who doubts that these people have no moral compass, this will help you.
• 1:20:53
  Okay.
• 1:20:53
  This was one of the seminal moments in my life that really woke me up.
• 1:20:57
  I was working on Wall Street and I was the director of Alliance Capital.
• 1:21:02
  I'd gone from, I was at Goldman.
• 1:21:04
  I came, went to Goldman after Goldman Sachs after business school, worked for them in New York for a few years and then got transferred to London and worked in London for a couple of years and then I just decided there were too many conflicts of interest, it did not feel, it did not resonate with me and I needed to leave and so I quit.
• 1:21:19
  And I ended up going to one of my biggest clients, which was a company called Alliance Capital.
• 1:21:26
  And I ended up running Alliance Capital's European Growth Portfolio Management and Research Businesses and I did that for about seven years.
• 1:21:36
  And in the last probably, I think it was about two years before I ended up leaving.
• 1:21:44
  I had the CEO of one of the biggest pharmaceutical companies in the world come into our office to reassure me and our team and our team in New York, why we should keep owning their stock because we own the stock because their face, their blockbuster drug that was coming out was in phase three trials.
• 1:22:03
  Everybody owned the stock for this because it was gonna be a huge drug and make billions and that's why everybody owned it.
• 1:22:12
  And the stock was getting crushed in the market because there were some kind of rumors trickling out about problems on the phase three clinical trial.
• 1:22:21
  Phase three is the last stage of a clinical trial before FDA grants licensure, okay?
• 1:22:27
  And so the CEO, the CFO, chief financial officer, the head of R&D and the head of investor relations, people come into our offices.
• 1:22:37
  And there's myself and a couple other portfolio managers and our research analysts and a trader and an old fashioned conference call, speaker in the phone and the thing to New York and to our team there.
• 1:22:50
  And he sits down and he says, listen, okay.
• 1:22:55
  The bad news, it's very, very rare, but in a few instances, a few people have died on the clinical trial.
• 1:23:04
  And he said, without literally skipping a beat, the bad news is the FDA is gonna make us put a black box warning on our packaging.
• 1:23:13
  The good news is we still think we can do seven billion in peak sales.
• 1:23:19
  And I was just like, I literally felt sick to my stomach.
• 1:23:24
  I'm like, oh my gosh.
• 1:23:25
  I mean, I've heard some crazy things.
• 1:23:27
  I'd never heard someone so brazen, right?
• 1:23:30
  I was just like, they're gonna kill people, they know it.
• 1:23:33
  And they don't care.
• 1:23:34
  And they think we should be happy because we're gonna make a lot of money.
• 1:23:37
  The stock's down 25%.
• 1:23:39
  We should be buying the stock.
• 1:23:41
  And I literally went back to my office after this meeting and I just paced back and forth.
• 1:23:45
  I was so literally disturbed by this.
• 1:23:49
  And then I walked down the hallway to our pharmaceutical analyst office and I threw the door open and I just looked at the young woman and I'm like, this is wrong.
• 1:23:59
  And she looked at me and she's like, yeah, like shrugged her shoulders, what do you want me to do about it, lady?
• 1:24:04
  This is, I think that one of the big problems is that the people who get to the top literally have no conscience.
• 1:24:16
  A lot of them.
• 1:24:17
  I'm not saying every one of them, but a lot of them.
• 1:24:18
  And so this is like, these are the people running these big corporations.
• 1:24:22
  They know they're gonna kill people and they don't seem to give a darn.
• 1:24:26
  And that's what woke me up.
• 1:24:27
  I'll just tell you, I was like, holy cow, I'm playing for the wrong team.
• 1:24:30
  I gotta get out of this.
• 1:24:31
  That's what precipitated my departure.
• 1:24:35
  So I had a parallel experience of a very different nature when I was a grad student.
• 1:24:42
  I don't know if you've heard the story, but I was working on what I thought was just an interesting abstract evolutionary puzzle.
• 1:24:51
  Why it is that creatures like us grow feeble and inefficient as we get older.
• 1:24:56
  And I had a breakthrough moment where I was in a seminar and I heard somebody say something that lined up with something that I knew from my own work.
• 1:25:05
  And it was like, holy crap, I know the answer to one of the bigger questions in my field.
• 1:25:10
  And I pursued it for a year.
• 1:25:13
  And to make a long story very short, I had a model that explained that the process of growing feeble with age, the process of senescence evolves as a result of the unavoidable negative consequences of a protection that we have against tumors, against cancer.
• 1:25:35
  That basically we would be overrun at 30 trillion cells as an adult.
• 1:25:38
  You would be overrun with cancer before you ever got to reproduce if we didn't have a system that limited the amount of cellular reproduction that each of your cell lines could do in a lifetime.
• 1:25:48
  But that meant that you were eventually gonna fail to maintain your tissues and progressively so over time.
• 1:25:54
  The one thing that didn't make any sense was that the system was based on a counter at the end of each of your chromosomes called a telomere.
• 1:26:04
  That telomere gets a little shorter every time your cells divide.
• 1:26:08
  If the model was right, and I knew it had to be because it answered so many questions, if the model was right, then mice should have much longer lives than they do because they have very long telomeres, much longer than human telomeres.
• 1:26:23
  Nobody could figure out what this was.
• 1:26:25
  And I think this had blocked anybody else from putting the model together.
• 1:26:29
  I ultimately discovered through a series of events that I won't rehash here, that in fact mice do not have long telomeres.
• 1:26:40
  That it was laboratory mice that have long telomeres as a result of evolution that had taken place in the colonies that breed them.
• 1:26:46
  Okay.
• 1:26:48
  Now the problem is, once you know that, this goes from an interesting evolutionary tale to a medical tale.
• 1:26:55
  Because we use mice and rats that are bred in the same way to test the safety of drugs.
• 1:27:04
  And the animals that they were testing them on had these very long telomeres, right?
• 1:27:09
  Artificially long.
• 1:27:11
  Those long telomeres meant those mice had the ability to replace their tissues indefinitely, which meant that if you gave them a poison, it would not shorten their lives.
• 1:27:20
  In fact, because all of those mice have had their cancer prevention turned off, they all die of cancer.
• 1:27:26
  If you give them a poison that doesn't kill them outright, it makes them live longer because it's like chemotherapy.
• 1:27:32
  It's harder on the dividing cells than it is on the cells that are not dividing, so the cancers are held in check.
• 1:27:39
  So what I discovered was, holy crap, we are testing drug safety on animals that make poisons look healthy.
• 1:27:48
  Oh my gosh.
• 1:27:50
  That was in 1999.
• 1:27:55
  I naively, as a graduate student, thought, this is going to embarrass the entire field.
• 1:28:03
  A huge number of papers are gonna have to be rethought.
• 1:28:06
  Every drug that's come to market in the last 50 years is gonna have to be retested for safety.
• 1:28:11
  This is a big frickin' deal, but there's no way they can ignore it because if they do, they do two things.
• 1:28:18
  One, they keep killing people, people who have a right to live, and two, they're breaking science because now they've got all of these papers that don't mean what they think they mean and they keep stacking new science on top of them.
• 1:28:31
  So I thought they have to fix it.
• 1:28:36
  Well, it's more than 25 years later, they haven't fixed it.
• 1:28:40
  In fact, what they did is pretend I hadn't found anything.
• 1:28:44
  Now, forget the personal aspect of it.
• 1:28:46
  I'm long over that.
• 1:28:49
  The idea that they stared down the fact that they had a broken drug safety system, the very thing that happened during Vioxx that was repeated with Phenphen, Seldane, Gleevec, all of these drugs that were thought safe turned out to do, quote unquote, heart damage, which is not heart damage.
• 1:29:09
  The heart is just where we notice damage to the whole body.
• 1:29:12
  But the fact that they stared that down knowing they had to know that people were gonna die as a result of their broken process, that woke me up.
• 1:29:24
  It's like, well, okay, now I wouldn't put anything past them.
• 1:29:26
  No, it's not, it's just like, you know, when I started making my movie, The Greater Good on vaccines, I thought, I'm gonna make this amazing movie and we're gonna make it fair and balanced.
• 1:29:36
  And I interviewed Paul Offit from Merck.
• 1:29:40
  He was the then chair of Children's Hospital's Infectious Disease Unit.
• 1:29:45
  I interviewed Stanley Plotkin, who was his basically mentor and the developer of aborted cell lines that are used to create vaccines.
• 1:29:57
  And he's like one of the modern godfathers of vaccines, vaccineology.
• 1:30:01
  He wrote the book.
• 1:30:03
  And I interviewed Norman Baylor from the FDA, from the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, interviewed Neil Halsey from NIH, Walter Ornstein, who was the previous head of the CDC, and a woman named Dr.
• 1:30:22
  Melinda Wharton from CDC.
• 1:30:24
  She was the number two at CDC under Ann Shucott.
• 1:30:26
  And then I interviewed Dr.
• 1:30:28
  Larry Pollewski.
• 1:30:29
  I don't know if you've met him.
• 1:30:30
  He's an amazing pediatrician who's been speaking out for decades.
• 1:30:33
  He's one of the OGs.
• 1:30:35
  And Barbara Lo Fisher, a lot of the movie was around her.
• 1:30:39
  Other people who question vaccines.
• 1:30:43
  And I thought, you know, I'm gonna make this amazing movie and we're gonna tell the stories of families.
• 1:30:48
  We told three stories and it's gonna change the world because the problem is that the federal agencies just don't know that they're not using proper placebos, that they're not using proper control groups, that they're injecting aluminum, which has never been proven safe.
• 1:31:03
  They just don't know.
• 1:31:04
  And if we just make a good movie, a great movie, that's fair imbalance and addresses the issue, everything will change.
• 1:31:12
  Let me guess what.
• 1:31:14
  (Laughing) All right, so I wanna-- Nothing.
• 1:31:17
  Yeah, nothing, of course.
• 1:31:19
  I wanna come back to your movie making process and how you ended up, I don't wanna call you an anti-vaxxer because I think that's a deliberate slander and-- It's a slur, but-- Well, it's a slur and it's also, you know, if somebody came up with a vaccine that, to your satisfaction, to actually block an important disease at risk that was worth it, I assume you wouldn't be against such a thing, but you're gonna be very skeptical.
• 1:31:49
  I'm against any medical, pharmaceutical product intervention that's not proven safe and effective.
• 1:31:55
  Right.
• 1:31:56
  And of course, safe is relative as we've already discussed, but the point is they've never been properly studied.
• 1:32:03
  And there's even research showing that just injecting the antigen absent any of the adventitious ingredients in injections and vaccines as they are composed today, that's enough after done repeatedly to overwhelm the immune system and cause dysregulation, so it can't write itself.
• 1:32:20
  But leaving those things aside, yeah, I mean, I'm totally anti-vaxx given the situation today, but I'm against, I'm anti anything that's not.
• 1:32:30
  I just wanna clarify why I don't like the term anti-vaxx.
• 1:32:37
  You wouldn't trust the science they delivered because you know that the scientific apparatus is corrupt.
• 1:32:41
  You're not gonna support a mandate under any circumstances, but just at the level of a thought experiment.
• 1:32:47
  If you lived in a world where you had reason to trust that the science was done properly, that something was tested in a placebo controlled trial, that the benefit far outweighed the cost, you wouldn't be against somebody taking such a technology willfully.
• 1:33:05
  So in my mind, that doesn't make you an anti-vaxxer.
• 1:33:09
  It means that you're against the cruddy way that these things are tested and sold and mandated and all of that.
• 1:33:17
  But anyway, I wanted to go back to something interesting before we get to the origin story of your opposition to the current vaccine regime and your movie and all.
• 1:33:27
  I had an experience.
• 1:33:29
  I was visiting my aunt in Philadelphia.
• 1:33:34
  My aunt is a hundred years old.
• 1:33:36
  So congratulations, Judy.
• 1:33:38
  That's a marvelous accomplishment.
• 1:33:39
  Congratulations.
• 1:33:40
  Yes, she is still very sharp, which is amazing.
• 1:33:43
  A hundred years is a long time to go and the mind is not built for that because very few people make it to a hundred years, but she's still sharp.
• 1:33:50
  But in any case, I was staying with family, folks I love in Philadelphia.
• 1:33:58
  And they are of course, as older lefties, troubled by my current understanding of the world.
• 1:34:12
  And they can't make sense of it because they read the New York Times and then they hear me say things that they think are obvious nonsense.
• 1:34:19
  They know me to be a smart person.
• 1:34:21
  They know me to be a decent person.
• 1:34:22
  So something is not adding up for them and it's tough for them to swallow, but to their credit, they didn't banish me.
• 1:34:30
  They, you know, we're still warm and close with each other.
• 1:34:36
  But while I was staying at their place, I noticed just out of luck, there happened to be, I think it was a Philadelphia magazine.
• 1:34:42
  I took a picture of the cover of it in the room where I was staying.
• 1:34:47
  And the Philadelphia magazine had a piece from the other side of the looking glass that I didn't see coming.
• 1:34:55
  It was a piece, I don't know how old it was, but it was a puff piece on Paul Offit in which Paul Offit is portrayed as the tireless public servant who, you know, spends all of his waking hours trying to protect children from disease and harm who has been ruthlessly attacked by the crazed madman, Bobby Kennedy, who apparently does not care about the wellbeing of children, nor does he care about common-- No, he's a baby killer.
• 1:35:30
  Right, exactly.
• 1:35:32
  And so I'm looking at this article and I'm just thinking, all right, I know Bobby and I've confronted Offit.
• 1:35:44
  I know who these players are, you know.
• 1:35:48
  This is the absolute inverse of the truth.
• 1:35:52
  But were I a 65 or 70 year old lifelong Democrat who still reads the New York Times, has dipped my toe into social media and discovered that there are all these people out there spreading misinformation and backed away because wow, I wouldn't wanna be part of that madness.
• 1:36:14
  Were I of that mindset and then here, you know, look, hey, there's this nice piece on this vaccine scientist who's very concerned about, you know, the wellbeing of children.
• 1:36:27
  Of course I can imagine being confused, right?
• 1:36:29
  It's a very confusing picture because the PSYOP design to sell it is industrial strength, right?
• 1:36:35
  You're gonna humanize, you know, Paul Offit.
• 1:36:40
  Well, he looks the part.
• 1:36:42
  He looks like a nice guy, speaks like one too, actually.
• 1:36:45
  You know, very compelling.
• 1:36:48
  So anyway, I just thought that was interesting because, you know, if you live on our side of this puzzle, you're like backstage, you're looking at the set being used to fool people and you're like, come on, like they said it was safe, how could it be?
• 1:37:02
  And it was brand new and won't wake up.
• 1:37:06
  But if you're, you know, sitting, you know, front row center, they're putting on quite a show.
• 1:37:13
  It's very compelling.
• 1:37:14
  Yeah, yeah.
• 1:37:15
  So you just have to look to, well, I personally looked at a few things.
• 1:37:23
  Look at what happened during 9-11 when they just showed the footage over and over and over again of the planes flying into the buildings.
• 1:37:33
  What does that do to the average human being who's not used to seeing something so horrific?
• 1:37:40
  It traumatizes them on a certain level, right?
• 1:37:42
  And I think it implants this kind of trauma pattern in the brain.
• 1:37:47
  This is what PTSD is.
• 1:37:48
  When you have some kind of traumatizing experience, then it can be reactivated by other things.
• 1:37:55
  And then, you know, they showed it over and over and over again and then during COVID, what did they do?
• 1:37:59
  They had the taker tape of cases and deaths.
• 1:38:01
  And then it was also accompanied by unbelievable weaponization of language, right?
• 1:38:08
  So there was, you know, don't be a baby killer or don't be a grandma killer and it's a small ask, wear a mask and 15 days to slow the spread and all these kinds of things and so much more, right?
• 1:38:21
  So much more, but those are just the sort of, I wrote an article about this a couple of years ago, but language was very truly weaponized during that period.
• 1:38:29
  And if you zoom out to what's been going on in vaccine land for decades, it's even worse.
• 1:38:35
  So yeah, people didn't call people anti-vaxxers 20 years ago, that's a more recent term.
• 1:38:40
  And it's as the awareness of the problems have been legitimized by people like me and Bobby and so many other people, all these doctors who've now, Dr.
• 1:38:51
  Larry Polievsky, Barbara Lo Fisher, people who've been doing this for decades, far longer than I have.
• 1:38:57
  But there's so many of these people who are coming out and these autism doctors like Dr.
• 1:39:03
  John Green, who's retired, who had an amazing clinic in Portland, one of the families that we filmed with was in Portland.
• 1:39:08
  And as it started to spread, as more people realized what was happening, then they had to do something to stop us, right?
• 1:39:18
  Because the more people who join the ranks of those asking questions who have, like one of my dear friends, she has a child who's in his 30s with autism.
• 1:39:32
  He's the developmental age of about four.
• 1:39:35
  She went to Stanford, her husband's super smart too, like very successful, accomplished people.
• 1:39:41
  You can't just say that these are crazy people.
• 1:39:45
  I mean, I think it's one of the reasons that I got in the door.
• 1:39:47
  I'd worked at Goldman Sachs, I'd worked at Alliance Capital, I'd gone to the University of Chicago to get my MBA.
• 1:39:52
  In fact, when we met Paul Offit, do you know what he did?
• 1:39:54
  He put his arm around me, he's like, you're one of the good guys.
• 1:39:58
  You're the good guys.
• 1:39:59
  And he tried to give us money on our first shoot.
• 1:40:03
  How are you guys paying for this?
• 1:40:05
  And I literally screamed at him, I'm like, we are going to tell both sides because no one will take us seriously if we don't, Paul.
• 1:40:12
  That's what I said to him, but he was doing what he could to try and influence us to only say what.
• 1:40:17
  It's amazing, but anyway, my point is that I would say about 15 years ago was when they really had to start in a kind of concerted effort, discredit us through slurs like anti-vaxxer and things like that.
• 1:40:33
  And that's when it really turned up.
• 1:40:36
  If you look back to, I'm trying to think, was the Disneyland scare in 2016, 2017, Measles scare, it was somewhere around there.
• 1:40:45
  That's when they started saying it and they started attacking and then they used that to get rid of exemptions, religious exemptions, philosophical exemptions in California, which encompass religious as well.
• 1:40:57
  This whole thing has really built up.
• 1:40:58
  And then, I don't know if you know this, but in January of 2019, the World Health Organization issued a list of the top 10 global threats to public health.
• 1:41:09
  And Paul Offit was not on there?
• 1:41:10
  He was not on there.
• 1:41:12
  I wasn't either, but I probably should have been.
• 1:41:15
  But you know what was on there?
• 1:41:17
  Vaccine hesitancy.
• 1:41:19
  Oh God.
• 1:41:20
  One of the top 10 threats to global health is, so you see this is like really gearing up, gearing up.
• 1:41:28
  And of course you have, you go back to 2010 when the Rockefeller Foundation issued the lockstep document, have you heard about that?
• 1:41:37
  No.
• 1:41:37
  Okay, there were four scenarios that they mapped out about what would happen if there was some kind of a public health threat.
• 1:41:44
  In 2010, it was issued.
• 1:41:47
  And one of them perfectly correlates to the COVID response and what happened.
• 1:41:53
  They talked about it.
• 1:41:53
  It's kind of like the 2016 or 2017 video that the World Economic Forum put out, which says it's called Eight Predictions for 2030.
• 1:42:04
  And it says, what's the first one?
• 1:42:05
  You'll own nothing and be happy.
• 1:42:06
  And number two is that the US will no longer be a superpower.
• 1:42:10
  So my point is, and I never finished that thought, but basically we are in dire financial straits and they are trying to reset the system.
• 1:42:17
  That's where it's going.
• 1:42:18
  And they're using propaganda and manipulation and all of these slurs, anti-vaxxer, all this stuff in order to achieve their agenda because we're actually winning.
• 1:42:28
  So it's dark.
• 1:42:30
  It's dark, I'm not saying it's not, but we are.
• 1:42:31
  We are punching way above our weight class.
• 1:42:33
  I don't know that we're winning yet, but we are.
• 1:42:35
  But first of all, there's no other game in town.
• 1:42:39
  We have to fight and we are punching way above our weight class.
• 1:42:41
  So keep your wits about you.
• 1:42:43
  And listen, we didn't fall.
• 1:42:44
  You guys did not fall during COVID.
• 1:42:46
  We didn't.
• 1:42:47
  I do wanna correct one thing.
• 1:42:49
  I think you asked me if I knew Larry Pol I was very impressed with him.
• 1:43:04
  We had a lovely conversation and I'm definitely gonna have him on DarkHorse.
• 1:43:08
  So anyway, my apologies, Larry.
• 1:43:10
  Oh my gosh.
• 1:43:10
  Sorry, I forgot that.
• 1:43:11
  Let me say, Larry Polovsky deserves so much credit because this man, he was a fairly young physician and he started speaking out more than 20 years ago.
• 1:43:26
  He started speaking out.
• 1:43:28
  He started and in New York state, no less.
• 1:43:31
  So great risk to his professional, his medical license and everything.
• 1:43:35
  But he has been speaking out and he's featured.
• 1:43:37
  He's one of the main characters in The Greater Good.
• 1:43:41
  And so I've known him now for, gosh, I don't know.
• 1:43:44
  I think the first time I interviewed him was probably in 2008 or nine.
• 1:43:48
  So it's been quite a long time.
• 1:43:50
  And he's just, I just have so much respect for him because he's just done so much to honor mothers and fathers and to lend his professional weight to this.
• 1:44:04
  Not because he was just doing it, but because he didn't know.
• 1:44:08
  And he had the intellectual honesty and integrity to learn and to then speak out.
• 1:44:12
  And you got to give the guy a huge amount of credit.
• 1:44:15
  Intellectual honesty, integrity and capability.
• 1:44:18
  And courage.
• 1:44:20
  All of those things.
• 1:44:21
  I will say I very frequently run into trouble with doctors because for most of them through no fault of their own, they are taught medicine as if Darwin never published, right?
• 1:44:33
  Medicine as we practice it today is a evolutionary, which is a terrible mistake because if there's one thing that health is, it is fundamentally the product of evolutionary process that you have disrupted.
• 1:44:48
  And the question is, how do you get it back to the place where the body knows what to do, not what pillar you're going to take for the rest of your life.
• 1:44:55
  When I heard Larry speak, it was very clear that his medical understanding was based on a deep analytical model that was accurate enough that it didn't keep throwing errors for me as an evolutionary biologist, listening to his prescriptions for health and his way of thinking about disease and all of that.
• 1:45:16
  So anyway, I really, really liked what I heard and I agree with you.
• 1:45:20
  He has all of those strengths of character plus a very sharp mind.
• 1:45:23
  And so anyway, I look forward to having him on the podcast.
• 1:45:27
  Let's go back to, I know that the stories are intertwined in some way, the story of your movie and the story of your own awakening with respect to the hazards of vaccines.
• 1:45:45
  I smile because it's hard for me not to laugh, to think about where I was 25 years ago and where I am today.
• 1:45:51
  So I'm still working on Wall Street and I'm having, well, I need to even go back a little bit further.
• 1:45:56
  So I graduate from business school and I and a bunch of girlfriends, we're all graduating from business school.
• 1:46:03
  And we went and got, we were going to Southeast Asia for two months.
• 1:46:06
  And so one of our friends said, "Hey, don't forget to go and get your vaccines." And I would have never done it.
• 1:46:12
  It would have never crossed my mind, but I was like, "Oh, what a great idea.
• 1:46:14
  You're right.
• 1:46:15
  I wouldn't have thought of that." And I went over to the medical center and said, "Hey, I'm going to Southeast Asia.
• 1:46:21
  I need to get my shots." And I remember the nurse saying, "Well, what do you want?" And I'm like, "I don't know.
• 1:46:26
  What do you want to give me?" And I put my arms out like this.
• 1:46:29
  (Laughing) Oh my gosh, talk about the ignorance of babes.
• 1:46:38
  And I got 10 shots that day.
• 1:46:42
  Never crossed my mind.
• 1:46:43
  I got every tropical disease you can imagine, all the kids, vaccines, also, I mean, so many shots.
• 1:46:49
  Okay, so insane to get that number of shots, but all at once there is nobody on earth who knows what that's going to do.
• 1:46:57
  Oh my gosh.
• 1:46:58
  I mean, you're sending the immune system, all of these intensified messages all at one time.
• 1:47:04
  Like what does it think?
• 1:47:05
  You just got thrown in a sewer?
• 1:47:07
  And this is 1992 when vaccines were filled with mercury.
• 1:47:13
  Okay, so I- So you're like a walking thermometer.
• 1:47:16
  Yes, basically.
• 1:47:19
  And I've never been the same since.
• 1:47:21
  I've literally almost died in 2017.
• 1:47:25
  I was almost incapacitated.
• 1:47:28
  And I'm now better than I've been in decades, but I just slowly went off a cliff.
• 1:47:34
  That's what happened.
• 1:47:34
  Slowly went off a cliff.
• 1:47:36
  It just over the coming weeks, I just got sicker and sicker, but I'm gonna leave that aside.
• 1:47:41
  So that happened.
• 1:47:42
  I go to Southeast Asia.
• 1:47:43
  I come home.
• 1:47:44
  I started- So you did not know that it was the vaccine.
• 1:47:46
  I had no idea because it didn't happen within two, and you know what?
• 1:47:51
  Walter Orenstein, who used to be the head of the CDC that I interviewed him, asked him, how often do people know that a vaccine is actually what caused an injury to them?
• 1:48:02
  And he said, if it happens outside of the first 48 hours, they don't connect it.
• 1:48:07
  He admitted that to me on camera, that unless a vaccine injury happens within 48 hours, the person doesn't know that it could be a problem.
• 1:48:17
  And the injury compensation table has injuries that happen way after that.
• 1:48:23
  So they know, the pharmaceutical industry knows, the federal health authorities know that these vaccine injuries and deaths can happen much later, but the public doesn't.
• 1:48:33
  And the physicians don't inform the people, the patients, the recipients of these things.
• 1:48:38
  So I didn't connect the dots until the middle of making the movie.
• 1:48:41
  And then during that, I had an experience where this woman who's the mother of a boy with autism, and we were meeting with them, he was potentially, they were gonna potentially give us a donation for the film.
• 1:48:54
  And we were meeting with them and she just a throw away in my remark, I wish I had known what vaccine injury was when I got all my travel vaccines, because I was never the same afterwards.
• 1:49:07
  And if I had known, I probably wouldn't have vaccinated my son, who's now severely autistic.
• 1:49:12
  And I was like, oh my gosh.
• 1:49:18
  Everything started at that time.
• 1:49:20
  That's when it happened.
• 1:49:21
  I developed food allergies, my digestion shut down, I developed numbness and tingling, severe headaches, chronic fatigue.
• 1:49:31
  I mean, there were times, I mean, I was like, we tested, there was a time that they thought I had bone marrow cancer, maybe multiple sclerosis, Hashimoto's, like you can't imagine the cascade of chronic debilitating injuries that I suffered.
• 1:49:51
  Well, let me just say, as a biologist thinking of this biologically, you've had something like 10 vaccines at one time.
• 1:50:03
  They contain antigens that are supposed to inform the immune system, and they contain agitators of the immune system.
• 1:50:14
  So the immune system goes on high alert.
• 1:50:16
  They're supposed to be given one at a time so that the agitate, so if you were to do this as smartly as possible, you could give 10 antigens and one adjuvant so that the immune system would be on alert and it would see 10 different things.
• 1:50:33
  That would be, it's still insane, but it would at least be a plausible program.
• 1:50:41
  What they did to you was they gave you 10 things that were supposed to be given independently.
• 1:50:45
  Therefore, giving you 10 accelerants of your immune system.
• 1:50:49
  So your immune system, it's like you, you know, you just put a huge dose of methamphetamine in the cornflakes of every soldier in your military, and suddenly, you know, everybody is looking for the enemy and firing randomly.
• 1:51:10
  So what I'm imagining is that your immune system thought that, you know, somebody had launched the nukes because it just suddenly saw these foreign particles and was on the highest alert ever and probably attacked your own tissues.
• 1:51:25
  And because the nature of the immune system is that it has to be everywhere in your body to protect your entire body, the point is all of your tissues were suspect.
• 1:51:34
  Yeah, the worst part is the myelin sheath, the nerves, that I have like hypersensitivity in my nervous system.
• 1:51:41
  So I also developed sound sensitivity, light sensitivity, and multiple chemical sensitivity.
• 1:51:47
  So I mean, I am sure I got a whopping dose of mercury.
• 1:51:51
  That's one of the big issues, right?
• 1:51:53
  So it was a mercury toxicity, and then all the antigens, all these things.
• 1:51:57
  Anyway, I got really sick, but it just slowly, I was just like a slow train wreck, slow moving train wreck, slow motion train wreck.
• 1:52:04
  It was terrible, but what were we before?
• 1:52:08
  I was saying something.
• 1:52:10
  You had gone off to Southeast Asia and gotten your vaccines.
• 1:52:14
  Oh, how I got into the- You were making the movie and the offhanded comment by one of your interviewees that she wished she had known about the hazard of the travel vaccine caused you to put 200 together.
• 1:52:25
  So that's when I connected the dots for me.
• 1:52:26
  But if you go back even further, so I'm still working on Wall Street, I'm sick.
• 1:52:30
  I don't know what's wrong with me.
• 1:52:32
  And I've never had a sinus infection in my life, and I develop more than a dozen in three years.
• 1:52:39
  And I keep going on antibiotics.
• 1:52:41
  I develop walking pneumonia.
• 1:52:42
  I've never had pneumonia in my life.
• 1:52:44
  And I finally go to my doctor and he's this, you know, like very kind of highbrow doctor in London.
• 1:52:49
  I'm living in London.
• 1:52:50
  I lived there for 10 years.
• 1:52:51
  And I just said, you know, listen, what the heck?
• 1:52:54
  Why am I so sick all the time?
• 1:52:56
  What is wrong with me?
• 1:52:57
  I'd been a triathlete, Bret.
• 1:52:58
  I mean, I was ripped when I was younger.
• 1:53:01
  I was doing half Ironmans, you know, like- Yeah, the real deal.
• 1:53:06
  I could kick a lot of guys' butts on a mountain bike, on a bike running.
• 1:53:11
  I could keep up with the guys.
• 1:53:12
  I played on the men's soccer team at home.
• 1:53:14
  Like I was, you know, I was no Wallflower, or what do they call it?
• 1:53:20
  Wilting, what is it?
• 1:53:23
  It's not a lily, but you know what I mean.
• 1:53:25
  I was so Wilting Flower, anyway.
• 1:53:26
  Yeah, well, we'll come up with it in a few minutes.
• 1:53:29
  Okay, so I'm, and then all of a sudden, I just am weak, tired, sick, struggling, chronic fatigue.
• 1:53:38
  Like everything is just, everything's a job.
• 1:53:40
  And I'm working at Goldman Sachs, which is intense, and I'm up early and you know, all this stuff.
• 1:53:44
  But anyway, I go and see the doctor and he says, he does all these tests on me and he says, you know what?
• 1:53:49
  Okay, you're low in a bunch of things, but nothing's out of range.
• 1:53:54
  And he said, I have to tell you something.
• 1:53:56
  I know you're sick.
• 1:53:58
  You know you're sick, but I can't help you.
• 1:54:03
  Western medicine can't help you.
• 1:54:04
  I think you should see a homeopath or an acupuncturist.
• 1:54:08
  And I was like, I'd actually, because I developed all these food allergies, I'd heard about this acupuncture technique that treats the food allergies.
• 1:54:16
  And so I started doing that.
• 1:54:18
  And so I asked my acupuncturist, do you know a good homeopath?
• 1:54:21
  And in Britain, for your listeners who don't know, homeopathy is on the National Health Service in Switzerland.
• 1:54:28
  There, when I lived in London, I don't know if it's still there, but there was a homeopathic hospital in the middle of London.
• 1:54:35
  Actually, there were 100 homeopathic hospitals in the United States at the turning of the 20th century.
• 1:54:41
  And there were 20 homeopathic medical schools in the United States, which taught all the mainstream medicine and homeopathy.
• 1:54:48
  So all of the homeopaths were medical doctors too.
• 1:54:52
  But so I'm living in London.
• 1:54:54
  And the point is that in Europe, homeopathy is far more pervasive.
• 1:54:58
  There was not the full throttle attack on homeopathy, homeopathy that occurred in the United States in the 20th century.
• 1:55:06
  So it was far more pervasive.
• 1:55:07
  You would go into any local drug store on the corner, and there would be homeopathic remedies, displays, and creams, and all these different kinds of things.
• 1:55:15
  And so it was kind of there in the back of my mind, but I'm like, oh, you know, whatever.
• 1:55:19
  So maybe, maybe not, but it's very common.
• 1:55:22
  And I asked the acupuncture, she said, I think you, I know this really great homeopath.
• 1:55:28
  You should go and see her.
• 1:55:29
  So I signed up for her to go and see this woman.
• 1:55:32
  And I waited like three months to get into see her.
• 1:55:36
  But before I got into see her, I went on a ski trip and I got hit by somebody and I had this huge bruise on my bum.
• 1:55:44
  And it was the color of an eggplant and a giant, like a pomelo size piece of fruit, but it was the color of an eggplant and it wouldn't go away for a month.
• 1:55:54
  And so I just on a whim went into the drugstore and bought Arnica cream and smeared it on one quarter of the bruise that night after it not moving for 30 days.
• 1:56:06
  And eight hours later when I woke up and pulled up my jammy shorts and looked at my bruise, the one quarter where I'd smeared the Arnica cream was totally natural normal looking skin color.
• 1:56:17
  And the rest of the bruise, just like a perfect Pac-Man, was exactly the same color of purple that it had been the night before.
• 1:56:24
  And I was like, whoa, there's something to this.
• 1:56:29
  So that is what, and then I went and saw the homeopath and ultimately enrolled in homeopathy school in while I was managing, a director and not just on wall street, but I was the boss of the London office, the whole European growth business.
• 1:56:45
  And so I roll in homeopathy school because it's so shocking.
• 1:56:49
  And the very first day during orientation, this the guy who's leading it, he says, we're gonna learn about all these different aspects of health over the next three or four years.
• 1:57:02
  We're gonna learn about the mind-body connection.
• 1:57:04
  We're gonna learn about obstacles to cure.
• 1:57:06
  We're gonna learn about vaccine damage.
• 1:57:09
  And I raised my hand, this is September of 2001.
• 1:57:12
  And I said, excuse me, but vaccines are the greatest invention of mankind.
• 1:57:19
  And he just sort of smirked and shook his head like silly, silly little thing.
• 1:57:24
  He's like, well, that's one perspective but we're gonna learn another.
• 1:57:27
  And I remember crossing my arms, sitting back in my chair and just being, shaking my head and thinking to myself, this guy is a nut job.
• 1:57:37
  And after the class, I went out, there was a break after the orientation period.
• 1:57:41
  And I went out and there was spread out on a card table, a bookstore and the bookstore had a bunch of different books.
• 1:57:49
  And one of them was Neil Z.
• 1:57:51
  Miller's book, "Vaccines, Are They Really Safe and Effective?" And he's like, read that book.
• 1:57:55
  And I got that book and I took it home and I read that book.
• 1:57:59
  And then I cried for three days, for three days.
• 1:58:05
  All right, well, obviously my story is embarrassing because it's so much later.
• 1:58:11
  I didn't, you know, in 2020, as COVID is dawning, Heather and I are finishing our book.
• 1:58:20
  So it was released in 2020.
• 1:58:21
  And in that book, we do say that vaccines are one of the three great triumphs of modern medicine.
• 1:58:27
  The other two being antibiotics and surgery.
• 1:58:30
  And so anyway, I'm sort of glad it's in there.
• 1:58:34
  Although, you know, I sort of wish there was a new edition in which we could note, hey, here's one of two paragraphs but we don't stand behind anymore.
• 1:58:42
  But nonetheless, the point is I'm glad that it marks a moment in time and the strength of belief because now when I say to people, no, I wouldn't give my children a single one of those things if I had it to do over.
• 1:58:54
  And I believe that both of my children have injuries, one of them more severe than the other, neither of them severe compared to what some people are going through.
• 1:59:01
  But, you know, basically allergies that these kids shouldn't have, allergies with consequences.
• 1:59:07
  But anyway, the point is, okay, so my awakening happens much later and the process of awakening, once, you know, once you decide actually the evidence is so strong, I'm now going to endure the slanders of somebody who's not a vaccine enthusiast anymore.
• 1:59:23
  And so now I've been through that and you know, it's survivable.
• 1:59:27
  But you start to be opened up to all sorts of things.
• 1:59:32
  Heather is the result of her boat injury has explored all kinds of things in the alternative medicine space, many of which didn't do a damn thing.
• 1:59:41
  Osteopathy worked really well.
• 1:59:44
  She found a very good osteopath.
• 1:59:45
  So anyway, that opened our eyes to the fact that allopathic medicine wasn't the only approach even to, you know, physical injury.
• 1:59:54
  The last rung, you know, again, lots of things didn't work for Heather and there are lots of quackery out there, I think from any perspective we would acknowledge that.
• 2:00:06
  Homeopathy has been a hard sell because of course, there's the issue of, if you tell me that the way homeopathy works is that you take something that has a physiological power to impact the body and then you dilute it down till it's undetectable, then I feel like you've told me, hey, there's no mechanism of action here.
• 2:00:30
  And so I think, well, it's not the worst thing in the world, at least it's not poisonous, but you know, maybe this is the placebo effect.
• 2:00:38
  I happen to know, because I've researched the placebo effect that the placebo effect has no capacity to improve objective measures of health, but it does a lot for subjective measures.
• 2:00:47
  Maybe that's what homeopathy is.
• 2:00:49
  Okay, this is a long way of saying that I am in the process of waking up to the fact that there's something going on in homeopathy space.
• 2:00:56
  And I'm again going to endure the slanders of, oh, I guess you're a quack, you're a scientist, you know, a lightweight, blah, blah, blah, because you believe homeopathy might have something to it.
• 2:01:07
  Here's what I'm discovering.
• 2:01:10
  A, that I know a couple of homeopaths now, and you're both very intelligent people who are very sober thinkers, who I can have a perfectly rational conversation on any one of a number of topics.
• 2:01:23
  And so I have a very hard time imagining that you suddenly, you know, gone loopy on this one.
• 2:01:29
  That doesn't seem likely to me.
• 2:01:31
  You know, second, you paid your own prior, you're on Wall Street, you're the boss, and you're studying homeopathy, you know, that has to have not gone over too well with a lot of the people who must have, you know, thought all sorts of things about you.
• 2:01:46
  But the other thing is, I know a lot of doctors who are not homeopaths.
• 2:01:50
  The doctors I do respect, the ones who performed well during COVID, who do not dismiss homeopathy at all, right?
• 2:01:57
  So there are a lot of indicators that there's something over there that I'm gonna have to accept is actually not only, not harmful, but mechanistically useful in the hands of somebody who knows what they're doing.
• 2:02:11
  The other thing I'm coming to understand is that whatever else is true, I am definitely living downstream of a psyop designed to convince me that homeopathy is nothing, right?
• 2:02:23
  The fact that there was a sober medical literature on that there were schools that taught this, that societies have made large investments in homeopathic medicine, it could be that that's all about nonsense, but it doesn't sound like it.
• 2:02:40
  What it sounds like is one of the competing branches of medicine, in this case, allopathic medicine, targeted homeopathy in the same way that it targeted osteopathy, or maybe more intensely, and created a bony picture for those of us who, had the normal experience.
• 2:03:01
  It doesn't sound like it could work.
• 2:03:03
  And if you become curious about it, what you find is a wall of, this is an eye rolling, laughable modality, it means nothing, the ultimate woo woo, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
• 2:03:16
  You run into that, and the point is, it tends to discourage you from digging further.
• 2:03:21
  Whereas if you found, if you dug further, you'd find the history of this thing, how it came to be, who discovered it, what their process was, what their data looked like.
• 2:03:32
  So anyway, you're catching me in the point where I still have a little trouble imagining how it could possibly have the kind of power that many people that I trust suggest that it does.
• 2:03:43
  So, I've heard that a million times, as you can probably imagine, and yeah, I mean, I was, you know, for me, I have to say this, this is really important for me to share is that, you know, I was working on Wall Street and it was destroying my soul.
• 2:04:01
  In fact, I've shared the story with some people before, but basically I came home one year, and I'm pretty sure it was 2000, it might've been 2001, but I was standing in front of the refrigerator, opened the refrigerator door, and my husband said, "Oh, hey, did you get your bonus today?" And I said, "Yeah, I did." And I just, he's like, "Well, what was it?" And I told him and I started crying, and he's like,"What's wrong?" It was the biggest bonus I ever got, and it was more money than I ever thought I would make in my life, you know?
• 2:04:37
  And I said, I told him, and he was just like, "Are you disappointed?" And I was like, "No, I'm empty.
• 2:04:45
  I'm empty.
• 2:04:47
  I have all the so-called trappings of success, money, position, power, and I'm playing for the wrong team.
• 2:04:55
  It's literally crushing my soul, and I can't do this anymore.
• 2:05:00
  I can't do it." And that was before I learned about the vaccine issue.
• 2:05:10
  And when I learned about the vaccine issue, I took that book the next weekend to Homeopathy School, and I went in and I was half screaming and half crying at the president of the college.
• 2:05:19
  "How can this be true?" And she just shrugged her shoulders like, sorry to burst your little worldview, Missy, but money, power, and I was just like, "But if this is true, it means they're knowingly injuring and killing our most vulnerable." And she was like,"Yes," and that's why I cried for days.
• 2:05:37
  I was just like,"Ah." And in that moment, I felt called.
• 2:05:42
  I knew that one day I was going to make a movie on vaccines, and unfortunately, naively believed that I was going to wake all sorts of people up and rectify this problem, but at least I woke up, tons of people.
• 2:05:54
  I can't tell you I've had thousands of people come up to me and say,"Your movie saved my children.
• 2:05:58
  Your movie changed my life." And that movie is so accessible, and it's more relevant today than it was back in 2011, because now you had to kind of be on the edge and asking questions.
• 2:06:11
  Back then, way more people are asking questions, and they've now seen COVID, and so they have a reference point.
• 2:06:16
  There's some kind of visceral capacity now to understand it and to accept it, and so it was very different.
• 2:06:22
  But anyway, so I just knew I had to get the heck out of there back in, you know, and this was just, I just said to myself,"I'm playing for the wrong team.
• 2:06:31
  I've got to change my life," and so I did, and then everything just kind of opened up, and then the homeopathy thing.
• 2:06:38
  So yes, I was ridiculed and disparaged, and people thought I was in that job, and I can tell you that I raised my family exclusively on homeopathy, and I've seen Croupp resolved in 15 minutes with a homeopathic remedy, with two doses of a homeopathic remedy, and, you know, people say, "Well, how can something that is, that there's nothing there?" Well, we don't know that there's nothing there.
• 2:07:03
  We just haven't been able to measure it, and actually, Luke Montagnier, Nobel Prize winner, did measure something and was able to discern about 20 years ago that there's a difference between different potencies or dilutions of the same remedy, so that's very interesting.
• 2:07:18
  He could measure something different in those two, and also different remedies.
• 2:07:22
  He could measure something different.
• 2:07:23
  So there is something there.
• 2:07:24
  We just don't fully understand it, and then the next thing I have to say is, sharks can smell a drop of blood five miles away in the ocean.
• 2:07:33
  Yep.
• 2:07:34
  Yep.
• 2:07:35
  Protons stimulated five miles apart split in two respond simultaneously.
• 2:07:42
  Life is far more complex than we understand, and so just because we can't explain it or understand it, doesn't mean it doesn't work, and I can just, I am a living, breathing, and so is my family.
• 2:07:52
  I mean, my husband doesn't get strep throat anymore since homeopathy.
• 2:07:55
  Well, I'll say a couple things in defense of homeopathy here.
• 2:08:00
  One, I agree with you 100%.
• 2:08:03
  I would actually, 100% on your point about the fact that we don't have a mechanism for action or a complete story about how that might work means very little, and I would point people to a piece written by the anonymous doctor, Midwestern doctor, where she is, or he, I don't know, the person's anonymous, she or he or whatever, wrote an article discussing the question of vaccine shedding, and Midwestern doctor's point, which is right on target, scientifically speaking, is if you've got a measurable pattern that doesn't have a plausible mechanism of action, the right position for you is then I would like to figure out a plausible mechanism for action, not this can't be true because I can't think of how it works.
• 2:08:57
  So on the one hand, that's just where we are.
• 2:08:59
  This is either a demonstrable, valuable form of medicine or it isn't.
• 2:09:05
  That's an empirical question, and the fact that the mechanism of action strains the mind just means if it turns out that it works, then the question is okay, how?
• 2:09:15
  That'd be good to know.
• 2:09:16
  Some people characterize it as nanomedicine, so maybe that's what it is.
• 2:09:19
  Maybe there are nanoparticles that do something.
• 2:09:21
  I don't know, but keep going.
• 2:09:22
  Well, let's just say, first of all, let's take acupuncture, acupuncture is a, I don't know how far back it goes, but at least a thousand years.
• 2:09:31
  2000.
• 2:09:32
  2000.
• 2:09:32
  Maybe longer.
• 2:09:33
  Okay.
• 2:09:34
  The mechanism of action that describes how acupuncture works does not match anything that science has revealed about the body.
• 2:09:42
  There is no chi that we can interrupt with needles.
• 2:09:46
  Makes no goddamn difference.
• 2:09:47
  You can tell because an ancient society has invested in this thing every generation, that it's real and that chi is a metaphor for something that we cannot describe in literal terms, but who cares?
• 2:10:02
  The fact is actually lots of people do get a benefit from acupuncture, however, it works in our Western terms, even if we never find out.
• 2:10:15
  With respect to homeopathy, because the textbook that we learned chemistry from describes water, it describes water as a special material.
• 2:10:33
  The fact that water becomes less dense when it freezes is unique, it's a special material that actually has important implications for life in the sense that a pond doesn't freeze from the bottom up, it freezes from the top down, which allows things to live in a pond, even though it's frozen over.
• 2:10:49
  It's a marvelous substance, but the point is, it is also an interestingly unstable substance in the sense that in its liquid form, the negative and positive tails are attracted to each other, but they can't all be attracted to each other and stick because that's the ice form.
• 2:11:12
  So the point is, given enough kinetic energy, the attractions are bouncing back and forth, and so it does have a kind of capacity for patterns to flow through in the electromagnetic attractions.
• 2:11:24
  And what I'm getting at is, if I listen to the story that Homeopaths tell about what's there, that it is basically imbuing the water with some sort of a pattern, that strains credulity for me, but it doesn't, it's not impossible, right?
• 2:11:42
  That actually there is something.
• 2:11:43
  And furthermore, if I think about what I know about how the body works, body is a set of homeostatic mechanisms that function through negative feedback, which is to say they function like a thermostat, which turns on your air conditioner if the temperature goes up above a certain number and turns on your heater, if it goes below a certain number.
• 2:12:06
  And the basic point is it's a system that just returns itself to a baseline.
• 2:12:11
  And disease happens when you escape the ability of the system to return you to baseline.
• 2:12:17
  So if that's what disease fundamentally is, then the idea, and I think I got this from you in discussing what homeopathy is, homeopathy takes something from the fact that certain...
• 2:12:30
  Poisons.
• 2:12:32
  Not always poisons though.
• 2:12:33
  Okay, certain-- It could be sea salt.
• 2:12:34
  Certain disrupt, well sea salt and enough-- I know, but my point is there are lots of remedies made from plants.
• 2:12:39
  It could be from chamomile or from-- Sure.
• 2:12:42
  There are all sorts of things that you have remedies from, it's not only poison.
• 2:12:45
  When I say poison, I don't mean anything as extreme as you think because I happen to know that nature is full of medicines, every single one of which, or almost every single one of which was produced by the creature that made it as a poison to dissuade herbivores.
• 2:12:57
  Yes, exactly.
• 2:12:58
  So there are lots of poisons out there that are marvelous.
• 2:13:01
  The spices that we use, we're taking things that are poison in one context and using just enough of them to enliven our food or whatever.
• 2:13:09
  But point being, even the story that homea passed themselves tell, I think is closer to a plausible mechanism than the Chi story is for acupuncture.
• 2:13:23
  And again, I'm not throwing any shade at acupuncture.
• 2:13:26
  I think acupuncture works for reasons we don't understand in a Western sense, but I think there is a mechanism there.
• 2:13:32
  We just can't describe it.
• 2:13:34
  The idea that a molecule introduced in large numbers to water disrupts the water electromagnetically in some sort of pattern, that's actually standard chemistry.
• 2:13:47
  The fact that as you distill it out, that it may leave behind some tendency, you know, if you go skiing, I know you're a skier, moguls are made by skiers.
• 2:14:01
  They are the result of the fact that once skiers have started to disrupt a hill in a particular way, it tends to schedule the way later skiers go down the same hill.
• 2:14:10
  And so they tend to build up hills here and troughs there.
• 2:14:13
  And you get this, you know, like fish scale pattern of bumps.
• 2:14:18
  So that's not magical thinking.
• 2:14:20
  That's just a fact of this pattern that gets left behind on a hill by skiers who have gone to lunch, you know?
• 2:14:29
  So what I'm saying is if I think about homeostasis, and I think about the idea that homeopathy takes a material that in high doses causes a pattern of disruption that is reminiscent of the diseases that a tiny amount of it is then useful in treating, I'm not saying this is the mechanism by which it works, but I can imagine a mechanism in which a homeostatic process has been driven out of the parameters that can be returned to baseline and that the addition of something that has left a resonance that interfaces with that system could recalibrate, right?
• 2:15:09
  Like, I mean...
• 2:15:12
  Here's a good example, okay?
• 2:15:14
  Women, if they, I mean, my two best friends and I, while we were in high school, we didn't even live together, but in high school, our body synchronized and we all got our periods within 24 hours of each other for two years.
• 2:15:28
  How does that happen?
• 2:15:29
  We don't know.
• 2:15:31
  Right.
• 2:15:31
  And how does, I don't know how many molecules of homeopathic remedy remain in the dilution that we're using for any treatment, but I don't think it matters because it's been proven that it works.
• 2:15:47
  That's what really matters to me.
• 2:15:48
  And that's the only thing that should matter to us is are the tests that say it works valid tests.
• 2:15:54
  And that's the thing.
• 2:15:55
  So this is while the public is told all the time, oh, homeopathy is quackery and there's no science to it.
• 2:16:01
  There are actually hundreds of studies demonstrating that it works, but most importantly, the way that it was invented was nothing short of revolutionary from a scientific basis.
• 2:16:13
  Samuel Hahnemann was a German physician in the late 18th century who was horrified that he was injuring and killing his patients by giving them, letting their blood and painting their throats with mercury and arsenic and all these other things and putting mercury creams on them and all stuff.
• 2:16:33
  And he's like, we're assuming all these things about what's going on because the person has ill humor, we would say.
• 2:16:39
  The humors are out of balance.
• 2:16:40
  Something's going on.
• 2:16:41
  We need to, and so we need to like drain their blood.
• 2:16:44
  We need to do this and that.
• 2:16:45
  And he basically got to the point where he said, first do no harm.
• 2:16:49
  I can't engage in this anymore.
• 2:16:51
  And so he literally renounced medicine as it was in 1790 or so.
• 2:16:59
  And he just said, I can't do this anymore.
• 2:17:01
  And so he was a brilliant man who spoke and could read and write in eight languages.
• 2:17:08
  And he started translating different kinds of scientific papers, research papers that people were wanting published and wanted translated into different languages.
• 2:17:19
  And so we did it and somebody sent him a paper about cinchona, which is Peruvian bark.
• 2:17:26
  And it's where quinine is derived from.
• 2:17:28
  And quinine is used to treat malaria.
• 2:17:30
  And the researcher posited in his paper that the reason that this quinine worked was because it's astringent.
• 2:17:40
  And Hahnemann thought to himself, well, that can't be right.
• 2:17:42
  As he was translating the paper, I can't believe that that's what the mechanism of action is because there are lots of things that are astringent and nobody argues that they cure or treat malaria.
• 2:17:53
  So he brewed up his own tea of the Peruvian bark and he started giving it to himself and he developed all the symptoms of malaria.
• 2:18:02
  And he was like, wait a second, I'm a healthy person.
• 2:18:06
  I take this stuff and it causes malaria, but these people, all the symptoms of malaria, but physicians are giving it to sick people and says it's ameliorating the symptoms.
• 2:18:18
  Like what's going on here?
• 2:18:19
  And it made him start thinking.
• 2:18:21
  So then what he did was he started to very systematically test substances by scientifically systematically diluting them in a very, very scheduled and prescribed methodology.
• 2:18:39
  And then he would give these homeopathic remedies to healthy people, but they didn't know what they were getting.
• 2:18:46
  The person who gave them the remedy and the person who was documenting whatever symptoms the patient reported didn't know.
• 2:18:55
  The only person who knew anything was Samuel Hahnemann.
• 2:18:58
  And so over a period of about 50 so years, he developed truly the first scientific method, like a controlled study and he demonstrated.
• 2:19:10
  Is that the first double blind controlled trial?
• 2:19:15
  Well, it wasn't placebo controlled, but I believe it was the first double blind.
• 2:19:19
  So yes, it was controlled and that nobody knew except him.
• 2:19:23
  And then what would happen is, so the person who administered the homeopathy didn't know, the person who received it, the patient didn't know.
• 2:19:30
  And then the patient met with the scribe to tell them every thought they had, all the dreams, all the emotions, all the physical, my stomach hurt, I sprained my ankle, I got a headache, I couldn't sleep last night, I had insomnia, I had gas, whatever, just everything.
• 2:19:48
  They documented everything.
• 2:19:50
  And so he would have dozens of people do what were called proving, these were what he called proving.
• 2:19:55
  And to my knowledge, this was the first time anyone ever scientifically studied and tested substances to see what they would cause in a healthy person.
• 2:20:06
  And then conversely, what he found was what they caused in a healthy person because of his first experience with the Peruvian bark tea, what they caused in a healthy person they would treat in a sick person.
• 2:20:21
  So if you take cinchona bark, Peruvian bark, and it causes intermittent fever and night sweats and things like that, the homeopathic version of it, China, aficionados, will treat those symptoms when you're sick.
• 2:20:40
  So you have night sweats, you have intermittent fevers, you have delirium, you take China and it's gonna help you have malaria, you take it and it will treat those symptoms.
• 2:20:49
  And what's really even more compelling than all this, so he literally did this very systematically for 50 years on his family and friends and anybody and everybody.
• 2:20:59
  And he conducted all these proveings, very scientific, meticulously documented.
• 2:21:04
  And then he, oh gosh, what was I just gonna say?
• 2:21:09
  Just lost my train of thought.
• 2:21:15
  So he did these proveings.
• 2:21:16
  Yeah.
• 2:21:17
  And he invented the double blind, you think he invented the double blind aspect of a double blind sleep control trials, but not placebo controlled, and demonstrated that that which causes a pattern of symptoms when given to a healthy person treats a sick person with that pattern of symptoms.
• 2:21:40
  Exactly.
• 2:21:41
  And then he proved it out, I remember what I was gonna say.
• 2:21:44
  He didn't just do it to individuals, he then started treating the sick and he would have lines of people at his door.
• 2:21:51
  And he treated heads of state and royalty all over Europe and was huge, it was booming.
• 2:21:59
  He treated cholera, typhoid, malaria, scarlet fever, yellow fever, far superior outcomes to anything that the medical doctors were doing, far superior.
• 2:22:11
  He was having very, very, some homeopaths, some of his proteges never lost a single patient in their entire careers, whereas other mainstream doctors were losing 10, 20, 30, 40% of their patients in these disease outbreaks.
• 2:22:29
  So he didn't just do it on an individual basis, he also proved that it worked in epidemics.
• 2:22:34
  And then what happened, it was brought to the United States and in 1843, the very first medical association ever founded in the United States, the American Institute of Homeopathy was created.
• 2:22:46
  And in response to that in 1846, the American Medical Association was created to fight back against the homeopaths and they won out, not because it worked better, that wasn't why, it was because of money and power.
• 2:22:59
  Yeah, interesting.
• 2:23:03
  When you treat somebody, is the success rate, when you see somebody's pattern of symptoms and you think, aha, I know what the right substance is to give them the homeopathic remedy.
• 2:23:23
  What fraction of the time do you see a market improvement?
• 2:23:28
  I have two answers to that, okay?
• 2:23:29
  There are two kinds, two kind of major kinds of homeopathy and one is much bigger than the other, but there's classical homeopathy, which was what Hahnemann did in his early years and then he kind of branched out a little bit in his latter years.
• 2:23:45
  And that is the idea that every single thing that's going on in you is unique and you need a unique individualized prescription for a remedy, okay?
• 2:23:54
  So you need a homeopathic medicine and there could be 3,000 medicines that treat migraines, for instance, or headaches, okay?
• 2:24:02
  And so the homeopath has to find the right one that matches your symptoms.
• 2:24:05
  Is it on the vertex?
• 2:24:07
  Is it occipital?
• 2:24:08
  Is it on one of the sides?
• 2:24:10
  Does it radiate to behind your eye?
• 2:24:12
  Like how does it work?
• 2:24:13
  Is it centered behind your sinuses?
• 2:24:15
  You know, like all these things, okay?
• 2:24:16
  So that's what a classical homeopath would do.
• 2:24:18
  Look at the kind of totality of the symptoms.
• 2:24:22
  Many classical will also take in the mental-emotional picture.
• 2:24:25
  Are you restless?
• 2:24:26
  Are you like pacing back and forth?
• 2:24:28
  Can you not get comfortable?
• 2:24:29
  Are you, you know, all of these things.
• 2:24:32
  That's classical homeopathy and that's what most people practice.
• 2:24:35
  But there's this new and growing type of homeopathy that's more, it's called practical homeopathy.
• 2:24:45
  And it was developed essentially by a family in India of homeopaths for five generations.
• 2:24:52
  I think it was like 150 years of homeopathy the Banerjee's have done.
• 2:24:56
  Banerjee is a very common name in India.
• 2:24:59
  So if you're gonna look up the Banerjee's you need to look up the Banerjee Research.
• 2:25:05
  I think it's the Prasanta Banerjee Research Foundation.
• 2:25:09
  They are medically trained doctors who act as homeopaths. 300 million people in India use homeopathy.
• 2:25:15
  It's part of the health service.
• 2:25:17
  In fact, India told patients to use homeopathy during COVID.
• 2:25:22
  Okay.
• 2:25:23
  They had a fraction of the problems that we did.
• 2:25:27
  And-- So I'm imagining that the homeopathic remedy for COVID would involve a very high dilution of Anthony Fauci.
• 2:25:35
  Cause COVID, so just a little bit.
• 2:25:39
  Am I on the right track?
• 2:25:40
  With a little pull off it.
• 2:25:42
  Oh God.
• 2:25:43
  And what's his face?
• 2:25:44
  Collins, Francis Collins and Debbie Birxman.
• 2:25:48
  Enter scar.
• 2:25:50
  Sorry, I interrupted your role.
• 2:25:52
  You were telling me about practical homeopathy.
• 2:25:55
  So the Banerjee's, what they did was they would treat, and I'm not getting you a thousand people a day in their clinic, okay?
• 2:26:01
  They still do.
• 2:26:03
  A thousand people a day.
• 2:26:04
  And they did this for decades.
• 2:26:05
  In fact, they first started 150 years ago.
• 2:26:08
  And what they did was they meticulously documented every single case that they had.
• 2:26:15
  And what remedy worked and didn't.
• 2:26:17
  They have had unbelievable success at dealing with cancers of all kinds.
• 2:26:21
  Unbelievable.
• 2:26:22
  And that's what really made them famous initially.
• 2:26:24
  But what they did was they developed protocols.
• 2:26:28
  They said that in 80% of people, this remedy or combination of remedies treats-- This pattern.
• 2:26:36
  This pattern.
• 2:26:37
  And if that doesn't work, then, or maybe it's 90%, 85, 80, 85%.
• 2:26:42
  If that doesn't work, then the second line remedy that we have found will work.
• 2:26:47
  And if that doesn't work, the third one will work.
• 2:26:49
  So they developed protocols.
• 2:26:50
  And so I can come at it from both angles because I'm actually classically trained and practically trained.
• 2:26:57
  I've done both.
• 2:26:58
  And so when using practical, I will notice that it affects most people, okay?
• 2:27:08
  Like it's very, very high.
• 2:27:10
  If it doesn't, then I dip into my constitutional, homeopathy training.
• 2:27:17
  And I think to myself, wait, there's more going on here.
• 2:27:19
  Let me take into this.
• 2:27:20
  I think it fixed this pattern, this remedy pattern better.
• 2:27:23
  So they say that a successful homeopaths will successfully treat 80% of their patients.
• 2:27:31
  Some are far lower than that.
• 2:27:33
  Some are far higher than that.
• 2:27:34
  So some are just really profoundly successful.
• 2:27:37
  And the Banerjee's were unbelievably successful.
• 2:27:39
  They would treat a thousand patients a day, documented it all.
• 2:27:43
  And then they developed these protocols so they could actually meet with people and they'd be like, okay, try this for three months.
• 2:27:49
  It doesn't work in three months, come back and we'll give you the second line.
• 2:27:52
  And they also discovered that they're treating somebody for, oh, I forget what was the condition.
• 2:27:56
  They were treating somebody for some other internal condition.
• 2:28:01
  And somebody came back and said, hey doc, my frozen shoulder healed.
• 2:28:06
  It's gone.
• 2:28:08
  And then they started trying it out.
• 2:28:09
  And lo and behold, the frozen shoulder was healed.
• 2:28:12
  This is how they actually learned what worked for this huge spectrum.
• 2:28:17
  They've published a book on it, but this huge spectrum of maladies and they've published a book on it.
• 2:28:21
  And so I've learned thousands of protocols now too, and have those.
• 2:28:26
  And so if I'm helping someone with say allergies or something, it's a very high success rate.
• 2:28:31
  Sore throats, super high success rate.
• 2:28:33
  The harder things are longer term, deeper chronic.
• 2:28:38
  I'll tell you, I have a family member who had a stroke in February of this year.
• 2:28:42
  I flew to Colorado to be with them.
• 2:28:44
  Splitting headache.
• 2:28:45
  The doctors are like, there's nothing we can do.
• 2:28:47
  I gave one dose of a remedy and 20 minutes later, my headache's almost gone less.
• 2:28:54
  One more dose, it was gone in another 20 minutes.
• 2:28:57
  Gone.
• 2:28:58
  And there was nothing that they could do.
• 2:28:59
  So in a case like that, it was very clear.
• 2:29:01
  This is a stroke headache.
• 2:29:04
  The remedy I gave was for strokes.
• 2:29:06
  It was an occipital headache.
• 2:29:08
  The remedy I gave was specifically for occipital headaches and then it had some other things.
• 2:29:12
  So my point is it was like a really strong match.
• 2:29:15
  Then your chances are super high.
• 2:29:18
  All right.
• 2:29:20
  By the way, I do know the reputational hit I'm going to take for taking homeopathy seriously.
• 2:29:26
  But I do because that's the pattern I see in front of me.
• 2:29:29
  That's my job.
• 2:29:30
  Listen, if there was nothing to homeopathy, they wouldn't have done everything they could for the last 170 years.
• 2:29:38
  They wouldn't have needed it.
• 2:29:39
  It's because it's a giant threat and it also is something else.
• 2:29:42
  And this is why I'm so passionate about it.
• 2:29:43
  It's not just because I'm a homeopath.
• 2:29:45
  It's not just because I raised my family.
• 2:29:47
  It's because it is liberation.
• 2:29:51
  Homeopathy puts power in your hands so you don't actually have to go to the doctor for a lot of things.
• 2:29:56
  So you're not afraid when your son wakes up with a fever.
• 2:30:00
  You think to yourself, okay, it's really red and hot.
• 2:30:03
  I'm probably going to give him balladonna.
• 2:30:05
  And then you'll see it resolved.
• 2:30:07
  Screaming earache or something like that.
• 2:30:09
  So it gives you the power.
• 2:30:10
  Of course, that doesn't mean that you never go to the doctor.
• 2:30:13
  But if you can treat it at home and they're getting better, why go to the doctor?
• 2:30:16
  And so this is the problem, right?
• 2:30:19
  It is true health freedom because it takes away the fear of most things and it empowers the parent to actually take charge of what's going on in the family, usually the mother.
• 2:30:29
  And so it's a real threat to the pharmaceutical industry.
• 2:30:33
  All right.
• 2:30:35
  I'm going to level a challenge at the skeptics here.
• 2:30:41
  And then I'm going to do my best to articulate a potential mechanism.
• 2:30:47
  Okay.
• 2:30:47
  I see something.
• 2:30:48
  It's not, it's 80% compelling to me at the moment, but it's not 100%.
• 2:30:54
  But anyway, it's still, I think, worth putting on the table.
• 2:30:56
  The challenge is this.
• 2:30:59
  If homeopathy is laughable, it is at least harmless.
• 2:31:04
  Okay, so here's the point.
• 2:31:06
  You're going to go to a doctor, eatrogenic harm kills, I don't know how many people, but it's one of the major causes of death in the Western world, right?
• 2:31:14
  40,000 people every single day are injured in American hospitals.
• 2:31:20
  Yep.
• 2:31:21
  And a study found that, what is it about?
• 2:31:25
  17, 18% of them are severely injured and 2.5% of them die.
• 2:31:29
  Okay.
• 2:31:30
  Every day.
• 2:31:30
  So that's allopathic medicine.
• 2:31:32
  In addition, you now know after COVID that the drug safety testing regimen, for lots of reasons, including the one that I found in grad school, but for lots of other reasons, because it's fraudulent, because there's a lot of money to be made, because drugs are inherently toxic and people make money selling them.
• 2:31:51
  They have an incentive to broaden the definitions of the conditions that justify them because they make more money when they do.
• 2:31:59
  For every reason, going to the doctor and doing what the doctor tells you to do is a gamble.
• 2:32:05
  Okay, it just is.
• 2:32:06
  Maybe it's worth it, but you're taking a gamble.
• 2:32:11
  You can't really laugh at people who would take the risk of going to a homeopath if what you're really saying is, I know enough about biology to know that that doesn't work.
• 2:32:23
  If so, the point is, well, at least that person didn't take the dumb risk that we all take when we go to the allopathic doctor.
• 2:32:30
  So I take it seriously because at the very least, okay, we've got two traditions.
• 2:32:36
  One isn't killing anybody.
• 2:32:38
  The other is killing a lot of people.
• 2:32:42
  I don't think it's obvious that going to the one that kills a lot of people is the smarter move to begin with.
• 2:32:46
  So taking this seriously, I think is a worthy thing.
• 2:32:48
  Now let's get to what I see as the mechanism.
• 2:32:53
  Can I just say one thing?
• 2:32:54
  I could also give you dozens of examples of what would be deemed by any thinking person as miracles, but they're real.
• 2:33:05
  I've seen them, my clients have seen them.
• 2:33:08
  You're talking about medical miracles as a result of allopathic treatment.
• 2:33:12
  Look at the bruise thing.
• 2:33:14
  Well, I have a high bar for the term miracle.
• 2:33:17
  I'm just saying, like from a medical standpoint, it's impossible for a quarter of a bruise to be gone overnight from smearing arnica cream on it.
• 2:33:25
  What could possibly happen?
• 2:33:26
  If there's nothing in the arnica.
• 2:33:29
  But anyway, and there's so many things.
• 2:33:31
  My point is, homeopaths could give you tens of thousands and there's science proving it too.
• 2:33:36
  And I hear these testimonials a lot.
• 2:33:38
  And I hear these testimonials frankly from allopathic doctors who have exited the insane system that trained them.
• 2:33:45
  And there's still the people that I would go to if I was seriously injured.
• 2:33:49
  So the fact that they're telling me they take it seriously tells me dismissing it in haste is a foolish thing to do.
• 2:33:57
  Okay, as far as mechanism goes, there's a little riff that I tend to give.
• 2:34:05
  This is one of my favorite sort of insights from my own training.
• 2:34:11
  Why is the forest full of medicines?
• 2:34:14
  I think this is just such a lovely question.
• 2:34:16
  Why are these plants producing medicines that work on animals?
• 2:34:20
  That's a weird thing for them to do.
• 2:34:22
  And the answer I think is just so elegant and beautiful simple to explain.
• 2:34:26
  It's like this.
• 2:34:31
  Plants are the true producers of the biological world.
• 2:34:37
  Everybody else is a thief, right?
• 2:34:39
  There are a few exceptions.
• 2:34:40
  There are some photosynthetic corals and things that use a symbiont.
• 2:34:46
  But basically all of the productivity of all of the biota is done by plants using sunlight to turn the sun's energy and atmospheric carbon into sugar and cellulose and the stuff of life and then the animals steal it.
• 2:35:06
  In that world, the plants have come up with an indefinite library of molecules to prevent animals from stealing from them.
• 2:35:20
  Because there are a lot of herbivores out there.
• 2:35:22
  So you may think, well, the lion's not an herbivore.
• 2:35:27
  Yeah, it is.
• 2:35:28
  It's just many orders down the line, right?
• 2:35:30
  It's eating a gazelle and the gazelle was eating the grass and the grass didn't want to be eaten because it's trying to survive too.
• 2:35:37
  So anyway, the point is, how do the plants prevent animals from consuming them?
• 2:35:46
  They poison them.
• 2:35:47
  How do they poison them?
• 2:35:48
  Well, every animal is a network of homeostatic systems that function by maintaining a set point.
• 2:35:59
  And they can maintain that set point so long as they're not pushed too far in one direction or the other.
• 2:36:05
  So plants have come up with molecules, what we call secondary compounds.
• 2:36:10
  Second, I hope, maybe I'm telling you things you already know, but secondary compounds are compounds produced by an organism, not for their own benefit.
• 2:36:19
  They're built for their interaction with some other organism like some herbivore that would try to eat the leaves on the plant.
• 2:36:45
  So why is that medicine?
• 2:36:47
  Because plants and you know, fungi and other things that have figured this trick out have figured out how to disrupt every system in the body.
• 2:36:58
  If you look across the whole forest, some plant out there has figured out how to disrupt every system in the body in every direction it can be pushed.
• 2:37:06
  That's how you make an animal sick enough that it either dies or moves on and stops eating you and starts with some other species.
• 2:37:14
  So the point is the plants have solved the problem of how to break animal physiology in every conceivable way.
• 2:37:24
  Why is that medicine?
• 2:37:25
  Because if the body is broken in some way, some system is out of whack.
• 2:37:31
  And that means there's some molecule out there in the forest that can pull it the other direction.
• 2:37:36
  If your liver process is overproductive, there's some molecule out there that disrupts that process that can bring it back towards baseline.
• 2:37:46
  Cholidonium.
• 2:37:47
  Okay, well, there you go.
• 2:37:49
  So point being, you've got a forest full of medicines that imply a set of systems that are calibrated and can be driven back to baseline by titrating those chemicals.
• 2:38:04
  If I have one major complaint about our modern medical approach, it's that we don't really titrate.
• 2:38:10
  We've got all of these things that are claimed to be medicines, but the whole key to them being medically valuable would be titrating the dose so that you brought the system back to the right set point.
• 2:38:23
  Now my guess is, homeopathy is valid, and I take your and other people I respect, I take their word that they have seen things that cannot be explained otherwise.
• 2:38:35
  And I'm guessing that the systems themselves, that you don't necessarily need to take the pharmaceutical approach where you're giving enough of this molecule to reset the system back to some place, that that may be a blunt tool, and that the other way to do it is to give the system that is disrupted, that is overworking or underworking a kick, right?
• 2:39:03
  And that kick can be in the form of some sort of a biochemical, maybe it's even an echo, or maybe it's just a tiny amount of the molecule, that the point is you're waking a system that is stuck, right, some system is pegged somewhere where, you know, you're sick because the system that's supposed to be at zero is pegged, you know, at five, and you're sending that signal a message, just the same way that if, let's say that you were, you've got a car and the horn is stuck, right?
• 2:39:44
  Well, how would you fix a stuck horn?
• 2:39:47
  Well, the first thing I would do is I would bang on the horn because I know that there's a switch in there, and that switch being stuck, it's ironic, right?
• 2:39:54
  At one level, it doesn't make sense, the horn is already going, why would I hit the button that makes the horn go?
• 2:40:00
  And the answer is because giving that switch a little kick could dislodge it, and then suddenly my horn starts working properly again.
• 2:40:06
  So I'm wondering if the same logic that undergirds basic standard pharmaceuticals taken by a different model where you're giving these systems a kick, and you wouldn't expect it to work 100% of the time because some fraction of the time, the signal that you're using to figure out what molecule to use, the system is stuck on high, and the molecule you're using pushes it in the same direction, it's not enough of a kick to get it to recalibrate.
• 2:40:40
  But I'm wondering if there's just something in there.
• 2:40:43
  Well, it could also be the wrong remedy.
• 2:40:45
  It could be, I mean, this is an interesting example too.
• 2:40:49
  Okay, so as a holistic healer, I believe that there are, that we can be injured or impaired on different levels.
• 2:41:00
  So we all know that we have an emotional part of ourselves.
• 2:41:04
  There's a mental part of ourselves, right?
• 2:41:07
  And there's physical, and some people would say that there are other layers, but my point is that you can have an injury or an impairment on those different levels.
• 2:41:17
  Let me give you an example.
• 2:41:19
  When I was still doing my homeopathy training in London, so this is probably like 2002 or three, this woman brought a baby to me, and this baby, Matthew, was about seven months old, and he had had eczema from here down, his whole body from about seven to 10 days after birth.
• 2:41:40
  And I talked to the mother and I said,"You know, tell me about your pregnancy.
• 2:41:45
  "Was your pregnancy normal?""Yeah, everything was normal.
• 2:41:47
  "Were there any traumas?
• 2:41:48
  "Anything happening?""No, no, no, nothing.""Well, what about his birth?" And he said, "It was totally normal." I said, "Well, what does that mean?" And she said, "Well, I went in and I was induced." And I'm like, "Okay, I'm thinking to myself, "that may be the norm, it's not normal." And yeah, I got induced, and he got a little stuck in the birth canal, and they had to use a vantus, which is a suction on the top of the head, and forceps to get him out.
• 2:42:11
  He had a little bit of bruising and scabs on his head, but he was fine otherwise.
• 2:42:16
  And I'm literally in homeopathy training, total beginner, and I just thought to myself, I bet this baby is just stuck in birth trauma, and this mother had tried everything.
• 2:42:25
  Elimination diets, she'd tried creams and pills the doctor had given her, everything.
• 2:42:30
  Nothing worked, nothing touched it.
• 2:42:33
  Just so happened that the husband worked with my husband.
• 2:42:36
  And I said, "You know, I just said, "here, take this remedy." I don't even think I told her what it was, but it was a very, very high dilution, an ultra dilution of arnica.
• 2:42:47
  For people who don't know, arnica is the most common homeopathic remedy used.
• 2:42:51
  It's in creams and pills, and you see it all over the place.
• 2:42:54
  And it's fantastic for bumps and bruises and shocks and trauma.
• 2:42:58
  Where does it come from?
• 2:43:00
  From the arnica plant, which is arnica Montana, I think is what it's called.
• 2:43:05
  Is that a plant that we are otherwise familiar with?
• 2:43:07
  Yes, it grows in, well, it's usually at the mountains in Europe, but we have a version of it here in the Rocky Mountains.
• 2:43:13
  I see it all over when I go hiking in Idaho.
• 2:43:16
  I'm always like, "Oh, hi." Ours is heart leaf arnica.
• 2:43:20
  There's is arnica Montana.
• 2:43:21
  Why it's called Montana over there.
• 2:43:24
  Don't ask me that.
• 2:43:24
  I don't know, I haven't looked in this room.
• 2:43:25
  So it's a flowering plant?
• 2:43:27
  It's a beautiful, it looks kind of like, it's about that tall, and it's kind of like an all yellow daisy.
• 2:43:33
  And it's got kind of a beautiful little green leaf, and it's just like a stem with a couple of leaves.
• 2:43:39
  And that's what they make it out of.
• 2:43:40
  And it's at the base of the mountain, which is interesting because it's fantastic for beating yourself up, like climbing a mountain coming down, you're gonna have bruises and whatever.
• 2:43:48
  Anyway, so I just thought to myself, I think this baby is just stuck in birth trauma.
• 2:43:54
  I'm wondering, I'm just guessing, full on beginner's luck.
• 2:43:57
  Give the mother a pill of arnica 50M, which is a very, very high potency.
• 2:44:03
  Give her the thing, and I'm like, here, just give him this.
• 2:44:05
  Let me know what happens, you know?
• 2:44:06
  Never hear from her.
• 2:44:07
  Six months later, I'm like, can you just ask the guy what happened with his son?
• 2:44:11
  Did anything happen?
• 2:44:13
  He comes home, he's like, you're not gonna believe this.
• 2:44:16
  All the eczema was gone within 36 hours.
• 2:44:18
  They thought that you knew that's what would happen, so they never bothered to call you.
• 2:44:22
  I'm like, the kid had had eczema for seven months and tried everything.
• 2:44:28
  And I give one pill to a seven month old baby of homeopathy.
• 2:44:33
  So do you understand?
• 2:44:34
  It's like, we can have some kind of an obstruction or a, we can be out of sync.
• 2:44:42
  It could be that you're in a, I mean, what if you're in like a bad marriage and you're angry all the time?
• 2:44:47
  What if you're, or if you had a trauma like that, or it could be that you're being exposed to chemicals.
• 2:44:52
  My point is, it could be physical, it could be mental, it could be emotional.
• 2:44:55
  And so you could have an obstruction or be out of sync, you know, like out of line, a disalignment on a different level.
• 2:45:03
  It doesn't have to be on one level.
• 2:45:06
  So this complicates it, but I think it's a great example that, you know, we are not purely physical beings.
• 2:45:14
  We cannot be reduced just to ourselves.
• 2:45:15
  Do you think?
• 2:45:16
  I don't know that.
• 2:45:17
  I assume we can.
• 2:45:20
  I'm awaiting evidence that there's more to it.
• 2:45:23
  But I will say that even if you take it as a purely physical being, let's just say in my case, I now know after having woken up to my own wheat allergy, that I was suffering from chronic body-wide inflammation that took weeks to clear after I stopped doing the thing that was triggering it, took weeks to clear because it's sort of a self-amplifying system.
• 2:45:53
  So you have to get far enough away from the trigger in order for the inflammation to dissipate enough that you actually feel what your body is actually supposed to be doing.
• 2:46:02
  So the point is, when you say, maybe it's, you know, you're in a bad marriage, and people think, oh, okay, how's that?
• 2:46:08
  But the point is, no, look, you're talking about something that's, you know, spiking your cortisol regularly, which is gonna-- So, you know, I don't-- Stress is a real thing, right?
• 2:46:18
  And it has many manifestations, but it has a physiological effect on us.
• 2:46:24
  I don't see the model in which this is all physiological phenomena as reducing the complexity of it.
• 2:46:33
  I'm just saying, all of these things, you know, just as, you know, we talked earlier about the fact that water is this very funny substance, you know, with this weird, you know, triangular shape in which the parts that are sticking to each other, you know, if there's enough energy, they're bouncing around in ways that can have patterns in them, and then you freeze them, and suddenly they get other interesting patterns.
• 2:46:54
  But the point being, there's lots possible in the realm of the physical states that far exceeds what we overly compellingly put in the textbook, right?
• 2:47:08
  When you see, you know, water has three phases, right?
• 2:47:12
  It's got a steam phase, it's got a-- Actually, we know there's more than three phases now, you know that, right?
• 2:47:18
  Well, actually, there are more than three phases, and, you know, there are lots of things that are like this where we have been overly compelled by the pictures in the textbook to believe a model that is overly simplified makes it impossible for us to actually see patterns of evidence that are in front of us that contradict the overly simplified model we were given.
• 2:47:38
  And this happens, you know, this is the nature of science.
• 2:47:42
  JFK assassination comes to mind, but it's total non sequitur.
• 2:47:47
  But yes, right?
• 2:47:48
  Look, I-- You know what I mean.
• 2:47:49
  Yeah, I do know what you mean, and I think, frankly, scientific method is the way you figure out what explains the patterns that you see, and all of the people who, you know, effectively were living a thousand different versions of follow the science, where everybody who tells you to follow the science is actually telling you, whatever you do, don't do any science, because that's not how science works.
• 2:48:11
  So anyway, well-- Let me say on this subject, I think that maybe this boy was stuck in a state of stress because of his traumatic pattern.
• 2:48:23
  And so it speaks to what you were just saying, that it could be a stressor, it could be something, and that it's having some kind of biological impact on him, which then manifests as eczema.
• 2:48:35
  So there could be something physiological that's going on.
• 2:48:38
  And from my perspective, naive, 20 some years ago, I'm just thinking it's birth trauma, I don't know what that means, and this remedy is really good for when there's a trauma or a shock, and it worked, you know?
• 2:48:50
  All right, I wanna add one little piece to the proposal for a model that I-- Okay.
• 2:48:55
  Kind of have put on the table here.
• 2:48:57
  (Keyboard Clicking) Homeostasis arises from a system of negative feedbacks.
• 2:49:06
  Remember, negative feedback is like a thermostat where if you're too high, you get pushed lower, if you're too low, you get pushed higher, and there's a set point.
• 2:49:13
  That's what a negative feedback system looks like.
• 2:49:15
  And homeostasis is the body doing that across many different domains simultaneously, from the amount of, you know, the pH of your blood to your temperature, to all of the parameters of health are being maintained at a set point effectively, which can be moved, but a set point and negative feedback.
• 2:49:38
  My claim is you push a system far enough out of the range of the set point, and you get a positive feedback sometimes, depending upon how the system is structured.
• 2:49:49
  So in my case, the inflammation was self-amplifying, right?
• 2:49:53
  Once you're inflamed, you start to get more inflamed, and it is a process that sort of stably takes you to some place other than your set point.
• 2:50:02
  So in that model, a kick to the system that just bumps you back into the range where a homeostatic negative feedback can happen, to me, thinking as somebody who works in physical systems sometimes, that's very plausible, just like the horn, right?
• 2:50:24
  A little extra press to the horn returns the horn to being able to detect when you want it to go on and when you don't.
• 2:50:30
  And I don't know, in your training, do you encounter the idea of something like a kick to a stuck system?
• 2:50:42
  Well, we talk about as a nudge.
• 2:50:44
  A nudge?
• 2:50:44
  Yeah.
• 2:50:45
  It's a nudge to nudge the body to right itself.
• 2:50:51
  So very much so, that's the way.
• 2:50:53
  Now listen, not all homeopaths think the same way.
• 2:50:55
  Some people say it's energy medicine, some people call it nano medicine, some people like myself.
• 2:51:01
  I don't know.
• 2:51:03
  I don't know how it works.
• 2:51:04
  I just know that it does work.
• 2:51:06
  But I do say that, and it makes complete sense to me, that homeopathy provides the little nudge that the body needs to right itself.
• 2:51:15
  And so I think it's very, yeah, it makes a lot of sense to me, what you're saying.
• 2:51:18
  And the more I think about it, there's a number of places where I can see a physical analogy to this is pretty high.
• 2:51:26
  Imagine you've got a cap to something that's stuck.
• 2:51:30
  It's on too tight.
• 2:51:33
  Well, the best thing to do is to get it to come loose.
• 2:51:35
  But if you get it to move at all, even the direction of tighter, it is now less frozen in place in your ability to open it.
• 2:51:42
  It's gonna boost, yeah.
• 2:51:43
  Yeah, I can think of five or six of these things.
• 2:51:50
  And now, you gotta be careful mapping a simple system like a jar onto a complex system like a human body.
• 2:51:57
  But I don't know.
• 2:52:00
  I don't know.
• 2:52:01
  All I can say is you got a lot of people who have demonstrated integrity and the capacity to do science under fire who see something there.
• 2:52:11
  You've got patterns of evidence.
• 2:52:14
  My only misgiving about the patterns of evidence is that I've seen evidence abuse so much now that I don't take any claim at face value because who knows?
• 2:52:24
  But if it's a demonstrable pattern, it's a demonstrable pattern whether you know how it works or not.
• 2:52:29
  And I see at least the superficial outlines of how you would get from what we actually do know about poisons and medicines and physiology to something where this is perfectly plausible.
• 2:52:43
  And you see the scythe that was opposing to you.
• 2:52:45
  That's the biggest thing to me is why does everyone hate this so much?
• 2:52:49
  Why do they not want us to pay attention to this?
• 2:52:51
  Why is this so dangerous?
• 2:52:55
  If there's nothing in it, how can it be dangerous?
• 2:52:58
  And yet you really don't want us to know anything about it.
• 2:53:01
  How is that?
• 2:53:02
  And why was there a war against it?
• 2:53:03
  I mean, I'm sure you've unpacked the Flexner Report and these kinds of issues over recent years.
• 2:53:10
  Why was there a systematic attempt to take it down?
• 2:53:14
  And not homeopathy alone, but it was the primary target.
• 2:53:16
  And it's been the slowest to come back despite the fact that it flourishes.
• 2:53:20
  It's the fastest growing system of medicine in the world.
• 2:53:22
  And I'll tell you, it's under attack right now in this country, like worse than it's been.
• 2:53:27
  So I'm working on that.
• 2:53:29
  All right.
• 2:53:30
  Well, tell me where people can find you and I don't wanna forget where they can find your movie.
• 2:53:39
  Okay, so the movie is "The Greater Good" and you can find it at greatergoodmovie.org.
• 2:53:45
  It's five bucks to watch it on there, but that helps us keep the lights on on that platform.
• 2:53:50
  And there's a bunch of other information there too.
• 2:53:53
  We have a catalog of science that has 200 papers all about vaccine injuries and side effects from vaccines.
• 2:54:00
  And it hasn't been updated in a long time, but it's quite an amazing resource.
• 2:54:06
  And then the way to find me nowadays is at Health Freedom Defense Fund, which is healthfreedomdefense.org, and on Twitter we have a great, we're at the HFDF on Twitter and on Instagram and on Facebook is where we're most active on.
• 2:54:25
  But my greater good stuff, it was completely, my complete YouTube is gone.
• 2:54:31
  Never been restored.
• 2:54:33
  Our Facebook, we used to in 2011, 2012, 2013, we were getting back then a million views a month, which was huge, huge.
• 2:54:44
  And then it went to 3000, like literally, they just shut us down.
• 2:54:49
  And I'm still so throttled on X, it's a bummer.
• 2:54:52
  So I just don't put a huge amount of effort into it, but I have my own personal account, but it's best to follow our business.
• 2:54:58
  And you can sign up for our newsletter.
• 2:55:00
  We have a sub stack as well with a really nice list.
• 2:55:04
  We put out really incredibly interesting articles.
• 2:55:06
  We don't do just kind of report on the news.
• 2:55:11
  We're doing deep dives on different issues from a different standpoint to kind of flesh out maybe another way of looking at something, stuff like that.
• 2:55:21
  Great.
• 2:55:22
  Yeah.
• 2:55:22
  All right, I would also just say, because I met you through Brownstone, people can check out the amazing Brownstone Institute.
• 2:55:32
  And we're both speaking there at the Polyface Retreat in August, right?
• 2:55:35
  Polyface Retreat, if you can still get tickets to that, that's gonna be great.
• 2:55:38
  You'll get to see Joel Salatin's amazing farm and a large cast of Brownstone regulars.
• 2:55:47
  Anyway, totally worth it.
• 2:55:48
  We were there last year, it was great.
• 2:55:50
  It was great.
• 2:55:51
  So anyway, Leslie Benukian, it's been a real pleasure.
• 2:55:54
  Thank you for coming out to San Juan Island and sitting down with me in person.
• 2:55:59
  It's been marvelous.
• 2:56:01
  Oh my gosh, it's been so fun and it's such a privilege and an honor.
• 2:56:05
  Thank you so much for having me, Bret, really.
• 2:56:07
  All right, thanks for joining us.
• 2:56:08
  (Upbeat Music)