Latest / NO FILTER / Joe Rogan Experience _2427 - Bret Weinstein(M4A_128K)

Transcript

Joe Rogan Experience _2427 - Bret Weinstein(M4A_128K) · NO FILTER

• 0:01
  Speaker 1: Joe Roman Podcast. Check it out. But Joe Rogan Experience
• 0:06
  Speaker 1: Train by Day, Joe Rogan Podcast by nay all day, what's.
• 0:12
  Speaker 2: Happened to that? Hey, good to be back, Good to
• 0:15
  Speaker 2: see you.
• 0:15
  Speaker 1: So the reason why we had such a quick turnaround
• 0:18
  Speaker 1: is because the last episode, one of the main reasons
• 0:22
  Speaker 1: why you wanted to come on in the first place
• 0:24
  Speaker 1: is you wanted to further discuss some discoveries about evolution.
• 0:32
  Speaker 2: Yes, specifically, I have alluded in a number of different places,
• 0:37
  Speaker 2: including here to there being another level to Darwinian evolution
• 0:41
  Speaker 2: that does a lot of the heavy lifting that we
• 0:46
  Speaker 2: require in order to explain the diversity of forms that
• 0:50
  Speaker 2: we see in biology. But I haven't been specific on
• 0:53
  Speaker 2: what I believe that layer is, and I felt like
• 0:57
  Speaker 2: it was time. I think, for one thing, the advances
• 1:02
  Speaker 2: in AI mean that such things are going to emerge naturally,
• 1:07
  Speaker 2: and I wanted to put it on the table before
• 1:10
  Speaker 2: it simply gets discovered as a matter of computing horsepower.
• 1:13
  Speaker 1: And we were just rambling about so many different things
• 1:15
  Speaker 1: that we never got to it last time. So I said,
• 1:17
  Speaker 1: a right, let's do another quick turnaround.
• 1:20
  Speaker 3: Come back right, all right, So let's talk biology and
• 1:24
  Speaker 3: let me just say, you know, I know that's not
• 1:27
  Speaker 3: everybody's bag, but I do think just about everybody has
• 1:31
  Speaker 3: at some point listened to the story.
• 1:33
  Speaker 2: That we tell about adaptive evolution and wondered if it's
• 1:38
  Speaker 2: really powerful enough to explain all of the creatures that
• 1:41
  Speaker 2: we all know and love. All Right, So the classic
• 1:45
  Speaker 2: story is that you have a genome that it contains
• 1:49
  Speaker 2: a great many genes. A gene is a sequence in
• 1:54
  Speaker 2: DNA that results in proteins being produced. The DNA describes
• 2:00
  Speaker 2: exactly the sequence of amino acids in a protein, and
• 2:04
  Speaker 2: a protein would typically be one of two things. It
• 2:06
  Speaker 2: would either be an enzyme, which is a little bit
• 2:10
  Speaker 2: misleading as a term, but an enzyme, well, enzyme isn't misleading,
• 2:15
  Speaker 2: but enzyme is a catalyst. Catalyst is misleading. It's really
• 2:18
  Speaker 2: a machine that puts other chemicals together. So a lot
• 2:23
  Speaker 2: of the genes in the genome are these little molecular
• 2:26
  Speaker 2: machines that assemble molecules. And the other thing that proteins
• 2:30
  Speaker 2: are likely to be are structural. So something like collagen,
• 2:34
  Speaker 2: proteins can make a matrix that allows you to sort
• 2:37
  Speaker 2: of build a sculpture biologically. And what we say is
• 2:43
  Speaker 2: that the amino acid sequence is specified by the genome
• 2:50
  Speaker 2: in three letter sequences right codons. Each three letters specifies
• 2:55
  Speaker 2: a particular amino acid that gets tacked on. You get
• 2:58
  Speaker 2: a sequence of amino acids that then collapse into whatever
• 3:03
  Speaker 2: they're going to be, whether it's an enzyme or a structure,
• 3:06
  Speaker 2: based on little electromagnetic affinities that they have little side
• 3:12
  Speaker 2: chains that have a positive or a negative charge that
• 3:14
  Speaker 2: attract each other. So basically, these machines assemble themselves by
• 3:19
  Speaker 2: folding in very complex ways. That then causes them to
• 3:23
  Speaker 2: interact with the molecules around them in very specific ways,
• 3:28
  Speaker 2: ways that greatly reduce the energy necessary and make the
• 3:33
  Speaker 2: reactions much more likely to happen. That's why we call
• 3:36
  Speaker 2: it a catalyst. But really the way to think of
• 3:39
  Speaker 2: it as a little molecular machine. So we say the
• 3:43
  Speaker 2: way evolution works is random changes happen to the DNA
• 3:48
  Speaker 2: because DNA is imperfectly copied or is impacted by radiation,
• 3:53
  Speaker 2: which will eliminate a letter in the DNA, and then
• 3:56
  Speaker 2: that letter will get replaced by a different letter. There
• 3:59
  Speaker 2: are only four choice but some fraction of the time
• 4:02
  Speaker 2: you get a three letter combination that specifies a new
• 4:06
  Speaker 2: amino acid. Almost all of the time that will make
• 4:10
  Speaker 2: the little molecular machine worse or break it all together.
• 4:13
  Speaker 2: Occasionally it will leave the machine functional in a way
• 4:18
  Speaker 2: that's somewhat better than the previous one, and then evolution
• 4:22
  Speaker 2: will collect all of those advances. And that's how evolution works.
• 4:26
  Speaker 2: That's the story we typically tell, and in fact, that's
• 4:30
  Speaker 2: the story that is encoded in what's called the central
• 4:33
  Speaker 2: dogma of molecular biology. Now, the problem. Most people will
• 4:39
  Speaker 2: have thought about that, and they will have heard, okay,
• 4:41
  Speaker 2: random mutations that change this code in ways that alter proteins.
• 4:49
  Speaker 2: That doesn't sound That sounds like a very haphazard process
• 4:53
  Speaker 2: and a very difficult way to get from one form
• 4:57
  Speaker 2: of animal or plant or fungus to another. There So,
• 5:01
  Speaker 2: if you've had that thought, that just doesn't seem powerful enough.
• 5:05
  Speaker 2: And then biologists have said, well, you're not realizing how
• 5:08
  Speaker 2: much time elapses that allows these very occasional positive changes
• 5:14
  Speaker 2: to accumulate. And that's true. If that's a thought you've had,
• 5:20
  Speaker 2: this process isn't powerful enough to explain the creatures I'm
• 5:23
  Speaker 2: aware of. Then what I'm going to tell you is
• 5:25
  Speaker 2: a way in which that process is not the only process,
• 5:29
  Speaker 2: and by adding a different process, very much a Darwinian one,
• 5:33
  Speaker 2: we can see that the power to create all of
• 5:35
  Speaker 2: the creatures that we see is much greater than the
• 5:38
  Speaker 2: story that we've been told. Okay, so I'm going to
• 5:40
  Speaker 2: put a hypothesis on the table about what enhances this.
• 5:45
  Speaker 2: And essentially what I'm arguing is if you sat down
• 5:49
  Speaker 2: to a computer game, right, something very realistic, and somebody says, well,
• 5:55
  Speaker 2: that's all binary. That's true, it's all binary, But what
• 6:01
  Speaker 2: they're not telling you is that there's an intervening layer
• 6:03
  Speaker 2: that greatly increases the power to use binary to make
• 6:06
  Speaker 2: something like a computer game.
• 6:08
  Speaker 1: Right.
• 6:08
  Speaker 2: So, there are multiple different levels inside your computer. One
• 6:11
  Speaker 2: of them is that your computer can be programmed in
• 6:14
  Speaker 2: a language that is much closer to English, and then
• 6:18
  Speaker 2: a compiler can take the what you've written that a
• 6:22
  Speaker 2: computer can't understand and turn it into a computer understandable code.
• 6:26
  Speaker 2: And so the ability to make powerful programs depends on
• 6:31
  Speaker 2: our ability not to have to program our computers in binary,
• 6:34
  Speaker 2: but to be able to program them in C plus
• 6:37
  Speaker 2: plus or whatever. That's the kind of thing I'm pointing
• 6:39
  Speaker 2: to is a mechanism. It enhances the power of evolution
• 6:43
  Speaker 2: to do the stuff that we know evolution accomplishes. Okay,
• 6:48
  Speaker 2: so here's what I think is the missing layer, And
• 6:51
  Speaker 2: I will say I've done a bunch of research to
• 6:54
  Speaker 2: figure out how much of this is understood, and I
• 6:58
  Speaker 2: find a very confusing picture. It actually depends which field
• 7:02
  Speaker 2: I come at it from to see what the blind
• 7:05
  Speaker 2: spots are. But I'm going to leave that primarily for
• 7:10
  Speaker 2: another time. Let's just say the two fields in question
• 7:13
  Speaker 2: are my field, evolutionary biology, and an interdisciplinary science called
• 7:19
  Speaker 2: EVO DEVO. Okay, EVO DEVO is the evolution of development,
• 7:24
  Speaker 2: and EVO DEVO is a much newer, in some ways,
• 7:30
  Speaker 2: a more vibrant field. I would argue my field is stuck.
• 7:32
  Speaker 2: EVO DEVO has been making progress from the developmental side
• 7:36
  Speaker 2: on a number of different questions. Okay, so now let's
• 7:40
  Speaker 2: talk about adaptive evolution and what adaptive evolutionists seemed to
• 7:44
  Speaker 2: be missing that I think does a bunch of the
• 7:48
  Speaker 2: heavy lifting in terms of explaining creatures. So let me
• 7:54
  Speaker 2: just start by saying the thing I said at the
• 7:57
  Speaker 2: beginning about protein coding genes altered by random mutation resulting
• 8:02
  Speaker 2: in changes. I'm not arguing that that is in any
• 8:05
  Speaker 2: way a false story. It explains a great many things.
• 8:10
  Speaker 2: My point is that what it primarily explains are things
• 8:14
  Speaker 2: at nanoscale. It can explain the difference in a pigment
• 8:19
  Speaker 2: molecule very easily, and we know that it does. It
• 8:23
  Speaker 2: can explain things somewhat larger than that, like the very
• 8:27
  Speaker 2: special structure. When you're a kid, you ever play with
• 8:30
  Speaker 2: the feathers of a bird, You pull them apart and
• 8:33
  Speaker 2: then they zip back together. Right, Those kinds of things
• 8:36
  Speaker 2: can be readily explained by the mechanism as we present it.
• 8:41
  Speaker 2: What I'm going to argue is difficult to explain is
• 8:45
  Speaker 2: the change from one macroscopic form to another. So, for example,
• 8:54
  Speaker 2: the wing of a bat. The wing of a bat
• 8:57
  Speaker 2: evolved from the foot of a terrestrial or arboreal meaning
• 9:05
  Speaker 2: tree dwelling mammal like a shrew. So I sent Jamie
• 9:10
  Speaker 2: a picture of a shrew's foot. Maybe we should just
• 9:13
  Speaker 2: put it up. So what we'll look at is the
• 9:18
  Speaker 2: foot of a shrew, and it won't surprise you at all.
• 9:20
  Speaker 2: Looks exactly as you would expect. It's got you know, digits,
• 9:25
  Speaker 2: and it looks like every other mammal's foot. So here
• 9:28
  Speaker 2: we have an example of it. Okay, Now let's take
• 9:32
  Speaker 2: a look at the wing of a bat. So here
• 9:39
  Speaker 2: we have the wing of a bat. Now that wing
• 9:42
  Speaker 2: is a highly modified front foot. The ribs that suspend
• 9:50
  Speaker 2: that hold the membrane that what we call the potagia apart,
• 9:55
  Speaker 2: are highly elongated fingers. Right, what you're seeing are the
• 10:01
  Speaker 2: phalangies of that little shrew's foot elongated very much. So. Now,
• 10:08
  Speaker 2: what the Evodvo folks will tell you, and they are
• 10:11
  Speaker 2: right about this, is that the difference between that bat's
• 10:16
  Speaker 2: wing and its fingers and that shrew's foot and its
• 10:21
  Speaker 2: toes is not a molecular difference. There may be molecular
• 10:28
  Speaker 2: differences between the foot and the wing, but you could
• 10:31
  Speaker 2: build that wing and that foot out of the very
• 10:34
  Speaker 2: same molecules. What you're doing is distributing them differently. You
• 10:38
  Speaker 2: have different amounts of molecules distributed in different ways to
• 10:42
  Speaker 2: make these elaborate structures from the primitive structures. With me
• 10:48
  Speaker 2: so far, yep, Okay, So what I realized more than
• 10:53
  Speaker 2: twenty five years ago. Many people who've heard you and
• 10:57
  Speaker 2: me talk before will have heard us talk about my
• 10:59
  Speaker 2: work on telomeres. So telomeres, you'll remember, are structures at
• 11:06
  Speaker 2: the end of every chromosome that are not genes. They
• 11:12
  Speaker 2: are repetitive sequences. They're written in DNA, but it's basically
• 11:16
  Speaker 2: just a repeated series of letters, again and again and again,
• 11:20
  Speaker 2: and the telomere, basically the number of repeats that are
• 11:26
  Speaker 2: there dictates how many times a cell line can duplicate.
• 11:32
  Speaker 2: It loses repeats each time it duplicates, and when it
• 11:36
  Speaker 2: gets down to a critically low number, it stops reproducing.
• 11:41
  Speaker 2: Now we've talked before about why that system exists. The
• 11:47
  Speaker 2: short version is in creatures like us, it prevents cancers
• 11:52
  Speaker 2: from happening because if a cell line runs away and
• 11:55
  Speaker 2: just starts reproducing, it runs into this limit, the Hayflick
• 11:58
  Speaker 2: limit and stops. So it prevents cancer, but it limits
• 12:04
  Speaker 2: the amount of repair that we can do in a lifetime,
• 12:06
  Speaker 2: so it causes us to seness, to age and grow
• 12:10
  Speaker 2: feeble as we do so. But what it said to
• 12:13
  Speaker 2: me when I was doing that work was that there
• 12:17
  Speaker 2: is a kind of information that can be stored in
• 12:20
  Speaker 2: genomes in DNA that is not protein oriented. It's not
• 12:27
  Speaker 2: what we would call a lielc. It's not written in
• 12:30
  Speaker 2: three letter codons. It's actually a number stored the same
• 12:37
  Speaker 2: way you would store a variable in a computer program,
• 12:40
  Speaker 2: right the telomere. The length of the telomere is account
• 12:44
  Speaker 2: of how many times a cell line is allowed to
• 12:47
  Speaker 2: divide over a lifetime. It's a number. And what occurred
• 12:52
  Speaker 2: to me all those years ago was that the ability
• 12:56
  Speaker 2: to store a number in the genome is fantastically powerful.
• 13:03
  Speaker 2: What it means if you could store a lot of
• 13:06
  Speaker 2: numbers in the genome is that you could describe creatures
• 13:11
  Speaker 2: by allotting something either a quantity of material or an
• 13:18
  Speaker 2: amount of time in development. That you could specify things
• 13:21
  Speaker 2: in the language of numbers that you can't specify in
• 13:24
  Speaker 2: the language of amino acids. So the hypothesis that I'm
• 13:30
  Speaker 2: putting on the table is that the evolutionary process has
• 13:37
  Speaker 2: built a system in which variables in which integers are
• 13:44
  Speaker 2: stored in DNA, and those integers dictate phenomena like developmental timing,
• 13:53
  Speaker 2: turning on and off, something like the growth of one
• 13:56
  Speaker 2: of those phalanths the philangies in the in the fingers.
• 14:01
  Speaker 2: If you could radically increase the number that dictated the
• 14:06
  Speaker 2: length of one of those bones, then selection would effectively
• 14:11
  Speaker 2: be in a position to play with adjacent forms. So
• 14:17
  Speaker 2: am I confusing you or does it's making sense? Okay,
• 14:21
  Speaker 2: so the question is all right. The telomere is a
• 14:26
  Speaker 2: special case. The telomere exists at the end of a chromosome,
• 14:29
  Speaker 2: and it can only exist at the end of a
• 14:31
  Speaker 2: chromosome because of the way it functions. So a telomere
• 14:35
  Speaker 2: is not actually just a string, it's actually a loop.
• 14:38
  Speaker 2: And the telomere loops back and at the very tip
• 14:43
  Speaker 2: there's a little section where the DNA is not double stranded,
• 14:46
  Speaker 2: it's single stranded, and that single strand inserts between two
• 14:51
  Speaker 2: other strands of DNA. So if you loop the DNA
• 14:53
  Speaker 2: at the end of the chromosome back, it's called a
• 14:55
  Speaker 2: d loop. And then you get this one little single
• 14:58
  Speaker 2: stranded DNA that inserts between a double stranded and makes
• 15:02
  Speaker 2: a very tiny triple stranded like a cap so that
• 15:07
  Speaker 2: it holds the loop in place. You can't do that
• 15:09
  Speaker 2: in the middle of a chromosome. So it's not like
• 15:11
  Speaker 2: there are telomeres all over the place. But what there
• 15:14
  Speaker 2: are are a bunch of sequences that were traditionally dismissed
• 15:20
  Speaker 2: as junk DNA that have been used as a molecular
• 15:28
  Speaker 2: marker in biology for decades. We use something called microsatellites.
• 15:35
  Speaker 2: So microsatellite is a repetitive sequence in DNA that does
• 15:39
  Speaker 2: not code for a protein. It's just like a telomere
• 15:41
  Speaker 2: in that way, and they vary in length. They vary
• 15:47
  Speaker 2: in length a lot, so that you may have a
• 15:50
  Speaker 2: species in which the genome is very homogeneous, but between
• 15:56
  Speaker 2: populations there will have been change in the length of
• 15:59
  Speaker 2: these microsatellites, changes that, as far as we know, don't
• 16:02
  Speaker 2: make any difference. But if you're a biologist in the
• 16:06
  Speaker 2: field and you want to know if the trees in
• 16:09
  Speaker 2: this valley are more closely related to the trees in
• 16:12
  Speaker 2: Valley A or Valley B, you can look at a
• 16:15
  Speaker 2: particular microsatellite and you can say, these trees have a
• 16:19
  Speaker 2: microsatellite at this location that is more similar in length
• 16:22
  Speaker 2: to population A than to population B. Thus, with some
• 16:25
  Speaker 2: confidence we think it's more close it evolved from population
• 16:29
  Speaker 2: A something like that. So we use them as a
• 16:32
  Speaker 2: tool for assessing things like relatedness, but we don't typically
• 16:37
  Speaker 2: think of them as a storage modality for a kind
• 16:42
  Speaker 2: of information that might be useful. So the hypothesis that
• 16:46
  Speaker 2: I'm putting on the table. And by the way, these
• 16:48
  Speaker 2: things are extremely common in the genome. There are many
• 16:53
  Speaker 2: more variable number tandem repeats in the genome than there
• 16:59
  Speaker 2: are genes, right, And my point is I don't know
• 17:03
  Speaker 2: whether evolution uses them as a place to store variables
• 17:09
  Speaker 2: that then become important in describing creatures. But evolution is
• 17:14
  Speaker 2: a very clever process, and the ability to store a variable,
• 17:19
  Speaker 2: I feel highly confident that there will be many variables
• 17:22
  Speaker 2: stored in many different ways. That there are ways in
• 17:27
  Speaker 2: which you can store a variable in triplet codon language,
• 17:32
  Speaker 2: but they're clumsy, they're crude. So you can have things
• 17:36
  Speaker 2: like a dosage compensation. You can have a gene that's
• 17:43
  Speaker 2: repeated multiple times, and the more copies you have, the
• 17:46
  Speaker 2: larger dose of the product that you get. Right, So
• 17:49
  Speaker 2: if you have three copies of alcohol dehydrogenase, you'll have
• 17:53
  Speaker 2: more alcohol tolerance than two copies something like that. So
• 17:57
  Speaker 2: that demonstrates a way in triplet code on language that
• 18:01
  Speaker 2: you can store a variable. But what I'm arguing is
• 18:04
  Speaker 2: that there's at least in principle, the possibility for a
• 18:09
  Speaker 2: vast library of variables that have developmental implications for the
• 18:15
  Speaker 2: way creatures look that allows you to go I mean,
• 18:19
  Speaker 2: imagine for a second, the most recent common ancestor of
• 18:24
  Speaker 2: all bats, okay, most recent common ancestor of all bats
• 18:28
  Speaker 2: is an animal that has gone from no ability to
• 18:33
  Speaker 2: fly to the ability to fly. As soon as you
• 18:38
  Speaker 2: have the ability to fly, the number of things that
• 18:41
  Speaker 2: you could do, the number of niches that are available
• 18:44
  Speaker 2: is very large.
• 18:46
  Speaker 1: Can that pause there and ask question? Sure? So, here's
• 18:49
  Speaker 1: the real question, specifically in regards to flying. Yep, how
• 18:54
  Speaker 1: does an animal go from being a shrew or some
• 18:59
  Speaker 1: other rodent type creature to something that eventually can fly?
• 19:05
  Speaker 1: And what are the steps along the way, And how
• 19:07
  Speaker 1: would that even facilitate itself? Like, how would you get
• 19:10
  Speaker 1: an animal that's completely stuck on the ground it can
• 19:12
  Speaker 1: only hop a little bit to something that can literally
• 19:17
  Speaker 1: traverse three D space? All right, welcome to the busy season.
• 19:21
  Speaker 1: There's probably a lot on your plate, and chances are
• 19:23
  Speaker 1: that your plate isn't full of everything we need to
• 19:26
  Speaker 1: maintain our daily health. But that's where ag one comes
• 19:31
  Speaker 1: in to keep you ahead of all those seasonal struggles.
• 19:34
  Speaker 1: AG one is the daily health drink that can help
• 19:36
  Speaker 1: you stay one scoop ahead of the stress, socializing and
• 19:40
  Speaker 1: snacking that comes with the season. I've talked about ag
• 19:43
  Speaker 1: one for a long time, and I know one scoop
• 19:46
  Speaker 1: of ag one takes care of your multi vitamin pre
• 19:48
  Speaker 1: and probiotics, superfoods and antioxidants to support your daily health.
• 19:53
  Speaker 1: Even when you get thrown off your nutrition routine when
• 19:56
  Speaker 1: you have so much going on, don't leave it up
• 19:59
  Speaker 1: to chance. Take care of yourself. Drinking ag one every
• 20:02
  Speaker 1: morning is a simple action that helps you stay one
• 20:04
  Speaker 1: scoop ahead of everything coming your way, and that's why
• 20:07
  Speaker 1: I've partnered with them for so long. If you want
• 20:09
  Speaker 1: to stay ahead of the season with support for your energy,
• 20:12
  Speaker 1: immune health, daily nutrition and more, it's time to start
• 20:16
  Speaker 1: your AG one routine. Ag one has a special holiday offer.
• 20:20
  Speaker 1: If you head to drinkag one dot com slash Joe Rogan,
• 20:23
  Speaker 1: you'll get the welcome kit, a morning person hat, a
• 20:26
  Speaker 1: bottle of Vitamin D three plus K two, and an
• 20:30
  Speaker 1: AG one flavor sampler for free with your first subscription.
• 20:34
  Speaker 1: That's over one hundred dollars in free gifts. Just head
• 20:36
  Speaker 1: to drinkag one dot com slash Joe Rogan or visit
• 20:40
  Speaker 1: the link in the description to get started.
• 20:42
  Speaker 2: This is why I love you, Joe. I mean, it's
• 20:44
  Speaker 2: one of the reasons this is a question that has
• 20:48
  Speaker 2: perplexed biologists. We have done a lot of work, We
• 20:52
  Speaker 2: know a lot.
• 20:52
  Speaker 1: It's one of the most fantastic abilities of all the animals.
• 20:55
  Speaker 2: Right, How surprising is it? That's the question. Is it
• 20:58
  Speaker 2: so surprising that it's actually impots possible? And I think
• 21:00
  Speaker 2: the answer is just simply no, it's quite possible.
• 21:03
  Speaker 1: Obviously it's possible.
• 21:05
  Speaker 2: Well no, I mean, you know, let's steelman the opposing.
• 21:10
  Speaker 1: Position intelligent designs.
• 21:12
  Speaker 2: Yeah, there's certainly a lot of people who would argue that, actually,
• 21:15
  Speaker 2: know there are gaps you can't jump, we.
• 21:18
  Speaker 1: Should explain that as well, Like, this is one of
• 21:20
  Speaker 1: the reasons why this argument has come up, because intelligent
• 21:23
  Speaker 1: design asserts that random mutation and natural selection does not
• 21:28
  Speaker 1: account for the vast variety of species, and it could
• 21:33
  Speaker 1: not account for a rodent or a shrew, which is
• 21:37
  Speaker 1: believed to be our common ancestor eventually becoming a human being.
• 21:43
  Speaker 2: Let's just say, I have you know, initially I thought
• 21:49
  Speaker 2: that all of the intelligent design folks were anti scientific
• 21:53
  Speaker 2: and really basically just religious people wielding sophistry. I now
• 22:03
  Speaker 2: know several of them in person and quite like them,
• 22:07
  Speaker 2: and I quite like them scientifically. I think they actually
• 22:10
  Speaker 2: have done an excellent job of pointing out the folly
• 22:13
  Speaker 2: in evolutionary biology. And in part what I'm saying is
• 22:18
  Speaker 2: I appreciate their pointing out that the mechanism that we
• 22:21
  Speaker 2: teach is not powerful enough to do what we claim
• 22:23
  Speaker 2: it does. I have the same suspicion. My argument is,
• 22:27
  Speaker 2: there is a mechanism that is powerful enough, and we
• 22:32
  Speaker 2: haven't been looking at it because we've been telling the
• 22:33
  Speaker 2: story that we've got it nailed already, and I just
• 22:36
  Speaker 2: don't think we do. So let's go to your question
• 22:39
  Speaker 2: about how you get from a creature that can't fly
• 22:42
  Speaker 2: at all to a creature that does fly. And now
• 22:44
  Speaker 2: my feeling is, actually, this one is pretty easy, and
• 22:50
  Speaker 2: I'm not saying that we know how it did happen
• 22:52
  Speaker 2: in the case of a bat. We are hobbled in
• 22:55
  Speaker 2: the case of bats by two things. One the fact
• 22:59
  Speaker 2: that bats are primarily tropical the bulk of the species
• 23:04
  Speaker 2: are tropical, and the others that the majority of bats
• 23:08
  Speaker 2: are small with spindlee limbs. What that means is that
• 23:15
  Speaker 2: they don't fossilize well, tropics are not a good place
• 23:18
  Speaker 2: for fossilization, and bats are not a good candidate for fossilization,
• 23:23
  Speaker 2: and so unfortunately the fossil record doesn't tell us a
• 23:25
  Speaker 2: clear story the way it does. Well, the bird story
• 23:28
  Speaker 2: is getting ever clearer. We've got good bird fossils in
• 23:31
  Speaker 2: a way that we didn't when you and I were young.
• 23:34
  Speaker 2: But in the case of a bat, I would say,
• 23:37
  Speaker 2: the way to think of it is this. Have you
• 23:40
  Speaker 2: seen flying squirrels? Yes, okay, you've seen them fly? Okay,
• 23:45
  Speaker 2: not a person, but oh okay, I have actually twice seen it.
• 23:49
  Speaker 1: Yeah.
• 23:50
  Speaker 2: The funny thing is they're not uncommon, but they are
• 23:53
  Speaker 2: very uncommon to see. And the reason they are uncommon
• 23:56
  Speaker 2: to see is that they're nocturnal and they are so
• 24:00
  Speaker 2: damn silent. Right, So, the two times I've seen it
• 24:04
  Speaker 2: was when they got into an argument with each other, okay,
• 24:07
  Speaker 2: and they started chattering and I was like, huh, what
• 24:09
  Speaker 2: is this? And okay, lo and behold it's flying squirrels
• 24:11
  Speaker 2: and they're moving through, you know, a patch of forest.
• 24:14
  Speaker 2: And it's the most amazing thing, right, these things, you know,
• 24:19
  Speaker 2: technically they're not flying, they're purely gliding. I would argue
• 24:23
  Speaker 2: that that's actually not a really good distinction, because at
• 24:25
  Speaker 2: some level, what they're doing is powering flight by climbing trees.
• 24:29
  Speaker 2: So they climb a tree, you know, they've got potential energy,
• 24:32
  Speaker 2: and then they glide to the next tree. They'll go
• 24:35
  Speaker 2: from the end of a branch, and they will glide
• 24:39
  Speaker 2: much farther than you would think is possible. Right, It's
• 24:42
  Speaker 2: really like it challenges you. Am I really seeing what
• 24:45
  Speaker 2: I'm seeing, it's hard to believe they can do it.
• 24:48
  Speaker 2: And then they land on the trunk of the tree.
• 24:50
  Speaker 2: That's why they're so silent, right, They land on the
• 24:52
  Speaker 2: trunk so it doesn't make a big noise as they
• 24:54
  Speaker 2: hit some branch and the leaves rustle and all of that.
• 24:57
  Speaker 2: But anyway, if you've seen these creatures do, then you
• 25:01
  Speaker 2: can imagine a pretty clear story. Right. Imagine a squirrel
• 25:06
  Speaker 2: that doesn't glide, a regular garden variety squirrel, Well, that
• 25:11
  Speaker 2: squirrel certainly faces gaps between trees that push it to
• 25:15
  Speaker 2: its limit, and then there's gaps that are just a
• 25:17
  Speaker 2: little beyond its limit. And you could imagine lots of
• 25:21
  Speaker 2: scenarios in which a predator is chasing a squirrel and
• 25:26
  Speaker 2: it's got it out onto the end of a branch,
• 25:28
  Speaker 2: and the squirrel has to leap, and so it's got
• 25:31
  Speaker 2: to be pretty durable in case it can't make it
• 25:33
  Speaker 2: to the next tree. They are, But any squirrel that
• 25:37
  Speaker 2: had just a little advantage in getting to that next
• 25:42
  Speaker 2: tree would out compete ones that got consumed or died
• 25:46
  Speaker 2: because they hit the ground too hard or fell in
• 25:51
  Speaker 2: front of a predator that took advantage of it, or
• 25:53
  Speaker 2: something like that. So there is an advantage that comes
• 25:55
  Speaker 2: from even a tiny little increase in the distance you
• 25:58
  Speaker 2: can jump that gets you pretty clearly from no ability
• 26:03
  Speaker 2: to glide at all, ability to jump as is, to
• 26:07
  Speaker 2: the ability to glide a little, to the ability to
• 26:09
  Speaker 2: glide a lot, to the ability to glide the way
• 26:13
  Speaker 2: modern flying squirrels do, which is like so impressive, right,
• 26:17
  Speaker 2: but it's still not it's not flapping flight, it's not powered.
• 26:21
  Speaker 2: So you can imagine a story in which the shrewd
• 26:23
  Speaker 2: ancestor climbed things and had the same situation, and maybe
• 26:29
  Speaker 2: it starts out, in fact, it probably does start out
• 26:32
  Speaker 2: with maybe a little webbing between the fingers that gives
• 26:37
  Speaker 2: it just a little extra lift, right, And you could
• 26:40
  Speaker 2: imagine once you get onto that little foothill a little lift, Well,
• 26:45
  Speaker 2: a little more lift.
• 26:46
  Speaker 1: Would be good.
• 26:47
  Speaker 2: So those individuals that had just slightly more webbing out
• 26:50
  Speaker 2: competed those individuals that had slightly less.
• 26:52
  Speaker 1: But what would cause them to develop the webbing in
• 26:54
  Speaker 1: the first place.
• 26:55
  Speaker 2: Well, that's just it is. You know, you have that
• 27:00
  Speaker 2: random mutation is Well, yeah, I would say at some level,
• 27:05
  Speaker 2: these things all have to start there. But my overarching
• 27:10
  Speaker 2: point is selection not only discovers forms, it discovers ways
• 27:20
  Speaker 2: to discover forms. So I call these ways explorer modes.
• 27:26
  Speaker 2: This is a concept I've taken a certain amount of
• 27:28
  Speaker 2: crap over, but I'm quite convinced of it. I would
• 27:32
  Speaker 2: argue that our consciousness is an explorer mode, right. Our
• 27:35
  Speaker 2: consciousness allows us to come up with ideas that might
• 27:41
  Speaker 2: be useful, and to kind of test them in our
• 27:43
  Speaker 2: heads and to figure out how we would try them
• 27:46
  Speaker 2: out in life, and then to build a prototype and
• 27:49
  Speaker 2: see how it works, and then discover how it might
• 27:52
  Speaker 2: be improved. And you know, sooner or later you get
• 27:55
  Speaker 2: from you know, the right flier of nineteen oh three,
• 27:58
  Speaker 2: which can stay off the ground for barely half a minute,
• 28:01
  Speaker 2: to not so many years later a modification of the
• 28:05
  Speaker 2: same aircraft that can circle the Eiffel Tower. Right. It's
• 28:09
  Speaker 2: that process that is the ability to explore design space
• 28:13
  Speaker 2: in some way that is not random, and to the
• 28:17
  Speaker 2: extent of the genome is capable of storing a large
• 28:21
  Speaker 2: number of variables and then applying them. What that means is,
• 28:26
  Speaker 2: at the point that you have the first true bat,
• 28:30
  Speaker 2: right the first flyer, that animal has discovered an adaptive landscape,
• 28:37
  Speaker 2: a series of opportunities that we represent as peaks that
• 28:41
  Speaker 2: is unknown. What can you do if you can fly
• 28:45
  Speaker 2: that you couldn't do when you could only climb well.
• 28:49
  Speaker 2: You can move between distant trees and collect fruit. You
• 28:53
  Speaker 2: can catch insects that are flying on the wing. You
• 28:57
  Speaker 2: can seek out mammals and birds and slit them open
• 29:02
  Speaker 2: and drink their blood. You can catch fish that come
• 29:06
  Speaker 2: to the surface and cause ripples. These are all things
• 29:09
  Speaker 2: that bats do. And the point is the initial bat
• 29:12
  Speaker 2: presumably didn't do much of any of that. It did
• 29:15
  Speaker 2: some probably a generalist something, but having achieved flight, there's
• 29:21
  Speaker 2: a question about how evolution can find all of the
• 29:25
  Speaker 2: opportunities that are now suddenly available, and the idea that
• 29:28
  Speaker 2: this happens through occasional random mutation of a protein coating
• 29:34
  Speaker 2: gene that alters something important is, in my opinion, ridiculous.
• 29:41
  Speaker 2: That more likely, vastly more likely, is a system in
• 29:47
  Speaker 2: which parameters like finger length and the length of each
• 29:51
  Speaker 2: FAILANX in the finger is stored as a variable, and
• 29:57
  Speaker 2: those variables get readily modified. In other words, if you
• 30:04
  Speaker 2: looked at the hand of every human being, you would
• 30:09
  Speaker 2: see that there is already a ton of variation in
• 30:12
  Speaker 2: you know, the relative lengths of the different digits and
• 30:15
  Speaker 2: the relative lengths to each of the knuckles, and that
• 30:19
  Speaker 2: if those things are reflective of a particular state stored
• 30:24
  Speaker 2: as essentially an integer in the genome, that all of
• 30:29
  Speaker 2: the adjacent states are very available, and therefore evolution can
• 30:38
  Speaker 2: explore what Stuart Kauffman would call the adjacent possible. Right
• 30:44
  Speaker 2: have you heard that term?
• 30:45
  Speaker 1: No?
• 30:46
  Speaker 2: Have you had Stewart on? So, Stuart Kaufman is a
• 30:50
  Speaker 2: complex systems theorist, and his point, one of many, is
• 30:56
  Speaker 2: that effectively the creatures we see exist in a design space,
• 31:05
  Speaker 2: and that selection finds the things that are similar to
• 31:09
  Speaker 2: what you've got near enough to be accessed and advantageous. Right, so,
• 31:16
  Speaker 2: if you have a rodent of one size, and there
• 31:21
  Speaker 2: is you know, let's say you have a rodent that
• 31:23
  Speaker 2: specializes on a particular seed and it exists in a
• 31:29
  Speaker 2: habitat where there's another seed that's similar but much bigger. Well,
• 31:34
  Speaker 2: then you need to access the adjacent possible in order
• 31:38
  Speaker 2: for a second species or subspecies of this rodent to
• 31:42
  Speaker 2: evolve to take advantage of this untapped resource. So if
• 31:46
  Speaker 2: you think of you know, all of the things that
• 31:48
  Speaker 2: you've got, and then all of the things that you
• 31:51
  Speaker 2: might want that are similar, that's the adjacent possible. And
• 31:55
  Speaker 2: my point is variables, as one of the primary modes
• 32:01
  Speaker 2: of information storage in the genome, provides a mechanism for
• 32:06
  Speaker 2: evolution to explore the adjacent possible in a radically more
• 32:12
  Speaker 2: effective way than the story we typically tell about random
• 32:16
  Speaker 2: mutations to protein coding genes. There's nothing un Darwinian about this.
• 32:22
  Speaker 2: Darwin didn't know anything about genes, probably to his advantage
• 32:26
  Speaker 2: in the long term, because if he had understood genes,
• 32:28
  Speaker 2: he might have made many of the same mistakes that
• 32:31
  Speaker 2: we made in the middle of the twentieth century in evolution,
• 32:34
  Speaker 2: where we became overly focused on the genes we understood,
• 32:38
  Speaker 2: but basically everything that the Darwin said was about a
• 32:43
  Speaker 2: vague hereditary information and numbers is no less a candidate
• 32:49
  Speaker 2: for that than triplet codons stored that code for amino acids.
• 32:55
  Speaker 2: So my point is Darwin is untouched by this. Darwin
• 32:59
  Speaker 2: is still the guy. He nailed it, and this is
• 33:03
  Speaker 2: just as Darwinian as protein coding genes. It's just vastly
• 33:08
  Speaker 2: more powerful with respect to taking a form that you've
• 33:11
  Speaker 2: already got and finding a similar form that you don't
• 33:14
  Speaker 2: yet have. Now, there's lots of nuances about how this
• 33:17
  Speaker 2: could work. There's lots of questions I certainly can't answer.
• 33:20
  Speaker 2: I will say, as I was mentioning at the top,
• 33:24
  Speaker 2: this story seems to be largely unaddressed in adaptive evolution space.
• 33:31
  Speaker 2: If I come at it from the EVO DEVO side,
• 33:33
  Speaker 2: I see much more description of mechanisms that work like this,
• 33:41
  Speaker 2: But I don't see the revolution that should happen when
• 33:46
  Speaker 2: you've come to understand that you have this very powerful
• 33:49
  Speaker 2: additional evolutionary mechanism that should be causing a massive uptick
• 33:55
  Speaker 2: in the power of what we can address adaptively. It
• 34:01
  Speaker 2: does not seem to be there. So you know, I'm
• 34:03
  Speaker 2: not in a university anymore. I'm not primarily working as
• 34:06
  Speaker 2: a biologist, so it's possible I've missed something. But there's well,
• 34:12
  Speaker 2: I mean, as you know, we have massively dysfunctional institutions
• 34:17
  Speaker 2: and they I you know, I've thought my field was
• 34:22
  Speaker 2: stuck in a ditch since really before I entered it.
• 34:25
  Speaker 2: You know, the last major progress in my field was
• 34:28
  Speaker 2: nineteen seventy six. And really that's what I think, Yeah,
• 34:33
  Speaker 2: what was that? The selfish gene provides us a mechanism.
• 34:41
  Speaker 2: It's basically a synthesis of what we understand about adaptive evolution.
• 34:45
  Speaker 2: It provides the first gateway to understand cultural evolution in
• 34:52
  Speaker 2: rigorous Darwinian terms. I don't think that that that gateway.
• 34:58
  Speaker 2: I don't think we ever went through it. In fact,
• 35:00
  Speaker 2: when I've talked to Dawkins about his effective discovery the meme,
• 35:07
  Speaker 2: he doesn't seem to understand the power of it. He
• 35:10
  Speaker 2: thinks of it as I mean, he says in chapter
• 35:13
  Speaker 2: eleven of the Selfish Gene, he says that the landscape
• 35:19
  Speaker 2: of memes is like a new primeval soup, which is
• 35:23
  Speaker 2: not what it is. It's actually a solution that the
• 35:27
  Speaker 2: genes have come up with for how to evolve things
• 35:31
  Speaker 2: like humans more rapidly than can be done at the
• 35:34
  Speaker 2: genetic level. Right, we can evolve at a cultural level,
• 35:37
  Speaker 2: which solves a problem for the genes that the genes
• 35:39
  Speaker 2: can't solve directly, and that means that all of the
• 35:43
  Speaker 2: space of human culture and the culture of other creatures,
• 35:47
  Speaker 2: but our culture is vastly more refined and powerful and diverse.
• 35:54
  Speaker 2: But that space is basically an enhanced it to another
• 36:00
  Speaker 2: enhancement to the toolkit of Darwinian evolution, which we have
• 36:06
  Speaker 2: unfortunately often dismissed as non evolutionary or as a parallel
• 36:13
  Speaker 2: kind of evolution, rather than as a turbocharged adaptive evolution
• 36:20
  Speaker 2: that is targeted at the same objectives as our genes are,
• 36:25
  Speaker 2: which is what it really turns out to be. So
• 36:28
  Speaker 2: in any case, that was nineteen seventy six. The thing
• 36:33
  Speaker 2: that has been a revolution since then was evodivo evolution
• 36:39
  Speaker 2: of development. But it didn't come from the darwinis. It
• 36:42
  Speaker 2: came primarily from the developmental side. These are people who
• 36:45
  Speaker 2: were focused on mechanism, and so in some sense the
• 36:50
  Speaker 2: story of the failure of biology to update our evolutionary
• 36:57
  Speaker 2: model is the result of a historical accident right. So
• 37:03
  Speaker 2: the first Darwinists, including Darwin himself, were not focused on
• 37:09
  Speaker 2: molecular scale mechanisms because they couldn't be. They didn't have
• 37:13
  Speaker 2: any tools to look at those things. And so they
• 37:15
  Speaker 2: looked at the creatures and they saw patterns, and so
• 37:19
  Speaker 2: they became very focused on recognizing the patterns and what
• 37:23
  Speaker 2: they imply about what must be going on inside. But
• 37:26
  Speaker 2: they got out of the habit of thinking about mechanism
• 37:29
  Speaker 2: because the mechanisms weren't available to them. The developmental biologists
• 37:33
  Speaker 2: were exactly the inverse. They didn't really have patience for
• 37:37
  Speaker 2: evolutionary thinking. They were purely about mechanism and all kinds
• 37:42
  Speaker 2: of experiments like you know, taking a piece of one
• 37:46
  Speaker 2: egg and grafting it into another egg and watching the
• 37:49
  Speaker 2: weird monster that is created when the egg is getting
• 37:52
  Speaker 2: the same signal from two different directions, right, that kind
• 37:55
  Speaker 2: of thing. And you know, EVO devo is a very
• 38:00
  Speaker 2: good start on bringing these things together. But I don't
• 38:04
  Speaker 2: know if it's academic territoriality or just lack of imagination.
• 38:08
  Speaker 2: Seems to be preventing the revolution in our understanding of
• 38:13
  Speaker 2: the most powerful process that exists. And it's frustrating. So anyway,
• 38:22
  Speaker 2: I hope, I hope others will take this to heart.
• 38:27
  Speaker 2: It could easily be that the larger point is right,
• 38:31
  Speaker 2: that variables in the genome are very important, and that
• 38:34
  Speaker 2: the variable number ten and repeats are not the way
• 38:37
  Speaker 2: that they are stored. That would be interesting. Maybe the
• 38:40
  Speaker 2: variable number tend and repeats are the way it's stored,
• 38:42
  Speaker 2: in which case there's an awful lot to be learned
• 38:45
  Speaker 2: about how that information is read. In other words, if
• 38:48
  Speaker 2: once you know that that's true, if it is, then
• 38:51
  Speaker 2: the question is, okay, well, how do we look into
• 38:54
  Speaker 2: a particular genome and see the mapping of those variables
• 38:57
  Speaker 2: onto the creature that we see running around in the forest? Right?
• 39:01
  Speaker 2: That would be an amazingly powerful mapping to have. So anyway,
• 39:11
  Speaker 2: I didn't want to leave it as a vague allusion
• 39:14
  Speaker 2: to a hidden layer. I wanted to point to a
• 39:18
  Speaker 2: hidden layer that would explain how this process that we've
• 39:21
  Speaker 2: all learned about might be much more powerful than the
• 39:25
  Speaker 2: story we've been told about it.
• 39:27
  Speaker 1: I was watching a documentary once on the BBC about
• 39:31
  Speaker 1: the Congo and it's a really amazing documentary, and one
• 39:34
  Speaker 1: of the things that it points out to is the
• 39:35
  Speaker 1: rapid development of new abilities that these animals have that
• 39:40
  Speaker 1: live in the congo that used to be on the plains,
• 39:43
  Speaker 1: and as the rainforest expanded, they were kind of trapped
• 39:48
  Speaker 1: in here. And one of them they pointed to was dikers,
• 39:51
  Speaker 1: you know, those small antelopes that now have the ability
• 39:54
  Speaker 1: to swim underwater for as much as one hundred yards
• 39:58
  Speaker 1: and they eat fish. And they were talking about it
• 40:01
  Speaker 1: like this is this fantastic development because they know how
• 40:04
  Speaker 1: long it took for the grasslands to have been overtaken
• 40:08
  Speaker 1: by the rainforest, and it wasn't that long, and it
• 40:12
  Speaker 1: didn't seem to account for the adaptation that they were
• 40:15
  Speaker 1: seeing in these animals.
• 40:17
  Speaker 2: This is exactly the thing that bugs me is imagine
• 40:22
  Speaker 2: what would have happened if there was not an enhanced
• 40:25
  Speaker 2: evolutionary toolkit to that creature would have gone extinct. Right,
• 40:32
  Speaker 2: that's the story again and again, Well, it's.
• 40:34
  Speaker 1: A story with humans right Inuits, It's a story with
• 40:36
  Speaker 1: people that live in extremely cold climates. Right, they've developed
• 40:40
  Speaker 1: all these adaptations to be able to survive in this
• 40:45
  Speaker 1: intense weather where people who live in the tropics, if
• 40:48
  Speaker 1: they've moved them to that environment, they would die.
• 40:51
  Speaker 2: It's the story with every clade of creatures. This is
• 40:57
  Speaker 2: a chaotic planet right at levels that I think maybe
• 41:01
  Speaker 2: we don't even fully yet appreciate the difference between committing
• 41:07
  Speaker 2: to a particular way of existing that seems really awesome
• 41:11
  Speaker 2: for some period of time and then is suddenly impossible.
• 41:14
  Speaker 2: And the ability to leap from one way of being
• 41:16
  Speaker 2: to another is the key to getting through time, which
• 41:20
  Speaker 2: is what evolution is doing. Right. I always phrase it
• 41:23
  Speaker 2: as the purpose that evolution points towards is lodging your
• 41:28
  Speaker 2: genes as far into the future as you can get them.
• 41:32
  Speaker 2: And people don't I think fully appreciate when I say
• 41:34
  Speaker 2: that that it's not just a clever rephrasing of what
• 41:39
  Speaker 2: might be more standard might be found in a textbook.
• 41:42
  Speaker 2: The point is anything that satisfies that objective is valid. So,
• 41:50
  Speaker 2: for example, if you have so we have a process.
• 41:55
  Speaker 2: It's one of my favorites to think about, which is
• 41:58
  Speaker 2: called adaptive radiation. Adaptive radiation is where you get some
• 42:02
  Speaker 2: creature that either solves some problem or gets to some
• 42:06
  Speaker 2: new place and then diversifies and we get fifty or
• 42:11
  Speaker 2: one hundred or one thousand species that are derived from
• 42:15
  Speaker 2: that initial discovery. Right, So you get this blooming of forms. Right,
• 42:19
  Speaker 2: the first bird. What was the first bird even doing,
• 42:23
  Speaker 2: We don't know. But what we do know is that
• 42:27
  Speaker 2: we have eleven thousand species of these things now, all
• 42:30
  Speaker 2: doing subtly different stuff, right, some of them not even
• 42:33
  Speaker 2: flying right, some of them have lost the ability to fly.
• 42:37
  Speaker 2: So the point is the discovery of birdness opens up
• 42:42
  Speaker 2: a huge number of potential discoveries. Evolution would be a
• 42:46
  Speaker 2: dumb process if it didn't effectively search that space, if
• 42:51
  Speaker 2: it randomly weighted to find each of those opportunities. That's
• 42:57
  Speaker 2: so much less powerful than searching the space. And then
• 43:00
  Speaker 2: once you get the search of a space. Okay, so
• 43:04
  Speaker 2: you get you know, one hundred hits, you get some innovation.
• 43:08
  Speaker 2: It provides one hundred niches that you could move into.
• 43:11
  Speaker 2: From there, it creates one hundred species. And it turns
• 43:14
  Speaker 2: out most of those niches are durable on the scale
• 43:19
  Speaker 2: of ten thousand years, but not fifty thousand years. So
• 43:22
  Speaker 2: you get a bunch of them going extinct. But as
• 43:26
  Speaker 2: long as one of them or two of them have
• 43:29
  Speaker 2: gotten through that bottleneck, right, the huge blooming of branches
• 43:32
  Speaker 2: and then the pruning of branches, the ancestor has now
• 43:36
  Speaker 2: gotten to the future in the form of however, many
• 43:40
  Speaker 2: species made it through that destructive process. It is selection
• 43:46
  Speaker 2: at a different scale than we typically think of it,
• 43:48
  Speaker 2: and so thinking of evolution is this dynamic process that
• 43:53
  Speaker 2: is not only searching design space, but learning to enhance
• 43:58
  Speaker 2: its capacity to search design space in order to get
• 44:02
  Speaker 2: into the future is the way to think of it.
• 44:03
  Speaker 2: It's much more powerful than the clumsy version that we describe,
• 44:08
  Speaker 2: even if we don't yet understand where that power is lodged.
• 44:11
  Speaker 2: If we were imaginative and we said, okay, what would
• 44:14
  Speaker 2: I do if I was evolution to enhance the likelihood
• 44:17
  Speaker 2: of getting to the future, Well, then you start finding
• 44:21
  Speaker 2: these explorer modes, and you know, I understand that I
• 44:24
  Speaker 2: will be ridiculed for saying that, because it imposes on
• 44:29
  Speaker 2: selection a directionality that probably at a technical level we
• 44:35
  Speaker 2: are right to assume does not exist. But let me
• 44:40
  Speaker 2: point this out. We often say that evolution cannot look forward,
• 44:46
  Speaker 2: it can only see the past. At a technical level,
• 44:50
  Speaker 2: this is true. On the other hand, we all agree
• 44:53
  Speaker 2: that evolution built us. I can see the future, right,
• 44:58
  Speaker 2: I can understand what is likely to happen. I can
• 45:02
  Speaker 2: extrapolate and see things that haven't occurred yet, and I
• 45:07
  Speaker 2: will do hypothesis testing to see if my understanding is correct.
• 45:10
  Speaker 2: But the point is evolution can't see the future, but
• 45:13
  Speaker 2: it can build creatures that see the future on its behalf.
• 45:17
  Speaker 2: Isn't that kind of like it looking into the future.
• 45:19
  Speaker 2: M It feels a lot like it is to me.
• 45:21
  Speaker 1: I've always been fascinated by animals that don't change, like
• 45:25
  Speaker 1: animals that have reached some very bizarre apex predator like crocodiles, for.
• 45:31
  Speaker 2: Instance, crocodiles, dragon flies, sharks, horseshoe crabs. Yeah, so this
• 45:39
  Speaker 2: is a place where I think a good evolutionary course
• 45:43
  Speaker 2: says the right thing about it. What a good evolutionary
• 45:46
  Speaker 2: course says about this is we think of these creatures
• 45:51
  Speaker 2: as backwards. They are the opposite. They are so good
• 45:57
  Speaker 2: that in spite of competition from more modern forms, they
• 46:00
  Speaker 2: still persist. Right. If you've watched a dragonfly, it's a
• 46:04
  Speaker 2: super agile creature, right, it's a formidable predator. And so anyway,
• 46:12
  Speaker 2: when you see one of these creatures that has been
• 46:14
  Speaker 2: very little modified, it's because it did find a form
• 46:18
  Speaker 2: that's durable over a very long period of time, And
• 46:22
  Speaker 2: in some ways that's the greatest strategy, right, Having to
• 46:27
  Speaker 2: change in order to deal with the changes in the
• 46:31
  Speaker 2: environment is perilous. Having found something that is so durable
• 46:37
  Speaker 2: that it consists, that it persists era after era, epoch
• 46:41
  Speaker 2: after epoch is at least a very comprehensible strategy, and
• 46:48
  Speaker 2: arguably the better one, because anything that has existed that long.
• 46:52
  Speaker 2: Maybe we talked in a past podcast about the Lindi effect, Yes, yeah,
• 46:58
  Speaker 2: the idea that we tend to think that the longer
• 47:00
  Speaker 2: something's been around, that it's overdue to be destroyed. But
• 47:05
  Speaker 2: that often the answer is something that's been around a
• 47:08
  Speaker 2: long time is actually built to last, and so if
• 47:10
  Speaker 2: it's been around a long time, you might expect to
• 47:12
  Speaker 2: see it last a lot longer. So it's that it's
• 47:16
  Speaker 2: the Lindy effect in animal or plant form.
• 47:20
  Speaker 1: So it's just essentially evolution nailed it. They developed an
• 47:25
  Speaker 1: animal that's so adaptive and so designed to succeed in
• 47:30
  Speaker 1: its particular environment that it doesn't really need to change.
• 47:33
  Speaker 2: Yes, and in fact, you know, we are in some ways.
• 47:36
  Speaker 2: We haven't been around that long, but our it looks
• 47:42
  Speaker 2: like we are a variation on that theme, precisely because
• 47:48
  Speaker 2: we have a generalist body plan right. The physical robot,
• 47:54
  Speaker 2: that is the human being, is capable of doing a
• 47:57
  Speaker 2: tremendous number of things, and the software program can be
• 48:01
  Speaker 2: essentially entirely rewritten. Right the culture that you Inherit can
• 48:06
  Speaker 2: take a person and it can rewire them for a
• 48:10
  Speaker 2: very different niche, including the ability to avail themselves of
• 48:15
  Speaker 2: whatever tools are necessary to do whatever things that the
• 48:18
  Speaker 2: body plan doesn't do on its own.
• 48:20
  Speaker 1: Right.
• 48:20
  Speaker 2: So that's a cool strategy, right to have a generalist
• 48:25
  Speaker 2: robot and a software program that can be swapped out
• 48:29
  Speaker 2: as as needed, that evolution can rewrite very rapidly. That
• 48:33
  Speaker 2: evolution can rewrite on the basis of not only the
• 48:39
  Speaker 2: conjecture of an intelligent creature, but the pooled, parallel processing
• 48:45
  Speaker 2: of multiple individuals of the species. This is what Heather
• 48:50
  Speaker 2: and I describe in our book as campfire. Right, the
• 48:54
  Speaker 2: light has faded. It's too dark for you to be
• 48:56
  Speaker 2: productive at whatever your niche is. You gather around the
• 48:59
  Speaker 2: campfire and you talk. You talk about problems that you've
• 49:04
  Speaker 2: run into, solutions that you're working on. You pool the information.
• 49:09
  Speaker 2: People have different histories, they have different skill sets, and
• 49:13
  Speaker 2: they parallel process the puzzles and they come up with ideas,
• 49:18
  Speaker 2: which you know, the most amazing adaptation of all is
• 49:23
  Speaker 2: the one we're using right now. Right The ability for
• 49:27
  Speaker 2: me to put an abstract idea into your head over
• 49:31
  Speaker 2: open space by vibrating the air molecules between us. I mean,
• 49:36
  Speaker 2: that is a miracle, pretty crazy, it's amazing, and you
• 49:40
  Speaker 2: know that we can prove that we're not fooling ourselves.
• 49:43
  Speaker 2: I could say something you know that nobody's ever thought of,
• 49:48
  Speaker 2: you know, like I don't know potato rocket ship, right,
• 49:54
  Speaker 2: and you could draw on the piece of paper your
• 49:57
  Speaker 2: interpretation and I could say, yeah, that's the thing I
• 49:59
  Speaker 2: was thinking of. That ability to prove that we are
• 50:03
  Speaker 2: in fact exchanging abstract ideas across open air, and that
• 50:07
  Speaker 2: that allows multiple minds that are not physically touching each
• 50:10
  Speaker 2: other to process together concepts is It's truly stunning, and
• 50:20
  Speaker 2: in conjunction with the generalist robot that can use tools,
• 50:23
  Speaker 2: it's an amazingly good strategy.
• 50:26
  Speaker 1: When you talk about humans, one of the things that
• 50:29
  Speaker 1: fascinates me about people is the changes in human beings
• 50:34
  Speaker 1: because of the environment, because of input, meaning like certain
• 50:40
  Speaker 1: chemicals were exposed to sedentary lifestyle. There's changes that are
• 50:45
  Speaker 1: taking place that we can measure from human beings that
• 50:49
  Speaker 1: lived in the beginning of the twentieth century to people
• 50:52
  Speaker 1: that live now in the beginning of the twenty first century.
• 50:55
  Speaker 1: You're one of the things that people are talking about
• 50:58
  Speaker 1: with a great concern. Like doctor chan A Swan's done
• 51:01
  Speaker 1: a lot of work on this is the impact of
• 51:03
  Speaker 1: microplastics on our indigrine system and how it's greatly diminishing
• 51:08
  Speaker 1: male's ability to procreate and female's ability to bring a
• 51:13
  Speaker 1: baby to term. So you're getting many more miscarriages and
• 51:17
  Speaker 1: lower testosterone counts, smaller testicles and penises, reduced size of
• 51:22
  Speaker 1: the taints, all these different things that she attributes to
• 51:25
  Speaker 1: thalates and various chemicals that are endicant disruptors that are
• 51:29
  Speaker 1: ubiquitous in our in our world. Is this something that
• 51:33
  Speaker 1: you think about? Do you do like, is this something
• 51:37
  Speaker 1: Are we in the middle of an adaptation or some
• 51:40
  Speaker 1: sort of a change of the human species, or is
• 51:44
  Speaker 1: it just being poisoned.
• 51:46
  Speaker 2: We're being poisoned, and we're being poisoned in a particular way.
• 51:50
  Speaker 2: I would say we have effectively threatened to kill the
• 51:54
  Speaker 2: goose that lays the golden eggs. The normal pattern for
• 51:59
  Speaker 2: human beings is you inherit your ancestors world. Every so often,
• 52:08
  Speaker 2: that's not true. Every so often a generation finds itself
• 52:12
  Speaker 2: in a brand new circumstance. You know, you kayak kayak
• 52:16
  Speaker 2: across some body of water, and you end up in
• 52:20
  Speaker 2: some foreign place in which the animals and plants aren't
• 52:24
  Speaker 2: the same and your old way of life isn't going
• 52:28
  Speaker 2: to work, and you have to bootstrap something new. It's
• 52:31
  Speaker 2: the same as it's similar to the first flying mammal
• 52:40
  Speaker 2: is suddenly faced with a whole set of opportunities that
• 52:42
  Speaker 2: it has to figure out how to solve. But the
• 52:45
  Speaker 2: point is, every so often a generation gets a wild
• 52:48
  Speaker 2: curve ball and it has to start not from scratch
• 52:51
  Speaker 2: but close to it. But in general, okay, that first
• 52:55
  Speaker 2: generation figures out how we're going to make a living here,
• 52:58
  Speaker 2: and it passes information on to its descendants, who have
• 53:02
  Speaker 2: a lot of room to refine what their ancestors figured out.
• 53:05
  Speaker 2: And for some generations you get this rapid refinement process
• 53:09
  Speaker 2: and then eventually you kind of figure it out. I
• 53:12
  Speaker 2: know how we're going to live in this valley, and
• 53:14
  Speaker 2: here's how it works. And one generation passes it on
• 53:16
  Speaker 2: to the next, and the valley doesn't change very much.
• 53:20
  Speaker 2: That process is sustainable. Humans are excellent at dealing with it, right,
• 53:25
  Speaker 2: because we're good at parallel processing puzzles. Right, A population
• 53:31
  Speaker 2: of people can figure out how to live here when
• 53:34
  Speaker 2: the way to do it doesn't look like how we
• 53:36
  Speaker 2: lived there. However, there is a threshold at which our
• 53:41
  Speaker 2: amazing ability to adapt culturally and physiologically is outstripped. And
• 53:49
  Speaker 2: that is the point at which technological change is so
• 53:52
  Speaker 2: fast that you're not even an adult in the same
• 53:57
  Speaker 2: environment you grew up in. That's what we now consistently
• 54:00
  Speaker 2: live in. Right. The world you and I now live
• 54:03
  Speaker 2: in doesn't look anything like the world we grew up in. Right.
• 54:05
  Speaker 2: The number of radical differences in terms of the chemicals
• 54:10
  Speaker 2: that we encounter, in terms of the behavior of other people,
• 54:13
  Speaker 2: in terms of the information that comes into our eyes,
• 54:16
  Speaker 2: these things have all been revolutionized. I've frankly seen several revolutions.
• 54:21
  Speaker 2: You and I have both seen several revolutions already. You know,
• 54:24
  Speaker 2: we had the computer, then we had the internet, then
• 54:28
  Speaker 2: we had the smartphone, then we had social media. Now
• 54:32
  Speaker 2: we're facing AI. Right. Each of these things would take
• 54:36
  Speaker 2: time to metabolize. To deal with the harms of them
• 54:41
  Speaker 2: to learn how to address them in a wise way.
• 54:43
  Speaker 2: But we never get the chance to figure that out
• 54:46
  Speaker 2: because the next one is already upon us. In fact,
• 54:49
  Speaker 2: it's you ever go body surfing and you get into
• 54:53
  Speaker 2: a situation where the waves are just coming too quick,
• 54:56
  Speaker 2: and as soon as you catch your breath from one,
• 54:58
  Speaker 2: the next one is on you. It's like that. You
• 55:01
  Speaker 2: can't do that right. You need time to to settle.
• 55:06
  Speaker 2: And our rate of change is so high. This is
• 55:09
  Speaker 2: what Heather and I call hyper novelty. Hyper novelty is
• 55:12
  Speaker 2: the state at which even our amazing ability to rapidly
• 55:16
  Speaker 2: adapt is incapable of keeping pace with technological change. That's
• 55:21
  Speaker 2: where we are.
• 55:24
  Speaker 1: That really concerns me with humans, that drop off of testosterone,
• 55:29
  Speaker 1: the miscarriage rate increasing, like that's that's really spooky because
• 55:35
  Speaker 1: I don't see any change in the environment. I don't
• 55:41
  Speaker 1: see any change, and the use of plastics, I don't
• 55:44
  Speaker 1: see any change, and these endocrine disrupting chemicals being in
• 55:48
  Speaker 1: our systems. This episode is brought to you by Zip Recruiter.
• 55:52
  Speaker 1: We all have a favorite holiday movie. We'd like to
• 55:54
  Speaker 1: go back to it again and again. Like Home Alone, that
• 55:57
  Speaker 1: movie is always a fun watch. The bad guys get
• 55:59
  Speaker 1: their come up and lot, and of course there's the
• 56:02
  Speaker 1: wholesome feel good moment at the end that really gets
• 56:05
  Speaker 1: to the heart of the holidays. Whatever film you like
• 56:08
  Speaker 1: to watch, it took a team of talented people to
• 56:10
  Speaker 1: make it what it is. Actors, editors, props people, the
• 56:13
  Speaker 1: sound crew. When you need to build your own team
• 56:16
  Speaker 1: to make something magical happen, use ZipRecruiter. Try it for
• 56:20
  Speaker 1: free at ZipRecruiter dot com slash rogan. ZipRecruiter is the
• 56:25
  Speaker 1: number one rated hiring site based on G two and
• 56:28
  Speaker 1: that's because it works impossibly fast, as fast as Kevin
• 56:31
  Speaker 1: arming his home with every booby trap he can think of.
• 56:34
  Speaker 1: Immediately after you post your job, Ziprecruiter's matching technology will
• 56:38
  Speaker 1: connect you with potential job seekers in your area. Make
• 56:42
  Speaker 1: your hiring a little merrier. With ZipRecruiter. Four out of
• 56:45
  Speaker 1: five employers who post on ZipRecruiter get a quality candidate
• 56:49
  Speaker 1: within the first day. Just go to this exclusive web
• 56:52
  Speaker 1: address right now to try zip recruiter for free. That
• 56:56
  Speaker 1: ZipRecruiter dot com slash rogan again, and that's ZipRecruiter dot
• 57:01
  Speaker 1: com slash rogan. ZipRecruiter the smartest way to hire.
• 57:06
  Speaker 2: Well, I agree, and I think, you know, we need
• 57:09
  Speaker 2: to think outside the box with respect to what kinds
• 57:12
  Speaker 2: of inputs might be affecting us. I will say, in
• 57:16
  Speaker 2: parallel with what I think is a much more toxic environment,
• 57:22
  Speaker 2: you know, and developmentally toxic environment, we have a radical
• 57:29
  Speaker 2: change in the way human beings are interacting with each other, right,
• 57:34
  Speaker 2: And it is unclear to me how far reaching the
• 57:40
  Speaker 2: consequences of that might be. But you know, we talked
• 57:46
  Speaker 2: last time about the impact of the sexual revolution and
• 57:51
  Speaker 2: of reliable birth control and an abortion on the way
• 57:56
  Speaker 2: males and females interact with each other. That basically, sex
• 58:01
  Speaker 2: being the ultimate reward, the most powerful motivator that exists.
• 58:10
  Speaker 2: When birth control made sex common, or made it possible
• 58:13
  Speaker 2: for sex to be common by virtue of radically reducing
• 58:18
  Speaker 2: the risk that females face in engaging in sex with
• 58:22
  Speaker 2: men who won't invest it robbed us of the central
• 58:28
  Speaker 2: organizing principle of civilization, and the consequences of that central
• 58:34
  Speaker 2: organizing principle evaporating are incredibly far reaching. Right. In effect,
• 58:42
  Speaker 2: we do not know that there is a way for
• 58:44
  Speaker 2: us to live without that central organizing principle. We don't
• 58:48
  Speaker 2: know that it lasts, and we are running that radical experiment,
• 58:53
  Speaker 2: and then we're going to augment that radical experiment now
• 58:57
  Speaker 2: with AI and presumably the AI powered sex robots and
• 59:04
  Speaker 2: companions and other things that the mind is not built
• 59:08
  Speaker 2: to properly understand. Right, So what effect are all of
• 59:13
  Speaker 2: these things having? You know, is there a feedback effect
• 59:17
  Speaker 2: from your perception of the sexual landscape onto the development
• 59:22
  Speaker 2: of your children? I don't know it's conceivable that there
• 59:25
  Speaker 2: is such a thing, but I do know that if
• 59:29
  Speaker 2: we were wise, we would slow the pace of experienced
• 59:37
  Speaker 2: change way down.
• 59:39
  Speaker 1: But how is that even possible at this point?
• 59:42
  Speaker 2: I'm not saying it is right, but I'm saying if
• 59:44
  Speaker 2: we don't, I think we know that we're doomed. So
• 59:47
  Speaker 2: in light of that, what would you do if you
• 59:49
  Speaker 2: knew that down that path was destruction? You would start
• 59:54
  Speaker 2: thinking about the question of is there some way you know,
• 59:58
  Speaker 2: maybe you can't rain in the pace of technical logical change.
• 1:00:01
  Speaker 2: You can, certainly, and we should if we were wise,
• 1:00:05
  Speaker 2: we would insulate young people from exposure, especially to new stuff. Right,
• 1:00:14
  Speaker 2: there's a question about what stuff that we already have,
• 1:00:18
  Speaker 2: what effect it's having on them? But The fact that
• 1:00:20
  Speaker 2: we're just going to expose them to every new revolution
• 1:00:22
  Speaker 2: without figuring out what its consequences are is insane. Right.
• 1:00:29
  Speaker 2: We need to provide young people with a chemically and
• 1:00:36
  Speaker 2: informationally stable environment where the puzzles are solvable and they
• 1:00:42
  Speaker 2: are relevant to the adult world we expect them to
• 1:00:45
  Speaker 2: live in, which is difficult because we don't know what
• 1:00:47
  Speaker 2: world they're going to live in, but not in not
• 1:00:50
  Speaker 2: immunizing them is a terrible error, right, It can't work. Right.
• 1:00:57
  Speaker 2: The reason human childhood is the longest developmental childhood in
• 1:01:02
  Speaker 2: the animal kingdom by far is that it is the
• 1:01:07
  Speaker 2: training for adult life. If the training ground doesn't match
• 1:01:13
  Speaker 2: the world that you're going to be an adult in,
• 1:01:15
  Speaker 2: because the world you're going to be an adult in
• 1:01:16
  Speaker 2: is something nobody can predict, it is guaranteed to make
• 1:01:21
  Speaker 2: you a fish out of water as an adult. It's
• 1:01:25
  Speaker 2: extremely disruptive.
• 1:01:27
  Speaker 1: And essentially, every new groundbreaking technology and every new breakthrough,
• 1:01:32
  Speaker 1: every new paradigm shifting thing that gets created is a
• 1:01:37
  Speaker 1: completely new environment for these children, completely new, and we
• 1:01:42
  Speaker 1: know roadmap, no manual of how to navigate it. And
• 1:01:46
  Speaker 1: then we're seeing all these psychological harms increase in anxiety,
• 1:01:50
  Speaker 1: self harm, especially amongst young girls. Yes, suicidal ideation, actual suicide.
• 1:01:56
  Speaker 2: Well, I mean in other kinds texts I have said,
• 1:02:02
  Speaker 2: I probably said to you. You know, there are no adults, right,
• 1:02:06
  Speaker 2: That's one of the shocking discoveries of becoming adult age
• 1:02:11
  Speaker 2: is that it's not like there's some set of adults
• 1:02:13
  Speaker 2: who knows what to think about this and how to
• 1:02:15
  Speaker 2: approach it. One of the reasons that you would have
• 1:02:19
  Speaker 2: no adults is that it's kind of impossible to imagine
• 1:02:22
  Speaker 2: where they would come from. Right. An adult is somebody
• 1:02:25
  Speaker 2: who has picked up the wisdom for how to deal
• 1:02:28
  Speaker 2: with the world that you live in. Where would that
• 1:02:32
  Speaker 2: wisdom have come from if the world just showed up
• 1:02:34
  Speaker 2: five minutes ago. Right, It's in principle impossible to deal
• 1:02:38
  Speaker 2: with this level of change. So at most what you
• 1:02:41
  Speaker 2: can do is become, you know, very robust.
• 1:02:46
  Speaker 1: Do you think that this is where like writes of
• 1:02:48
  Speaker 1: passage ceremony come from, that there's a thing that differentiates
• 1:02:54
  Speaker 1: you between the younger version of yourself. You've gone through
• 1:02:57
  Speaker 1: this thing, and so it requires a shift in the
• 1:02:59
  Speaker 1: way that you view yourself and the world. Now you
• 1:03:03
  Speaker 1: have passed. Now you've gone through you know, whatever the
• 1:03:05
  Speaker 1: ceremony is, depending upon your culture. Now you are a man.
• 1:03:09
  Speaker 2: Yeah, in fact a woman. In a Hunter Gatherer's Guide
• 1:03:12
  Speaker 2: to the twenty first Century, Heather and I argue that
• 1:03:15
  Speaker 2: rites of passage are the place. So there are there
• 1:03:21
  Speaker 2: artificial in a sense. Right. We dictate that this is
• 1:03:24
  Speaker 2: the moment at which you go from being a boy
• 1:03:26
  Speaker 2: to being a man who is eligible to marry or
• 1:03:29
  Speaker 2: something like that. And the point is you know that
• 1:03:32
  Speaker 2: that date is coming. There is a thing that causes
• 1:03:36
  Speaker 2: you to have made that transition, right. Maybe it's a
• 1:03:39
  Speaker 2: vision quest of some kind. Maybe it's an animal that
• 1:03:43
  Speaker 2: you have to hunt and bring back or something. But
• 1:03:45
  Speaker 2: the point is you grow up with the knowledge that
• 1:03:49
  Speaker 2: I am a prototype until that marker, and after that
• 1:03:53
  Speaker 2: marker it's for real. Right, So you pick up an
• 1:03:58
  Speaker 2: increasing level of reality until you hit that agreed upon boundary,
• 1:04:04
  Speaker 2: at which point everybody is in a position to hold
• 1:04:07
  Speaker 2: you responsible for your behavior and to expect you to
• 1:04:10
  Speaker 2: have certain skills on board and the abandonment of these things. Right,
• 1:04:17
  Speaker 2: what we have is such a preposterous dim shadow of
• 1:04:23
  Speaker 2: what once was. You know, Okay, you graduated high school, right, Well,
• 1:04:27
  Speaker 2: I assure you graduating high school means very little in
• 1:04:30
  Speaker 2: terms of whether or not you know how to navigate
• 1:04:33
  Speaker 2: the adult world.
• 1:04:34
  Speaker 1: And in fact that least people with more anxiety because
• 1:04:38
  Speaker 1: you don't feel like you're an adult, but yet you're
• 1:04:40
  Speaker 1: supposed to be one. I'm eighteen now I need to
• 1:04:43
  Speaker 1: get a job, and you're out there in the world
• 1:04:45
  Speaker 1: and very confused and trying to figure it out along
• 1:04:49
  Speaker 1: the way, and also trying to pretend that you're a
• 1:04:52
  Speaker 1: man because maybe that somehow will make you feel more
• 1:04:55
  Speaker 1: like one, or take on male behavior, start smoking cigarettes,
• 1:04:59
  Speaker 1: whatever it is, like, whatever you see adult people do,
• 1:05:02
  Speaker 1: go to the bar like whatever it is, and try
• 1:05:04
  Speaker 1: to emulate what you think are men or.
• 1:05:08
  Speaker 2: Women especially, you know, if you think about what we
• 1:05:12
  Speaker 2: actually do to these kids. We put them in schools
• 1:05:16
  Speaker 2: where the adults are in some sense themselves immunized from
• 1:05:22
  Speaker 2: the realities of the adult world, and they end up
• 1:05:25
  Speaker 2: having these ridiculous notions about you know, whatever it may be.
• 1:05:30
  Speaker 2: It's very easy to pick on, you know, gender ideology
• 1:05:33
  Speaker 2: or equity.
• 1:05:34
  Speaker 1: Or but those are good examples though, because they're preposterous, ridiculous,
• 1:05:38
  Speaker 1: and they get adapted or adopted rather by enormous groups
• 1:05:42
  Speaker 1: of people and then reinforced violently. Like I always say
• 1:05:47
  Speaker 1: that the more ridiculous the idea is, the more aggressively
• 1:05:53
  Speaker 1: people fight against the resistance of this idea.
• 1:05:57
  Speaker 2: Yeah, it's they're solve some other problem, yes, but at
• 1:06:02
  Speaker 2: the level of how civilization is going to run, we
• 1:06:05
  Speaker 2: are signing our own death warrant, putting our children in
• 1:06:10
  Speaker 2: environments in which what they pick up is a determination
• 1:06:14
  Speaker 2: to be unrealistic in the face of evidence that they're wrong.
• 1:06:19
  Speaker 1: That's and then another thing that we're not course correcting, right. Yeah,
• 1:06:24
  Speaker 1: I mean people complain about it when their kids are
• 1:06:26
  Speaker 1: going to that school, but more kids are going to
• 1:06:28
  Speaker 1: that school, and it just keeps happening over and over again.
• 1:06:31
  Speaker 1: And then they go into the workforce and they have
• 1:06:33
  Speaker 1: these crazy ideas and they tank companies, you know, because
• 1:06:36
  Speaker 1: they try to impose these ridiculous ideologies in the real world,
• 1:06:39
  Speaker 1: and actual people that have become actual adults and are
• 1:06:43
  Speaker 1: out there working and struggling, go, this is fucking horseshit
• 1:06:48
  Speaker 1: and I'm not going along with this, and fuck your company.
• 1:06:50
  Speaker 1: And then all of a sudden that company gets done.
• 1:06:52
  Speaker 1: And then there's some adaptation that way because people realize,
• 1:06:56
  Speaker 1: like hey, we can't do this anymore. This is bad
• 1:06:58
  Speaker 1: for our business. We've got a course correct, but that
• 1:07:00
  Speaker 1: it seems like it's one of the only ways that
• 1:07:02
  Speaker 1: they do is by real world application, and that being
• 1:07:06
  Speaker 1: soundly rejected well, and financial consequences.
• 1:07:11
  Speaker 2: The problem is that all those consequences are way too
• 1:07:13
  Speaker 2: indirect to correct the people who are driving the.
• 1:07:17
  Speaker 1: Change, right and the people that aren't connected to that
• 1:07:20
  Speaker 1: world at all, because their entire existence is based in
• 1:07:24
  Speaker 1: this La la land where they're being funded by La
• 1:07:27
  Speaker 1: la land. They're teaching La la land ideology, they're reinforcing it,
• 1:07:31
  Speaker 1: and then they're in a position of authority. So they
• 1:07:34
  Speaker 1: are the person that these young people look up to,
• 1:07:36
  Speaker 1: and they're very articulate and they string words together well,
• 1:07:39
  Speaker 1: so they look impressive. They said, well, this guy must
• 1:07:41
  Speaker 1: be right, you know, and my parents must be really stupid,
• 1:07:45
  Speaker 1: and they've ruined society, and you know, we got to
• 1:07:48
  Speaker 1: give communism a shot. It just hasn't been done correctly, right.
• 1:07:51
  Speaker 2: We just got to go far enough. Well, the problem
• 1:07:54
  Speaker 2: is the thing that does turn you into an adult
• 1:07:59
  Speaker 2: is a world of consequences right now as a child,
• 1:08:05
  Speaker 2: somebody should prune that world of fatal consequences or you know,
• 1:08:09
  Speaker 2: ones that would get you maimed, But allowing you to
• 1:08:13
  Speaker 2: experience the harm of your wrong understanding of the world
• 1:08:18
  Speaker 2: is how you improve your understanding of the world. And
• 1:08:21
  Speaker 2: so a we're not even doing that right. We've got
• 1:08:24
  Speaker 2: this system in which we are allowing people who know
• 1:08:27
  Speaker 2: nothing to teach children the nothing that they know as
• 1:08:31
  Speaker 2: if it was high minded and important, and then they're
• 1:08:36
  Speaker 2: immunized from consequences by what I think you and I
• 1:08:41
  Speaker 2: would agree was initially a well intentioned attempt to protect
• 1:08:47
  Speaker 2: people from bad luck. You know that people who are
• 1:08:51
  Speaker 2: liberal minded, as you and I both are, don't want
• 1:08:54
  Speaker 2: to see people suffer because of bad luck. But when
• 1:08:58
  Speaker 2: you start immunizing people from the consequences of their bad
• 1:09:01
  Speaker 2: decision making, whether the people you're immunizing are corporate executives
• 1:09:05
  Speaker 2: who have gambled badly with the resources of their corporation,
• 1:09:11
  Speaker 2: or you know, children who make bad decisions and it
• 1:09:16
  Speaker 2: causes them to be disliked at school. People have to
• 1:09:19
  Speaker 2: have those consequences come back to haunt them so that
• 1:09:22
  Speaker 2: they will stop making the same mistakes and get wiser.
• 1:09:25
  Speaker 2: And any place that you break that with the equivalent
• 1:09:29
  Speaker 2: of a welfare program, you are guaranteeing that you will
• 1:09:33
  Speaker 2: end up with an infantilized adult population.
• 1:09:36
  Speaker 1: Yeah right, horrible reality. You know, because the compassionate kind
• 1:09:44
  Speaker 1: people want a safety net. You want a social safety net.
• 1:09:47
  Speaker 1: But making people reliant on that social safety net and
• 1:09:51
  Speaker 1: then having generation after generation relying on the social safety net,
• 1:09:55
  Speaker 1: you stifle all growth and development and make people dependent.
• 1:10:00
  Speaker 2: Well my infants, yeah you do. My argument would be
• 1:10:05
  Speaker 2: a system functions really well when people are immunized from
• 1:10:11
  Speaker 2: real bad luck, right, things that they it's not the
• 1:10:14
  Speaker 2: consequence of their bad decision making. It's actually you know,
• 1:10:17
  Speaker 2: you happen to get a tumor because of a genetic
• 1:10:21
  Speaker 2: vulnerability or an encounter with some chemical that you had
• 1:10:25
  Speaker 2: no ability to know was there. But that as soon
• 1:10:29
  Speaker 2: as you start immunizing people from the downstream effects of
• 1:10:33
  Speaker 2: their own bad decisions, where they had better decisions that
• 1:10:36
  Speaker 2: were available to them, you just get the evolution of
• 1:10:40
  Speaker 2: civilization into a quagmire.
• 1:10:43
  Speaker 1: Well, this is my fear, my great fear about the
• 1:10:45
  Speaker 1: concept of universal basic income. Yep, that we're going to
• 1:10:49
  Speaker 1: essentially make an entire civilization dependent upon its overlords.
• 1:10:55
  Speaker 2: I can't see how it could go. Well, I understand.
• 1:10:59
  Speaker 1: I can't see how I think if you're a nice person, well,
• 1:11:03
  Speaker 1: all these jobs are going to be replaced by AI
• 1:11:05
  Speaker 1: and automation. We need to find some way to help
• 1:11:08
  Speaker 1: people and give them the quality of life that they
• 1:11:11
  Speaker 1: need to succeed. But you're making them dependent on the
• 1:11:15
  Speaker 1: state forever.
• 1:11:17
  Speaker 2: Right, And what we really need to do and I
• 1:11:21
  Speaker 2: do not see any mechanism that is capable of it.
• 1:11:24
  Speaker 2: But what we really need to do is figure out
• 1:11:27
  Speaker 2: how we want people to allocate their time, what problems
• 1:11:34
  Speaker 2: we would like them to address themselves to right, and
• 1:11:37
  Speaker 2: then we need to reward them for success relative to
• 1:11:40
  Speaker 2: those problems and allow them to suffer from the failure
• 1:11:43
  Speaker 2: to make progress relative to those problems. Now I don't
• 1:11:46
  Speaker 2: exactly know what those problems are, because civilization is changing
• 1:11:49
  Speaker 2: so fast that it's very hard to even define what
• 1:11:53
  Speaker 2: it is that will need to be done. But peop,
• 1:11:56
  Speaker 2: I think we talked about this last time. People are
• 1:12:00
  Speaker 2: not going to be coherent absent purpose. They need to
• 1:12:07
  Speaker 2: have purpose. And it used to be that biology itself
• 1:12:11
  Speaker 2: forced purpose onto you right on the frontier. The ability
• 1:12:17
  Speaker 2: to win a mate, to provide enough shelter, consistent enough food,
• 1:12:27
  Speaker 2: all of the things necessary for life that that was
• 1:12:29
  Speaker 2: a full time occupation. It was difficult. Not everybody could
• 1:12:32
  Speaker 2: pull it off, and so it created a very concentrated purpose.
• 1:12:37
  Speaker 2: You succeeded if you managed in this environment to do
• 1:12:40
  Speaker 2: all those things and leave some offspring who were well
• 1:12:43
  Speaker 2: adjusted to the situation. In our environment, there is nothing
• 1:12:50
  Speaker 2: like this, and the winning a mate has been turned
• 1:12:57
  Speaker 2: into chaos. What does it even mean? Are their mates
• 1:13:01
  Speaker 2: out there that you would want to win? Are they
• 1:13:03
  Speaker 2: interested in reproducing? Are they interested in raising children? Are
• 1:13:08
  Speaker 2: they going to you know, farm that job out to
• 1:13:12
  Speaker 2: some crazy person who believes you can switch gender by
• 1:13:18
  Speaker 2: just saying you've done it right? So the purpose has
• 1:13:21
  Speaker 2: become incoherent the subordinate purposes which came later, right, the
• 1:13:27
  Speaker 2: ability to invest in a career, to climb some corporate ladder.
• 1:13:33
  Speaker 2: It doesn't sound very appealing to me, but at least
• 1:13:35
  Speaker 2: I understand what it is, right, at least you know, Okay,
• 1:13:39
  Speaker 2: there's a game. The company wants certain things accomplished. To
• 1:13:43
  Speaker 2: the extent that you accomplish them better than your competitors,
• 1:13:46
  Speaker 2: you rise farther. It leaves you an income that you
• 1:13:49
  Speaker 2: can spend in whatever way you want. That will impress
• 1:13:51
  Speaker 2: a mate. Right, it's at least understandable. The puzzle that
• 1:13:55
  Speaker 2: we have given people now is completely incoing and universal
• 1:14:02
  Speaker 2: basic income. I presume we'll keep people from starving, but
• 1:14:10
  Speaker 2: it ain't nearly good enough. People have to know what
• 1:14:15
  Speaker 2: they're supposed to be doing, because not doing it causes
• 1:14:19
  Speaker 2: them to suffer, and succeeding at it causes them to
• 1:14:22
  Speaker 2: feel good. They need at least that much direction.
• 1:14:25
  Speaker 1: But is it possible that we can move past the
• 1:14:28
  Speaker 1: idea that providing people or a person being able to
• 1:14:34
  Speaker 1: provide themselves with shelter and food, which is essentially what
• 1:14:38
  Speaker 1: we're saying with universal basic income, we're saying you will
• 1:14:41
  Speaker 1: have enough money to have shelter, you will have enough
• 1:14:43
  Speaker 1: money to have food, and you could acquire basic goods.
• 1:14:46
  Speaker 1: That this is not really what we should be working
• 1:14:49
  Speaker 1: towards in life anymore, and that is possible to find
• 1:14:53
  Speaker 1: some other purpose, goal or task that would replace those things,
• 1:14:58
  Speaker 1: and money would see just be what It would just
• 1:15:02
  Speaker 1: be a thing that you're using to acquire the means
• 1:15:06
  Speaker 1: to survive. And now you pursue this other thing, maybe
• 1:15:10
  Speaker 1: not necessarily for a monetary reason, not necessarily to acquire wealth,
• 1:15:16
  Speaker 1: but instead to educate yourself instead, you know, to as
• 1:15:22
  Speaker 1: a process of human development, a skill that you're learning,
• 1:15:27
  Speaker 1: a thing that you're competing in something.
• 1:15:29
  Speaker 2: Sure it gives you mean, except for one thing. What
• 1:15:34
  Speaker 2: has to be true at the end of that substitute
• 1:15:38
  Speaker 2: purpose is some undeniably valuable reward, right.
• 1:15:44
  Speaker 1: Because that's the motivating factor.
• 1:15:46
  Speaker 2: That's the thing that will cause you to do it right. Right,
• 1:15:49
  Speaker 2: So not starving is a great motivation, right. Being able
• 1:15:55
  Speaker 2: to buy stuff is a decent enough motivation. And to
• 1:16:00
  Speaker 2: the extent that there is stuff that's desirable that's out
• 1:16:03
  Speaker 2: of reach unless you get enough wealth, that's a decent
• 1:16:06
  Speaker 2: enough motivation. The nothing, I think, nothing is going to
• 1:16:13
  Speaker 2: substitute for the difficulty of well, for males, the difficulty
• 1:16:22
  Speaker 2: of winning the ability to have a sexual relationship with
• 1:16:31
  Speaker 2: a desirable female. Right, we now have all sorts of
• 1:16:35
  Speaker 2: things that cause people not to want to pursue that.
• 1:16:40
  Speaker 2: There are things, you know, obviously there's porn, there's going
• 1:16:45
  Speaker 2: to be sex robots, so that prostitution, prostitution, right, and
• 1:16:51
  Speaker 2: you know, part of me is wondering why women are
• 1:16:55
  Speaker 2: not up in arms over the fact that they are
• 1:17:00
  Speaker 2: being competed with with ever more sophisticated technology. I'm I'm
• 1:17:08
  Speaker 2: confused by why that is not an affront.
• 1:17:11
  Speaker 1: I think some women are there's they're definitely at arms
• 1:17:16
  Speaker 1: about porn, and then they think that not only are
• 1:17:19
  Speaker 1: they competing with this, but it's changing young men's view
• 1:17:25
  Speaker 1: of sex.
• 1:17:26
  Speaker 2: Oh, I think it absolutely is. In fact, I think
• 1:17:29
  Speaker 2: you know.
• 1:17:29
  Speaker 1: It's much more rejected amongst women.
• 1:17:32
  Speaker 2: That is not what I'm hearing really from my sons.
• 1:17:36
  Speaker 1: I'm hearing, Okay, what are you hearing.
• 1:17:39
  Speaker 2: That women are increasingly involved with porn? That it's really yes, and.
• 1:17:44
  Speaker 1: Which is involved in the creation or the viewing it,
• 1:17:48
  Speaker 1: watching it? God, that's that was never the case when
• 1:17:50
  Speaker 1: I was young.
• 1:17:51
  Speaker 2: Oh, of course not. No, I think I think it's not.
• 1:17:53
  Speaker 1: If you went over our girl's house and she had
• 1:17:54
  Speaker 1: a collection of porn, that that was a fucking warning signal.
• 1:17:57
  Speaker 2: Huge red flun right, So I think, you know, I don't.
• 1:18:02
  Speaker 2: There are plenty of voices out there that are focusing
• 1:18:07
  Speaker 2: on the defects of modern women. I don't want to
• 1:18:12
  Speaker 2: add to that chorus, but I do think there is
• 1:18:14
  Speaker 2: something shocking about the degree to which young women seem
• 1:18:20
  Speaker 2: to have signed up for the idea that being liberated.
• 1:18:27
  Speaker 2: That the measure of whether or not they have been
• 1:18:29
  Speaker 2: liberated is how much they are behaving like men at
• 1:18:32
  Speaker 2: their worst.
• 1:18:35
  Speaker 1: Right, Like the boss lady is a lady that behaves
• 1:18:39
  Speaker 1: like a.
• 1:18:39
  Speaker 2: Man at work, behaves like a man at work. Treating
• 1:18:43
  Speaker 2: sex very casually is not a normal thing for females
• 1:18:46
  Speaker 2: to do.
• 1:18:47
  Speaker 1: Right, and it's in a lot of films it's shown
• 1:18:49
  Speaker 1: as a sign of character for the woman.
• 1:18:52
  Speaker 2: Exactly.
• 1:18:52
  Speaker 1: The woman's just a boss bitch and she doesn't give
• 1:18:54
  Speaker 1: a fuck, and she kicks these men to the curve
• 1:18:56
  Speaker 1: and there are distraught and they're like emotionally wrecked, and
• 1:19:01
  Speaker 1: she's just back to business, get to work.
• 1:19:04
  Speaker 2: Yeah, exactly.
• 1:19:05
  Speaker 1: Weird.
• 1:19:06
  Speaker 2: The whole thing is weird because it's so unattractive too.
• 1:19:08
  Speaker 2: It's really unattractive.
• 1:19:10
  Speaker 1: It's odd. I mean, it's odd to even say that
• 1:19:12
  Speaker 1: it's unattractive, but look, I find it unattractive in men.
• 1:19:15
  Speaker 2: Yeah.
• 1:19:15
  Speaker 1: Well, I mean if I was a woman and a
• 1:19:18
  Speaker 1: guy that was just wholly desiring conquering and moving ahead
• 1:19:21
  Speaker 1: and didn't give a shit, if he's like, fuck off,
• 1:19:25
  Speaker 1: everybody eat shit, like no compassion for other people, just
• 1:19:29
  Speaker 1: only focused on success and winning, winning, winning. Gordon gecko.
• 1:19:33
  Speaker 1: You know, it's like the most unattractive characters and films,
• 1:19:37
  Speaker 1: the greedy billionaire character. It doesn't give a shit about
• 1:19:40
  Speaker 1: the consequences of his actions, what happens to the world.
• 1:19:43
  Speaker 2: Right, it makes no sense. And I think men and
• 1:19:51
  Speaker 2: women are obviously substantially different.
• 1:19:59
  Speaker 1: That's a contract visual statement.
• 1:20:02
  Speaker 2: Really shouldn't be. It really shouldn't be. But I will
• 1:20:05
  Speaker 2: just say I have puzzled over the fact that our
• 1:20:08
  Speaker 2: culture does not have a profound relationship with the symmetry
• 1:20:14
  Speaker 2: represented by a yin yang symbol. The yin yang symbol
• 1:20:19
  Speaker 2: is profound as far as I'm concerned, because it describes
• 1:20:24
  Speaker 2: a perfect symmetry that is not superficially symmetrical. Right, it's
• 1:20:30
  Speaker 2: a complementarity. That is, I think it's a very proper
• 1:20:37
  Speaker 2: description of what you're actually searching for in a in
• 1:20:41
  Speaker 2: a mate, in a marriage. Right. You're looking You're not
• 1:20:44
  Speaker 2: looking for somebody to be the same as you. You
• 1:20:46
  Speaker 2: are looking for somebody to be as perfectly complimentary with
• 1:20:49
  Speaker 2: what you are as is possible in essentially any every regard.
• 1:20:55
  Speaker 2: And what we are getting instead is this sort of
• 1:21:00
  Speaker 2: mind numbing belief that you know what's good for the
• 1:21:04
  Speaker 2: goose is good for the gander, which, as I keep saying,
• 1:21:09
  Speaker 2: it has robbed us of all coherence. And I think
• 1:21:12
  Speaker 2: it also. You know, I've started paying attention to a
• 1:21:18
  Speaker 2: bunch of of these male accounts that are fed up
• 1:21:24
  Speaker 2: with females, people that I consider insightful, but who are
• 1:21:29
  Speaker 2: not in any way where I am with respect to
• 1:21:32
  Speaker 2: this topic. You know, so people I don't know. Do
• 1:21:34
  Speaker 2: you know? The account home Math, Home Math, Home Math, Well,
• 1:21:39
  Speaker 2: Home Math is pretty darn funny. He's very insightful about
• 1:21:44
  Speaker 2: a lot of things that have gone wrong, but he's
• 1:21:45
  Speaker 2: also it's tragic. He's just bitter about the state of
• 1:21:55
  Speaker 2: modern women and has given up on finding anyone because
• 1:21:59
  Speaker 2: he thinks he's just ver that it's.
• 1:22:00
  Speaker 1: Impossible, Like that's ridiculous.
• 1:22:03
  Speaker 2: Well, it depends. I mean, I think you and I
• 1:22:05
  Speaker 2: are in the fortunate position of being happily married to
• 1:22:10
  Speaker 2: wonderful people. And I will tell you that having two
• 1:22:14
  Speaker 2: sons and looking at the world that they are supposed
• 1:22:19
  Speaker 2: to be finding a mate in, it's not obvious how
• 1:22:23
  Speaker 2: this is supposed to work.
• 1:22:24
  Speaker 1: It wasn't obvious when I was young either, But you
• 1:22:27
  Speaker 1: just got to pick wisely. And you also have to
• 1:22:30
  Speaker 1: find people. You have to you have to find them
• 1:22:34
  Speaker 1: the type of people that you're actually interested in.
• 1:22:37
  Speaker 2: Yeah, but imagine, imagine the following thing, Right, Imagine that,
• 1:22:44
  Speaker 2: first of all, who you are as a sexual being
• 1:22:47
  Speaker 2: is the result naturally of your exposure. Right, you come
• 1:22:55
  Speaker 2: to understand what sex is and how you're supposed to
• 1:22:58
  Speaker 2: behave from stories In ancient cultures, you would observe a
• 1:23:03
  Speaker 2: certain amount because perfect privacy wasn't a thing that has
• 1:23:09
  Speaker 2: all now been disrupted by porn. Right, So people get
• 1:23:12
  Speaker 2: developmental experiences of sex from this commodity, which is not accurate.
• 1:23:19
  Speaker 2: It is not a description of the way people actually interact, Right.
• 1:23:22
  Speaker 2: It's meant to captivate you. And the different pornographers are
• 1:23:26
  Speaker 2: in competition with each other, so they're providing you an
• 1:23:29
  Speaker 2: increasingly extreme view of sex in order to get your attention.
• 1:23:32
  Speaker 1: It's almost like a superhero movie. Yeah, it's like it
• 1:23:35
  Speaker 1: doesn't exist in the real world.
• 1:23:36
  Speaker 2: It's nonso for the most part. But given what a
• 1:23:38
  Speaker 2: human being is, and given that it doesn't come wired
• 1:23:41
  Speaker 2: with a sexual persona, that it acquires a sexual persona
• 1:23:44
  Speaker 2: through exposure, the fact that we are flooding that channel
• 1:23:48
  Speaker 2: with this very unrealistic stuff means that, well, what do
• 1:23:52
  Speaker 2: women discover when they end up in bed with a guy? Well,
• 1:23:59
  Speaker 2: that guy is like the cartoon that men have been
• 1:24:05
  Speaker 2: painted as. Right, you and I bristle at what the
• 1:24:11
  Speaker 2: Me Too movement portrayed men as not because there aren't
• 1:24:15
  Speaker 2: bad men. There are lots of bad men, but it's
• 1:24:18
  Speaker 2: not universal. And the story of how men and women
• 1:24:22
  Speaker 2: are supposed to interact, you know, in terms of flirting
• 1:24:26
  Speaker 2: and dating and all of that, is not as straightforward
• 1:24:29
  Speaker 2: as people will paint that picture. But if you've got
• 1:24:34
  Speaker 2: a generation of men that's being exposed to the same
• 1:24:37
  Speaker 2: frankly violent garbage, and that is informing them about what
• 1:24:41
  Speaker 2: sex is, and then women are discovering that, oh yeah,
• 1:24:44
  Speaker 2: men are kind of brutal and awful, you know, in
• 1:24:49
  Speaker 2: the bedroom. So that reinforces their sense of well, you know,
• 1:24:55
  Speaker 2: these aren't decent people. They're putting on an act when
• 1:24:58
  Speaker 2: they're in public. So it creates the exact thing that
• 1:25:04
  Speaker 2: men were falsely accused of, and it makes women, i think,
• 1:25:11
  Speaker 2: become very unsympathetic as people. Right that to the extent
• 1:25:17
  Speaker 2: that women start viewing sex as antagonistic, which is what
• 1:25:22
  Speaker 2: men at their worst are is they are Sexually they're predators, right,
• 1:25:27
  Speaker 2: Men trying to have sex with women they have no
• 1:25:31
  Speaker 2: intention of investing in, are whether they understand it or not,
• 1:25:35
  Speaker 2: engaging in behavior designed to impregnate that female and stick
• 1:25:39
  Speaker 2: her with the job of raising the offspring's revolutionarily. Yes,
• 1:25:43
  Speaker 2: that's parasitic and predatory. Okay, that is a mode that
• 1:25:50
  Speaker 2: exists in men, but it's not the only male mode.
• 1:25:52
  Speaker 1: And it's a mode that is a relic of ancient
• 1:25:55
  Speaker 1: times when it was just an opportunity to spread your
• 1:25:58
  Speaker 1: genes because you weren't going to live very long, so
• 1:26:00
  Speaker 1: you had this built in desire to try to spread
• 1:26:03
  Speaker 1: your genes as much as possible.
• 1:26:05
  Speaker 2: Yeah, but I would also say that women were wise
• 1:26:11
  Speaker 2: about not getting stuck with offspring. So the fact that
• 1:26:17
  Speaker 2: men may have that mode built into them did not
• 1:26:20
  Speaker 2: manifest as successful males behaving in this way because in general,
• 1:26:27
  Speaker 2: women shut them down and the fact that came along,
• 1:26:31
  Speaker 2: right and now women don't shut them down. And basically
• 1:26:35
  Speaker 2: what you have is people exploring some landscape that's been
• 1:26:41
  Speaker 2: primed with porn, violent porn, because that's how pornographers compete
• 1:26:47
  Speaker 2: with each other, and it is causing them to live
• 1:26:51
  Speaker 2: an entirely different life. And I think, frankly, I think
• 1:26:58
  Speaker 2: sex is really important that in a marriage it is
• 1:27:03
  Speaker 2: playing a very powerful dual role. Okay, on the one hand,
• 1:27:12
  Speaker 2: it is a barometer that tells you what the status
• 1:27:15
  Speaker 2: of your relationship is, and it's also a tool for enhancing, fixing,
• 1:27:23
  Speaker 2: modifying your relationship. It is, and that an evolution built
• 1:27:28
  Speaker 2: it to be that. Right. Sex is something very unique
• 1:27:31
  Speaker 2: in humans because in humans, unlike almost every other creature,
• 1:27:36
  Speaker 2: we have sex when not fertile. Right. Why is sex
• 1:27:42
  Speaker 2: pleasurable when not fertile Because selection has given it to
• 1:27:47
  Speaker 2: us for a reason. It's given it to us for
• 1:27:50
  Speaker 2: a purpose. Why does sex continue after menopause? Right? Seems pointless,
• 1:27:55
  Speaker 2: But it's not pointless. It has everything to do with
• 1:27:58
  Speaker 2: maintaining the relationship. Why would selection care if you maintain
• 1:28:03
  Speaker 2: your sexual relationship after you've stopped producing ospring Because the
• 1:28:08
  Speaker 2: way human beings work, your job isn't done at the
• 1:28:11
  Speaker 2: point that you've stopped producing ospring. Right, you have kids
• 1:28:15
  Speaker 2: who need guidance and help in the world. You're going
• 1:28:18
  Speaker 2: to have grand kids, right, Your union is still important.
• 1:28:21
  Speaker 2: And so the idea that we've disrupted this with a
• 1:28:24
  Speaker 2: consumer good that pushes men into the worst of their
• 1:28:29
  Speaker 2: modes and is now exposing women to that, and that
• 1:28:33
  Speaker 2: women are now being induced to think that that's sophisticated
• 1:28:36
  Speaker 2: to behave in this way, that men at their worst
• 1:28:39
  Speaker 2: are behaving and so women are now behaving this way.
• 1:28:43
  Speaker 2: It's like, well, you couldn't ask for a better recipe
• 1:28:46
  Speaker 2: for disrupting functional relationships, and those functional relationships are vital
• 1:28:53
  Speaker 2: to civilization working right. The family unit is profoundly important,
• 1:28:59
  Speaker 2: and we are disrupting. Not only are we disrupting the
• 1:29:01
  Speaker 2: way it functions, but we're disrupting whether or not it even forms.
• 1:29:05
  Speaker 2: Because frankly, it's not that attractive a deal to sign
• 1:29:09
  Speaker 2: up for a lifelong relationship with somebody who's been broken
• 1:29:12
  Speaker 2: in this way.
• 1:29:16
  Speaker 1: It doesn't paint a very rosy picture of the future,
• 1:29:20
  Speaker 1: you know, when you look at where this is going,
• 1:29:23
  Speaker 1: and then the possibility of AI porn that's you know,
• 1:29:27
  Speaker 1: virtual reality porn, and then the sex robot thing, which
• 1:29:30
  Speaker 1: is they're getting really close to that these lifelike robots.
• 1:29:35
  Speaker 1: It's hard to tell what's real and what's not online
• 1:29:37
  Speaker 1: with AI, but there's definitely work being done on lifelike
• 1:29:42
  Speaker 1: robots to be housekeepers or to be companions or someone
• 1:29:46
  Speaker 1: you could talk to in your home, and it's just
• 1:29:49
  Speaker 1: a matter of time before those become sexual companions and
• 1:29:52
  Speaker 1: they replace regular sexual companions. And then all of the
• 1:29:56
  Speaker 1: motivation to be a better person, to be successful, be
• 1:30:00
  Speaker 1: someone that's good at conversation, so that someone who is reasonable,
• 1:30:04
  Speaker 1: so you you form a great bond with your partner,
• 1:30:08
  Speaker 1: all that goes away because the robot just loves you.
• 1:30:10
  Speaker 2: The robot loves you, and your potential partners are getting
• 1:30:14
  Speaker 2: less desirable. Yeah, right, the robots are getting more desirable.
• 1:30:17
  Speaker 1: Your rot doesn't argue, right, the robot wants me to
• 1:30:19
  Speaker 1: play golf, exactly.
• 1:30:21
  Speaker 2: So I think that. Look, I keep waiting for a
• 1:30:26
  Speaker 2: movement to start in which young people who have yet
• 1:30:31
  Speaker 2: to form these relationships put out a set of rules
• 1:30:37
  Speaker 2: and they say, here are the rules I'm going to
• 1:30:38
  Speaker 2: abide by, and I'm only going to date people who
• 1:30:41
  Speaker 2: abide by them too. Right, no porn, no robots, I
• 1:30:46
  Speaker 2: would say, this is you know, if I was writing
• 1:30:48
  Speaker 2: the rules, one of them would be no sex with
• 1:30:52
  Speaker 2: somebody that you know is not a long term partner.
• 1:30:55
  Speaker 2: You're not committing to a long term relationship when you
• 1:30:57
  Speaker 2: have sex with somebody necessarily, but if you know somebody
• 1:31:00
  Speaker 2: is not a candidate, you shouldn't be engaging in baby
• 1:31:05
  Speaker 2: making behavior with them, right, That's bad.
• 1:31:09
  Speaker 1: The problem is that it's like such a primary force
• 1:31:11
  Speaker 1: in our society for almost everything, for selling things, for
• 1:31:16
  Speaker 1: exemplifying social status.
• 1:31:19
  Speaker 2: Yeah, but nobody's happy. So given that they're not happy,
• 1:31:22
  Speaker 2: the answer is, okay, well I'm doing.
• 1:31:23
  Speaker 1: Something nobody's happy. I would say happiness is difficult to acquire.
• 1:31:28
  Speaker 2: Well, I would say it is rare to find young
• 1:31:33
  Speaker 2: people who express that they are happy with this part
• 1:31:37
  Speaker 2: of their life.
• 1:31:39
  Speaker 1: Have you ever met young people in any time in
• 1:31:42
  Speaker 1: history while you've been alive that we're happy with that process?
• 1:31:46
  Speaker 1: The process is kind of brutal.
• 1:31:47
  Speaker 2: The process kind of sucks. But I've met plenty of
• 1:31:51
  Speaker 2: people and I've been a happy young person. Not you know,
• 1:31:56
  Speaker 2: it's not all, you know, flowers and rainbows. But the
• 1:32:02
  Speaker 2: point is there is something achievable, and I think it
• 1:32:09
  Speaker 2: is being treated increasingly as if it's just kind of
• 1:32:12
  Speaker 2: a story, right, like it's not a real place. And
• 1:32:17
  Speaker 2: I think that's that's a dangerous thing. And I would
• 1:32:21
  Speaker 2: love to see I mean, and maybe it's happening in
• 1:32:23
  Speaker 2: religious communities that people are opting into a different set
• 1:32:26
  Speaker 2: of rules and looking for mates within their community because
• 1:32:29
  Speaker 2: those mates will abide by it.
• 1:32:31
  Speaker 1: Yeah, I think there's a lot of that. Yeah, that
• 1:32:33
  Speaker 1: is the place where people are going. And I think
• 1:32:35
  Speaker 1: it's probably one of the reasons, one of many reasons
• 1:32:39
  Speaker 1: why you're seeing an uptick in religious participation amongst young people.
• 1:32:43
  Speaker 2: Well, it makes sense to me.
• 1:32:44
  Speaker 1: Yeah, and especially if they're looking at the world that
• 1:32:47
  Speaker 1: you know, they find themselves and they find their friends,
• 1:32:50
  Speaker 1: and that are just crashing out left and right, and
• 1:32:53
  Speaker 1: it just seems like a very very bad path.
• 1:32:57
  Speaker 2: I agree. I will say I wish that the religious
• 1:33:00
  Speaker 2: communities had navigated the landscape of COVID and gender ideology
• 1:33:08
  Speaker 2: better that there's you know, I don't know how healthy
• 1:33:11
  Speaker 2: those communities are in light of the fact that they
• 1:33:14
  Speaker 2: seem to have I don't think universally but largely failed
• 1:33:17
  Speaker 2: those tests.
• 1:33:18
  Speaker 1: Gender ideology with religion.
• 1:33:20
  Speaker 2: So there's a lot of wokeism in some some religions,
• 1:33:24
  Speaker 2: but not traditional religions.
• 1:33:26
  Speaker 1: It's almost like these breakoff versions of a traditional religion.
• 1:33:31
  Speaker 1: We have a transgender pastor and LBGTQ flag behind them.
• 1:33:36
  Speaker 1: And you get like, but you're always going to have
• 1:33:38
  Speaker 1: these weird yeah offsets.
• 1:33:41
  Speaker 2: Well, I'm glad to hear if you say, well, did
• 1:33:43
  Speaker 2: any major religion past the COVID test.
• 1:33:50
  Speaker 1: In terms of well, first of all, almost no institutions
• 1:33:55
  Speaker 1: past the COVID test, correctly, none of them. And I
• 1:33:58
  Speaker 1: think you have to look towards what they know. It's
• 1:34:04
  Speaker 1: very easy to look back in twenty twenty five and
• 1:34:07
  Speaker 1: say all of these institutions failed the COVID test. Well,
• 1:34:11
  Speaker 1: I think I probably would have failed it. You know,
• 1:34:13
  Speaker 1: if I had been a different person, in a different
• 1:34:16
  Speaker 1: job and a different part of my life, and I
• 1:34:19
  Speaker 1: didn't have access to the information that I had access to,
• 1:34:21
  Speaker 1: I didn't know what games were being played, and I
• 1:34:24
  Speaker 1: didn't know the landscape. I didn't know what games had
• 1:34:27
  Speaker 1: previously previously been played, especially in regards to the way
• 1:34:31
  Speaker 1: the pharmaceutical drug industry distributes propaganda and information and then
• 1:34:37
  Speaker 1: hires people to gaslight folks. You're seeing this now, right,
• 1:34:42
  Speaker 1: It's a good way to pivot to this conversation. Now
• 1:34:45
  Speaker 1: you're seeing now this most recent study that showed that
• 1:34:48
  Speaker 1: without doubt, children were killed by the COVID nineteen vaccines.
• 1:34:53
  Speaker 1: So that's not surprising. But what is surprising to me
• 1:34:56
  Speaker 1: is the enormous number of gas lighters on social media
• 1:35:01
  Speaker 1: that are not just denying this data, saying this data
• 1:35:05
  Speaker 1: is inaccurate and saying far more children, healthy children were
• 1:35:11
  Speaker 1: killed by COVID nineteen than we're killed by these vaccinations.
• 1:35:16
  Speaker 1: There's a bunch of problems with that. First of all,
• 1:35:18
  Speaker 1: the problem is the reality of the their system. It
• 1:35:23
  Speaker 1: is a very small percentage of people that have actual
• 1:35:26
  Speaker 1: vaccine injuries that get recorded into the VAR system. And then,
• 1:35:29
  Speaker 1: of course the opposite side of that, they would say, yeah,
• 1:35:31
  Speaker 1: but anybody can say they have a vaccine injury, and
• 1:35:35
  Speaker 1: anybody can get their vaccine injury put into the VERY system,
• 1:35:39
  Speaker 1: even if it's not accurate. That's kind of true, but
• 1:35:43
  Speaker 1: also not because doctors are very incentivized to not put
• 1:35:48
  Speaker 1: you into the vaccine injury category for a bunch of reasons. One,
• 1:35:53
  Speaker 1: doctors are financially incentivized to vaccinate people. And this is
• 1:35:58
  Speaker 1: something that I was not aware of at all until
• 1:36:01
  Speaker 1: the COVID lockdowns, until the vaccination push. Mary Tally Boden,
• 1:36:08
  Speaker 1: who's been on the podcast before, she said that her
• 1:36:12
  Speaker 1: own practice a very small practice and a strip mall.
• 1:36:15
  Speaker 1: She would have made an additional one point five million
• 1:36:18
  Speaker 1: dollars had she vaccinated all of her patients. That's a
• 1:36:22
  Speaker 1: huge financial motivation for one person with a private practice.
• 1:36:27
  Speaker 1: Scale that out to large places. You scale that out
• 1:36:32
  Speaker 1: to large hospitals, large medical institutions, large establishments, and then
• 1:36:37
  Speaker 1: you have financial incentives that businesses had to vaccinate their employees.
• 1:36:44
  Speaker 1: And then you had these pudatory You had punishment that
• 1:36:51
  Speaker 1: would be befalling upon your business had you not met
• 1:36:55
  Speaker 1: the threshold. If you have more than x amount of people,
• 1:37:00
  Speaker 1: everyone must be fully vaccinated, not just had COVID and
• 1:37:05
  Speaker 1: recovered from it. So it's not logical. You have the antibodies,
• 1:37:08
  Speaker 1: you're protected. No no, no, it's vaccinated and then boosted. And
• 1:37:13
  Speaker 1: then they continued that practice even when it was shown
• 1:37:17
  Speaker 1: that the vaccine, unlike what we were told initially, did
• 1:37:20
  Speaker 1: not stop transmission, did not stop it infection, It didn't
• 1:37:24
  Speaker 1: do anything.
• 1:37:25
  Speaker 2: Which meant that even saying well, far more people got
• 1:37:29
  Speaker 2: myocarditis from COVID than the vaccines, which is not true.
• 1:37:34
  Speaker 2: If you look at the data, it's clear that there
• 1:37:36
  Speaker 2: are shenanigans with categorizing people in order to get.
• 1:37:39
  Speaker 1: That really they did that by measuring troponent levels.
• 1:37:42
  Speaker 2: Correct, there are multiple mechanisms.
• 1:37:46
  Speaker 1: But the way they were trying to phrase it but
• 1:37:50
  Speaker 1: that more people are getting myocarditis that are unvaccinated than
• 1:37:54
  Speaker 1: are vaccinated. What they're doing, they were measuring while they
• 1:37:57
  Speaker 1: were infected.
• 1:37:58
  Speaker 2: They're measuring proxies. But the problem is the category vaccinated
• 1:38:04
  Speaker 2: versus unvaccinated right right there, by categorizing people as unvaccinated
• 1:38:10
  Speaker 2: until they reach the category fully.
• 1:38:13
  Speaker 1: Vaccinated, not just that, but two weeks or that's plus
• 1:38:18
  Speaker 1: after the injection, you're still up up to you're still
• 1:38:22
  Speaker 1: considered unvaccinated. So if people died during that time period,
• 1:38:27
  Speaker 1: they were listed as unvaccinated deaths, even if they potentially
• 1:38:31
  Speaker 1: died from the vaccine itself, right in fact, which is
• 1:38:34
  Speaker 1: fucking fraud.
• 1:38:36
  Speaker 2: I believe it is fraud, and I believe the evidence
• 1:38:39
  Speaker 2: will ultimately reflect that myocarditis is not being caused by
• 1:38:42
  Speaker 2: COVID and that these are miscategorized vaccine injuries. But none
• 1:38:47
  Speaker 2: of all of that.
• 1:38:47
  Speaker 1: But there's also a mechanism for what would cause these vaccine.
• 1:38:51
  Speaker 2: Multiple mechanisms, multiple mechanisms that actually arise because of the
• 1:38:56
  Speaker 2: defects of the platform itself, not even the particulars of
• 1:38:59
  Speaker 2: the vaccines. So I will say I am very heartened
• 1:39:05
  Speaker 2: and surprised to see Vine Poissad putting this memo out
• 1:39:12
  Speaker 2: within FDA saying that at least ten children seem to
• 1:39:17
  Speaker 2: have died from the vaccines. I don't know if you've
• 1:39:20
  Speaker 2: read his letter. It's quite good. It is clearly the
• 1:39:27
  Speaker 2: tip of a much larger iceber those of us who
• 1:39:29
  Speaker 2: have circulated in communities of the vaccine injured know just
• 1:39:36
  Speaker 2: how many orders of magnitude more we're really talking about.
• 1:39:39
  Speaker 2: But he says in the letter, Look, the number of
• 1:39:42
  Speaker 2: people have kids who are killed by this is actually higher.
• 1:39:45
  Speaker 2: But these ten are ones in which it was so
• 1:39:48
  Speaker 2: unambiguous that their analysis regards it as a causal right.
• 1:39:55
  Speaker 2: In other words, they threw out all of the cases
• 1:39:56
  Speaker 2: in which somebody died a child died days later. They
• 1:40:00
  Speaker 2: took only cases where, you know, a person got the
• 1:40:03
  Speaker 2: vaccine and then died. So anyway, I'm heartened because Vene
• 1:40:09
  Speaker 2: Poissad has been a mixed bag in my opinion, He's
• 1:40:13
  Speaker 2: been pretty good on vaccines, he's been rather terrible on ivermactin,
• 1:40:21
  Speaker 2: and in some ways he you know, he's one of
• 1:40:25
  Speaker 2: the academics who managed to hold on to his position
• 1:40:30
  Speaker 2: through all of the tyranny. Right, most of the people
• 1:40:32
  Speaker 2: that you and I know, the Pierre Cory's, the Robert Malones,
• 1:40:36
  Speaker 2: Ryan Coles, these are people who were driven from jobs,
• 1:40:40
  Speaker 2: had their licenses threatened, that sort of thing. Venet held
• 1:40:44
  Speaker 2: on and then he got a position in the administration.
• 1:40:47
  Speaker 2: And now we can see in this memo that he
• 1:40:52
  Speaker 2: he's on the right side of history and he's being cautious.
• 1:40:55
  Speaker 2: But nonetheless it's it's a very positive sign, as is
• 1:40:59
  Speaker 2: Marty Martin Kay's recent set of podcast appearances in which
• 1:41:03
  Speaker 2: he talks about the reality of all sorts of things,
• 1:41:07
  Speaker 2: including bio weaponized ticks and things. So we have people
• 1:41:12
  Speaker 2: in the administration who have managed to hold on to
• 1:41:15
  Speaker 2: their position in the institutional world, who are seemingly either
• 1:41:19
  Speaker 2: waking up or telling us what they have understood, and
• 1:41:25
  Speaker 2: it's a very positive sign. Can we talk a little
• 1:41:31
  Speaker 2: bit about Ivermectin, Yeah, because I think I'm just.
• 1:41:33
  Speaker 1: Going to ask you about that, like, what is it,
• 1:41:34
  Speaker 1: how has he been bad? How's Vene bad on iromactan?
• 1:41:39
  Speaker 2: Well, he has regarded it as not useful based on
• 1:41:43
  Speaker 2: the randomized control trials which claimed that it wasn't useful,
• 1:41:46
  Speaker 2: and in my opinion, he fell down on the job
• 1:41:49
  Speaker 2: not pursuing what actually happened in those trials.
• 1:41:53
  Speaker 1: Does he not know? Have you communicated with him?
• 1:41:56
  Speaker 2: Well, it's been it's been a little difficult I have.
• 1:42:00
  Speaker 2: When he was promoted at his university, you know, I
• 1:42:05
  Speaker 2: congratulated him and I said, I hope that having reached
• 1:42:10
  Speaker 2: this final pillar, that it will embolden you to look deeper.
• 1:42:15
  Speaker 2: And I was disappointed in him after that because I
• 1:42:17
  Speaker 2: didn't think he did it. But let's just say, at
• 1:42:21
  Speaker 2: the moment, I'm super encouraged. He does seem to be
• 1:42:24
  Speaker 2: awake and that's really good for us.
• 1:42:27
  Speaker 1: And you also have to take into consideration that for
• 1:42:29
  Speaker 1: him to even say what he said is a giant risk. Yeah,
• 1:42:35
  Speaker 1: it's a huge leap. And you almost I mean, I
• 1:42:39
  Speaker 1: think everyone knows anecdotally somebody who was fucked up by
• 1:42:44
  Speaker 1: the vaccine. Almost everyone that I've ever talked to, other
• 1:42:47
  Speaker 1: than Sat Harris, almost everyone that I've ever talked to
• 1:42:50
  Speaker 1: claims they know someone who was irrevocably harmed by the vaccine.
• 1:42:55
  Speaker 1: Oh yeah, if not killed.
• 1:42:58
  Speaker 2: Yes, And this is such a gigantic population of people
• 1:43:03
  Speaker 2: not to mention all the people who don't know who
• 1:43:05
  Speaker 2: have some sort of new pathology that they've not connected
• 1:43:07
  Speaker 2: to the vaccine.
• 1:43:08
  Speaker 1: Right, and whose doctors have gas lit them and said
• 1:43:11
  Speaker 1: they're totally unrelated. This is just something genetic. You were
• 1:43:14
  Speaker 1: going to get this no matter what.
• 1:43:16
  Speaker 2: Right. So we see all of this in actuarial data.
• 1:43:21
  Speaker 2: There are large populations of people who have put two
• 1:43:24
  Speaker 2: and two together.
• 1:43:26
  Speaker 1: But it's a difficult equation because you have to be
• 1:43:29
  Speaker 1: confronted by so many different realities that are incredibly uncomfortable. Right.
• 1:43:33
  Speaker 1: Then you also have the problem of people that have
• 1:43:38
  Speaker 1: asserted a very specific thing and done so very aggressively,
• 1:43:42
  Speaker 1: and now realize they're wrong and do not want to
• 1:43:45
  Speaker 1: admit they're wrong, and will fight vehemently to somehow. Another
• 1:43:49
  Speaker 1: twist gaslight obfuscate, use a data that they know to
• 1:43:54
  Speaker 1: be incorrect to try to prove a position that intellectually
• 1:43:58
  Speaker 1: they must know is it's not accurate. Well, you'll see
• 1:44:01
  Speaker 1: a lot of that. To protect themselves, protect ego, to
• 1:44:04
  Speaker 1: protect their reputation, their very careers. Like, the longer they
• 1:44:08
  Speaker 1: can keep this ruse going and the more they can
• 1:44:12
  Speaker 1: make the data foggy in terms of like, is it
• 1:44:16
  Speaker 1: really effective? Did it really save millions of people? Is
• 1:44:19
  Speaker 1: it worth the risk?
• 1:44:23
  Speaker 2: Those people probably don't listen to your podcast, but to
• 1:44:26
  Speaker 2: the extent that they might hear this, there is a
• 1:44:29
  Speaker 2: piece of wisdom that you need, which is, however painful
• 1:44:34
  Speaker 2: it may be, to face the error that you've made,
• 1:44:39
  Speaker 2: you are far better off to face it right now.
• 1:44:42
  Speaker 2: I'm not saying there's not a big cost, but the
• 1:44:45
  Speaker 2: weight off your shoulders of setting the record straight with
• 1:44:50
  Speaker 2: respect to your errors, it's a slam dunk. We will
• 1:44:54
  Speaker 2: get back to Sam Harris in a second here, but
• 1:44:58
  Speaker 2: I wanted to talk a little bit about, you know,
• 1:45:02
  Speaker 2: people and this recent memo inside of FDA about children
• 1:45:08
  Speaker 2: who had no reason to get the COVID vaccine in
• 1:45:10
  Speaker 2: the first place because they stood to gain nothing from it.
• 1:45:13
  Speaker 2: Dying of it is a.
• 1:45:16
  Speaker 1: Is a.
• 1:45:20
  Speaker 2: It's beyond criminal negligence. It's it's unforgivable. It's a very
• 1:45:27
  Speaker 2: positive sign. But you and I know that the vaccine
• 1:45:31
  Speaker 2: story has been breaking because I think in large measure,
• 1:45:36
  Speaker 2: so many people virtually everybody knows somebody who was injured,
• 1:45:41
  Speaker 2: and so it's very hard to keep people in the
• 1:45:44
  Speaker 2: dark about that, and people's acceptance of the boosters has plummeted.
• 1:45:49
  Speaker 2: People do need to understand that there's a huge number
• 1:45:54
  Speaker 2: of mRNA shots that are being cooked up at this
• 1:45:57
  Speaker 2: very minute, that the damage which is not from the
• 1:46:01
  Speaker 2: COVID part of the shot, it's from the platform itself.
• 1:46:04
  Speaker 2: And so we need to stop that vast array of
• 1:46:07
  Speaker 2: mRNA shots from ever making it to the market, and
• 1:46:09
  Speaker 2: we need to get the COVID shots pulled. Which again,
• 1:46:14
  Speaker 2: another thing I want to get back to is Charlie Kirk.
• 1:46:18
  Speaker 2: Charlie Kirk and I were working together trying to get
• 1:46:22
  Speaker 2: the shots pulled. He had the president's ear. I was
• 1:46:25
  Speaker 2: helping to inform him about what's really going on with
• 1:46:29
  Speaker 2: the mr and a platform and anyway, we were making
• 1:46:33
  Speaker 2: great progress. He sent me a text. At one point
• 1:46:37
  Speaker 2: I congratulated him on I think the shots having been
• 1:46:41
  Speaker 2: pulled for no longer being recommended for kids and pregnant women,
• 1:46:48
  Speaker 2: and he said something I think it was, we're doing
• 1:46:52
  Speaker 2: holy work together, and it meant a lot. I'm obviously
• 1:46:56
  Speaker 2: not a religious person, but it meant a lot for
• 1:46:57
  Speaker 2: me to hear that from him, and I do think
• 1:47:02
  Speaker 2: among the many tragedies that are the result of his
• 1:47:06
  Speaker 2: terrible death is the fact that it slowed progress on
• 1:47:11
  Speaker 2: getting these shots removed from the market. But anyway back
• 1:47:14
  Speaker 2: back to iromactin. We'll return to Charlie a little later.
• 1:47:20
  Speaker 2: The vaccine story is breaking. Vinet Possad is helping it
• 1:47:25
  Speaker 2: break inside of FDA. That's a marvelous thing. The Vaccine
• 1:47:30
  Speaker 2: Committee that Robert Malone is on with Martin Kohldorf and
• 1:47:37
  Speaker 2: Retzef Levy is also doing excellent work. So there's lots
• 1:47:43
  Speaker 2: of positive signs on the vaccine front, although it's painfully
• 1:47:46
  Speaker 2: slow from the point of view of shots that shouldn't
• 1:47:49
  Speaker 2: be on the market are still being injected into people.
• 1:47:52
  Speaker 2: The story that has not properly broken is the iromactin
• 1:47:57
  Speaker 2: story right, more generally the rep drug story. But this
• 1:48:02
  Speaker 2: is when you and I lived very personally. You know,
• 1:48:05
  Speaker 2: you were I don't know what they did to you.
• 1:48:08
  Speaker 2: They colored your green.
• 1:48:10
  Speaker 1: Yeah, they maybe green on CNN.
• 1:48:13
  Speaker 2: They made you green on CNN. And basically, even people
• 1:48:17
  Speaker 2: who are awake about the vaccines largely have arrived at
• 1:48:22
  Speaker 2: the conclusion that ivermacton showed promise and then it turned
• 1:48:26
  Speaker 2: out it didn't work, and that the evidence is overwhelming
• 1:48:28
  Speaker 2: that it didn't work, and that those of us who
• 1:48:31
  Speaker 2: said otherwise, it's time that we admitted that. And this
• 1:48:35
  Speaker 2: is a maddening nonsense story. Right, Even the trials that
• 1:48:41
  Speaker 2: say that ivermactin didn't work, if you dig into what
• 1:48:44
  Speaker 2: they actually found, you find a a huge amount of
• 1:48:47
  Speaker 2: fraud designed to produce the impression that i remactin didn't work.
• 1:48:52
  Speaker 2: And amazingly enough, even in trials that are designed to
• 1:48:56
  Speaker 2: give that result, it still shows that it's effective. And
• 1:49:00
  Speaker 2: there is a something I want to show you one
• 1:49:04
  Speaker 2: of these that I think you probably haven't seen yet
• 1:49:07
  Speaker 2: that makes this point really clearly. So can you bring
• 1:49:12
  Speaker 2: up that tweet Alexandros Marinos's tweet on the I think
• 1:49:17
  Speaker 2: it's called the principal trial. Anyway, this is shocking. This
• 1:49:23
  Speaker 2: is another one of these multi arm platform trials. So
• 1:49:27
  Speaker 2: these are these highly complex structures in which many drugs
• 1:49:32
  Speaker 2: are tested simultaneously so that they can share a placebo group. Okay,
• 1:49:36
  Speaker 2: let's look at the whole tweet. It says, I think
• 1:49:42
  Speaker 2: that's supposed to be No, did you know that the
• 1:49:44
  Speaker 2: principal trial out of the UK found that ivermectin was
• 1:49:48
  Speaker 2: superior to the usual care in practically every subgroup it tested,
• 1:49:52
  Speaker 2: but it sat on the results for six hundred days.
• 1:49:55
  Speaker 2: When it finally published, buried these results on page three
• 1:49:59
  Speaker 2: hundred sixty four of the appendix. Now look at this chart.
• 1:50:04
  Speaker 2: The way to read this chart.
• 1:50:05
  Speaker 1: Three forty six, page three forty six.
• 1:50:07
  Speaker 2: What did I say?
• 1:50:08
  Speaker 1: Three sixty four?
• 1:50:09
  Speaker 2: Oh, so dyslexia strikes again if they go back and yeah,
• 1:50:12
  Speaker 2: three forty six. Okay, So what this is is a
• 1:50:16
  Speaker 2: forest plot in which the there's a line, a vertical
• 1:50:20
  Speaker 2: line at one point zero zero. That's the line that
• 1:50:26
  Speaker 2: delineates effective with ivermectin on the right and with the
• 1:50:35
  Speaker 2: usual care on the left. In every single tested category,
• 1:50:44
  Speaker 2: ivermectin is better than no ivermactin the lines. So even
• 1:50:54
  Speaker 2: the one case the people greater than sixty five years
• 1:50:57
  Speaker 2: where it's touching that line, it's still to the right
• 1:50:59
  Speaker 2: of that line. Every single case, iromactin is superior to
• 1:51:03
  Speaker 2: not giving iromactin. Even though these people were given iromactin late.
• 1:51:09
  Speaker 2: They were given ivermactin in a sneaky way where the
• 1:51:13
  Speaker 2: regular dose is supposed to be something like three milligrams
• 1:51:17
  Speaker 2: per kilogram of body weight. But there's a sneaky thing
• 1:51:20
  Speaker 2: that they slide into the methods where if your weight
• 1:51:24
  Speaker 2: is above a certain number, they cap the dose, so
• 1:51:26
  Speaker 2: you're underdosed, which so you don't spot it unless you
• 1:51:29
  Speaker 2: go looking for it. But in any case, and overweight
• 1:51:32
  Speaker 2: people are the most vulnerable, right exactly, So it's a
• 1:51:35
  Speaker 2: great way of making a drug look not very effective.
• 1:51:37
  Speaker 1: And a lot of people overweight.
• 1:51:39
  Speaker 2: Absolutely so on this plot, every so you see those
• 1:51:43
  Speaker 2: horizontal lines. You've got a box in the middle of
• 1:51:46
  Speaker 2: a bunch of horizontal lines. The horizontal lines are confidence intervals.
• 1:51:51
  Speaker 2: If they don't touch the one point zero line, then
• 1:51:56
  Speaker 2: the result is statistically significant. So in all of the categories,
• 1:52:00
  Speaker 2: iromectin is statistically significant in its efficacy. In the one
• 1:52:05
  Speaker 2: category where it's not, it's still effective, it's just not
• 1:52:07
  Speaker 2: statistically significant in its in its effectiveness. Okay, and they
• 1:52:11
  Speaker 2: buried this in this appendix, page three forty six, right,
• 1:52:16
  Speaker 2: and actually, can you scroll down to the next tweet
• 1:52:19
  Speaker 2: in this thread? Can you, let's see, click on the
• 1:52:25
  Speaker 2: link to the paper. Now scroll down, get a background method, stop,
• 1:52:33
  Speaker 2: go back up a little bit. Interpretation. So this is
• 1:52:36
  Speaker 2: their take home message from the paper. It says ivermectin
• 1:52:40
  Speaker 2: for COVID nineteen is unlikely to provide a clinically meaningful
• 1:52:44
  Speaker 2: improvement in recovery, hospital admissions, or longer term outcomes. Further
• 1:52:48
  Speaker 2: trials of iromectin for SARS COVID two infection in vaccinated
• 1:52:52
  Speaker 2: community populations appear unwarranted. So here you have a trial
• 1:52:56
  Speaker 2: that overwhelmingly shows iromectin is effective. It reduced the recovery
• 1:53:01
  Speaker 2: time by a couple of days, even though they gave
• 1:53:05
  Speaker 2: it super late, which with all anti virals makes them
• 1:53:09
  Speaker 2: very much weaker than they would otherwise be. And here
• 1:53:12
  Speaker 2: they are reporting that the answer is it's unlikely to
• 1:53:15
  Speaker 2: create meaningful outcomes and there's no further work needed. Okay,
• 1:53:19
  Speaker 2: this is absurd.
• 1:53:21
  Speaker 1: This is the.
• 1:53:21
  Speaker 2: Quality of trial that we're going to and what it does.
• 1:53:25
  Speaker 2: This is them gaslighting us, right, You and I said, look,
• 1:53:29
  Speaker 2: the evidence suggests that this stuff works. It's quite safe
• 1:53:34
  Speaker 2: compared to almost any other drug you could take. In fact,
• 1:53:36
  Speaker 2: I can't think of one that's safer, and that therefore,
• 1:53:41
  Speaker 2: in light of the evidence that it seems to meaningfully
• 1:53:44
  Speaker 2: improve outcomes, it's a good bet. Right. They mocked us
• 1:53:50
  Speaker 2: over that conclusion. This study makes it very clear that
• 1:53:56
  Speaker 2: even when people are trying to hide that conclusion that
• 1:53:58
  Speaker 2: it's there in the data. If you go now, there's
• 1:54:02
  Speaker 2: an even better one though, there is a Have you
• 1:54:08
  Speaker 2: read Pierre Corey's book The War on Irobecten No, okay,
• 1:54:12
  Speaker 2: there's something reported in this book that it really stops
• 1:54:17
  Speaker 2: you in your tracks. It is an accidental natural experiment. Okay.
• 1:54:24
  Speaker 2: So a natural experiment is something in science where maybe
• 1:54:27
  Speaker 2: you happen on an archipelago in which you have a
• 1:54:29
  Speaker 2: bunch of different islands that have different conditions, and you
• 1:54:32
  Speaker 2: can go to each island and measure the you know,
• 1:54:35
  Speaker 2: whatever parameter it is. Because nature has given you an
• 1:54:38
  Speaker 2: experiment that you can analyze, you don't have to build islands.
• 1:54:42
  Speaker 1: Right.
• 1:54:43
  Speaker 2: In this case, what Pierre reports is that there were
• 1:54:48
  Speaker 2: eighty court cases in which a family sued a hospital
• 1:54:56
  Speaker 2: that was refusing to give iromectin to a desperately sick
• 1:54:59
  Speaker 2: family member, and they wanted the courts to intervene and
• 1:55:06
  Speaker 2: force the hospitals to administer iromactin eighty cases. In forty
• 1:55:12
  Speaker 2: of those cases, the courts granted the family's request and
• 1:55:16
  Speaker 2: iromactin was administered. In forty cases, they refused to intervene
• 1:55:20
  Speaker 2: and no ivermacton was given. In thirty eight of the
• 1:55:25
  Speaker 2: cases where ivermactin was given, the patient survived. Into the
• 1:55:29
  Speaker 2: patient died anyway, In thirty eight of the cases where
• 1:55:34
  Speaker 2: no ivermactin was given, the patient died and Into the
• 1:55:37
  Speaker 2: patient survived.
• 1:55:39
  Speaker 1: Wow.
• 1:55:39
  Speaker 2: Okay, now I find this like, this is incredibly I
• 1:55:47
  Speaker 2: cannot vouch for the data itself because it's not published
• 1:55:51
  Speaker 2: in a scientific paper. I can't go look at the methods.
• 1:55:54
  Speaker 2: I can't go find the court cases. But assuming that
• 1:55:57
  Speaker 2: the data is accurately reported, and I know well he
• 1:56:00
  Speaker 2: didn't make it up, so assuming that the data is accurate,
• 1:56:06
  Speaker 2: the level of statistical significance on that accidental study is
• 1:56:14
  Speaker 2: absolutely astronomical. Right. I had Heather run a Chi squared
• 1:56:21
  Speaker 2: calculation and the P value. I checked it also with
• 1:56:25
  Speaker 2: two different ais. The P value comes out to be
• 1:56:30
  Speaker 2: five point zho three times ten to the negative fifteen. Right.
• 1:56:35
  Speaker 2: So what that means is that the chances of a
• 1:56:40
  Speaker 2: result that strong if iromeactin does not work are something
• 1:56:46
  Speaker 2: like the chances of you guessing a random fifteen digit
• 1:56:52
  Speaker 2: number on the first dry Wow. I mean it's through
• 1:56:56
  Speaker 2: the roof. Right, This is a level of statistical significance
• 1:57:00
  Speaker 2: we essentially never see.
• 1:57:02
  Speaker 1: And CNN turned it into a veterinary medicine.
• 1:57:06
  Speaker 2: Right, it turned you green hilarious. Right, So my point
• 1:57:12
  Speaker 2: here is a couplefold one. The iromactin story and the
• 1:57:15
  Speaker 2: repurpose drug story more generally is a very important puzzle
• 1:57:22
  Speaker 2: piece because if repurpose drugs had been allowed to be used,
• 1:57:29
  Speaker 2: if doctors had been allowed to go through the normal
• 1:57:31
  Speaker 2: process of medicine that doctors go through, where they look
• 1:57:33
  Speaker 2: at a patient who's ill, they see what their symptoms are,
• 1:57:38
  Speaker 2: they try to figure out what might work for them,
• 1:57:40
  Speaker 2: They talk to other doctors, they pool their information. If
• 1:57:44
  Speaker 2: that process had been allowed to unfold, COVID is an
• 1:57:48
  Speaker 2: entirely manageable disease in all but the most compromised people. Right,
• 1:57:54
  Speaker 2: there was no important pandemic. Repurpose drugs could have addressed
• 1:57:59
  Speaker 2: it dead. What we got was a propaganda campaign in
• 1:58:03
  Speaker 2: which people like you and me were gas lit and slandered,
• 1:58:07
  Speaker 2: and the public was fed a story in which we
• 1:58:10
  Speaker 2: did the work. Randomized controlled trials are the gold standard
• 1:58:12
  Speaker 2: of science, and they tell us that I remacted, it's
• 1:58:17
  Speaker 2: non effective against COVID. This is total nonsense. Right, So
• 1:58:21
  Speaker 2: part of the crime was in denying us the stuff
• 1:58:25
  Speaker 2: that did work, which then forced people into the stuff
• 1:58:27
  Speaker 2: that didn't work that also happened to compromise their health right,
• 1:58:31
  Speaker 2: the vaccines. So that's the sum total of the story.
• 1:58:34
  Speaker 1: Well, the story is really profit because you got to
• 1:58:36
  Speaker 1: get to the motivation of why would one do something
• 1:58:38
  Speaker 1: like this?
• 1:58:40
  Speaker 2: I am still not sure. I know the crime is
• 1:58:44
  Speaker 2: so ghastly. Maybe I'm just naive.
• 1:58:48
  Speaker 1: Let's hold the stock because I have to be real bad,
• 1:58:49
  Speaker 1: but I want to get to it from here and
• 1:58:51
  Speaker 1: I don't want to be compromised. Yep, we're back, all right,
• 1:58:56
  Speaker 1: So I remactin where we were we live it.
• 1:59:00
  Speaker 2: Well, one, the evidence is actually really powerful that iermactin works.
• 1:59:09
  Speaker 2: It also reveals something about what's wrong with medical science
• 1:59:14
  Speaker 2: at the moment, because what's really going on here is
• 1:59:19
  Speaker 2: we don't correctly respond when we are told that randomized
• 1:59:23
  Speaker 2: control trials are the gold standard of scientific tests. Randomized
• 1:59:30
  Speaker 2: control trials, in principle are capable of doing something best
• 1:59:34
  Speaker 2: in class, and that is revealing very subtle effects. However,
• 1:59:40
  Speaker 2: they are very prone to being distorted by biases of
• 1:59:48
  Speaker 2: the researchers and in these cases of the together trial
• 1:59:51
  Speaker 2: and the principal trial and the others. What you seem
• 1:59:54
  Speaker 2: to have is a cottage industry of generating results that
• 1:59:58
  Speaker 2: are favorable to the pharma regime. And what we in
• 2:00:04
  Speaker 2: the public should want are tests that are very difficult
• 2:00:11
  Speaker 2: to rig. So randomized control trial in this case, where
• 2:00:17
  Speaker 2: you have multiple drugs being tested, where they share a
• 2:00:20
  Speaker 2: placebo group, where end points are adjusted midstream, where the
• 2:00:28
  Speaker 2: particular end points that are targeted are adjusted to make
• 2:00:34
  Speaker 2: some drugs look good and other drugs look bad. All
• 2:00:37
  Speaker 2: of those are places where fraud can hide. It is
• 2:00:42
  Speaker 2: way more important to have good experiments than to have
• 2:00:47
  Speaker 2: highly sensitive experiments that are very prone to fraud, because
• 2:00:50
  Speaker 2: there's so much incentive for fraud in our current system.
• 2:00:55
  Speaker 2: The accidental experiment that I described that the courts ran
• 2:01:02
  Speaker 2: is incredibly powerful evidence. These statistics are literally something that
• 2:01:08
  Speaker 2: you can do on one sheet of paper. Right. This
• 2:01:13
  Speaker 2: is the simplest conceivable test, the Kai square goodness of
• 2:01:16
  Speaker 2: fit test. There's no place for anything to hide. Either
• 2:01:20
  Speaker 2: the data is what it says it is or it's not.
• 2:01:23
  Speaker 2: But if the data is what it says it is,
• 2:01:25
  Speaker 2: then the result leaves no question whatsoever, that ivermectin works
• 2:01:30
  Speaker 2: in very sick people relative to an endpoint of death.
• 2:01:35
  Speaker 2: That's a very powerful kind of evidence. And you know,
• 2:01:40
  Speaker 2: I was recently on a podcast called Why Should I
• 2:01:44
  Speaker 2: Trust You? With Pierre Corey. Actually we were at the
• 2:01:49
  Speaker 2: CCHD conference in this podcast podcast. This great name for podcasts,
• 2:01:53
  Speaker 2: and actually I loved the podcast. The podcast was we
• 2:01:56
  Speaker 2: didn't really know what we were sitting down to, but
• 2:01:59
  Speaker 2: it was Pierre and me talking to three allopathic doctors
• 2:02:03
  Speaker 2: and a host. And the allopathic doctors were curious about
• 2:02:08
  Speaker 2: the medical freedom movement, but they certainly weren't on board
• 2:02:11
  Speaker 2: with this. And Pierre and I told them about the
• 2:02:15
  Speaker 2: accidental experiment run by the courts, the natural experiment, and
• 2:02:21
  Speaker 2: it was clear that these doctors couldn't grasp the significance
• 2:02:27
  Speaker 2: of the evidence. Right, it's too mind blowing that this
• 2:02:31
  Speaker 2: very simple circumstance reveals the overwhelming power of this drug.
• 2:02:37
  Speaker 2: And it was like, well, that can't be right, but
• 2:02:39
  Speaker 2: it can be right. And so in any case, I
• 2:02:42
  Speaker 2: would just say, fraud is a serious problem.
• 2:02:46
  Speaker 1: Why did they have a problem with the data?
• 2:02:49
  Speaker 2: I think, you know, let's give them their due. They're
• 2:02:55
  Speaker 2: sitting down talking to two people who I think they
• 2:03:01
  Speaker 2: don't know, can't assess whether or not we're being honest,
• 2:03:07
  Speaker 2: whether the data is as reported. But so I think
• 2:03:13
  Speaker 2: there's a natural reaction to reject that which seems I
• 2:03:22
  Speaker 2: think when you've been lied to as much as these
• 2:03:23
  Speaker 2: doctors had been lied to about repurposed drugs for COVID
• 2:03:28
  Speaker 2: and vaccines and things, that being confronted with very powerful.
• 2:03:33
  Speaker 2: In fact, if the data is what it's supposed to be,
• 2:03:35
  Speaker 2: incontrovertible proof. I mean I don't use the word proof lightly,
• 2:03:40
  Speaker 2: but you know P equals five point zero three times
• 2:03:46
  Speaker 2: ten of the negative fifteen. That is an amazing level
• 2:03:50
  Speaker 2: of statistical significance.
• 2:03:51
  Speaker 1: How did the conversation play out? Like when you gave
• 2:03:54
  Speaker 1: them this data, when you discussed.
• 2:03:56
  Speaker 2: This, well, what they said was, well, they're could be
• 2:04:00
  Speaker 2: lots of explanations for that, which is not true.
• 2:04:03
  Speaker 1: Right, Really, what explanations do they provide as possible?
• 2:04:09
  Speaker 2: I think they were reserving the right to go find
• 2:04:12
  Speaker 2: some explanation because think about it this way. Let's this
• 2:04:17
  Speaker 2: in front of a crowd. No, no, let's imagine how
• 2:04:23
  Speaker 2: this experiment could not could be something other than it
• 2:04:27
  Speaker 2: seems to be, right, let's say that the courts were
• 2:04:31
  Speaker 2: biased in who they granted the right to have ivermactin
• 2:04:36
  Speaker 2: administered to. If the courts were biased, then the test
• 2:04:39
  Speaker 2: isn't what it appears to be. However, you would expect
• 2:04:43
  Speaker 2: the courts to be biased in exactly the inverse way
• 2:04:46
  Speaker 2: as the result. In other words, you would expect the
• 2:04:48
  Speaker 2: court to grant access to iromactin in more dire cases.
• 2:04:53
  Speaker 2: So you would expect people who got iromactin if there
• 2:04:55
  Speaker 2: was a bias in the way the courts granted that access,
• 2:04:58
  Speaker 2: you would expect the people who got ivermectin to be
• 2:05:00
  Speaker 2: more likely to die because either yeah, and so the
• 2:05:03
  Speaker 2: fact that we see exactly the inverse means that actually
• 2:05:06
  Speaker 2: the result, if there's any bias at all, is probably conservative. Right,
• 2:05:10
  Speaker 2: It's probably more effective than we think. Right. So in
• 2:05:14
  Speaker 2: any case, I just think we've forgotten how science works. Right.
• 2:05:20
  Speaker 2: It doesn't take any all of the money, and the
• 2:05:26
  Speaker 2: complexity of running one of these multi arm trials is huge,
• 2:05:32
  Speaker 2: and yet an accidental experiment run by the courts gives
• 2:05:36
  Speaker 2: you a powerful result like this that tells you without
• 2:05:40
  Speaker 2: a doubt that this is effective, which is actually what
• 2:05:42
  Speaker 2: you find when you go and look at all these
• 2:05:44
  Speaker 2: trials that attempted to sabotage ivermectin, and you discover that actually,
• 2:05:48
  Speaker 2: you know, they're playing games, they're telling you. Let me
• 2:05:53
  Speaker 2: give you an example. You can create the impression that
• 2:05:58
  Speaker 2: a drug doesn't work by setting an unrealistic endpoint, right
• 2:06:04
  Speaker 2: Like if I let's say that I had a drug
• 2:06:07
  Speaker 2: that was perfectly successful at stopping the common cold. Right,
• 2:06:15
  Speaker 2: you take it, and one day later your common cold
• 2:06:18
  Speaker 2: is gone. Okay, And I decide to run an experiment,
• 2:06:22
  Speaker 2: But the endpoint of the experiment is a hospitalization, Right,
• 2:06:28
  Speaker 2: And I say, okay, was there any difference in how
• 2:06:31
  Speaker 2: hospitalized the patients who got my drug are versus those
• 2:06:36
  Speaker 2: who didn't. Well, no, nobody goes to the hospital over
• 2:06:39
  Speaker 2: a cold. So the point is that it makes the
• 2:06:41
  Speaker 2: drug look totally ineffective. That's one trick you can play.
• 2:06:44
  Speaker 2: You can also underdose it. You know. One of the
• 2:06:48
  Speaker 2: games played in the principal trial is they detected no
• 2:06:51
  Speaker 2: difference at all in the patients who got ivermectin and
• 2:06:54
  Speaker 2: didn't get ivermectin six months later. Well, I'm not sure
• 2:06:59
  Speaker 2: you expect a difference between the population that did and
• 2:07:02
  Speaker 2: didn't get it six months later, right.
• 2:07:04
  Speaker 1: You've completely recovered.
• 2:07:06
  Speaker 2: Right, So anyway, there's all kinds of games, And the
• 2:07:08
  Speaker 2: point is, actually we do not you know how, when
• 2:07:12
  Speaker 2: you go to buy a car, nobody prioritizes the simple vehicle. Right.
• 2:07:20
  Speaker 2: The point is what they sell you is the features. Right,
• 2:07:23
  Speaker 2: this car has all of these different new features that
• 2:07:26
  Speaker 2: your last one didn't, but there's no value placed on Actually,
• 2:07:29
  Speaker 2: I want fewer features. I want a tiny number of
• 2:07:31
  Speaker 2: features that I actually use, and I want the car
• 2:07:34
  Speaker 2: to be, you know, capable of dealing with everything, never
• 2:07:38
  Speaker 2: need any service, all of those things. But that's just
• 2:07:40
  Speaker 2: not the way it works. So scientifically, we're in the
• 2:07:43
  Speaker 2: same boat where it's like the fancy your trial has
• 2:07:46
  Speaker 2: the priority in our mind, just as the new drug
• 2:07:48
  Speaker 2: has the priority in our mind. Oh I want the
• 2:07:50
  Speaker 2: new one. No, you don't. You want the one that
• 2:07:54
  Speaker 2: all of the interactions with other drugs have already been spotted,
• 2:07:57
  Speaker 2: that your doctor has a lot of experience knowing how
• 2:08:01
  Speaker 2: people react to it. The older drug is better for you, right,
• 2:08:04
  Speaker 2: all else being equal, the older drug is at least
• 2:08:07
  Speaker 2: stands a much greater chance of anything really seriously wrong
• 2:08:09
  Speaker 2: with it, having been spotted. So I'm just advocating for
• 2:08:16
  Speaker 2: simpler experiments where nothing can hide and simple statistics can
• 2:08:20
  Speaker 2: be used and us normal folks can understand what was done.
• 2:08:23
  Speaker 1: So in the case of this podcast, how did you
• 2:08:25
  Speaker 1: guys resolve it? How did it end? Well?
• 2:08:27
  Speaker 2: It actually ended really well. I hope people will go
• 2:08:29
  Speaker 2: listen to it. The positive thing about it was we clashed.
• 2:08:34
  Speaker 2: We definitely disagreed, but it was all quite respectful, and
• 2:08:40
  Speaker 2: I feel like Pierre and I both felt that we
• 2:08:44
  Speaker 2: were heard in a way that is not the usual
• 2:08:48
  Speaker 2: these days. So anyway, I thought it was a very encouraging.
• 2:08:51
  Speaker 1: Well, I think even people that were initially highly skeptical
• 2:08:55
  Speaker 1: and very pro vaccine have had their eyes opened a bit.
• 2:09:00
  Speaker 1: Whether they like it or not, the window is shifted.
• 2:09:04
  Speaker 2: Yes, although I find it shifted radically on vaccines, and
• 2:09:10
  Speaker 2: in large measure because iromactin was made difficult to get
• 2:09:15
  Speaker 2: and people were spooked away from it. It's a much
• 2:09:19
  Speaker 2: more abstract question to most people.
• 2:09:21
  Speaker 1: Well, the just the sheer propaganda that was the amount
• 2:09:25
  Speaker 1: of propaganda was preposterous, it was unbelievable. Rolling Stone magazine
• 2:09:31
  Speaker 1: remember that article that they had about people that were
• 2:09:33
  Speaker 1: waiting in line at the emergency room for gunshot wounds. Yeah,
• 2:09:37
  Speaker 1: because so many people were overdosing on horse medications.
• 2:09:41
  Speaker 2: Overdosed on which is virtually impossible.
• 2:09:44
  Speaker 1: It's pure lies.
• 2:09:47
  Speaker 2: Yeah.
• 2:09:47
  Speaker 1: Not only that, there is a stock photo of people
• 2:09:50
  Speaker 1: in Oklahoma in August with winter coats.
• 2:09:52
  Speaker 2: On oh Man.
• 2:09:53
  Speaker 1: Yeah, the propaganda was fucking It was designed for idiots.
• 2:09:58
  Speaker 2: It was designed for idiots.
• 2:10:00
  Speaker 1: Idiots for idiots. They just like they didn't care how
• 2:10:04
  Speaker 1: provable it was, how quick it was to You could
• 2:10:08
  Speaker 1: research it very quickly and find out that this is
• 2:10:10
  Speaker 1: not true. You could visit those hospitals and find out
• 2:10:13
  Speaker 1: it's not true. You could look up the cases of
• 2:10:16
  Speaker 1: people that were overdosing on iromeactin which didn't exist. There's
• 2:10:20
  Speaker 1: a few people that called the poison control hotland because
• 2:10:22
  Speaker 1: they panic.
• 2:10:22
  Speaker 2: Yeah, they worried. Yeah, that's not the same thing as
• 2:10:25
  Speaker 2: being poisoned. Well, what I want people to understand is
• 2:10:29
  Speaker 2: that all of those vaccine injuries are actually downstream of
• 2:10:33
  Speaker 2: the propaganda campaign about repurpose drugs. Because this was a
• 2:10:38
  Speaker 2: manageable disease with well known repurposed drugs that were readily available.
• 2:10:44
  Speaker 2: There was no argument for these vaccines in anybody right.
• 2:10:48
  Speaker 2: This was experimental technology that was fraught with dangers that
• 2:10:53
  Speaker 2: turned out to be massive harms.
• 2:10:56
  Speaker 1: But the gas lighting was all about profit because of
• 2:10:58
  Speaker 1: the emergency use authorization. So to have the emergency use authorization,
• 2:11:03
  Speaker 1: you couldn't have any effective drugs that existed to treat it, right,
• 2:11:06
  Speaker 1: Otherwise you wouldn't have had an emergency use authorization for
• 2:11:09
  Speaker 1: a new drug that hasn't really been tested.
• 2:11:12
  Speaker 2: I don't think that's what happened. I did think that's
• 2:11:15
  Speaker 2: what happened, but I don't anymore. Oh interesting, because these
• 2:11:20
  Speaker 2: people are so good at cheating that I think they
• 2:11:22
  Speaker 2: could have cheated their way past that one. Also, my
• 2:11:27
  Speaker 2: suspicion is that the mRNA platform needed to be debuted
• 2:11:33
  Speaker 2: in an emergency with radically reduced safety testing because the
• 2:11:37
  Speaker 2: dangers of the mRNA platform are so great that they
• 2:11:40
  Speaker 2: would have revealed themselves under any sort of normal testing regime.
• 2:11:44
  Speaker 1: So you think this was all about rolling out the
• 2:11:47
  Speaker 1: mRNA platform for many other purposes other than just COVID.
• 2:11:51
  Speaker 1: This is just the introduction to this, and we've actually
• 2:11:54
  Speaker 1: heard talk about this. It's going to be used to
• 2:11:56
  Speaker 1: treat all these different diseases and cancer and this and.
• 2:11:59
  Speaker 2: That Oh, it's coming. They're already in the pipeline, and
• 2:12:03
  Speaker 2: I think people need to be aware that the plan
• 2:12:08
  Speaker 2: is to blame the COVID shots, not the platform, so
• 2:12:11
  Speaker 2: that people will take the new shots that come out,
• 2:12:15
  Speaker 2: and I wouldn't touch them with a barge.
• 2:12:16
  Speaker 4: Poll.
• 2:12:20
  Speaker 2: So, did you want to talk about given that we
• 2:12:24
  Speaker 2: are in this quadrant, did you want to talk about Sam? Sure?
• 2:12:28
  Speaker 2: All right, Well, I'm not sure quite where to start,
• 2:12:32
  Speaker 2: but Sam has been he's continued to be aggressive going
• 2:12:37
  Speaker 2: after you and me over COVID. Where my impression is
• 2:12:43
  Speaker 2: that you and I turned out to be right pretty
• 2:12:46
  Speaker 2: well across the board. I've acknowledged the significant place where
• 2:12:51
  Speaker 2: I believe I was wrong. I don't think I was
• 2:12:53
  Speaker 2: way wrong, but masks. I thought Masks stood a decent
• 2:13:00
  Speaker 2: chance of being useful, and at the point that it
• 2:13:03
  Speaker 2: turned out there was no evidentiary support for that, I said,
• 2:13:08
  Speaker 2: so I still think, you know, given that we didn't
• 2:13:12
  Speaker 2: know at the beginning whether or not COVID was transmitted
• 2:13:16
  Speaker 2: by fomite, in other words, by droplets on surfaces, something
• 2:13:20
  Speaker 2: that covers your face and prevents you from coughing out
• 2:13:23
  Speaker 2: droplets or touching a droplet to your mouth is a
• 2:13:28
  Speaker 2: decent bet. But anyway, Okay, so my error was masks.
• 2:13:34
  Speaker 2: I don't think Sam has acknowledged any of his errors,
• 2:13:39
  Speaker 2: and he said some really aggressive stuff about me, and
• 2:13:44
  Speaker 2: I think recently he's said some stuff about you. And
• 2:13:48
  Speaker 2: he's actually still beating this drum about your podcast killing people?
• 2:13:53
  Speaker 2: Am I right about that?
• 2:13:55
  Speaker 1: Allegedly? I don't listen to any things he says anymore
• 2:13:58
  Speaker 1: because it's depressing. Sam is the reason for the joke
• 2:14:02
  Speaker 1: that I had in my special. We lost a lot
• 2:14:04
  Speaker 1: of people during COVID and most of them are still alive. Yeah,
• 2:14:08
  Speaker 1: I feel like we lost Sam. And I think whether
• 2:14:11
  Speaker 1: Sam realizes it or not, it had a massive impact
• 2:14:15
  Speaker 1: on the number of people that take his position seriously
• 2:14:19
  Speaker 1: because he's unwilling to acknowledge that the vaccines clearly damaged
• 2:14:24
  Speaker 1: a lot of people, unwilling to acknowledge that they weren't necessary,
• 2:14:28
  Speaker 1: especially in kids, in younger people. And I think any
• 2:14:32
  Speaker 1: healthy person under a certain age unwilling to acknowledge that
• 2:14:36
  Speaker 1: many other things could have been done to prevent serious
• 2:14:41
  Speaker 1: illness and hospitalization other than just this vaccination, and that
• 2:14:46
  Speaker 1: this vaccination is seriously flawed. I had a conversation on
• 2:14:49
  Speaker 1: the phone with them. I've only had a couple over
• 2:14:51
  Speaker 1: the last few years. I still love Sam. I always
• 2:14:55
  Speaker 1: thought of him as a friend and I think he's
• 2:14:57
  Speaker 1: a very interesting guy. The first one was after I
• 2:15:01
  Speaker 1: recovered from COVID, where he was trying to convince me
• 2:15:04
  Speaker 1: to get vaccinated, and I was like, this is the
• 2:15:06
  Speaker 1: dumbest conversation I've ever had. Why would I get vaccinated?
• 2:15:09
  Speaker 2: Now?
• 2:15:09
  Speaker 1: When I recovered from COVID, And like I told you,
• 2:15:12
  Speaker 1: it wasn't a big deal. It was only a couple.
• 2:15:15
  Speaker 1: It was one day that sucked and then I was
• 2:15:17
  Speaker 1: fine three days later. When I made that video, it
• 2:15:21
  Speaker 1: didn't There was no logical It was the same conversation
• 2:15:24
  Speaker 1: that I had with Sanjay Gooped on the podcast where
• 2:15:27
  Speaker 1: He's like, are you gonna get vaccinated? And I'm like,
• 2:15:28
  Speaker 1: why would I do that? Like, tell me why I
• 2:15:30
  Speaker 1: would do that? Well, and Sam's saying it would offer
• 2:15:33
  Speaker 1: you more protection. I go. I just got through it
• 2:15:36
  Speaker 1: pretty easily. Like I am a healthy person who exercises
• 2:15:40
  Speaker 1: all the time. I take a fucking slew of vitamins,
• 2:15:44
  Speaker 1: I sauna every day. I do all these different things
• 2:15:46
  Speaker 1: that make my body more robust, than the average person.
• 2:15:49
  Speaker 1: I got through this disease relatively easily with all the
• 2:15:53
  Speaker 1: ways that I prescribed or that I described other and
• 2:15:55
  Speaker 1: only one of them was problematic, and one of them
• 2:15:58
  Speaker 1: being ivermectin. Nobody said a damn thing about me taking
• 2:16:00
  Speaker 1: ivy vitamins, monocle, little antibodies, all the other things I described.
• 2:16:04
  Speaker 1: I didn't say ivermectin. Guys, you don't need a vaccine.
• 2:16:07
  Speaker 1: Just go out and get ivermectin. What I said was
• 2:16:10
  Speaker 1: I got COVID and we threw the kitchen sink at it.
• 2:16:13
  Speaker 1: I remember, and I'm better.
• 2:16:15
  Speaker 2: Yeah.
• 2:16:15
  Speaker 1: And CNN's response was to turn me green and to
• 2:16:18
  Speaker 1: say that I'm promoting dangerous horsty wormer and that it's
• 2:16:22
  Speaker 1: misinformation that's going to cost people's lives. And the fact
• 2:16:25
  Speaker 1: that Sam is still saying that it costs people's lives
• 2:16:28
  Speaker 1: is fucking crazy. And I don't know if he's just
• 2:16:32
  Speaker 1: convinced that he can convince people that he's so good
• 2:16:35
  Speaker 1: at debating, and he's so good at arguing points, and
• 2:16:37
  Speaker 1: he's so articulate that he could spin this in a
• 2:16:40
  Speaker 1: way that it makes sense. But it doesn't make sense.
• 2:16:43
  Speaker 1: And in fact, if you promoted the use of vaccines,
• 2:16:46
  Speaker 1: and it's been shown that these vaccines have caused serious
• 2:16:50
  Speaker 1: injuries and death to people that didn't need them. I
• 2:16:53
  Speaker 1: would say you caused death, especially if you're a person
• 2:16:58
  Speaker 1: that people high, that people hold rather in very high
• 2:17:01
  Speaker 1: steam for someone that people respect their opinion and take
• 2:17:06
  Speaker 1: it very seriously and would refer to them as an expert.
• 2:17:11
  Speaker 2: I totally agree with you. And there's something just weird
• 2:17:14
  Speaker 2: about the fact that here we have a I think
• 2:17:21
  Speaker 2: you and I would both agree, a highly intelligent person
• 2:17:26
  Speaker 2: who prides himself on analytics. And yet even as the
• 2:17:33
  Speaker 2: story is breaking, even as the evidence of vaccine harms
• 2:17:39
  Speaker 2: becomes unambiguous, and maybe more to the point in this case,
• 2:17:43
  Speaker 2: even as Paul Offitt has now in several different places
• 2:17:47
  Speaker 2: said that all the top people in the public health
• 2:17:51
  Speaker 2: regime who were issuing these dictats all knew that natural
• 2:17:57
  Speaker 2: immunity was the best immunity you were going to get, right.
• 2:18:01
  Speaker 2: So the evidence is right there that they lied to
• 2:18:04
  Speaker 2: us in public that you had it right. There would
• 2:18:06
  Speaker 2: have been no purpose in you getting a vaccination after
• 2:18:10
  Speaker 2: you had already recovered. And I would add one other thing,
• 2:18:14
  Speaker 2: the evidence that vaccinations often make you more vulnerable is
• 2:18:21
  Speaker 2: unambiguous in the case of something like a covid vaccine,
• 2:18:29
  Speaker 2: or you know, in the recent revelations about flu vaccines
• 2:18:32
  Speaker 2: making people more susceptible to flu, there's a strong argument
• 2:18:36
  Speaker 2: to be made that what's going on is you have
• 2:18:40
  Speaker 2: acquired an immunity through an infection. Now somebody injects you
• 2:18:47
  Speaker 2: with something that either in the case of the flu shot,
• 2:18:50
  Speaker 2: has a bunch of antigen in it, or in the
• 2:18:52
  Speaker 2: case of the COVID shot, causes your body to produce
• 2:18:55
  Speaker 2: a bunch of antigen. Well, what's that going to do.
• 2:18:58
  Speaker 2: That is going to attract the attention of all of
• 2:19:01
  Speaker 2: the cells in your immune system that are supposed to
• 2:19:04
  Speaker 2: be surveilling for the disease in question, and it's going
• 2:19:07
  Speaker 2: to occupy them. So one of the mechanisms by which
• 2:19:10
  Speaker 2: a vaccine can actually make you more vulnerable is that
• 2:19:14
  Speaker 2: it can take an immunity that you've already gotten through
• 2:19:16
  Speaker 2: fighting off an infection and it can draw it to
• 2:19:19
  Speaker 2: the wrong place when the disease is still circulating. So
• 2:19:23
  Speaker 2: Sam is saying something nonsensical. Sanchi Gupta was saying something nonsensical.
• 2:19:28
  Speaker 2: They were actually giving you advice that has a very
• 2:19:30
  Speaker 2: clear mechanism by which it would make you more vulnerable
• 2:19:33
  Speaker 2: to the disease that they think you should do everything
• 2:19:35
  Speaker 2: in your power to make yourself less vulnerable to. They're
• 2:19:38
  Speaker 2: just simply not saying something analytically robust. And I would
• 2:19:43
  Speaker 2: also point out, you know, this question about whether or
• 2:19:47
  Speaker 2: not Sam is responsible for people's deaths. I want to
• 2:19:51
  Speaker 2: do this carefully because I think it matters, and I know.
• 2:19:54
  Speaker 1: That I wouldn't say he is. I would only say
• 2:19:57
  Speaker 1: he is if he's saying that I am right. That's
• 2:20:00
  Speaker 1: not something that I would go out and say.
• 2:20:02
  Speaker 2: I wouldn't write. Here's how I would do it rigorously. Okay,
• 2:20:07
  Speaker 2: I think the discussion a robust, open discussion about a
• 2:20:12
  Speaker 2: complex set of facts. That discussion is how we find
• 2:20:16
  Speaker 2: the truth right. The truth gives us an opportunity to
• 2:20:21
  Speaker 2: become safer. So my feeling is everybody gets credit for participating.
• 2:20:25
  Speaker 2: Anybody who participates in good faith in the conversation about
• 2:20:28
  Speaker 2: what the right thing to do is is part of
• 2:20:31
  Speaker 2: the solution, even the people who get it wrong.
• 2:20:33
  Speaker 1: I would agree with that.
• 2:20:34
  Speaker 2: However, as soon as you start making the argument that
• 2:20:38
  Speaker 2: you're wrong, and that means you're putting people's lives in jeopardy.
• 2:20:42
  Speaker 2: My feeling is, well, then you're changing the rules. You're
• 2:20:46
  Speaker 2: setting a standard that we have to be right or
• 2:20:49
  Speaker 2: we're responsible for whatever deaths might befall us. We have
• 2:20:52
  Speaker 2: to do more than just participating good faith in the conversation.
• 2:20:56
  Speaker 2: We have to be right. So that means, Sam, when
• 2:20:59
  Speaker 2: you're wrong, you become responsible for the deaths that resulted
• 2:21:04
  Speaker 2: from your bad advice. You wouldn't have been responsible in
• 2:21:07
  Speaker 2: the first place except that you decided these were the
• 2:21:10
  Speaker 2: rules of engagement. You decided that the people who were
• 2:21:13
  Speaker 2: wrong in the argument are responsible for the deaths. And
• 2:21:16
  Speaker 2: guess what, Sam, you were wrong. People died. People got
• 2:21:19
  Speaker 2: a vaccine that they shouldn't have gotten, and they died.
• 2:21:22
  Speaker 2: Children died. Right, That's on you because you decided those
• 2:21:26
  Speaker 2: were the rules. And I don't know. I hope Sam
• 2:21:30
  Speaker 2: can find his way back.
• 2:21:32
  Speaker 1: I think Sam was a real problem with admitting wrong.
• 2:21:35
  Speaker 1: Admitting you're wrong requires you to admit that you're fallible,
• 2:21:40
  Speaker 1: that your intellectual rigor in pursuing this very complex scenario
• 2:21:46
  Speaker 1: that we all find ourselves in that it's very novel.
• 2:21:48
  Speaker 1: You made errors. You trusted establishments that were compromised you
• 2:21:53
  Speaker 1: trusted experts who were incentivized to deliver this propaganda that
• 2:22:00
  Speaker 1: this was the only way out of this yet you
• 2:22:02
  Speaker 1: had to get vaccinated. And I think a lot of
• 2:22:05
  Speaker 1: it was he had an initial experience with someone that
• 2:22:09
  Speaker 1: he knew that had got COVID, that got very sick
• 2:22:12
  Speaker 1: and was a young, healthy person who was a skier,
• 2:22:15
  Speaker 1: relatively young in Italy. And I don't know what treatment
• 2:22:19
  Speaker 1: they got. I don't know what the situation was. I
• 2:22:22
  Speaker 1: do know that supposedly they had been heavily drinking while
• 2:22:25
  Speaker 1: they were there, like on a ski chip, getting drunk,
• 2:22:27
  Speaker 1: get COVID, got really sick, and wind up getting very
• 2:22:32
  Speaker 1: fucked up by it. I think that scared him, and
• 2:22:36
  Speaker 1: I think he was initially he was one of the bigger,
• 2:22:38
  Speaker 1: like the people that I was in contact with that
• 2:22:40
  Speaker 1: was warning me that this is not the fluid, this
• 2:22:42
  Speaker 1: is really dangerous. And I took it to heart. And
• 2:22:49
  Speaker 1: like I've publicly said many times, I was not just
• 2:22:52
  Speaker 1: willing to get the vaccine. I tried to get it.
• 2:22:55
  Speaker 1: The UFC allocated was early on in COVID. UFC allocated
• 2:22:59
  Speaker 1: a bunch of COVID vaccines for their employees. I got
• 2:23:02
  Speaker 1: there the day of the fights. I asked to be vaccinated.
• 2:23:04
  Speaker 1: The day of the fights. I didn't even think about it.
• 2:23:06
  Speaker 1: I thought it was like a flu vaccine. I'd take
• 2:23:09
  Speaker 1: a flu shot and go commentate. It wouldn't even bother me.
• 2:23:11
  Speaker 1: I don't think. Maybe I'd feel a little bad, but
• 2:23:13
  Speaker 1: it would be fine. I'd drink coffee whatever, I'll be okay.
• 2:23:16
  Speaker 1: That was my position, and I couldn't. I would have
• 2:23:20
  Speaker 1: to go to the clinic. They told me, can you
• 2:23:22
  Speaker 1: come back on Monday? I said I cannot, but I'll
• 2:23:24
  Speaker 1: be back in two weeks for the next fights. We'll
• 2:23:26
  Speaker 1: do it. Then, in that time period, the vaccine was pulled.
• 2:23:29
  Speaker 1: It was the Johnson and Johnson, so it was pulled,
• 2:23:32
  Speaker 1: and I knew two people that had strokes, two people
• 2:23:35
  Speaker 1: that were relatively healthy people that all of sudden had strokes.
• 2:23:39
  Speaker 1: And then I started getting nervous. And then a bunch
• 2:23:41
  Speaker 1: of people that I knew, Jamie being one of them,
• 2:23:43
  Speaker 1: a bunch of other people got it and recovered, and
• 2:23:46
  Speaker 1: I'm like, all right, well, this isn't a fucking death sentence. Also,
• 2:23:48
  Speaker 1: I was around Jamie, I didn't get it. I was
• 2:23:50
  Speaker 1: around Tony. I didn't get it. Then my whole family
• 2:23:52
  Speaker 1: got it. My whole family got it, and I didn't
• 2:23:55
  Speaker 1: get it, and I didn't do anything. I did the
• 2:23:58
  Speaker 1: opposite of trying to not get it. I tried to
• 2:24:00
  Speaker 1: get it and I didn't get it. And I'm like, Okay, well,
• 2:24:03
  Speaker 1: this isn't what everybody's saying it is. It's clearly not
• 2:24:06
  Speaker 1: what everybody's saying it is, especially not to I would
• 2:24:09
  Speaker 1: say on the healthy scale, I'm an outlier. I'm very
• 2:24:14
  Speaker 1: healthy because I spent a lot of time working on it.
• 2:24:16
  Speaker 2: Yep.
• 2:24:17
  Speaker 1: And I don't think you should punish people that are unhealthy.
• 2:24:20
  Speaker 1: I don't think. But I also don't think you should
• 2:24:22
  Speaker 1: punish me and force me to take a medication or
• 2:24:24
  Speaker 1: of the guys that it's to protect to people that
• 2:24:26
  Speaker 1: are unhealthy if this fucking stuff works, because if it works,
• 2:24:31
  Speaker 1: they should take it and they'll be protected. It didn't
• 2:24:34
  Speaker 1: make any sense that everybody who was not vulnerable was
• 2:24:38
  Speaker 1: going to have to take this medication. It was just
• 2:24:40
  Speaker 1: complete illogical thinking. Does it work, does it stop transmission?
• 2:24:45
  Speaker 1: Does it stop infection? That's the initial assertion. If it works,
• 2:24:48
  Speaker 1: I don't need to take it, right, they need to
• 2:24:51
  Speaker 1: take it, And I'm the fool if I don't take it.
• 2:24:54
  Speaker 1: None of this made any sense. But it was just
• 2:24:56
  Speaker 1: like cult thinking. It was like it had become we
• 2:25:00
  Speaker 1: had been isolated, this bizarre psychology experiment had been done
• 2:25:05
  Speaker 1: on every living human on the planet. We'd all been isolated,
• 2:25:10
  Speaker 1: removed from everybody. A lot of people have been forbidden
• 2:25:13
  Speaker 1: to go to work, People were working remotely. Everyone was
• 2:25:16
  Speaker 1: like huddled together in fear without any contact with the
• 2:25:19
  Speaker 1: outside world for a prolonged period of time. And in California,
• 2:25:22
  Speaker 1: which I think to this day is probably the most
• 2:25:25
  Speaker 1: devastated by it psychologically, I was back recently. People are
• 2:25:29
  Speaker 1: still wearing fucking masks. People are still putting masks on
• 2:25:32
  Speaker 1: when they go into Starbucks. It's bananas. There's a bunch
• 2:25:35
  Speaker 1: of people like that, like way more than you see
• 2:25:37
  Speaker 1: in Texas. If I see someone with a mask in Texas,
• 2:25:40
  Speaker 1: I assume it's either very vulnerable person who's filled with anxiety,
• 2:25:44
  Speaker 1: as mentally ill or severely immunocompromised, someone with cancer, someone's
• 2:25:48
  Speaker 1: going through chemotherapy, what have you, which makes sense. But
• 2:25:52
  Speaker 1: the psychology aspect of it was very strange because people
• 2:25:58
  Speaker 1: just thought that this one solution was the only way out,
• 2:26:02
  Speaker 1: and if you resisted this solution, you were keeping them
• 2:26:06
  Speaker 1: from returning to a normal life, and you were a
• 2:26:08
  Speaker 1: fucking problem. And I saw people that I knew, that
• 2:26:10
  Speaker 1: I was friends with that were referring to unvaccinated people
• 2:26:13
  Speaker 1: as plague rats online. I was like, this is crazy.
• 2:26:18
  Speaker 1: First of all, you're so unhealthy. I wanted to post it,
• 2:26:21
  Speaker 1: but I'm not a mean person. I want to attack people.
• 2:26:24
  Speaker 1: But I was like, I know you, motherfucker. You eat
• 2:26:26
  Speaker 1: donuts all day. You haven't worked out a day in
• 2:26:28
  Speaker 1: your life, and now you're telling everyone that they have
• 2:26:31
  Speaker 1: to do this or they're the problem. Like, you're so
• 2:26:34
  Speaker 1: vulnerable to everything, you have no vitamins in your system,
• 2:26:38
  Speaker 1: and you're out there telling me that the only way
• 2:26:40
  Speaker 1: for me to get healthy is that I have to
• 2:26:43
  Speaker 1: get vaccinated. I have to get injected with some experimental
• 2:26:48
  Speaker 1: gene therapy, and that's the only way, even after I've
• 2:26:52
  Speaker 1: gotten the fucking cold and gotten over it. This is
• 2:26:55
  Speaker 1: pure madness, with no objective analysis of all the details
• 2:27:02
  Speaker 1: in the facts and a logical conclusion, a logical breakdown
• 2:27:08
  Speaker 1: of their perspective on what this thing was. No, it
• 2:27:11
  Speaker 1: was all group think, it was all adherence to this
• 2:27:14
  Speaker 1: one doctrine. There's the vaccinated and the unvacced. I had
• 2:27:18
  Speaker 1: people in my podcasting, this is a pandemic of the unvaccinated.
• 2:27:21
  Speaker 1: Shut the fuck up, you parrot, Like are you a man?
• 2:27:25
  Speaker 1: Are you an actual human being? How the fuck did
• 2:27:28
  Speaker 1: we survive a million years of evolution to get to you,
• 2:27:32
  Speaker 1: you fucking bag of milk? Like, what are you talking about?
• 2:27:36
  Speaker 1: Everybody has to do what you did. You're not even healthy.
• 2:27:40
  Speaker 1: This is so crazy. You're jumping into the game in
• 2:27:42
  Speaker 1: the fourth quarter and telling people how to play. Like
• 2:27:45
  Speaker 1: you didn't play the game. You didn't do a day,
• 2:27:48
  Speaker 1: You sat on the fucking bench, You did nothing, and
• 2:27:51
  Speaker 1: now all of a sudden you're talking about health. This
• 2:27:53
  Speaker 1: is crazy. It's like the moment that I had Peter
• 2:27:55
  Speaker 1: Hotez on and we're you know, this is back when
• 2:27:58
  Speaker 1: I was like very vaccine. I had him on because
• 2:28:02
  Speaker 1: I had talked to him early on, way before the pandemic,
• 2:28:05
  Speaker 1: when I did a television show in twenty twelve. I
• 2:28:07
  Speaker 1: found him to be very interesting. He did a lot
• 2:28:09
  Speaker 1: of work on infectious diseases, particularly oddly enough and ironically enough,
• 2:28:14
  Speaker 1: on parasites, you know, which is what I've remected it
• 2:28:16
  Speaker 1: is so good for He was talking a lot about
• 2:28:18
  Speaker 1: parasites in tropical climates and have so many people at
• 2:28:22
  Speaker 1: parasites and this is a giant issue that he works
• 2:28:26
  Speaker 1: very hard to discuss and to educate people on and
• 2:28:29
  Speaker 1: to you know, find solutions for and for that guy
• 2:28:33
  Speaker 1: to be sitting on the podcast. And then I started saying,
• 2:28:35
  Speaker 1: you know, what do you what do you eat? Do
• 2:28:37
  Speaker 1: you work out? I'm a kind of a junk food junkie.
• 2:28:40
  Speaker 1: I a lot of candy. Like what what?
• 2:28:44
  Speaker 2: Like?
• 2:28:44
  Speaker 1: What do you think you're made out of? Man? Do
• 2:28:47
  Speaker 1: you okay? If you know anything about biology, your fucking
• 2:28:51
  Speaker 1: cells are literally constructed based on the food that you eat.
• 2:28:58
  Speaker 1: It's the only thing they have. It's all you have
• 2:29:02
  Speaker 1: to keep your body robust and vital. Your body needs protein,
• 2:29:08
  Speaker 1: it needs vitamins, it needs carbohydrates, it needs all these
• 2:29:11
  Speaker 1: things they've been documented. You're ignoring that because you like
• 2:29:15
  Speaker 1: mouth pleasure. You're obese. You're ignoring that. You don't work out,
• 2:29:21
  Speaker 1: You're not fit, your body's not robust, you don't sauna,
• 2:29:26
  Speaker 1: you probably don't take any vitamins. Like this is crazy
• 2:29:30
  Speaker 1: that you're giving out advice and you're doing it publicly.
• 2:29:35
  Speaker 1: You're publicly discussing all these things. Is if it's not
• 2:29:38
  Speaker 1: that big of a deal that you don't do these
• 2:29:40
  Speaker 1: other things because you vaccines are very important, you know,
• 2:29:43
  Speaker 1: it's fucking important. Is be healthy. The fact that you
• 2:29:48
  Speaker 1: can ignore that while giving advice is wild, just absolutely wild.
• 2:29:55
  Speaker 2: Well, it raises two things. One, in Peter Hotez's case,
• 2:30:00
  Speaker 2: he is part of a pharma religion, right where the
• 2:30:05
  Speaker 2: idea is that things happen, that they're not your fault,
• 2:30:10
  Speaker 2: and that they are corrected with interventions. And there has
• 2:30:15
  Speaker 2: been a false dichotomy pain in between what's called terrain
• 2:30:19
  Speaker 2: theory and germ theory right where it's like, well, which
• 2:30:22
  Speaker 2: of these things do you think it is? And the
• 2:30:25
  Speaker 2: answer is these things are not mutually exclusive. The health
• 2:30:29
  Speaker 2: of the terrain dictates how vulnerable you are to the germs,
• 2:30:32
  Speaker 2: and a very healthy person it has very low vulnerability,
• 2:30:36
  Speaker 2: you know, and a lifetime of abuse makes you highly vulnerable.
• 2:30:40
  Speaker 2: And people let people like Hotels don't get it. I
• 2:30:43
  Speaker 2: remember that interaction that you had with him. Goes to
• 2:30:47
  Speaker 2: shake shack with his daughter, yea, his daughter who has autism,
• 2:30:52
  Speaker 2: and he swears it's not the vaccines.
• 2:30:56
  Speaker 1: But well, that's the other thing. I said, well, what
• 2:30:59
  Speaker 1: does cause auto and he said it's we've narrowed it
• 2:31:02
  Speaker 1: down to five environmental factors. I said what are they?
• 2:31:05
  Speaker 1: And he couldn't tell me. I'm like, listen, man, if
• 2:31:08
  Speaker 1: my daughter had autism and I knew for a fact
• 2:31:10
  Speaker 1: that it came from five things, I would tell you
• 2:31:13
  Speaker 1: what those things were because I would know what those
• 2:31:15
  Speaker 1: things were, because I'd want to warn other people.
• 2:31:17
  Speaker 2: Right, it would be on billboards.
• 2:31:19
  Speaker 1: He's an expert who wrote a book about his daughter, right,
• 2:31:23
  Speaker 1: And he couldn't tell me what those environmental factors are
• 2:31:26
  Speaker 1: that contribute to autism rates being higher.
• 2:31:29
  Speaker 2: He's an expert.
• 2:31:33
  Speaker 1: Well, it's just the limited thinking. And I like Peter
• 2:31:36
  Speaker 1: as a person outside of all this stuff. My interactions
• 2:31:39
  Speaker 1: with him, but nothing but pleasant. I you know, I
• 2:31:41
  Speaker 1: try to be as nice as possible. I know, I
• 2:31:43
  Speaker 1: try to be as charitable as possible. But that ability
• 2:31:50
  Speaker 1: to live a life that is measurably demonstratably unhealthy, like
• 2:31:57
  Speaker 1: clearly unhealthy, and yet be talking about how health that
• 2:32:01
  Speaker 1: kind of thinking is wild. It's wild thinking and a
• 2:32:05
  Speaker 1: hypocritical It's also to be a public expert and to
• 2:32:10
  Speaker 1: have that kind of flaw in your thinking that exposed
• 2:32:13
  Speaker 1: by a fucking comedian, Like I'm not even an expert,
• 2:32:18
  Speaker 1: just a guy who's like asking you questions, And it's
• 2:32:21
  Speaker 1: so blunt, so obvious by your response that you don't
• 2:32:26
  Speaker 1: even take this into consideration. The primary factor of health
• 2:32:30
  Speaker 1: physical robustness, metabolic resistance health, You don't take that into
• 2:32:35
  Speaker 1: consideration at all. The idea that there's no difference between
• 2:32:39
  Speaker 1: an unhealthy, unfit, obese person who eats garbage and is
• 2:32:44
  Speaker 1: vitamin deficient in virtually all measurable areas versus a healthy
• 2:32:48
  Speaker 1: person with a with a strong body and a robust
• 2:32:53
  Speaker 1: immune system and constantly consuming vitamins and exercising and staying
• 2:32:58
  Speaker 1: healthy and getting a lot of sleep and water and electrolytes,
• 2:33:01
  Speaker 1: Like there's no difference and the only difference is vaccines.
• 2:33:06
  Speaker 1: That's crazy that a public health person can have those
• 2:33:11
  Speaker 1: points and not just have them behind closed doors where
• 2:33:14
  Speaker 1: you're not challenged, but espouse them publicly.
• 2:33:18
  Speaker 2: Well, there's something very wrong with our entire approach to
• 2:33:21
  Speaker 2: public health, and hopefully we are going to confront it,
• 2:33:27
  Speaker 2: because they've effectively staged a coup against doctors and they're
• 2:33:32
  Speaker 2: dispensing very low quality advice. I mean, it's really the
• 2:33:37
  Speaker 2: inverse of good advice. But this brings me back actually
• 2:33:41
  Speaker 2: to Sam, because there's a dire lesson here. For one thing.
• 2:33:49
  Speaker 2: I quite like Sam also, and I will tell you
• 2:33:52
  Speaker 2: one of the early experiences I had as I was
• 2:33:54
  Speaker 2: getting to know him was that I heard him say
• 2:33:57
  Speaker 2: something that I had said many many times as a professor,
• 2:34:02
  Speaker 2: which is that and I said it I think at
• 2:34:05
  Speaker 2: the beginning of this podcast that when you are wrong,
• 2:34:10
  Speaker 2: that as painful as it is to acknowledge it, you
• 2:34:14
  Speaker 2: are far better off to get it done as quick
• 2:34:17
  Speaker 2: as possible so that you can get back to being right.
• 2:34:20
  Speaker 2: And I heard say something almost exactly like that right,
• 2:34:24
  Speaker 2: and I thought, ah, here's somebody who has the same
• 2:34:27
  Speaker 2: intellectual approach, somebody who appreciates that same, maybe slightly subtle
• 2:34:32
  Speaker 2: piece of wisdom. And yet here, in the case of
• 2:34:35
  Speaker 2: the pandemic, I think he got everything wrong. And worse
• 2:34:41
  Speaker 2: than that. I mean, you know, you and I both
• 2:34:43
  Speaker 2: think that you know you can get stuff wrong. And
• 2:34:45
  Speaker 2: it was a very confusing time, and the information was
• 2:34:47
  Speaker 2: very low quality, and lots of people got stuff wrong. However,
• 2:34:53
  Speaker 2: you are now making unforced errors refusing to see that
• 2:34:57
  Speaker 2: you got it wrong. In fact, you're not even acknowledging
• 2:35:01
  Speaker 2: what you know.
• 2:35:01
  Speaker 1: Sam.
• 2:35:02
  Speaker 2: You have stopped getting boosters for COVID despite all of
• 2:35:06
  Speaker 2: the things that you said about it.
• 2:35:08
  Speaker 1: And how do you know he stopped getting boosters because
• 2:35:10
  Speaker 1: he said so?
• 2:35:11
  Speaker 2: I believe he said so.
• 2:35:12
  Speaker 1: They said, why how many did he get that?
• 2:35:15
  Speaker 2: I don't know.
• 2:35:16
  Speaker 1: That might be also part of the problem, but my feeling, huh,
• 2:35:18
  Speaker 1: it could be. Well, that is an issue that's sure discussing.
• 2:35:21
  Speaker 1: There's a mental decline in people that have had too
• 2:35:24
  Speaker 1: many of these boosters because of the impact that it
• 2:35:26
  Speaker 1: has on the body. Well, which is really wild.
• 2:35:29
  Speaker 2: It is a oh and this is another thing that
• 2:35:31
  Speaker 2: people need to understand about it. We are way too
• 2:35:34
  Speaker 2: focused on milcard idis and pair of card idis. This
• 2:35:38
  Speaker 2: is a random tissum, maybe not random, haphazard tissue destroying
• 2:35:43
  Speaker 2: technology the platform itself, right, It's like rolling the dice
• 2:35:48
  Speaker 2: on destroying cells. There are cells in your body you
• 2:35:51
  Speaker 2: can afford to lose, and there are other cells in
• 2:35:53
  Speaker 2: the body that you can't afford to lose. And if
• 2:35:55
  Speaker 2: you take a bunch of boosters, each time you take one,
• 2:35:58
  Speaker 2: you're rolling the dice on losing a bunch of cells
• 2:36:01
  Speaker 2: that you may or may not be able to afford losing.
• 2:36:03
  Speaker 2: So the fact that that includes things in the nervous system, well,
• 2:36:07
  Speaker 2: of course it does. It's completely haphazard. So anyway, what
• 2:36:12
  Speaker 2: I don't get is somebody who obviously believes in rigorous
• 2:36:21
  Speaker 2: thought must believe in correcting their course when they've got
• 2:36:26
  Speaker 2: something wrong. That's the key to rigorous analytical thought. And
• 2:36:29
  Speaker 2: yet in this case he appears it's I mean, ironically
• 2:36:35
  Speaker 2: enough coming from Sam, it's faith. He has faith or
• 2:36:39
  Speaker 2: whatever he said must have been right, even if he
• 2:36:41
  Speaker 2: has to do that little trick he does where it's like, well,
• 2:36:45
  Speaker 2: if the facts had been different, then I would have
• 2:36:46
  Speaker 2: been right.
• 2:36:47
  Speaker 1: That thing was crazy. That argument was the most bizarre.
• 2:36:51
  Speaker 1: And that was the first conversation that I had with
• 2:36:53
  Speaker 1: him where he was upset that we were making fun
• 2:36:56
  Speaker 1: of that. Now that ac sex was the second. The
• 2:36:58
  Speaker 1: first one was him asking me to get back. The
• 2:37:00
  Speaker 1: second one was this. We were talking about how crazy
• 2:37:03
  Speaker 1: it is to say that if it killed a bunch
• 2:37:05
  Speaker 1: of kids, then of course you would have to take
• 2:37:07
  Speaker 1: it like what what right? Well, if I was right,
• 2:37:12
  Speaker 1: then I would be right. So he basically was saying
• 2:37:14
  Speaker 1: like if the disease was way worse and I was right,
• 2:37:17
  Speaker 1: then I'm right. But the disease wasn't that, and you
• 2:37:21
  Speaker 1: weren't right, and they didn't have to say what the
• 2:37:23
  Speaker 1: fuck are you saying? Right?
• 2:37:24
  Speaker 2: And other people were right and the Again, you could
• 2:37:28
  Speaker 2: be on the same level with all the people who
• 2:37:31
  Speaker 2: got it more right than you if you were simply
• 2:37:33
  Speaker 2: decent about what it meant to disagree.
• 2:37:35
  Speaker 1: So let me explain this. So this conversation was after
• 2:37:38
  Speaker 1: we'd talked about this on the podcast, and I thought
• 2:37:40
  Speaker 1: I handled it very charitably. He was upset that people
• 2:37:42
  Speaker 1: were going to attack him, so we called me. We talked.
• 2:37:44
  Speaker 1: He wanted to talk to me, and I said that
• 2:37:46
  Speaker 1: I won't do it until you talk to Brett. He's
• 2:37:50
  Speaker 1: terrified to talk to you. He claims to be willing
• 2:37:53
  Speaker 1: to sit down and talk to everybody. He said he
• 2:37:56
  Speaker 1: won't platform you or something about the disinformation that you
• 2:37:59
  Speaker 1: spread up with have a conversation with him. But it's
• 2:38:03
  Speaker 1: like a guy who knows he can't beat up Mike Tyson.
• 2:38:06
  Speaker 1: He's like, fuck Mike Tyson, Like why don't you go
• 2:38:08
  Speaker 1: say it to his face? I don't just not don't
• 2:38:12
  Speaker 1: have desire to be in the room with that guy
• 2:38:14
  Speaker 1: and like, oh, fuck that guy if I see him,
• 2:38:15
  Speaker 1: But I'm not gonna see him. I'm going to you know.
• 2:38:17
  Speaker 1: It's like he's avoiding you, and he's avoiding you because
• 2:38:22
  Speaker 1: he has said so many things that are incorrect, that
• 2:38:26
  Speaker 1: are provably incorrect, and he has not admitted any of that.
• 2:38:30
  Speaker 1: So he has the burden of these years of saying
• 2:38:34
  Speaker 1: all this incorrect stuff and then being supported by a
• 2:38:38
  Speaker 1: bunch of other people that have also said a bunch
• 2:38:40
  Speaker 1: of incorrect stuff, and they all kind of group up
• 2:38:42
  Speaker 1: together and gang up and talk in the comments, and
• 2:38:44
  Speaker 1: then they get destroyed by everybody else. It's kind of
• 2:38:47
  Speaker 1: wild to watch, like some of these posts and the
• 2:38:50
  Speaker 1: chaos that goes on in the comment section. It's just
• 2:38:55
  Speaker 1: the complete dissolving of the appreciation of him as an intellectual.
• 2:39:02
  Speaker 1: It's like we've watched it. He's destroyed it in front
• 2:39:05
  Speaker 1: of our eyes. Like so many people that I talked
• 2:39:07
  Speaker 1: to that used to love Sam Harris will tell me, like,
• 2:39:10
  Speaker 1: I used to love that guy, What the fuck happened
• 2:39:11
  Speaker 1: to him?
• 2:39:12
  Speaker 2: Oh? The people who are angriest at him are people
• 2:39:14
  Speaker 2: who were devoted fans of his. Yeah, I don't know
• 2:39:17
  Speaker 2: if he even knows that.
• 2:39:18
  Speaker 1: No, I don't think they know it either. Well, I'm
• 2:39:21
  Speaker 1: one of them, you know. I think you got to
• 2:39:25
  Speaker 1: parse out the correct things that a person said from
• 2:39:28
  Speaker 1: the incorrect things the person said. I think Sam's had
• 2:39:31
  Speaker 1: some pretty spectacular debates in the past. I thought they
• 2:39:33
  Speaker 1: were fantastic. He's a great thinker and a great speaker.
• 2:39:36
  Speaker 1: But he's just been so wrong on this for so
• 2:39:39
  Speaker 1: long that he's stuck, and so now he's not making sense.
• 2:39:43
  Speaker 2: Yeah, he's stuck. And I would say, you know, look
• 2:39:46
  Speaker 2: the principle that you and I shared, Sam, where it
• 2:39:51
  Speaker 2: doesn't matter how painful it is to admit that you
• 2:39:53
  Speaker 2: were wrong, you're just far better off doing it at
• 2:39:56
  Speaker 2: whatever point.
• 2:39:56
  Speaker 1: But if he thinks he's right, have a fucking seat
• 2:39:59
  Speaker 1: across the table well from mister Weinstein and talk. And
• 2:40:03
  Speaker 1: he don't want to do that. Does he wants to
• 2:40:05
  Speaker 1: talk to me? He says that I'm responsible for people's deaths.
• 2:40:09
  Speaker 1: He said that my show is a cultural disaster.
• 2:40:13
  Speaker 2: I think that was the quote that he used, right,
• 2:40:14
  Speaker 2: And in fact, I think it makes the same point
• 2:40:18
  Speaker 2: as this accidental natural experiment run by the courts. Right,
• 2:40:25
  Speaker 2: is the Joe Rogan experience like the you know, the
• 2:40:30
  Speaker 2: gold standard of how to make intellectual progress.
• 2:40:35
  Speaker 1: Absolutely not.
• 2:40:36
  Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean look at your table.
• 2:40:38
  Speaker 1: No, it's mammoth teeth and I got a fucking an
• 2:40:42
  Speaker 1: ol mech head here and wolf tooth, wolf tooth. Right.
• 2:40:46
  Speaker 2: This is the methods, the method section test ale tale
• 2:40:49
  Speaker 2: on the other hand, on the other hand, by you know, how,
• 2:40:54
  Speaker 2: by what degree did you beat Sam Harris, whose method
• 2:40:59
  Speaker 2: amounted to listening to the right people right, the right
• 2:41:02
  Speaker 2: people were lying. I don't exactly know why they were lying.
• 2:41:04
  Speaker 2: I don't know how they got there. Maybe it's a
• 2:41:06
  Speaker 2: wide range of explanations. But the point is actually the
• 2:41:13
  Speaker 2: method that you used, which was talking to people and
• 2:41:18
  Speaker 2: hearing them out and challenging them when they said stuff
• 2:41:21
  Speaker 2: that didn't make sense, that method worked pretty well. Were
• 2:41:26
  Speaker 2: you going to get the shot you were? Did you
• 2:41:27
  Speaker 2: get it? No? Did you end up avoiding it? You know?
• 2:41:30
  Speaker 2: Did you get whys fast enough to stay away from it?
• 2:41:33
  Speaker 1: You did?
• 2:41:34
  Speaker 2: Did you have ivermectin when you got sick? You had
• 2:41:38
  Speaker 2: it available, you used it. These things worked well, And
• 2:41:42
  Speaker 2: I guess the point is this is a classic case
• 2:41:46
  Speaker 2: of the proof is in the pudding, right, I will
• 2:41:49
  Speaker 2: take that accidental natural experiment run by the courts over
• 2:41:56
  Speaker 2: some fancy randomized control trial where I can't even figure
• 2:41:59
  Speaker 2: out what they did and why they kept moving the
• 2:42:01
  Speaker 2: goalposts in the middle of it any day of the week.
• 2:42:04
  Speaker 1: Not only that, but a one that was funded and
• 2:42:07
  Speaker 1: designed specifically to achieve a desired result, and if it didn't,
• 2:42:11
  Speaker 1: they hit it right.
• 2:42:13
  Speaker 2: So the point is we should just be way more
• 2:42:18
  Speaker 2: ready to say, I don't know what that complicated thing is,
• 2:42:23
  Speaker 2: but it doesn't look reasonable. And then here's some stuff
• 2:42:27
  Speaker 2: that actually I can be pretty sure I can check myself.
• 2:42:30
  Speaker 2: There's nothing that can hide in the statistics of a
• 2:42:32
  Speaker 2: Chai square test. So all I need to know is
• 2:42:37
  Speaker 2: is the data accurately represented? And then the Kai square
• 2:42:40
  Speaker 2: test leaves nowhere to hide shenanigans. So I radically prefer
• 2:42:48
  Speaker 2: that style of method rather than the fancy stuff. And
• 2:42:51
  Speaker 2: I think people are just addicted to, you know, the
• 2:42:55
  Speaker 2: highest tech version of everything, whether it's a drug or whatever.
• 2:43:01
  Speaker 1: It would be great if we knew that. There's never
• 2:43:03
  Speaker 1: been a time ever where they lied during these studies.
• 2:43:06
  Speaker 1: There's never been scientists that were bribed, like the whole
• 2:43:10
  Speaker 1: sugar versus saturated fat thing. There has been too many
• 2:43:14
  Speaker 1: times where the course of civilization has been altered because
• 2:43:18
  Speaker 1: of fraudulent studies. I mean that's you could demonstrate that
• 2:43:22
  Speaker 1: really quickly with a good quick AI search. You could
• 2:43:25
  Speaker 1: find all the different times where that's been the case,
• 2:43:28
  Speaker 1: where studies have been proven to not just been inaccurate,
• 2:43:32
  Speaker 1: but then the drug gets released, kills a bunch of people,
• 2:43:35
  Speaker 1: and it gets pulled off of the market. And then
• 2:43:37
  Speaker 1: they go through the studies and they realize, well, there's
• 2:43:39
  Speaker 1: ten studies that showed that there was real fucking problems.
• 2:43:42
  Speaker 1: So they buried those studies and then rigged one study
• 2:43:45
  Speaker 1: with very specific parameters to try to show some statistically
• 2:43:49
  Speaker 1: significant result that was very small, just so they could
• 2:43:52
  Speaker 1: sell these drugs.
• 2:43:53
  Speaker 2: Right. It's it's I call it the game of pharma.
• 2:43:56
  Speaker 2: And the idea is they are trying to own a
• 2:44:00
  Speaker 2: piece of intellectual property, yes, to find a plausible use
• 2:44:04
  Speaker 2: case for it, to portray it as safer than existing drugs,
• 2:44:08
  Speaker 2: whether or not it is, to portray it as more
• 2:44:10
  Speaker 2: effective than existing drugs, whether or not it is. And
• 2:44:14
  Speaker 2: if they managed to do those things, it starts spitting
• 2:44:16
  Speaker 2: out money.
• 2:44:17
  Speaker 1: And I think of the best example that is probably
• 2:44:19
  Speaker 1: AZT use during the AIDS pandemic because AZT look to
• 2:44:23
  Speaker 1: come up with a new drug, WHI took a long time.
• 2:44:25
  Speaker 1: You had to develop it, you had to do this.
• 2:44:27
  Speaker 1: But they knew that they had a drug that wasn't
• 2:44:30
  Speaker 1: being used anymore because it was so problematic and use
• 2:44:33
  Speaker 1: as a chemotherapy that it was killing people quicker than
• 2:44:35
  Speaker 1: cancer was. So what do they do. They just said, well,
• 2:44:38
  Speaker 1: we'll take this drug that we already own and we
• 2:44:40
  Speaker 1: could already sell, and now we'll prescribe it to people
• 2:44:43
  Speaker 1: that have HIV, which killed them and killed a lot
• 2:44:47
  Speaker 1: of people that were asymptomatic, which is really wild. You know,
• 2:44:50
  Speaker 1: people that attested positive for HIV presumably probably during with
• 2:44:55
  Speaker 1: a PCR method, right, there was a lot of them.
• 2:44:58
  Speaker 1: It was one of the things that carry Mullo's famous
• 2:45:00
  Speaker 1: was talking about Fauci before the pandemic. A lot of
• 2:45:03
  Speaker 1: people attributed to him saying it about Fauci and the
• 2:45:06
  Speaker 1: PCR test after the pandemic. No, it's before. It was
• 2:45:09
  Speaker 1: in regards to the AIDS crisis. He'd done I believe
• 2:45:12
  Speaker 1: he'd done that interview in the nineteen nineties and he
• 2:45:16
  Speaker 1: was saying that it's not a way to detect whether
• 2:45:18
  Speaker 1: or not someone is infected with a fucking disease. That's
• 2:45:20
  Speaker 1: not what it's intended for.
• 2:45:22
  Speaker 2: Well, right, And I mean the short answer in that
• 2:45:26
  Speaker 2: case is it's an inappropriate test because what it is
• 2:45:31
  Speaker 2: is an amplifier, and if you turn the cycle threshold up,
• 2:45:34
  Speaker 2: it can amplify absolutely anything to it.
• 2:45:36
  Speaker 1: And the admission in false positives with COVID is through
• 2:45:39
  Speaker 1: the roof. I mean, false positives were an immense part
• 2:45:42
  Speaker 1: of the situation.
• 2:45:44
  Speaker 2: Well, you know, this is why when you say it
• 2:45:48
  Speaker 2: was about the money, that I'm just not convinced is
• 2:45:54
  Speaker 2: I can certainly tell a story about lots of places
• 2:45:58
  Speaker 2: where a huge profit was made, but the commitment across
• 2:46:04
  Speaker 2: the board to making sure that certain things happened that
• 2:46:10
  Speaker 2: we were maximally spooked, and what's more, not only maximally spooked,
• 2:46:15
  Speaker 2: but primed before the thing supposedly hit our shores. We
• 2:46:20
  Speaker 2: were primed to be expecting a certain disease, and so
• 2:46:23
  Speaker 2: we hallucinated that disease. Doctors were primed to imagine that
• 2:46:28
  Speaker 2: they were about to be dropping like flies because they
• 2:46:30
  Speaker 2: were going to be forced to deal with these sick
• 2:46:33
  Speaker 2: people who had this very destructive disease. And I don't
• 2:46:39
  Speaker 2: know why this happened. For one thing, I don't think
• 2:46:44
  Speaker 2: we have properly figured out what the meaning of tabletop
• 2:46:49
  Speaker 2: exercises is. Remember Event twoh one, yes, like shortly before so.
• 2:46:56
  Speaker 2: Event to one was a tabletop exercise shortly before or
• 2:47:00
  Speaker 2: the COVID pandemic in which a scenario suspiciously like the
• 2:47:05
  Speaker 2: COVID pandemic was portrayed with sort of medium production values,
• 2:47:13
  Speaker 2: you know, false news reports and things were broadcast to
• 2:47:17
  Speaker 2: the participants, you know, And so basically you took a
• 2:47:20
  Speaker 2: bunch of people who would ultimately play some role in
• 2:47:24
  Speaker 2: the pandemic, and you put them through a trial run
• 2:47:28
  Speaker 2: where they got to make the decisions that caused them
• 2:47:31
  Speaker 2: to censor the misinformation spreaders and to mandate this and that,
• 2:47:36
  Speaker 2: and to advocate for the so and so. I don't
• 2:47:39
  Speaker 2: think we have yet understood why a tabletop exercise happened.
• 2:47:46
  Speaker 2: It's possible it was just a coincidence. I think it's
• 2:47:49
  Speaker 2: highly unlikely it was just a coincidence. But I don't
• 2:47:51
  Speaker 2: think we know why they run them. I think there's
• 2:47:54
  Speaker 2: a meaning to it, right, I don't know if it
• 2:47:58
  Speaker 2: is a pump priming thing where the idea is we
• 2:48:01
  Speaker 2: know this is coming for some reason, and in order
• 2:48:05
  Speaker 2: to make it go down the way we want it
• 2:48:06
  Speaker 2: to go down, everybody has to have practiced their role.
• 2:48:09
  Speaker 2: They have to go through a rehearsal, right. Is that
• 2:48:12
  Speaker 2: what it was? Is it a mechanism of spreading a
• 2:48:17
  Speaker 2: kind of word, you know, in a way that has
• 2:48:21
  Speaker 2: plausible deniability so that people will understand that some powerful
• 2:48:25
  Speaker 2: force is engaged in something. I don't know. But what
• 2:48:30
  Speaker 2: I do know is that we haven't figured it out.
• 2:48:33
  Speaker 2: That it's just this weird historical anomaly that oh, yeah,
• 2:48:35
  Speaker 2: there was a tabletop exercise, wasn't there and it looked
• 2:48:38
  Speaker 2: an awful lot like COVID.
• 2:48:39
  Speaker 1: Yeah, and people would just say that was a coincidence, Kevin.
• 2:48:45
  Speaker 2: But the question is, what I want to know is
• 2:48:51
  Speaker 2: you know, if you're constantly running tabletop exercises with infectious diseases,
• 2:48:56
  Speaker 2: so that event two oh one stands out because it
• 2:48:59
  Speaker 2: just happened to be the one that was shortly before
• 2:49:01
  Speaker 2: the pandemic and it got lucky with respect to some
• 2:49:04
  Speaker 2: of the parameters being right. Okay, but it's like it's
• 2:49:08
  Speaker 2: like when I first discovered that I had I think
• 2:49:13
  Speaker 2: I've probably mentioned this to you. When Heather and I
• 2:49:17
  Speaker 2: finished the first draft of our book, we were in
• 2:49:19
  Speaker 2: the Amazon for two weeks, intentionally insulated from all contact
• 2:49:23
  Speaker 2: with the world, and we emerged to this military checkpoint
• 2:49:28
  Speaker 2: at which you transition from out of contact to back
• 2:49:31
  Speaker 2: in contact, and so we're sort of looking at our
• 2:49:34
  Speaker 2: phones and we start seeing this thing about a coronavirus
• 2:49:41
  Speaker 2: and this is our first awareness of it. And oh,
• 2:49:45
  Speaker 2: the coronavirus. The first case in the New World is
• 2:49:48
  Speaker 2: in Ecuador. We're reading this in Spanish trying to understand
• 2:49:51
  Speaker 2: what it is, and it's you know, oh, abat coronavirus
• 2:49:55
  Speaker 2: has escaped the zoonotic this, that, and the other end.
• 2:49:57
  Speaker 2: Because I was a bat biologist, I uh briefly looked
• 2:50:02
  Speaker 2: into it, figured out who the bats in question were,
• 2:50:05
  Speaker 2: where the disease came from, all of that, and I
• 2:50:08
  Speaker 2: tweeted to my followers, you know, this is a developing story,
• 2:50:12
  Speaker 2: but it adds up based on what I know about
• 2:50:16
  Speaker 2: the bats. And one of my longtime followers tweeted back,
• 2:50:20
  Speaker 2: he says, Oh, so you think it's just a coincidence
• 2:50:21
  Speaker 2: that it happened on the doorstep of a biosafety level
• 2:50:24
  Speaker 2: for laboratory studying these very viruses, And I thought, first
• 2:50:30
  Speaker 2: of all, what's a biosafety level for laboratory? And then
• 2:50:34
  Speaker 2: I thought, well, maybe that's not a piece of information
• 2:50:39
  Speaker 2: worth processing if there are a thousand laboratories studying these viruses.
• 2:50:44
  Speaker 2: But if there's only one, then I just got it wrong.
• 2:50:49
  Speaker 2: Then this is significant. And so it literally is exactly
• 2:50:53
  Speaker 2: one hour between my tweeting, hey, this story makes sense
• 2:50:56
  Speaker 2: to me, Am I getting this pushback and my tweeting
• 2:51:00
  Speaker 2: I take back what I said. The story may not
• 2:51:03
  Speaker 2: be what it appears to be.
• 2:51:04
  Speaker 1: It was this very very early on.
• 2:51:06
  Speaker 2: Is right? Is my first awareness? It took exactly one hour.
• 2:51:10
  Speaker 1: I know about the biosafety lab already. Well, I don't
• 2:51:13
  Speaker 1: know his background or her background.
• 2:51:16
  Speaker 2: It's an anonymous account. He still follows me, but I
• 2:51:19
  Speaker 2: don't I don't know what his background was. I don't
• 2:51:22
  Speaker 2: think so. I think this was I think this was
• 2:51:25
  Speaker 2: already being discussed in public, and because I was coming
• 2:51:28
  Speaker 2: out of the Amazon, I was a couple of right
• 2:51:31
  Speaker 2: and so anyway, but anyway, it a I'm really glad
• 2:51:36
  Speaker 2: that it got caught on Twitter, that both my error
• 2:51:39
  Speaker 2: and my correction one hour later, like almost exactly one
• 2:51:43
  Speaker 2: hour later, just by pure accident. So that was like
• 2:51:46
  Speaker 2: the you know, the beginning of my being red pilled
• 2:51:49
  Speaker 2: on COVID was getting schooled over biosafety level for laboratory
• 2:51:53
  Speaker 2: studying bat coronaviruses in the exact place where this thing emerges.
• 2:51:59
  Speaker 2: So in any case, point is, if there were a
• 2:52:03
  Speaker 2: thousand biosafety level for labs studying bat coronaviruses, then the
• 2:52:08
  Speaker 2: fact that there happened to be one nearby where this
• 2:52:11
  Speaker 2: virus showed up wouldn't necessarily mean anything. But if there's
• 2:52:13
  Speaker 2: only one, it means a ton. If there were a
• 2:52:17
  Speaker 2: tabletop exercise per year simulating a pandemic, then the fact
• 2:52:22
  Speaker 2: that there happened to be one right before COVID wouldn't
• 2:52:24
  Speaker 2: be very meaningful. But if there aren't one a year,
• 2:52:28
  Speaker 2: then it is highly significant that something happened. It's a
• 2:52:30
  Speaker 2: conspicuous piece of evidence of what I don't know, but
• 2:52:34
  Speaker 2: I think we need to understand how how it works.
• 2:52:40
  Speaker 1: He This Crimson contagion was a joint exercise conducted from
• 2:52:44
  Speaker 1: January to August twenty nineteen, in which numerous national, state,
• 2:52:48
  Speaker 1: and local and private organizations in the US participated in
• 2:52:51
  Speaker 1: order to test the capacity of the federal government and
• 2:52:54
  Speaker 1: twelve states to respond to a severe pandemic of influenza
• 2:52:58
  Speaker 1: originating in China.
• 2:53:00
  Speaker 2: WHOA talk about that?
• 2:53:03
  Speaker 1: An article posted in The New York Times on March nineteenth, twenty.
• 2:53:07
  Speaker 2: Twenty about that Wow March nineteen, WHOA.
• 2:53:15
  Speaker 1: Before a virus outbreak, a cascade of warnings went unheeded.
• 2:53:20
  Speaker 1: Government exercise, including one last year, made it clear that
• 2:53:23
  Speaker 1: the US government was not ready for a pandemic like
• 2:53:25
  Speaker 1: the coronavirus, but little was done. That's one way to
• 2:53:28
  Speaker 1: put it. You know, it showed they weren't ready. Well,
• 2:53:32
  Speaker 1: it might be they were preparing for whatever the hell
• 2:53:35
  Speaker 1: this was that they knew was going to come.
• 2:53:36
  Speaker 2: Well, and you know, I think what I now know,
• 2:53:40
  Speaker 2: as somebody who got educated by the pandemic, is they
• 2:53:44
  Speaker 2: were very ready. Not ready in the way that you
• 2:53:47
  Speaker 2: and I would want them.
• 2:53:48
  Speaker 1: Not ready with cures right.
• 2:53:50
  Speaker 2: Not ready with ways to protect the public, to inform them,
• 2:53:53
  Speaker 2: and how to behave in all of that. What they
• 2:53:55
  Speaker 2: were ready with was a campaign of lies designed to
• 2:53:58
  Speaker 2: do what that idea. Don't know, like if the idea
• 2:54:04
  Speaker 2: was to make money, I don't know why they delivered
• 2:54:10
  Speaker 2: such a dangerous shot seems to me, and I've wondered
• 2:54:15
  Speaker 2: a lot about this. If they had delivered an inert shot,
• 2:54:21
  Speaker 2: I don't know what world we'd be living in today.
• 2:54:24
  Speaker 2: Because they could have pretended that it was highly effective,
• 2:54:26
  Speaker 2: that it saved us from the terrible disease, that those
• 2:54:30
  Speaker 2: of us who worried about the technology were wrong. They
• 2:54:35
  Speaker 2: could have used their statistical shenanigans to pretend that anything
• 2:54:38
  Speaker 2: had happened. And they seemed to me to have screwed up,
• 2:54:42
  Speaker 2: having delivered a shot dangerous enough that we can all
• 2:54:45
  Speaker 2: detect the safety signal among our friends, right. So that
• 2:54:51
  Speaker 2: raises the question to me, did they not understand that
• 2:54:55
  Speaker 2: it was as dangerous as it was? I don't think
• 2:54:57
  Speaker 2: that can be true based on what we know from
• 2:55:00
  Speaker 2: Robert Malone about the history of this technology. They didn't
• 2:55:04
  Speaker 2: think it was safe. So is there something important about
• 2:55:08
  Speaker 2: injecting people with it? Do they want people actually injected
• 2:55:12
  Speaker 2: with the thing? That's not consistent with the argument that
• 2:55:14
  Speaker 2: they were just trying to make money, right, because blanks
• 2:55:17
  Speaker 2: would have been safe, not effective, but what they gave
• 2:55:23
  Speaker 2: us wasn't effective. What was the purpose of injecting people
• 2:55:26
  Speaker 2: with a contaminated dangerous novel platform so called vaccine.
• 2:55:32
  Speaker 1: That's when you say contaminated. Do you think they've realized
• 2:55:34
  Speaker 1: that it was contaminated and went by contaminated We're talking
• 2:55:37
  Speaker 1: about SV forty, we're talking about DNA.
• 2:55:42
  Speaker 2: I think they knew, Yes, they had to know that
• 2:55:46
  Speaker 2: it was contaminated.
• 2:55:47
  Speaker 1: So what would be the motivation to do something like that.
• 2:55:49
  Speaker 1: It doesn't even make sense other than money. But the
• 2:55:52
  Speaker 1: money was substantial. Right to dismiss the money aspect of
• 2:55:55
  Speaker 1: it when we talked about hundreds of billions of dollars.
• 2:55:58
  Speaker 2: Okay, But if we're going to talk about the money,
• 2:56:00
  Speaker 2: then we have to put the money in the proper context.
• 2:56:04
  Speaker 2: The huge amount of money that was made on the
• 2:56:09
  Speaker 2: mRNA platform during the pandemic is nothing compared to the
• 2:56:15
  Speaker 2: money that will be made from the mRNA platform in
• 2:56:18
  Speaker 2: the aftermath of the pandemic. Except that because podcast World
• 2:56:24
  Speaker 2: caused the dangerousness of the vaccine campaign to become famous.
• 2:56:31
  Speaker 1: And that's not an understatement. Imagine if we had to
• 2:56:34
  Speaker 1: live off the narrative of the mainstream television.
• 2:56:37
  Speaker 2: Well, this is why the First Amendment is this absolute
• 2:56:44
  Speaker 2: must be protected at all costs. Question right, the censorship
• 2:56:49
  Speaker 2: you know, just as the iromactin story doesn't get enough play,
• 2:56:52
  Speaker 2: because really the iromactin story is the flip side of
• 2:56:54
  Speaker 2: the vaccine story. The vaccine campaign wouldn't have worked if
• 2:56:57
  Speaker 2: people had safe alternatives, of which there were many. Okay,
• 2:57:01
  Speaker 2: the vaccines were. Would it have been possible if censorship
• 2:57:14
  Speaker 2: had succeeded in masking the safety signal from the public.
• 2:57:20
  Speaker 2: I think probably yes. Something about the way podcast World
• 2:57:26
  Speaker 2: functioned allowed us to break through. But we are now
• 2:57:31
  Speaker 2: in danger of whoever these people are having understood what
• 2:57:39
  Speaker 2: their errors were and working to correct them for next time,
• 2:57:47
  Speaker 2: which actually brings me to another matter. It's a little strange,
• 2:57:51
  Speaker 2: but I do want people to be aware. They may
• 2:57:57
  Speaker 2: have noticed Michael Burry, who was famous character from The
• 2:58:03
  Speaker 2: Big Short, the real broker who's represented in The Big
• 2:58:09
  Speaker 2: Short by Christian Bale, has been sounding the alarm about
• 2:58:17
  Speaker 2: bubbles in the stock market. I'm concerned that there is
• 2:58:25
  Speaker 2: also a great deal of fraud in the stock market.
• 2:58:29
  Speaker 2: So these are two different mechanisms by which the wealth
• 2:58:35
  Speaker 2: of average people gets transferred to well positioned people who
• 2:58:42
  Speaker 2: have better information. The degree to which the stock market
• 2:58:50
  Speaker 2: may be overvalued is substantial, and I don't know if
• 2:58:56
  Speaker 2: you've been tracking. Have you ever read The Great Taking?
• 2:58:59
  Speaker 1: No?
• 2:59:00
  Speaker 2: Great Taking is a very good, very scary short book.
• 2:59:05
  Speaker 2: David Webb is the author, and what he describes is
• 2:59:11
  Speaker 2: a trap that we in the public have been subjected
• 2:59:16
  Speaker 2: to that we don't know is there yet because it
• 2:59:18
  Speaker 2: hasn't been tripped. And what he argues is that there
• 2:59:25
  Speaker 2: are a great many assets that we think we hold,
• 2:59:28
  Speaker 2: that we believe we understand our relationship to, that are
• 2:59:32
  Speaker 2: actually poised to be taken from us in a financial collapse. So,
• 2:59:39
  Speaker 2: for example, stocks used to be held in paper form.
• 2:59:45
  Speaker 2: You had stock certificates, and you're safe, right, And so
• 2:59:49
  Speaker 2: the laws that govern physical ownership governed them by virtue
• 2:59:53
  Speaker 2: of the fact that this piece of paper was your
• 2:59:56
  Speaker 2: indication of ownership. The way we own stocks is now changed,
• 3:00:00
  Speaker 2: So if you have stocks, you don't have a stock certificate.
• 3:00:03
  Speaker 2: Your stocks are held in sort of the same way
• 3:00:06
  Speaker 2: that your cryptocurrency is held. If it's in an exchange
• 3:00:12
  Speaker 2: where you don't really have cryptocurrency, what you have is
• 3:00:15
  Speaker 2: an IOU from a company that has cryptocurrency, and as
• 3:00:19
  Speaker 2: long as the company remains solvent, then it's the same.
• 3:00:23
  Speaker 2: You can use it. You can take it out, you
• 3:00:25
  Speaker 2: can put it in. But the problem is that these
• 3:00:30
  Speaker 2: stock certificates that we no longer have have been replaced
• 3:00:33
  Speaker 2: by an agreement that has contingency clauses. Those contingency clauses
• 3:00:39
  Speaker 2: mean that your stock can be used as collateral by
• 3:00:44
  Speaker 2: the holder, and if they need to satisfy a debt
• 3:00:49
  Speaker 2: because of insolvency, that your stock becomes the way to
• 3:00:55
  Speaker 2: satisfy the debt. So, in other words, there's a hidden
• 3:00:58
  Speaker 2: mechanism whereby you could suddenly discover that somebody else has
• 3:01:03
  Speaker 2: used your stock and not paid you in order to
• 3:01:05
  Speaker 2: settle a debt of theirs. Right, not a big deal
• 3:01:09
  Speaker 2: as long as the market remains stable, because the creditors
• 3:01:14
  Speaker 2: in question aren't going to go where the debtors in
• 3:01:17
  Speaker 2: question aren't aren't going to go insolvent. But okay. The punchline, though,
• 3:01:23
  Speaker 2: is this, that's not the only place where we in
• 3:01:26
  Speaker 2: the public are vulnerable. Another place, and this is speculative
• 3:01:32
  Speaker 2: on my part. I would love to be told that
• 3:01:35
  Speaker 2: I'm imagining things and the danger that I see is
• 3:01:37
  Speaker 2: not real. I look forward to somebody telling me that,
• 3:01:41
  Speaker 2: But so far that's not what I've heard. As I've
• 3:01:44
  Speaker 2: talked to people about this concept. If the stock market
• 3:01:48
  Speaker 2: is wildly overvalued as a result of bubbles and fraud,
• 3:01:55
  Speaker 2: and it comes unglued and it causes a run on
• 3:02:02
  Speaker 2: currency people trying to get money out of banks, and
• 3:02:06
  Speaker 2: the banks turn out not to be stable, Here's what
• 3:02:10
  Speaker 2: I'm concerned might happen, and I'll connect it back to
• 3:02:13
  Speaker 2: the question of free speech in a second. My concern
• 3:02:17
  Speaker 2: is if your bank goes insolvent, a you're now in
• 3:02:23
  Speaker 2: jeopardy with your house because almost everybody it's in fact,
• 3:02:29
  Speaker 2: considered financially wise not to have your house paid off.
• 3:02:32
  Speaker 2: If you borrowed money to buy your house under favorable conditions,
• 3:02:36
  Speaker 2: then you can make more money by not paying off
• 3:02:39
  Speaker 2: your house and taking the money that you would use
• 3:02:41
  Speaker 2: to pay off your house and putting it into investments
• 3:02:44
  Speaker 2: that pay better. Right, you're actually financially ahead if you
• 3:02:46
  Speaker 2: do that. But if you suddenly can't pay your mortgage,
• 3:02:51
  Speaker 2: then your house can be taken. Right. So, if there's
• 3:02:55
  Speaker 2: a collapse that causes us to be unable to service
• 3:02:58
  Speaker 2: our mortgages, not because of anything we did wrong, but
• 3:03:00
  Speaker 2: because the whole system is now not in a position
• 3:03:05
  Speaker 2: to allow us to just simply service our debts. Your
• 3:03:09
  Speaker 2: house could be vulnerable. And then here's the punchline of
• 3:03:13
  Speaker 2: the story. Your bank account is insured by the FDIC,
• 3:03:22
  Speaker 2: the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. So I've forgotten what the
• 3:03:26
  Speaker 2: exact number is. It might be a quarter million per account,
• 3:03:31
  Speaker 2: something like that. If the banks can't deliver your money,
• 3:03:39
  Speaker 2: if they were to collapse, and the federal government we're
• 3:03:47
  Speaker 2: to say, don't worry, your account is insured, but we're
• 3:03:51
  Speaker 2: going to pay you in central bank digital currency. You're
• 3:03:55
  Speaker 2: going to have to take your money in central bank
• 3:03:58
  Speaker 2: digital currency. You can spend it just like money, but
• 3:04:00
  Speaker 2: you're going to get it in this form. Seems to
• 3:04:03
  Speaker 2: me that that in one fell swoop puts us into
• 3:04:10
  Speaker 2: a potentially tyrannical scenario because at the point that you
• 3:04:18
  Speaker 2: have accepted central bank digital currency, now there's it's basically
• 3:04:22
  Speaker 2: programmable money that can be cut off. You can be debanked,
• 3:04:27
  Speaker 2: you can be told what you're allowed to spend it
• 3:04:29
  Speaker 2: on and what you're not allowed to spend it on.
• 3:04:30
  Speaker 2: So the question is if we rerun the pandemic, Let's say,
• 3:04:35
  Speaker 2: but all of our money is in CBDC, how likely
• 3:04:41
  Speaker 2: is it that people like you and me get to
• 3:04:46
  Speaker 2: put information into the public square that allows people to
• 3:04:50
  Speaker 2: make higher quality decisions to avoid the shots to avail
• 3:04:54
  Speaker 2: themselves of alternative very unlikely, that's what I think too.
• 3:04:58
  Speaker 2: So anyway, hopefully.
• 3:05:01
  Speaker 1: We know this. But just based on Elon buying Twitter
• 3:05:04
  Speaker 1: and the examination of the Twitter files.
• 3:05:07
  Speaker 2: Right exactly, so Elon buying Twitter carves out an exception
• 3:05:14
  Speaker 2: where we can still talk there. It's not perfect, but
• 3:05:19
  Speaker 2: it's so far ahead of anything else that it does
• 3:05:26
  Speaker 2: create a place you can go for information that is
• 3:05:29
  Speaker 2: not being filtered by the regime. But at the point,
• 3:05:34
  Speaker 2: if it is true that we can be forced into
• 3:05:37
  Speaker 2: a CBDC, and I believe the plan to force us
• 3:05:40
  Speaker 2: into a CBDC exists, whether the scenario I'm painting is
• 3:05:42
  Speaker 2: plausible or not. But if they can get us into
• 3:05:49
  Speaker 2: a regime where we have to accept CBDCs as the
• 3:05:54
  Speaker 2: means of exchange, then it seems to me we are
• 3:05:58
  Speaker 2: in a much worse position to fend off tyranny of
• 3:06:01
  Speaker 2: all sorts, including medical tyranny, because the ability to punish
• 3:06:06
  Speaker 2: us for wrongthink becomes extremely powerful.
• 3:06:12
  Speaker 1: Yeah, and we're seeing the consequence of that in the UK.
• 3:06:15
  Speaker 1: We're seeing places where people don't have the same laws
• 3:06:18
  Speaker 1: and don't have the same rights. They're being punished in
• 3:06:22
  Speaker 1: unimaginable ways in America. Are you aware of the irishman God?
• 3:06:28
  Speaker 1: I can't remember his name. I believe he's a religious
• 3:06:33
  Speaker 1: guy who's a school teacher who refuse to address someone
• 3:06:38
  Speaker 1: by their transgender pronouns. And now he's being jailed, and
• 3:06:43
  Speaker 1: not just being jailed, but a very long sentence. The
• 3:06:46
  Speaker 1: other thing they're doing in the UK is they're eliminating
• 3:06:49
  Speaker 1: trials by jury. I'm aware of that, yeah, which is crazy,
• 3:06:54
  Speaker 1: and you're having trials just by judges and the judge
• 3:06:57
  Speaker 1: will just appoint a sentence.
• 3:07:00
  Speaker 2: Right, it's apocalyptically bad if you understand what the West
• 3:07:09
  Speaker 2: is based on. You're watching a shining example of Western
• 3:07:17
  Speaker 2: freedoms getting pushed over the cliff, right, And you know
• 3:07:22
  Speaker 2: it's not It's bad enough that somebody refusing to use
• 3:07:26
  Speaker 2: somebody else's pronouns is being jailed, but this is happening
• 3:07:32
  Speaker 2: at the same time that you have grooming gangs raping
• 3:07:39
  Speaker 2: young women and talking about it is understood it's wrong thing,
• 3:07:46
  Speaker 2: right that acknowledging that you have an immigration problem and
• 3:07:50
  Speaker 2: that there's a a dynamic in play that involves certain
• 3:07:57
  Speaker 2: populations that are prone to seeing the British people and
• 3:08:05
  Speaker 2: not as their countrymen, but as something else, as pray. Yeah,
• 3:08:11
  Speaker 2: that's something that obviously a society needs to be able
• 3:08:14
  Speaker 2: to talk about. And this is happening at exactly the
• 3:08:16
  Speaker 2: moment when the society in question is losing the ability
• 3:08:19
  Speaker 2: to talk freely because it doesn't have an industrial strength
• 3:08:24
  Speaker 2: constitution the way we.
• 3:08:25
  Speaker 1: Do, and that same society is having digital idea pushed
• 3:08:29
  Speaker 1: on them.
• 3:08:29
  Speaker 2: Yes they are, and their ability to discuss the wisdom
• 3:08:32
  Speaker 2: of this is of course downstream of their right to
• 3:08:35
  Speaker 2: speak freely. So I mean, I will say I have
• 3:08:40
  Speaker 2: multiple friends in the UK who are all looking at
• 3:08:44
  Speaker 2: the system and thinking about getting out.
• 3:08:47
  Speaker 1: Yeah, I do too, I know quite a few. Yeah,
• 3:08:50
  Speaker 1: it's spooky.
• 3:08:52
  Speaker 2: It's beyond spooky because again it's the differences in the
• 3:08:57
  Speaker 2: quality of our constitution that has protected us so far.
• 3:09:03
  Speaker 2: But it's not like it hasn't been.
• 3:09:05
  Speaker 1: Targeted right clearly. Just the Twitter files alone just shows
• 3:09:11
  Speaker 1: you what happens when intelligence agencies get involved in the
• 3:09:15
  Speaker 1: distribution of actual factual information and they suppress it. Whether
• 3:09:21
  Speaker 1: it's the Hunter Biden laptop story, which Sam Harris also
• 3:09:23
  Speaker 1: had a wild take on like that was he didn't
• 3:09:27
  Speaker 1: care if Hunter biden children's corpses burden his basement or
• 3:09:30
  Speaker 1: whatever the fuck he said, Like what you don't you
• 3:09:32
  Speaker 1: wouldn't care about that, Like that wouldn't be nuts to you.
• 3:09:36
  Speaker 1: I don't. I get you're trying to be hyperbolic and
• 3:09:39
  Speaker 1: you're trying to be you know, entertaining, but that's fucking
• 3:09:42
  Speaker 1: crazy to say.
• 3:09:44
  Speaker 2: Well, and you know, the what he was trying to
• 3:09:50
  Speaker 2: say is that Trump is really bad. Well, as always,
• 3:09:54
  Speaker 2: that's what he's trying to say, but in this case,
• 3:09:56
  Speaker 2: what he was really trying to say is Hunter Biden
• 3:09:59
  Speaker 2: isn't Joe. But that's not really true because Hunter Biden
• 3:10:05
  Speaker 2: and Joe are tied together in their corruption. And that's
• 3:10:09
  Speaker 2: obvious from the fact that Hunter Biden was at Barisma
• 3:10:13
  Speaker 2: on the board making deals in Ukraine, which then breaks
• 3:10:18
  Speaker 2: out into war, A war whose purpose I'm not sure
• 3:10:21
  Speaker 2: we understand, seems to have multiple purposes, A money laundering operation,
• 3:10:28
  Speaker 2: you know, who knows. I mean, all sorts of ghastly
• 3:10:30
  Speaker 2: things are possible. But we out here in public are
• 3:10:34
  Speaker 2: forced to guess at the meaning of all of these events,
• 3:10:37
  Speaker 2: and when Sam says that it wouldn't matter if Hunter
• 3:10:40
  Speaker 2: Biden had, you know, children's corpses in his basement. The
• 3:10:43
  Speaker 2: answer is, actually there are children's corpses. They're not in
• 3:10:49
  Speaker 2: anyone's basement. They're in Ukraine, which has some relationship to
• 3:10:55
  Speaker 2: Biden family corruption, which has some relationship to DNC option.
• 3:11:00
  Speaker 2: So listen up, Sam, you got to pay attention to
• 3:11:05
  Speaker 2: that stuff, because these things aren't unconnected. It's not that
• 3:11:08
  Speaker 2: somebody happens to share the last name of the president,
• 3:11:11
  Speaker 2: you know, it has a drug problem and a sex problem.
• 3:11:17
  Speaker 2: It's that the presidential family is deeply corrupted by something
• 3:11:24
  Speaker 2: which is manifest in the son who can't keep a
• 3:11:27
  Speaker 2: lid on it.
• 3:11:27
  Speaker 1: Well.
• 3:11:27
  Speaker 4: Also, just the obvious take of them all being pardoned,
• 3:11:34
  Speaker 4: like the whole family being pardoned for everything, like what
• 3:11:38
  Speaker 4: did you do?
• 3:11:38
  Speaker 1: Do You're not even be charged with anything? Like why
• 3:11:41
  Speaker 1: are you pardoning his whole family if there's not some
• 3:11:44
  Speaker 1: real thing that you're concerned with them being prosecuted.
• 3:11:47
  Speaker 2: For pardoning his whole family?
• 3:11:49
  Speaker 5: Plus Anthony Fauci, Yes, and from twenty fourteen on, which
• 3:11:54
  Speaker 5: is just first of all, leads very vulnerable to the
• 3:11:57
  Speaker 5: AIDS crisis, right I don't know if they took that in consideration.
• 3:12:01
  Speaker 1: Also, does that leave them vulnerable to perjury? Well, because
• 3:12:05
  Speaker 1: like when it comes to like the Rand Paul stuff,
• 3:12:07
  Speaker 1: like where he was saying that it was not in
• 3:12:10
  Speaker 1: any way, shape or form gain of function research, you
• 3:12:14
  Speaker 1: do not know what you're talking about. That was not
• 3:12:16
  Speaker 1: gain of function research. Everybody agrees it's gay to function
• 3:12:19
  Speaker 1: research down that.
• 3:12:20
  Speaker 2: It was just a flat out bald faced lie. I
• 3:12:23
  Speaker 2: think the pardon well A, I think the pardon is
• 3:12:26
  Speaker 2: invalid on at least one, maybe two grounds. Not my
• 3:12:31
  Speaker 2: area of expertise. However, the idea of a blanket pardon
• 3:12:36
  Speaker 2: where you do not specify what the person is being
• 3:12:39
  Speaker 2: pardoned for, I believe that that is a violation of
• 3:12:43
  Speaker 2: equal protection under the law because what it effectively does
• 3:12:46
  Speaker 2: is allows the person with the power to pardon to
• 3:12:50
  Speaker 2: create a enabled class of citizens that are capable of
• 3:12:55
  Speaker 2: simply engaging in whatever crime they want. Second, there's a
• 3:13:00
  Speaker 2: question about whether or not Joe Biden actually pardoned Anthony
• 3:13:05
  Speaker 2: Fauci knowingly given his compromise mental state, given the likelihood
• 3:13:12
  Speaker 2: that the pardon was auto pen signed. So I think
• 3:13:16
  Speaker 2: there is a question about whether or not the pardon
• 3:13:19
  Speaker 2: would be upheld by the courts. But I do think
• 3:13:24
  Speaker 2: they're telling us an awful lot by virtue of the
• 3:13:26
  Speaker 2: fact that Anthony Fauci was pardoned.
• 3:13:29
  Speaker 1: Right, are you supposed to be the guy that saved us?
• 3:13:31
  Speaker 1: I mean, he gets a pardon that goes all the
• 3:13:33
  Speaker 1: way back to twenty fourteen.
• 3:13:35
  Speaker 2: Yeah, he just so happens to be both the guy
• 3:13:38
  Speaker 2: who saved us and the guy who offshore the research
• 3:13:43
  Speaker 2: to Wuhan that produced the thing. It's a little too coincidental.
• 3:13:48
  Speaker 1: Yeah, it's crazy. We're well over three hours here.
• 3:13:52
  Speaker 2: All right.
• 3:13:52
  Speaker 1: Should we wrap this up?
• 3:13:53
  Speaker 2: Maybe we should wrap it up.
• 3:13:54
  Speaker 1: Okay, Thank you Brett. It's always great to see you,
• 3:13:56
  Speaker 1: my friend.
• 3:13:57
  Speaker 2: Great to see you too.
• 3:13:58
  Speaker 1: Thank you for everything. I really appreciate you. Rman