Latest / INSPIRE STORY / #0147 _STORY INSPIRE: Decisions that transforman, Aaron Siri

Transcript

#0147 _STORY INSPIRE: Decisions that transforman, Aaron Siri · INSPIRE STORY

0:03
Speaker 1: The Joe Rogan Experience. Train by day, Joe Rogan podcast
0:08
by night, all day. So you had a pile of
0:13
notes and then you just folded them up. Like, did
0:15
you commit them to memory?
0:16
Speaker 2: No, just these two things. I have the links I
0:19
sent you guys. Oh, okay.
0:20
Speaker 1: And just some stuff there. I just saw the piece
0:22
of paper that you folded. I was like, what's in there?
0:27
How did, first of all, I want to talk you through, like,
0:30
when you were a younger man before you had looked
0:32
into this, What was your opinions on medical science? What
0:36
was your opinions on vaccines? Were you skeptical or did
0:39
you just kind of assume that everything that we're told
0:41
is exactly how it is and the experts have only
0:44
the best interests of human beings in mind and not money?
0:49
Speaker 2: I had what you would effectively call the mainstream view.
0:51
Speaker 1: Vaccines saved humanity. Me too.
0:53
Speaker 2: We'd all be dead without them. You know, there was
0:58
the Bible given to Moses at Sinai, and then there
1:01
were vaccines.
1:02
Speaker 1: That's basically, you know. I think it's anybody that didn't
1:06
consider themselves a fool. You know, you would have to
1:10
be a fool, like a real fool, to ignore all
1:14
this medical science, which is the reason why there's so
1:16
many people alive today that would have died. And a
1:18
lot of that's true, like penicillin, antibiotics. There's a lot
1:21
of stuff that has saved a lot of people's lives.
1:24
But the vaccine won. Until this COVID epidemic, I would
1:28
have never questioned it. I mocked anti-vaxxers. I was like,
1:31
these people are silly. Don't they know all the good
1:34
things that vaccines have done? And there's the blatant propaganda
1:38
that we were force-fed like one of those ducks they're
1:42
trying to make foie gras with. It just made me
1:46
stop and pause and go, is the whole thing like this?
1:49
Is this whole thing just a dirty money laundering operation?
1:54
Because it kind of seems like that's at least part
1:57
of the reason why they were telling people to get
1:59
boosted when they knew it wasn't working and telling young
2:02
people that didn't need it. They wanted to make a
2:04
lot of money. That's the only reason why you would
2:06
do any of those things after a certain amount of
2:08
information is out. And so it just made me stop
2:12
and think about the whole thing and go, well, why
2:16
would I assume that this is the one area where
2:19
pharmaceutical drug companies, doctors, everybody has been totally honest in
2:23
this one area. When it's like a religious thing, if
2:28
you question it. And I love the title of your book. Yes.
2:33
Vaccines Amen. Yeah. The Religion of Vaccines. That's what it is.
2:38
It's a religion for secular, intelligent people with a higher education.
2:44
Speaker 2: And it causes incredible cognitive dissonance for anybody out there
2:50
to come to the conclusion that That the CDC and
2:54
the FDA and our public health authorities and what the
2:56
entire medical establishment has been telling you may not be
3:01
accurate about vaccines. Because like what you just said, the
3:06
claim that you're a flat earther, you're an anti-vaxxer deserves.
3:12
And they're used as a way to say you are
3:15
really out there and dumb.
3:17
Speaker 1: They're completely equal in their impact.
3:19
Speaker 2: And so– It takes incredible cognitive dissonance to say there
3:24
are real problems with vaccines. But vaccines really sit in
3:29
their own little universe. They're unlike any other medical product.
3:32
They're not like penicillin. They're not like any other drugs.
3:36
They're not like any other product out there, any other
3:39
product in this room, anything out there for one major reason.
3:44
Every other product that exists, I can sue the company.
3:50
I can hold them accountable if that product injures or
3:54
kills you or your child on the basis that product
3:57
could have been safer. The only product, and I mean
4:00
this literally, the only product in America where you cannot
4:06
sue to say, had you made that product safer, my
4:11
child wouldn't be dead. My child wouldn't be seriously injured.
4:15
They wouldn't have a neurological disorder. They wouldn't have immunological disorder.
4:18
They wouldn't have a nervous system disorder. They wouldn't have
4:19
a cardiac issue. Our childhood vaccines and child vaccines used
4:25
by adults.
4:26
Speaker 1: It's the only one.
4:27
Speaker 2: And that's because of a law called the National Childhood
4:30
Vaccine Injury Act of 1986. It gave pharma companies that
4:37
incredibly special immunity. Now, just to put that into context, okay,
4:42
and I'll tie this back in a second as to
4:45
how we ended up with this notion of this belief,
4:49
religion in vaccines, because, you know, given industry 40 years
4:53
of unopposed ability to influence, they're going to get pretty
4:56
dang far. And they did with vaccines. And so, you know,
5:03
a lot of industries face a crossroads where their products
5:07
are causing more harm than good.
5:09
Speaker 1: Gas tanks used to explode.
5:11
Speaker 2: What did they do?
5:12
Speaker 1: Made a better gas tank. All right. Building materials had asbestos.
5:17
It caused cancer. What did they do?
5:19
Speaker 2: They make better building materials. Did they give them immunity? No,
5:24
of course not. But in the instance of vaccines leading
5:28
up to 1986, there were only three routine vaccines.
5:32
Speaker 1: That's it. That's all there was. A child following the CDC.
5:35
Speaker 2: Schedule in 1986 got three injections on or before their
5:39
first birthday. Okay?
5:43
Speaker 1: Those three products.
5:44
Speaker 2: were causing so much harm and injury that every manufacturer
5:50
of them went out of business. And that was the
5:51
MMR vaccine, the DTP, and the OPV vaccine. Every single one,
5:55
from six down to one, or for the Piertussis vaccine,
5:58
six down to one for measles, about three down to
6:00
one for polio. And with one company left for each,
6:04
instead of forcing them to do what every other industry
6:07
has to do, like I said, make better building materials
6:10
without asbestos, make better cars that don't explode, go down
6:13
the chain of different products out there. Congress did something
6:17
completely unique. It said, you know what? We're just going
6:21
to give you immunity. We're going to make it so
6:25
that no company, excuse me, no individual, no parent, no
6:30
child can sue you for the injuries and deaths caused
6:33
by your vaccine products. That is what the National Childhood
6:36
Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 did. And not only for
6:39
those three products, but for any other childhood vaccine thereafter.
6:43
And what that effectively has done is given 40 years
6:46
for the industry to.
6:48
Speaker 1: Promote their products. No pushback.
6:49
Speaker 2: When you read about a problem with a car, where
6:51
are you reading about it from? Usually a class action
6:53
lawsuit in the paper, right? Not going to read about
6:56
that in vaccines typically. And because of that, you ended
6:59
up where we are. Anyways, there's a lot more detail
7:01
to that, but I'll stop there for now.
7:02
Speaker 1: No, please keep going. Well, I mean, when you think about....
7:10
Speaker 2: What makes products safer, right? Because I've got a law
7:12
firm with over 100 individuals. I'm the managing partner of
7:15
the firm. Half my firm does all types of plate-to-side
7:18
class actions. We can hold companies accountable for almost anything.
7:23
Your data, we do hundreds of data breach cases, genetic
7:26
privacy cases, biometric privacy cases. We do all types of
7:32
lawsuits like that nature, by the way. And New York
7:33
Times loves those lawsuits, by the way. That stuff nobody
7:36
attacks me for, okay? Oh, making my privacy better? Oh,
7:40
protecting me from cars that explode?
7:42
Speaker 1: Oh, thank you. Make vaccines safer? You want to kill everybody. Okay.
7:48
But that's where it's really weird.
7:50
Speaker 2: But, well, here's where I think I can make– I'm
7:55
hoping I can make it make sense without causing cognitive dissonance.
8:01
So going back to how we make products safer in
8:04
America or anywhere, okay? It's not the government. Governments don't
8:10
make products safer. Look at extremely authoritarian regimes where there
8:14
was very little free market like the former USSR. You
8:18
think products were safe? No. What makes products safe? It's
8:21
the economic self-interest of the company. It's the economic interest
8:26
of the company to make the product safer.
8:28
Speaker 1: Why?
8:30
Speaker 2: You probably own stock, right? And where do you want
8:33
your stock to.
8:33
Speaker 1: Go up or down? How do you want it to go?
8:35
Speaker 2: You want it to go up or you want it
8:36
to go down?
8:36
Speaker 1: Where do you want it to go? You want it
8:38
to go up. Okay.
8:39
Speaker 2: So do all the investors.
8:40
Speaker 1: Right.
8:41
Speaker 2: So does everybody who owns that stock.
8:43
Speaker 1: So does Wall Street. So does the CEO. So does
8:45
the board. So does everybody. The people who own the stock.
8:48
Everybody involved.
8:49
Speaker 2: All the employees that have stock options, including usually the
8:52
major ones. Everybody wants it to go up. If you
8:56
lose money, it doesn't go up. So normally, the interest
9:01
to assure a product is safer is aligned with the
9:05
profit motive. Because if your product causes injury and harm,
9:10
then you're going to lose money. So you want to
9:12
know typically. You have an economic self-interest as a corporation
9:16
to know. Not because you're altruistic.
9:18
Speaker 1: Not because you're moral. Not because you're ethical.
9:20
Speaker 2: Just because you have that economic self-interest to assure the
9:24
product is safe before you go to market and after
9:27
you go to market.
9:28
Speaker 1: Okay?
9:29
Speaker 2: And that exists for every product in America with effectively
9:33
one exception.
9:34
Speaker 1: Vaccines. That's really it.
9:38
Speaker 2: Now, I'm going to show you one result of that
9:41
in practice, okay? When you think of drugs, and this
9:49
will help, I think, tie into what you're saying about
9:51
what happened with COVID, most drugs are licensed based on
9:55
multi-year placebo-controlled trials. Most of them.
9:59
Speaker 1: Why? Why? Because the FDA requires it? Because the FDA
10:03
is so great?
10:03
Speaker 2: No.
10:04
Speaker 1: Nothing to do with the FDA.
10:07
Speaker 2: It's because the company wants to know whether the drug
10:10
is safe or not before it goes to market. Because
10:12
you know what happens with the drug that they put
10:14
out that's going to make $ 40 billion in revenue or
10:16
$ 20 billion but causes $ 100 billion in harm? They end
10:20
up upside down. So they want to know to a
10:24
reasonable degree how safe the drug is before it goes
10:28
to market. In an attempt not to cherry pick, as
10:32
I did in my book, I found an article that
10:34
listed the top four selling profitable drugs by Pfizer as
10:39
of like 2021 or something, 2019, okay? And if you
10:44
look at those four most profitable drugs, as I put
10:47
in my book, each one has two to seven years
10:51
of follow-up in the clinical trial that was relied upon
10:53
to license that drug against a placebo control group, just
10:57
to make sure everybody, I'm sure everybody knows what that means,
10:58
but that just means a group that gets something inert.
11:01
So this way, you give the group the experimental drug,
11:04
you give a group the placebo, something inert, you track
11:08
them for multiple years, and then you compare all the outcomes,
11:12
cardiovascular outcomes, neurological outcomes, go down the list. Cancer rates,
11:17
and you see the difference. You get a real actual
11:20
sense of the safety between those two for that product.
11:25
In contrast, for most childhood vaccines, instead of years, it's
11:34
often days or weeks of safety review in the clinical trial.
11:37
A lot of them have to license them. Not a single,
11:42
and I know that folks contest this all the time,
11:45
but It's in the FDA literature. Not a single routine
11:49
injected childhood vaccine was licensed based on a placebo-controlled trial,
11:56
save for the COVID vaccine, by the way, for children.
11:58
Speaker 1: It's the only one.
11:59
Speaker 2: Not a single one, okay? Nor was the vaccine sometimes
12:07
uses the control itself licensed based on a placebo-controlled trial,
12:14
nor anywhere down that chain. Chapter 10 of my book,
12:17
I go through every vaccine. I go through– I have
12:20
it all cited to the FDA licensure documents. You can
12:23
listen to the talking heads or you can rely on
12:25
the primary sources from the FDA, which is why I
12:29
call my book Vaccines Amen because there is what they
12:31
tell you and then there's what the actual evidence shows.
12:34
So that gives you an example of the outcome of
12:38
not having an economic self-interest. With drugs, they have it,
12:41
so they want to know the safety.
12:43
Speaker 1: Can I challenge you on that? What about Vioxx? Like
12:46
the Vioxx people knew that there was– one of the
12:49
things that was revealed during the trial was that they
12:52
knew that there was going to be issues. I think
12:55
the quote was, we still think we'll do well. And
12:58
that was one of the damning aspects of the email
13:02
disclosure because you got a chance to see how these
13:04
guys talk about this drug that they're about to release.
13:06
I think they wound up paying a percentage of the
13:11
amount of money they made from the drug, but they
13:13
made way more from the drug. Then they did the fine. No,
13:18
I appreciate that challenge.
13:19
Speaker 2: And it's why I said when I was saying that
13:21
they do the analysis of whether they're going to have
13:24
$ 100 billion in loss or $ 40 billion in revenue. I'm
13:28
not saying they won't put out a drug that causes harm.
13:31
Speaker 1: You're saying it can't cause too much harm. Exactly. Okay.
13:35
Speaker 2: They don't want to end up upside down. And remember,
13:39
the whole reason a drug is licensed is because it
13:42
can cause harm.
13:43
Speaker 1: The crazy thing about the Vioxx one is I think
13:45
it killed somewhere north of 50,000 people and they still
13:51
made profit off of it, which is kind of bananas.
13:55
They pulled it and made billions in profit. This is
14:00
the darker aspect of this. If you were talking about
14:04
companies that never did anything wrong and had the highest
14:07
moral and ethical standards and they're the ones– because It's
14:11
not about money. It's about saving people's health and it's
14:14
about public safety. And we've got to make sure that
14:16
we do this right. We're going to make sure we
14:18
squash all the disinformation. But that's not what you're talking about.
14:22
You're talking about these companies that have been fined billions.
14:26
Billions of dollars in criminal fines for fraud, for all
14:29
kinds of shit. These are the people. And the idea
14:33
that they wouldn't lie about vaccines, like this is the
14:35
one thing they're going to tell you the truth. Ruthless
14:38
capitalists attached to money and drugs. This is the one
14:41
thing they're going to 100 percent tell you the truth about.
14:44
That seems kind of kooky. That's a that's a that's
14:47
a hard sell for anybody who's not ideologically captured. That's
14:51
a hard sell.
14:52
Speaker 2: Yeah, but I don't think you need to go down
14:55
the road that there's some kind of evil nefariousness there.
14:57
Speaker 1: No, that's not what I'm saying.
14:59
Speaker 2: It's a broken economic and regulatory system from my perspective.
15:03
Speaker 1: Right.
15:04
Speaker 2: It's just a completely broken economic. To your point about Vioxx, right?
15:08
So in Vioxx, it caused an incredible amount of harm,
15:11
but they still decided that the benefits raised the risk.
15:15
Do you know the story about the cars that used
15:18
to explode? It's the classic case we learned in law school.
15:21
And the gas tank and, you know, these cars.
15:25
Speaker 1: Was it a Pinto? It was the Pintos. That's right. Yeah.
15:27
Speaker 2: And a number of them exploded every year, burning the
15:29
people inside them alive to death.
15:31
Speaker 1: Right. Horrible. Way to go.
15:33
Speaker 2: And there was a lawsuit. And in that lawsuit, what
15:36
they discovered was the company had done an internal calculation
15:41
in which it did the math. What's it going to
15:44
cost to actually fix all the gas tanks? What's that
15:47
dollar number versus what's it going to cost? to just
15:50
pay out for those deaths every year, for those people
15:53
that we burn knowingly are going to die and burn
15:55
to death in those cars. And the calculation was that
15:59
it was going to cost less to pay out for
16:02
the deaths. And that is what the internal document showed.
16:05
And that, by the way, is in part the quintessential
16:09
case you learn in law school for why they have
16:11
punitive damages. Because the punitive damages were there to force
16:16
the company— To conform its conduct in exactly that scenario
16:22
where the economics weren't going to do it.
16:25
Speaker 3: Right.
16:26
Speaker 2: Even in something that horrible, when the market forces weren't sufficient,
16:30
the economic self-interest wasn't there.
16:32
Speaker 1: You had to make it happen. How?
16:35
Speaker 2: Through punitive damages. I know there's a lot of, you know.
16:38
News about punitive damages. Oh, it's excessive and so forth.
16:41
But that's what they're there for. They're there for that
16:43
scenario where we're just holding them accountable.
16:46
Speaker 1: Now, go back to vaccines.
16:48
Speaker 2: Think about how incredibly harmful and how much harm these
16:53
vaccines must do that they cannot survive on the market
16:59
without this immunity. from 1986. Think about that.
17:02
Speaker 1: If you were going to steal me on the argument
17:04
against that, wouldn't you say, look, we can't have frivolous
17:09
lawsuits against these people that are providing us the most
17:13
important medication that's available to humans. The whole reason why
17:17
we survive smallpox and polio and all these different things,
17:21
it's these vaccines. Without them, we'd all be dead. This
17:24
episode is brought to you by Montana Knife Company. I
17:26
have used their knives for years. They are absolutely fantastic.
17:31
The company was founded by one of the most experienced
17:33
master bladesmiths in the world, my friend, Josh Smith. He
17:37
has been making knives since he was a kid. He's
17:41
been making knives for 30 years. He made his first
17:43
hunting knife when he was 11 years old and became
17:46
a master bladesmith at 19. This man loves knives, the
17:50
construction of knives. They are absolutely next level. Everything is
17:54
made right here in the USA, in Montana, and these
17:57
knives are designed, tested, and built by hunters. They come
18:01
insanely sharp out of the box and are crazy easy
18:04
to sharpen. Montana Knife Company is a young company working
18:08
hard to keep up with demand because these knives sell
18:10
out in minutes. If you want one, head over to MontanaKnifeCompany.com
18:15
to see what's available now. Sign up for their email
18:18
newsletter so you know when they restock and get in
18:22
on their SMS notifications for special knife drops. My personal
18:26
favorite blade is the Speedgoat 2.0. I use it all
18:29
the time. It's an amazing knife. Montana Knife Company, working
18:33
knives for working people.
18:37
Speaker 2: Let's just assume that the last part of what you
18:38
said is true, which we know it's not. But with
18:41
that said, steel manning it.
18:44
Speaker 1: Easy response. Okay. Okay.
18:49
Speaker 2: Drugs, drugs that are for very small populations, meaning not
18:54
a lot of market, not a lot of sales, that
18:57
cause incredible side effects. can survive on the market profitably.
19:01
Think about that for a second.
19:04
Speaker 1: Why?
19:04
Speaker 2: Okay.
19:05
Speaker 1: Here's why.
19:06
Speaker 2: It's a little bit of legal stuff, but it's not
19:09
that hard.
19:09
Speaker 1: It's not that bad. Okay.
19:12
Speaker 2: The primary claim you would typically bring against a product
19:16
is the claim that it could have been made safer.
19:18
It's called a design defect claim. It's a claim where
19:21
I say, hey, had you put in a two cent
19:25
stopper on that gas tank, it wouldn't have exploded. If
19:29
you had put in a one penny plastic shield on
19:32
that saw, I'd have my finger.
19:34
Speaker 1: Okay.
19:36
Speaker 2: Design defect claim. The claim you could have made a
19:38
product safer. It is the primary claim you would bring
19:42
for a product.
19:43
Speaker 1: Okay.
19:43
Speaker 2: Injury claim. So how do you protect against it? You
19:47
make the product as technologically safe. safe as possible right
19:52
so if you have a drug that causes incredible side
19:55
effects that we just talked about make the drug as
19:57
safe as possible make sure that there are no contaminants
20:00
make sure that you use the best possible ingredients make
20:03
sure the combination right the the safest adjuvant go down
20:07
the road that's that's number one number two The second
20:13
way you hold them accountable is you bring a claim
20:15
called a failure to warn claim. I failed to warn
20:19
you about the harm that the drug could have caused, okay?
20:22
And so what do you have to do there to
20:23
protect yourself? The company has to disclose all the potential harms.
20:27
If it has it right there in the package insert
20:29
and you get it and it says, hey, it can cause.
20:30
Speaker 1: This, this, this, this, this.
20:32
Speaker 2: You were told you chose to still take the product.
20:34
They made it as safe as technologically feasible. They disclose
20:37
the risks. And that is how companies typically limit their
20:40
liability with medical products, with drug products. OK, why can't
20:43
they do the vaccines? Why can't they just make them
20:46
as safe as technologically feasible? Can't sue him for design defect.
20:50
And disclose all the actual risks in the package insert.
20:52
Speaker 1: Okay?
20:53
Speaker 2: The logical conclusion is, and one other point to that,
20:56
and then I'll respond to your steel man, okay?
20:59
Speaker 1: And it's this, all right?
21:01
Speaker 2: It's been 40 years for some of these vaccines. Hep
21:04
B vaccine, for example, licensed in 86 and 89, the
21:06
two standalones. It's been 40 years. You're telling me they
21:09
still don't know it's safe enough to lift that immunity?
21:11
You're giving it to millions of kids a year. You're
21:13
making billions of dollars on the sales of this product,
21:16
and you still don't know it's safe enough? To lift
21:18
that immunity, please.
21:21
Speaker 1: Okay. If I was a silly person, I would probably
21:24
say these vaccines are more important than any medication that's
21:29
ever existed because they are the reason why we are
21:32
here because that's how we survive smallpox and polio and
21:36
the measles and everything else. And without them, we would
21:41
have perished. We would have never achieved the technological states
21:45
that we're at because we wouldn't have been healthy. We
21:48
would have gone through mass plagues. Okay, I'll respond to that.
21:52
So because of that, it's just important that they stay
21:56
in business. Well, a few things. And we trust the science.
21:59
We should trust the science, Aaron. Trust the science, yes. Believe. Aaron,
22:01
trust the science. Yes, sir. Amen. Amen.
22:08
Speaker 2: Yeah, I try not to do too much believing, and
22:10
I try to do a little bit of evidence-based thinking.
22:12
But any event, look, when it comes to these products–
22:16
I save my beliefs for religion, the unanswerables, where do
22:19
we go when we die, and so forth. I have
22:22
to take a leap of faith, and I do it
22:23
when I need to, but you don't need to with
22:25
these products.
22:26
Speaker 1: Okay.
22:27
Speaker 2: On the first part of what you said, first of all,
22:30
there are products probably that are far more important to
22:33
humanity at the moment, no question about it, than vaccines,
22:36
even assuming it had the results that you just claimed,
22:39
which I'll address in a second. Imagine you said, look,
22:42
cars are essential. I mean, cars, you can't get an ambulance.
22:45
You can't get to the hospital. Without cars, you can't
22:47
get to work. You can't get to school. I mean,
22:49
it's essential to a functioning society. So let's give cars
22:51
immediate liability. Intuitively, you'd say that's ridiculous.
22:54
Speaker 1: Right.
22:55
Speaker 2: On the deaths point, that is one of the myths.
22:59
That is one of the mythologies around vaccines that has
23:02
developed over time. This notion that everybody in America die
23:06
without vaccines. In Chapter 7 of my book, and I
23:10
lay it out for every single disease. And what I
23:12
do there is I say, okay, how many deaths were
23:16
there in America the year before the vaccine was first
23:19
introduced or widely used or so forth, okay, in any
23:25
real degree? And what you find is if you go
23:29
down the list, there were typically dozens to hundreds, maybe
23:32
a thousand or so deaths from each disease for which
23:35
we vaccinate. The further back in time you go, the
23:38
larger the number in that dozens to a thousand or
23:42
so deaths, okay? For example, measles, the dreaded measles that
23:46
they say everybody will die from. No measles vaccine, we're
23:50
all going to die, right? That is the impression they
23:52
give you. You have any idea how many people died
23:54
of measles in the years before there was a measles
23:56
vaccine in the United States?
23:57
Speaker 1: How many? About 400 a year. That's it? That's it.
24:02
Speaker 2: 400 a year died in the United States at a
24:04
time when everybody had measles. which comes out to about
24:08
1 in 450,000 Americans dying of measles.
24:11
Speaker 1: That's in the CDC.
24:12
Speaker 2: Anybody listening to this is like, come on, that's not true.
24:14
CDC mortality documents on the CDC website cited in my book, 400.
24:19
Speaker 1: And don't about 50,000 people every year die from the flu?
24:24
Speaker 2: Well, that statistic includes bacterial... deaths that they say are
24:33
potentially the result from having influenza.
24:36
Speaker 1: So your immune system gets weakened and then something else
24:38
hits you and that kills you? Is that the idea
24:41
behind it? Well, that's just the way they gather the
24:46
data is the way I'll put it.
24:47
Speaker 2: But with influenza, well, let me finish up with measles
24:54
because I think this is important on the measles one
24:56
and I can deal with influenza as well. But on
24:59
the measles one, just to really– because you're saying, well,
25:02
everybody would die without these. I don't think people think
25:04
of influenza, by the way. They think of measles. They
25:08
think of those diseases. I don't ever hear anybody say
25:12
to me, well, everybody will die of influenza without influenza vaccines.
25:16
Speaker 1: It's available.
25:16
Speaker 2: Everybody can get it. The mortality hasn't changed much. In fact,
25:20
if you look at the mortality of influenza before influenza
25:23
vaccines were widespread, we're not doing that great. Anyway, putting
25:27
that aside for a moment.
25:28
Speaker 1: Not only that, isn't there data that shows that if
25:30
you get it, you're more likely to get other colds? Yeah.
25:35
Speaker 2: I have a whole giant footnote in my book about this,
25:39
and I actually tweeted this out and did a stuff
25:41
stick about this, a whole series of articles, studies that
25:46
show that those that have had the influenza vaccines, maybe
25:52
these studies often reflect have around the same rate of influenza.
25:55
Maybe they have less respiratory influenza infections, but they Many
25:59
studies show they have multiple times the rate of other
26:03
respiratory infections.
26:04
Speaker 1: So good job.
26:06
Speaker 2: Maybe you reduced your risk of influenza by this much,
26:09
but you've increased your risk of another different respiratory disease
26:12
by that much.
26:13
Speaker 1: How much is it? How much of the increase?
26:15
Speaker 2: Depends on the study. Some studies show four times risk.
26:18
Some studies show three times risk.
26:19
Speaker 1: Yeah.
26:20
Speaker 2: I mean, literally three, four. I mean, huge percentages. And
26:24
they're statistically significant in these studies. And so, you know,
26:27
when you're looking at a– now, these are all retrospective
26:29
epidemiological studies. But when you do a retrospective epi study,
26:34
which means you take existing data and then you study
26:37
it versus saying, okay, we're going to do a study
26:39
and follow people going forward, okay? If you find like
26:43
a 1.3 time, which means 30% increased risk, like that's
26:48
a public circle finding. This is three, 400% increased risk. Yes,
26:53
and in many of these studies. It's inconvenient data, so
26:55
obviously it's not talked about.
26:57
Speaker 1: Right. So 400 people is not a whole lot. I'm
27:00
sure– I mean it's sad when 400 people die. But
27:05
it's also one of those diseases that when you're a child,
27:09
it's much more survivable, right, than adults. It's rough, isn't it? Yeah.
27:13
Speaker 2: So measles, the ideal age to get it is not
27:17
when you're an infant, which in the pre-vaccine era, infants
27:21
typically died. did not get measles because they got maternal
27:23
immunity from the mother. And you don't want to get
27:27
it as an adult because it is more likely to
27:29
cause problems, which, again, in the pre-vaccine era wasn't a
27:34
problem because everybody virtually got it as a child. Right.
27:38
Speaker 1: Yeah. And when you got it as a child, my
27:42
recollection of it was the episode of The Brady Bunch.
27:45
Do you remember? Yeah. Remember that episode?
27:46
Speaker 2: Yeah, they were laughing about it.
27:47
Speaker 1: Let's watch this. Find that clip and let's watch it
27:50
because– It's so indicative of what measles was actually like
27:57
in the culture of the people that would get it
28:00
all the time versus this boogeyman of today. I mean
28:05
it is– it's so stark. It's like imagine the kid
28:08
coming home. Hey, mom, I've got AIDS. I've got to
28:10
stay home from school. It's not that, right?
28:13
Speaker 2: It's the way that most folks who've had chickenpox think
28:15
of chickenpox.
28:16
Speaker 1: Right. But we're told that it's killing people. And we're
28:20
told that it's killing people now. We're told that it's
28:23
killing– it's always kids. We're told it's killing kids now.
28:27
And look, if anybody dies from measles, I'm very sad.
28:30
But I want to know, is it with measles? Remember
28:34
the with COVID or from COVID? Like what kind of
28:37
condition were these people in before this hit them? Because
28:41
some– I mean that was the thing about COVID. It's like, yeah,
28:44
it's fatal. If you have four-plus comorbidities– you're more likely
28:49
to be fatal. And that was most of the people
28:50
that wind up dying from it, right?
28:53
Speaker 2: That's almost certainly the case. And I can add another
28:56
data point to that to help support that, which is
29:00
that between 1900, and this is, again, CDC data, between
29:04
1900 and the late 1950s, early 1960s, the mortality from
29:08
measles declined in the United States by over 98%.
29:14
Speaker 1: You know what didn't cause that?
29:16
Speaker 2: Vaccines yeah because it didn't exist i know so right but.
29:19
Speaker 1: But so immunity had become a herd thing just like
29:24
covet-ish right now well everybody basically has had covet or
29:28
at least has been exposed to it by now yeah
29:30
here it is what's yeah.
29:32
Speaker 3: It's a whole episode there's multiple clips i don't know.
29:34
Speaker 1: Which one is the best one, but here's one. Let's
29:37
just try. I think he finds out he's coming over.
29:40
Put on your headphones for a second so we can
29:41
hear this. Aaron, grab your headphones. Are you sure it's
29:48
the measles? Well, he's certainly got all the symptoms. A
29:50
slight temperature, a lot of dots, and a great big smile.
29:53
A great big smile? No school for a few days. Oh,
29:59
You've got a measles. Golly, mothers are supposed to know everything.
30:03
But do you have to keep proving it? You've got
30:05
a temperature, too. What do you mean, two? Peter was
30:08
sent home from school a little while ago. Oh, what
30:10
was his temperature? 101.1. Oh, is that all?
30:14
Speaker 3: I'm 101.2.
30:14
Speaker 1: Oh, Greg, you won my railroad.
30:18
Speaker 2: I'll be a sport.
30:19
Speaker 1: You can ride on it free. Thanks a lot. It's
30:23
your turn, Peter. They're having a measles party. Oh, missed it.
30:28
Speaker 3: Yep.
30:30
Speaker 1: Boy, this is the life, isn't it?
30:32
Speaker 2: Yeah.
30:32
Speaker 1: If you have to get sick, you sure can't beat
30:34
the measles. That's right. No medicine.
30:37
Speaker 3: Inside or out.
30:37
Speaker 1: Like shots, I mean. Don't even mention shots.
30:40
Speaker 2: Yes. Okay.
30:43
Speaker 1: I mean, am I crazy? Or have we gone through
30:47
one of the wildest gaslightings of anything ever? There's people
30:51
out there that because of the things that you said
30:54
so far about the measles will be 100% freaking out
30:58
on Twitter. Right. But this is this is a window
31:02
into how the American public thought. I know it's a
31:05
television show. I know it's a sitcom, but you can't
31:08
joke around about stuff that other people wouldn't think is funny.
31:12
Every people would think that was funny. These kids saying,
31:14
if you're going to get sick, you should get the measles.
31:17
And everybody at home be like, oh, I wish I
31:19
had a day off. Well, that's how they thought of it. Yeah.
31:22
Speaker 2: And to put hard data on it, going back to
31:25
that statistic over 98 percent reduction. remember it's not like
31:30
COVID Joe, because COVID there was no immunity in the population, right? Right.
31:36
Measles has been around for forever. As far as we know,
31:38
thousands of years, the year 1900, wasn't the beginning of
31:43
herd immunity, 1900 measles already endemic. Everybody was getting measles.
31:49
So every year there's a few million people cohort that
31:51
were getting it and you had the decline. And so
31:54
you have to ask yourself, what was the decline? Um,
31:58
It was probably better sanitation, better acute medical care. I mean,
32:03
all kinds of things. And you know who could take
32:05
credit for most of that stuff? Better sanitation, better living conditions,
32:09
better you name it. Probably public health authorities. Meaning the
32:14
improvement in acute care, the introduction of antibiotics, better living conditions,
32:20
not having sewage in the street, you name it.
32:22
Speaker 3: Right.
32:23
Speaker 2: Probably had a massive impact. contributor to that reduction, but
32:27
they never point to that. And there's one other really
32:30
inconvenient data point with measles. And this is really where
32:33
it gets upsetting for folks out there who you were
32:35
just saying are going to watch the show.
32:36
Speaker 1: And it's this.
32:38
Speaker 2: That over 98% reduction in mortality, there's no reason that
32:43
that curve was.
32:44
Speaker 1: Not going to continue. Because pockets of.
32:46
Speaker 2: The United States in the late 50s and early 60s
32:48
were like a developing country. In a developing country, kids
32:52
are going to die. of any infectious disease because of
32:55
extremely poor living conditions. And as those improved, most likely
32:59
that 400 deaths also would have continued to decline. 4.2
33:03
million births in the United States in the late 50s,
33:06
early 60s, about 3.8 million births today. So in fact,
33:09
there's less children being born in America today than there
33:11
was then. So you have a smaller cohort of babies,
33:15
young children to infect. And final data point, and it's this,
33:20
and this is really I know this is going to
33:23
cause cognitive dissonance for some, but studies that have looked
33:29
at those that have had measles versus those that don't
33:34
find that those that have had measles have a statistically
33:37
significant greater reduction in deaths from cardiovascular disease and various cancers.
33:46
So I'll give you an example. There's a 20-year, 22-year
33:50
prospective study in Japan funded by the government of Japan
33:54
and major universities that tracked 100,000 people in Japan for
33:58
22 years. And it found that those that had measles
34:01
and mumps had a 20% statistically significant decline in deaths
34:06
from cardiovascular disease. Think about that for a second. Just
34:10
think about that. About 800,000 Americans die of cardiovascular disease.
34:14
If eliminating measles and mumps... has increased cardiovascular deaths in
34:19
the United States by even 1% on a life years
34:22
lost basis, you are still way upside down on your
34:27
public health benefit by eliminating measles.
34:29
Speaker 1: Can I ask you what the speculation is and how
34:31
that could be? Why would measles and mumps infection at
34:34
an early age improve your health cardiovascularly?
34:38
Speaker 2: Why would it also, those that have not had measles
34:41
have a 66% increase rate of non-hostile lymphoma and 266%
34:44
increase rate Of Hodgkin's lymphoma, which kills 20,000 people a year.
34:50
Why would women that have had measles have 50% less
34:54
ovarian cancer, which kills a lot of women every year?
34:58
What is it about it? Maybe, and here's the thing, I'm,
35:03
you know, and you can have evolutionary biologists talk about
35:06
this as well. You've had some on. Think about it
35:09
this way. Pathogens have come and gone throughout the ages, right?
35:12
Speaker 1: Right. This one didn't. Measles, mumps, rubella, chickenpox. They didn't.
35:17
Speaker 2: It could be, maybe, I'm not saying it is, I'm
35:20
just saying this is what the data appears to reflect.
35:22
What I just told you about with cardiovascular disease and cancer,
35:26
they're all in PubMed.
35:27
Speaker 1: They're all PubMed studies.
35:28
Speaker 2: They're all in the published literature, and they're all consistent
35:31
having the findings that I just described.
35:33
Speaker 1: I'm just a lawyer. I'm just repeating to you what
35:35
the data reflects.
35:37
Speaker 2: It could be that having those febrile childhood infections conferred
35:42
a survival advantage overall. And it could be the reason
35:45
they never actually went away over time, became less obviously pathogenic.
35:50
Speaker 1: So it has like a hormetic effect and it makes
35:52
you physically stronger somehow or another. It makes your immune
35:55
system stronger, your cardiovascular, like a stress test. That means
36:00
it's not outside the realm of possibility, right? I mean,
36:02
if lifting weights makes you stronger and, you know, studying
36:06
makes you smarter, would it make sense that some form
36:09
of infection that you recover from will make you more resilient?
36:13
It does make sense. It's just like no one wants
36:16
to say, hey, you should go get measles.
36:18
Speaker 2: Look, fear of relativity is not intuitive. Why is it
36:23
as you approach a more massive object? Or approach the
36:26
speed of light, does time relatively slow down? I don't
36:29
know if it makes sense or not. It's just when
36:32
you put two atomic clocks on a plane, one on
36:34
the ground, one on the plane, you fly it around
36:36
the Earth, they're not ticking the same.
36:38
Speaker 1: So there it is. Right. You can't pretend that's not data.
36:41
The data is what it is. Right. It doesn't have
36:43
to make sense to be true. That's a good point.
36:45
Speaker 2: That's just what it is. And I'm just saying what
36:47
the studies show. Very inconvenient. A lot of cognitive dissonance there.
36:50
But it could very well be that our whole– this
36:52
whole program not only– So going all the way back
36:56
to your point, you're like, well, vaccines are so important.
37:00
We've got to give them this immunity.
37:02
Speaker 1: No.
37:03
Speaker 2: In fact, quite the opposite. Our babies are so precious,
37:07
are so important. We want to make sure we have
37:10
the safest possible product you can have. And the way
37:14
to do that is to make sure the companies have
37:16
an economic interest to make sure they're as safe as possible.
37:20
Speaker 1: I agree with you entirely. But if I was questioning anything,
37:23
I would say, OK, if we don't have genetic immunity
37:28
anymore because our parents didn't have it, because our parents
37:31
are vaccinated against measles, wouldn't it be better to keep
37:35
vaccinating people rather than let a whole bunch of people
37:38
with no immunity to measles get it, particularly older people?
37:43
So this is a really important point, actually.
37:46
Speaker 2: I agree with you.
37:47
Speaker 1: Can I stop before we get going? When they mandated
37:53
vaccines or when they started giving them to people was what,
37:55
in like the early 60s, I believe? For measles vaccines, 63.
37:59
Did a lot of people resist it? Was it back then?
38:02
Were the hippies opting out? Is there like a group
38:05
that you could follow and track that never got it,
38:07
never got the vaccine while everybody else did?
38:11
Speaker 2: It has to be right. I'm sure there's a group
38:13
out there you can identify.
38:15
Speaker 1: I mean, the Amish. There you go.
38:17
Speaker 2: Right. So, you know, we represent right now because New
38:20
York's trying to basically kick them out of New York
38:24
for not vaccinating.
38:25
Speaker 1: That's great. We just won. And we just in the U.S.
38:28
Speaker 2: Supreme Court, we were just successful in vacating the lower
38:31
court decisions just a few weeks ago.
38:34
Speaker 1: Do you remember when Kathy Hochul was talking about the
38:36
vaccines like they're a gift from God? She believes it.
38:39
But do you remember how she was saying it? I
38:41
was like, in any other business, if you were running
38:44
a pharmaceutical drug business, if you were running a Chevy
38:48
and you're making a new Corvette and you started talking
38:51
about how this Corvette is a gift from God, everybody
38:54
would go, oh, Kathy's cracked. Like, what are you talking about?
38:58
It's a bunch of engineers. We put together a great car. Like,
39:00
what are you? It's a gift from God. What?
39:03
Speaker 2: People don't say I believe in tables or I believe
39:05
in chairs.
39:06
Speaker 1: I believe in TVs. I believe in wallpaper.
39:08
Speaker 2: But they say I believe in vaccines all the time
39:10
because it carries a truism.
39:12
Speaker 1: But do they work? Like does the measles vaccine prevent
39:15
people from getting measles or is it a leaky vaccine?
39:18
Speaker 2: Is it a completely– so answering that and your prior
39:23
question at the same time– Sorry.
39:24
Speaker 1: No, no, no. Don't be so– I'm very scattered. No,
39:26
you're not scattered at all.
39:28
Speaker 2: Is that– is that the measles vaccine, measles, MMR vaccine
39:35
and chickenpox vaccine can prevent transmission. That is not true
39:39
of most vaccines, but those can't. So those can those can.
39:45
And so to your now going back. So that's the differential.
39:49
And in fact, for most of the other vaccines like
39:51
pertussis vaccine and so forth, they make you more likely
39:54
to spread the pathogen if you're vaccinated. And I can
39:56
tell you all about that. But before I do that,
39:59
let me just point out that to your last comment,
40:02
because measles, MMR vaccine and chickenpox vaccine can prevent transmission.
40:07
Speaker 1: You are correct.
40:08
Speaker 2: If measles were to come through society right now, right
40:12
now in the current time, It would be problematic because
40:16
babies who aren't supposed to get it would be more
40:18
likely to get it because the mothers aren't conferring the
40:21
same maternal immunity that they did in the pre-vaccine era
40:23
because the vaccine doesn't confer the same level of immunity
40:26
anywhere near. And older folks, because the vaccine is nowhere
40:31
as efficacious as having had the infection, depending on the study,
40:35
2% to 10% do not seroconvert even after two doses,
40:38
meaning they are not getting immunity. at all, pretty much,
40:41
or immunity is considered immune.
40:44
Speaker 1: Is this when they take it later in life or
40:45
when they take it when they're young?
40:47
Speaker 2: This is when they take it when they're young. And
40:50
that's why when there's a measles outbreak, a lot of
40:52
times you'll hear a call to even have folks who
40:55
are older get the measles vaccine again, right? There's guidance
40:58
on that because it doesn't confer. If you've had measles,
41:01
you're done. You never need a vaccine. Again, you'll never
41:04
get measles again.
41:05
Speaker 1: One and done.
41:08
Speaker 2: So yes, it would be It would be problematic right
41:12
now for those– for MMR, measles, mumps, rubella and chicken
41:17
pox to just kind of let it rip. You would
41:19
have to really have an educational campaign beforehand if you
41:23
were going to do that. But for the other vaccines,
41:26
hep B vaccine, pertussis vaccine, not a problem. Those vaccines
41:30
don't stop transmission.
41:31
Speaker 1: I go into that. Kind of crazy that they give
41:34
that to babies. It's kind of crazy. Kind of crazy
41:39
if the parent aren't interviewing these drug users or whatever,
41:43
whatever would give them hep B, that you're going to
41:46
inject a baby with a vaccine that prevents them from
41:50
getting a sexually transmitted disease and like a rarely– you
41:53
got to be doing something rough.
41:56
Speaker 2: Joe, you just don't understand what goes on in the NICU.
42:01
Speaker 1: I mean– Yeah. It just seems crazy. It is.
42:04
Speaker 2: And here, I'll give you– Another data point, which is
42:10
in Denmark, okay, there is no Hep B, universal Hep
42:14
B for kids. The only time they give Hep B
42:17
in Denmark is if the mother is Hep B positive.
42:20
So their Hep B vaccination rate amongst children is like 0.1%
42:24
or something to that effect. Okay.
42:27
Speaker 1: So here you go.
42:29
Speaker 2: Two first world countries, America and Denmark, universal Hep B here,
42:33
virtually zero Hep B vaccine given there. The rate of
42:36
hep B amongst children, not statistically significant. You know what
42:39
is different between those two countries? The rate of harm
42:43
from hep B vaccine.
42:45
Speaker 1: That's different.
42:47
Speaker 2: You know what a baby's never died of on the
42:49
first day of life?
42:50
Speaker 1: Hepatitis B.
42:51
Speaker 2: You know what a baby has died of on the
42:53
first day of life?
42:54
Speaker 1: Hepatitis B vaccine.
42:55
Speaker 2: In fact, adjudicated as such not long ago for a
42:58
newborn that died from a hep B vaccine. And I
43:01
said earlier you can't sue the manufacturers.
43:03
Speaker 1: You cannot.
43:05
Speaker 2: There is a little program, though, in the federal government
43:07
where you can bring a claim if you're injured from
43:09
a vaccine. That's what I'm talking about right now. I
43:10
went about the baby that died of Hep B.
43:12
Speaker 1: Right.
43:12
Speaker 2: It's called the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. I have like
43:15
20 folks in my firm that do that work. And,
43:19
you know, it's not like a regular court. You don't
43:20
get an Article 3 judge, Article 3 of the Constitution,
43:23
a federal judge. You don't get any.
43:25
Speaker 1: Discovery as a right, which is how you prove harms.
43:27
Speaker 2: There's a $ 250, 000 statutory cap on pain and suffering and
43:30
on death, which is ridiculous. And it doesn't have– anyways,
43:35
long story short, it's paid out about $ 5 billion for
43:38
damages and so forth from vaccines over the years. But–
43:41
so I don't want people to get confused like when
43:44
I said, well, how did this baby get adjudicated?
43:46
Speaker 1: It got adjudicated in this program. Got it. Got it.
43:51
So when you have conversations with people and they are
43:57
the way you used to be and the way I
43:59
used to be where you just sort of– just assumed
44:03
that these, the people that are experts in their fields
44:06
are doing a great job and that's why we're alive.
44:08
And you start telling them these things, like, are you
44:11
a real problem at a cocktail party? Like, do you,
44:13
have you ever, have you ever, have you ever had
44:16
a conversation that just went completely sideways? They started getting
44:20
angry at you for quoting things? Yeah.
44:23
Speaker 2: Cause that's a, it's not a problem for me cause
44:25
I don't know emotions or feelings.
44:26
Speaker 1: About the products. They're just products. Right.
44:28
Speaker 2: They're no different for me, but a lot of folks,
44:32
There's two things. First, for some, like medical professionals, a
44:39
lot of them seem to derive a lot of their
44:41
self-schema almost, their value, their worth from these products.
44:44
Speaker 1: They saved humanity. How could you question that? We are
44:47
the saviors, right?
44:49
Speaker 2: In some respects, almost like supplanting God, right?
44:52
Speaker 1: What's the only thing that will save us during COVID?
44:54
Was it God? No. Vaccines. That's the only thing.
44:57
Speaker 2: And then for others, they think that they know, okay?
45:01
But they don't know intellectually. They've never looked at the
45:04
primary sources. So when you challenge them with evidence, what
45:08
can they draw from? The intellect?
45:09
Speaker 1: No.
45:10
Speaker 2: They draw from their emotions. They draw from their feelings.
45:12
And that's why they get angry. I do get that
45:15
all the time. But I also often get folks who
45:18
are just curious and interested to listen.
45:20
Speaker 1: Well, I think there's more of those now than there's
45:23
ever been before. Absolutely.
45:25
Speaker 2: I think COVID in that respect– forced the conversation. You
45:29
had millions of people who were listening to basic stuff
45:33
that 10 years ago when I started doing this work,
45:35
nobody talked about what is a placebo?
45:37
Speaker 1: What's a clinical trial? What's the stuff?
45:39
Speaker 2: Like this became, or even the idea that a vaccine
45:42
can cause a harm was just that notion was totally
45:47
taboo seven years ago.
45:49
Speaker 1: No more. Yeah. I think you're entirely correct. And also
45:52
credit to YouTube because YouTube doesn't suppress this stuff anymore,
45:56
which is why I found dozens of interviews with you
45:59
on YouTube. I mean, I'd seen some of your stuff
46:02
on social media, but then I've watched a bunch of
46:05
your stuff now on YouTube. During the pandemic, everything you said,
46:09
you would have got removed. I was removed. Everything I
46:13
said was removed. I'll tell you the first thing they
46:16
ever posted that got– it was on Twitter. Yeah, the
46:20
old Twitter.
46:21
Speaker 2: So we brought this lawsuit against the FDA to get
46:23
all the documents they relied upon to license Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine, OK? Yeah.
46:28
Speaker 1: They licensed it.
46:29
Speaker 2: In 42 days and we said, all right, for 42 days,
46:31
give us all the documents, right?
46:32
Speaker 1: And they wanted it forever.
46:33
Speaker 2: They wanted to produce it at a rate of a
46:35
few hundred pages a month, which would have taken hundreds
46:36
of years effectively. Got a tranche of those documents, took
46:41
some of them, literally took one of the documents and
46:44
posted it. And my tweet was just literally quoting from
46:49
the document effectively. And that was taken down as misinformation.
46:53
Pfizer's own documents submitted to the FDA. One of the
46:56
first things that that was just that was mind jarring.
47:00
Speaker 1: It was stunning. It was stunning to watch people not
47:02
be outraged, too. When information was getting out about different
47:07
people that were silenced, Jay Bhattacharya and all those different
47:10
people that were getting attacked, Martin Koldorf. It was stunning
47:15
how no one was going, hey, what is going on here?
47:18
This seems really weird that you're removing posts from guys
47:21
from MIT and Stanford and banning their accounts. That's fucking crazy.
47:26
And until Elon purchased Twitter, we really didn't know the
47:29
extent of it. We didn't really understand. We really weren't
47:32
aware that it was government involvement. They were stepping in
47:36
to remove and remove mal-information. That was my favorite. They
47:39
came up with– you know that one? Disinformation, mal-information. Mal
47:43
is the best because it's true information that might cause problems,
47:49
which is fucking almost everything. As soon as you have
47:52
a problem with mal-information, like you are– encouraging the creepiest
47:56
kind of groupthink that's available, and no one freaked out. Well,
48:00
a few people freaked out, but not enough. It wasn't–
48:03
it should have been bipartisan. It should have been a
48:05
bipartisan freakout. It should have been left and right, but
48:07
it got politicized in this really stupid way where people
48:11
on the left were pro-vaccine and pro-pharmaceutical drug company and pro-narrative,
48:16
and people on the right were like, I'm going to
48:17
take my chances. And those were the kooks. And it
48:20
was this ideological battle as much as it was a
48:23
public health crisis. Censorship was bad. It was very bad.
48:28
Real bad.
48:29
Speaker 2: But I'll tell you what made me think people were
48:33
going to go into the street with pitchforks was when
48:35
the government told everybody, stay at home. That wasn't hidden.
48:40
That wasn't behind the scenes, the stuff you're talking about.
48:43
They said, stay in your house. They didn't say, we
48:48
recommend you stay in your houses. They didn't say, we
48:51
recommend you get this vaccine. We do recommend you wear
48:55
this mask. They said, stay in your house. When they
49:00
had that first order came down, I was like, people
49:03
are just going to be outraged. People are going to protest.
49:05
And when they didn't, that's what dismayed me personally. And
49:08
I'll tell you why.
49:09
Speaker 1: Okay.
49:11
Speaker 2: Because when you think about civil and individual rights, First Amendment,
49:16
the right to free speech, the assembly, All right. That
49:19
was passed and adopted by the states in 1791. What's
49:24
the First Amendment intended to do? It's restrict government from
49:27
infringing on those rights. You think life was easy in 1791?
49:30
What do you think life was like in 1791? You
49:34
think it was easy? I think it was all hunky dory.
49:37
Life in 1791 was brutal.
49:41
Speaker 1: Brutal.
49:42
Speaker 2: You want to talk about disease, pestilence, famine, war? You
49:47
want to talk about a life that is no electricity,
49:50
no running water, no sewage, nothing. And that amendment was
49:53
passed for times that are more brutal than that. And
49:57
here comes a virus. And every right you have is
50:03
basically taken away. And Americans are like.
50:07
Speaker 1: Take it. Take it away.
50:11
Speaker 2: That is what outraged me. Because look, what was the
50:15
whole point of this country? What is America born out of?
50:19
In my view, it's born out of the idea that
50:23
every other government that preceded it got it wrong in
50:26
the following sense. Your life should not be dictated by
50:30
a king or a dictator or a Politburo or a
50:33
central authority. It's the idea that you are born with
50:36
inalienable rights. You should be able to choose your destiny,
50:40
including what risks you want to take. Individual rights come
50:44
with risks. Letting Joe Rogan say what he wants on
50:47
this podcast comes with risks. Letting you practice what religion
50:51
you want, assemble with who you want, especially in Austin.
50:54
Very interesting time yesterday. That comes with risks, let.
50:57
Speaker 1: Me tell you.
50:58
Speaker 2: A lot of risks, okay? But the greater risk is
51:02
always ceding that right to the government. Because once you do,
51:04
you don't get it back often. And so, yes, there
51:07
was that hidden stuff you talk about. And that's not
51:09
that was bad. Don't get me wrong. That's bad stuff.
51:11
That's really, really bad. But but the stuff they did
51:14
in the open to me in some ways was was
51:17
even worse. And I hope that there's a lesson that
51:20
folks learn from that, because let me tell you something.
51:22
Even if you love every vaccine out there, you listen
51:24
to this. You love every vaccine. You love every mask.
51:28
Speaker 1: Right. Great.
51:30
Speaker 2: I support every American's right. You're 17. You're 18. You're
51:33
totally healthy.
51:34
Speaker 1: No comorbidities.
51:34
Speaker 2: And you want to get a vaccine a day where
51:36
70 masks and live in your basement and self-imposed stay.
51:39
Speaker 1: At home order.
51:40
Speaker 2: This is America. I support your right to do. I'll
51:42
fight for your right to do that. And you're 90
51:44
and you're a war veteran and you want to go
51:46
to the you have 16 comorbidities and you want to
51:48
go to the coffee shop with no vaccine and no mask.
51:51
Speaker 1: You should be free to do that because that's America, too.
51:53
That's freedom also. Just like you can bull ride.
51:56
Speaker 2: And if you don't stand up for that right now.
51:59
The day comes when there's something, a medical product you
52:02
don't want, the government says you have to get because
52:05
trust me, it is so much cheaper to lobby to
52:09
get a medical product required than it is to market
52:12
to get people to get it. Oh, they've learned that lesson.
52:15
That's why there's so much lobbying to get mandates, get
52:18
rid of exemptions across the country that you don't want
52:22
and you can't get a job and you can't go
52:24
to school and you can't leave your house.
52:26
Speaker 1: Then what good are the rest of your rights? They're useless.
52:28
They're useless.
52:29
Speaker 2: That's why medical liberty truly is a fundamental right. I'm
52:32
off my high horse.
52:33
Speaker 1: No, it's a great high horse. That was an awesome rant.
52:35
You're absolutely 100 percent on the money. And it's that's
52:40
it's such an important thing to to get out there,
52:44
to get people to understand that you it's such a
52:48
natural human inclination to when you're in a place of power,
52:53
of control, any form of government, you want more control.
52:57
And it's just natural. And what you're talking about when
53:00
you lose rights, you very rarely get them back. That
53:04
was so on display in California with the COVID regulations
53:08
because they had everybody locked down way past where they
53:12
had to. A friend of mine's brother worked in one
53:16
of the COVID, some government office when they were considering
53:21
the closing of outdoor dining. And he brought up but
53:26
there's no transmission related to outdoor dining. And the woman
53:31
who was in charge said, yes, but it's all about
53:33
the optics. So she was willing to, with a wave
53:37
of her magic wand, shut down outdoor dining for a
53:41
bunch of small family businesses that were probably barely staying
53:46
alive after COVID. Barely. We lost somewhere around 70% of
53:52
Los Angeles restaurants went under during COVID. That's fucking bananas.
53:56
And so they finally get outdoor dining. Like, okay, we
53:59
could kind of pay the bills this month. And then
54:01
they shut down outdoor dining for optics. So this kind
54:05
of desire to just put a foot down, control people,
54:09
keep a boot on their neck, it's normal. Even if
54:12
it doesn't make sense. Everybody knows that from high school.
54:15
Everybody knows that from, I mean, the Stanford prison experiments.
54:19
People like to control people. They enjoy it. And when
54:22
they get a place like becoming the mayor or becoming
54:25
the governor and being able to tell people, you got
54:28
to listen to me. I've got rule. Everyone stay inside.
54:31
Be scared. Fucking California. Garcetti literally had a campaign that
54:38
said snitches get rewards. snitches, snitching on people, having more
54:43
than one person over your house, standing too close in
54:46
the backyard. You get money. You get money for ratting
54:50
out your neighbor. This episode is brought to you by BetterHelp.
54:54
In honor of International Women's Day, BetterHelp is celebrating the
54:58
women in your life. I think we can all appreciate
55:01
everything the women in our lives have done for us,
55:03
and everyone deserves a little self-care. A good way to
55:07
get that is through therapy because not only is therapy
55:11
a time for you to focus on yourself, it's also
55:14
a way to create balance and learn how to take
55:16
care of your needs in your daily life. And BetterHelp,
55:20
as one of the largest online therapy platforms, makes it
55:24
so easy to meet with the right therapist. All you
55:26
need to do is fill out a short questionnaire. You
55:29
don't even need to go into an office to meet them.
55:31
You can chat at home, from your couch, in your car,
55:34
before you hit the gym, or while you're walking your dog. Plus,
55:38
if you aren't jiving with your first match, you can
55:40
switch to a different therapist whenever you need. Your emotional
55:45
well-being matters. Find support and feel lighter in therapy. Sign
55:49
up and get 10% off at BetterHelp.com slash J-R-E. That's BetterHelp.com
55:57
slash J-R-E.
55:59
Speaker 2: Well, when the government gets it wrong, they always, always
56:02
double down because and that's the problem with the mandates.
56:06
Once they've required it, they have taken a position and
56:10
then to admit they're wrong. Often what government ends up
56:13
saying is, oh, well, we're the CDC. If we admit
56:16
we're wrong about this, that's going to hurt our ability
56:20
to influence the public. And that's more important than admitting
56:24
we're wrong on this or correcting course. Because our legitimacy,
56:28
our ability to influence the public is so important. We
56:31
have to– we can't admit we're wrong. That's what Bobby
56:34
is doing right now with some of these things is
56:38
some of the stuff like the new autism page on
56:40
the CDC website, for example, is contrary to anything I've
56:47
ever seen come out of the federal health authorities to date.
56:49
But yes, it's disturbing and it's why. Government should– no
56:55
public health authority should ever be able to tell you
56:58
and infringe on your rights. They should be able to recommend.
57:01
Recommend like crazy.
57:03
Speaker 1: Right.
57:03
Speaker 2: But never do it because that is the normal course
57:07
of how tyranny, dictators, bullies, thugs operate. First, they tell
57:14
you what to do. You don't listen, apply a little pressure.
57:18
You don't listen and they mandate. You still don't listen.
57:22
They censor you. Still, take away more of your rights.
57:26
That is the normal progression throughout history. And we saw
57:29
it happen in front of our eyes, which is why
57:31
it should be a line in the sand. Federal health authorities,
57:34
state health authorities should be able to recommend and encourage
57:38
never mandate ever.
57:39
Speaker 1: Fauci literally expressed it that way. I'm sure you've heard
57:43
that recording of it. Once people realize they can't go
57:47
to work, they'll drop their ideological bullshit and they'll get vaccinated. Yeah.
57:52
Like he's essentially telling them you're going to make people's
57:56
life hell and they will do what you want them
57:59
to do. Not they will have free will. They will
58:02
have the ability to choose. No, no, no. You will
58:05
make them do what you want. Yeah.
58:08
Speaker 2: Who wants a government that persuades you on the merits?
58:11
Speaker 1: Forget that. But imagine that that is something that someone
58:15
said out loud.
58:16
Speaker 2: But that– I don't think that what Fauci was saying
58:21
is anything– Fauci, everything in my view that you saw
58:25
during COVID is not like some giant leap into some
58:30
new territory. To me, it's just another natural step in
58:34
progression from where we've gone over the last 40 years
58:36
with vaccines. Fauci saying that is no different than school
58:40
mandates right now to get children– Most states have– 45
58:45
states have basically checked the box exemption to send your
58:48
kids to school. There's about five that don't. They're trying
58:51
to eliminate exemptions, right? Clearly, they're able to persuade most
58:57
parents on the merits, but yet they can't take it.
59:00
They can't take that 2%, 3%, 4% just will not
59:03
take these products. And I'll tell you about what most
59:07
of these folks are. They're the folks who really need
59:09
the exemptions because most people who don't choose to take
59:14
childhood vaccines, they don't typically just wake up and decide
59:17
to do that for fun. Not many people wake up
59:20
one day and go, you know what I'm going to
59:21
do today? I'm going to take a socially ostracizing position
59:25
that might get my kids kicked out of school, me
59:26
thrown out of my job. My friends call me an
59:28
anti this and anti that. You know, you name it,
59:32
all the horribles that come with not vaccinating. No, most
59:35
people don't vaccinate, don't vaccinate because they've had a very,
59:40
very personal or negative experience with these products. They are
59:44
one of their kids or one of their family members,
59:46
or they've learned stuff they cannot learn about them, okay?
59:49
They have usually a very good reason not to. And yet,
59:52
as you saw during COVID, it's not about, in many
59:57
respects— medicine to the examples you gave. It's about they
1:00:04
cannot stand that somebody is not agreeing with their beliefs.
1:00:08
They cannot extend the exceptions. Those who stand up say, no,
1:00:12
I've come to a different medical conclusion. They can't let
1:00:16
that exist.
1:00:17
Speaker 1: Right. That is what it is. And it happens for
1:00:22
people regardless of their religious status. It's a weird thing.
1:00:27
It's like it is like a religion. I mean, which
1:00:29
is why I'm so glad you wrote your book that
1:00:31
way because I think there's these natural patterns of groupthink
1:00:35
and of just complying that people automatically fall into. It's
1:00:43
very easy. That's why people can get people to join cults.
1:00:46
That's why people are a part of like weird Christian sects. Like, wait,
1:00:50
what do you guys do?
1:00:51
Speaker 2: Huh?
1:00:52
Speaker 1: Who's the guy? Who's the head guy? This guy? And
1:00:54
he gets to marry everybody? What?
1:00:56
Speaker 2: Okay.
1:00:56
Speaker 1: Yeah. Well, that's what– It's normal. It's a normal thing.
1:01:01
And if you scale it outward, it goes to a
1:01:04
lot of stuff. There's a lot of stuff that people
1:01:06
just have these like climate changes of religion right now.
1:01:09
Like there are certain people that if you confront them
1:01:11
with like the actual– the ones that are willing to
1:01:17
question the narrative that are legitimate client scientists, they will
1:01:19
tell you like it is so complicated to figure out
1:01:23
what is causing– The changes in the Earth's climate, warmth
1:01:27
and cold, and the fact that it's never been static, ever,
1:01:30
in human history, never before humans, never billions of years.
1:01:34
It's done this crazy thing. It involves the precession of
1:01:37
the equinoxes and the fucking polar vortex. And then also
1:01:42
stuff we burn, that too. But like what percentage is what?
1:01:46
But it doesn't matter. You can't have that conversation. It's
1:01:48
like you questioning whatever messiah this person believes in. They'll
1:01:54
just lock down and climate change is this. Not one
1:01:58
climate change prediction of doom has been accurate. Not one.
1:02:02
Not even in the ballpark. You remember– The fucking Al
1:02:05
Gore movie? Yeah. We're supposed to be dead. Meanwhile, they're
1:02:09
all buying fucking oceanfront houses in Maui. You know, get
1:02:14
out of here. Shut the fuck up. This is another thing.
1:02:16
This is another thing. Like, yeah, we shouldn't pollute. Yeah,
1:02:19
we shouldn't release particulates in the atmosphere. Yeah, we should
1:02:22
have clean energy. Yeah, but also, you guys are crooks.
1:02:25
You guys are a bunch of crooks that are making
1:02:27
money off of this idea that you're forcing down everybody's
1:02:31
throat that everybody's got a green new deal and Everybody's
1:02:33
got to do renewable, this renewable. And then who's got
1:02:36
money invested in all this stuff? A bunch of people
1:02:39
who are pushing it. And it's a fucking scam. Just
1:02:42
like so many of these things are fucking scams. It
1:02:45
doesn't mean we shouldn't be aware of the damage that
1:02:48
we're doing to the earth. We should probably stop overfishing
1:02:51
the ocean. We should probably stop dumping shit into the rivers. Oh, 100%.
1:02:55
You know who used to go to court for that? Bobby.
1:02:59
RFK Jr. He fucking cranks. The guy who is like
1:03:03
cleaning up the East River, that's Bobby Kennedy Jr. He
1:03:07
was the guy.
1:03:08
Speaker 2: And an easy way to identify that. somebody's not really
1:03:12
coming at you with science and they're coming at you
1:03:15
with belief, religion, is exactly what you just said, which
1:03:20
is they're not willing to debate. They're not willing to
1:03:23
discuss it. They're not willing to engage because that is
1:03:27
antithetical to the scientific method. The whole idea is it's
1:03:30
never settled. The whole idea is you push the fringes.
1:03:34
You push new theories. You push new ideas. Where would
1:03:37
science be if you said this is it? Of course,
1:03:39
that is the whole notion of it. dispassionately looking at
1:03:43
it over and over and over and seeing what more
1:03:46
you can learn. And the moment somebody says, no, we
1:03:48
need to stop, you can't discuss, you can't debate that.
1:03:51
That's when you know you're dealing with a religion, not science.
1:03:53
Speaker 1: And when I've talked to certain scientists in different fields
1:03:57
that feel very constricted by the academic environment, one of
1:04:01
the things that they point to is that the group
1:04:03
think involved in that It's just like the groupthink involved
1:04:07
in everything, in left-wing politics, whatever it is. Just figure
1:04:10
out whatever it is, right-wing politics. Groupthink in academia is
1:04:14
also hierarchical. There's tiers. And you got to agree with
1:04:19
everybody that's above you. You want to get tenure. You
1:04:22
want to progress. You want to get grants. It's got
1:04:24
to be– you guys got to be in line on
1:04:26
all this shit. And he's like– and anybody who thinks
1:04:28
out of the box is ruthlessly attacked. And even when
1:04:31
they turn out to be correct, no one apologizes. They
1:04:36
reluctantly agree that the person was initially correct. But they'll
1:04:39
destroy their career if they can. He's like, the pissing
1:04:43
matches are horrifying. And these are the people that are
1:04:46
in charge of telling you what's real in the world.
1:04:50
They're just like everybody else. They have ego and there's
1:04:55
a fucking social scramble going on at all times and
1:04:58
People are playing Succession and Game of Thrones. It's like
1:05:03
the reality is not what you're being told in the news.
1:05:06
What you're being told in the news is a narrative
1:05:09
and when the news has a giant chunk of their
1:05:12
money for advertising, it's paid by pharmaceutical drug companies and
1:05:16
they never criticize me like this is wild. Like this
1:05:20
is wild. This is America in 2026 and the only
1:05:25
way you can find out what's kind of real is
1:05:27
on the internet. Uh, yes.
1:05:31
Speaker 2: And, uh, also, um, when it comes to censorship, if
1:05:37
I said some totally crazy, stupid thing about you, that
1:05:40
was totally untrue, like ignore it. If I said it
1:05:43
by government, they ignore it. When do they censor? They
1:05:46
censor when it's true. Cause that's when they're scared.
1:05:49
Speaker 1: Right. If you start talking about the government being lizard people,
1:05:52
nobody's gonna, nobody cares. Nobody comes for you. They're all shapeshifters.
1:05:55
Nobody cares.
1:05:57
Speaker 2: But when you start talking about something that's true, that's
1:06:01
when it hurts. That's when they that's what they need
1:06:03
to suppress. You think they need to suppress stuff about,
1:06:06
I don't know, a certain island with death? If it's
1:06:10
not true, no. But if it is true, that's when
1:06:13
it gets scary. And that's when you need suppression.
1:06:16
Speaker 1: Right. And also, I'll note, I went to Berkeley for
1:06:18
law school.
1:06:19
Speaker 2: So I'm familiar with a little bit of what you're
1:06:22
just talking about and that experience too.
1:06:24
Speaker 1: It was over two decades ago. It was going strong
1:06:27
back then. It was going strong back then, but I
1:06:29
feel like it was much more reasonable. Like I used
1:06:31
to love San Francisco back then. It was a great
1:06:34
town to visit. They were smart. They were cool. They
1:06:37
were laid back. People liked to drink, but they were fun.
1:06:40
They always seemed like a smarter LA that got out
1:06:43
of show business. San Francisco, Berkeley were two different things.
1:06:48
Speaker 2: I completely agree. And even in I mean, if let's
1:06:51
throw outside the bubble of Berkeley from 20 years ago,
1:06:54
look back over 20 years ago, who was fighting for
1:06:57
civil individual rights?
1:06:59
Speaker 1: It was the left. ACLU. Think about Skokie, Illinois. Right.
1:07:05
Speaker 2: Fighting for the neo-Nazis to be able to march through
1:07:07
a Jewish town to say what they want. Who fought
1:07:10
that case? Who protected their right to say that? Democrat, ACLU,
1:07:15
liberal lawyers and liberal judges. And they said protecting their
1:07:19
right to say the things they're saying is despicable. It's
1:07:23
horrible as we might find it. Protects all our right
1:07:25
to free speech. Could you imagine those same folks.
1:07:26
Speaker 1: Today bringing that case and deciding that way? No way.
1:07:30
No way. And what's stunning is that if you asked
1:07:33
anybody alive then, if you had ultimate access to information,
1:07:37
literally you could pick up your phone. and ask it
1:07:41
any question about anything and get information instantaneously, would people
1:07:46
be more or less informed? You would say, well, certainly
1:07:52
they'll be more informed, so there'll be more understanding of
1:07:56
the value of free speech, and they'll know more about
1:07:58
that ruling and what a brave stance they took to
1:08:00
allow the KKK to march and How it just shows
1:08:03
intellectual superiority, the way to beat a bad idea is
1:08:06
not to silence it, is to argue it with a
1:08:09
much better idea. That you would think by 2026, oh,
1:08:12
they'll be way better. This will be a super advanced
1:08:15
society of flying cars. No, no, no. It's more ideologically captured,
1:08:22
more wrapped up in the algorithm, which I think is
1:08:25
probably at least 50 percent fake. 50 percent is a
1:08:31
bunch of bots tweeting a bunch of shit that they
1:08:33
don't even believe. They're just trying to rile people up
1:08:36
and stir people up and push certain narratives. And then
1:08:39
people are locked into it 12 hours a day. So
1:08:41
they're really crazy. And no one's considering things like the
1:08:45
important– well, let's go back to old cases and let's
1:08:48
look at why they did that. Everybody is like captured
1:08:51
with whatever the fuck is on TikTok today. What's the
1:08:54
latest stupid thing you're supposed to be paying attention to?
1:08:56
And the fact that now we're at war. Right. Okay. great.
1:09:03
Speaker 2: Social media and the scrolling through those videos, which is
1:09:05
what you're describing, I think, is so troubling. First of all,
1:09:09
my understanding is that they just show you stuff that
1:09:12
confirms what you already believe because that's what you want
1:09:14
to see. You want to see the things that you
1:09:16
already agree with. So you just get this. Incredible confirmation
1:09:19
bias that happens, which is antithetical to thinking critically, to
1:09:24
really opening your mind to it. And then you end up,
1:09:27
you know, without because without actually understanding both sides of
1:09:30
an argument, without really understanding it. I mean, look, I
1:09:33
understand the stuff about vaccines that I know which one
1:09:36
stop transmission. Right.
1:09:37
Speaker 1: And I know which ones don't. Right.
1:09:40
Speaker 2: And I don't have to live in the world of believing,
1:09:42
for example, they all do. I know how much death
1:09:45
there was before each vaccine.
1:09:46
Speaker 1: And I know.
1:09:47
Speaker 2: So I don't have to say, didn't ever save any life.
1:09:50
Speaker 1: And I don't have to say millions would die. I just,
1:09:52
the data's the data, right?
1:09:55
Speaker 2: And, and, but you're not, if all you're getting is
1:09:57
one viewpoint all the time, you're not, you get this
1:09:59
terrible confirmation bias.
1:10:01
Speaker 1: And did you see this recent study that I did?
1:10:03
Speaker 2: I just read the, the abstract, so I didn't delve
1:10:06
into it, but apparently watching social media reduces your IQ
1:10:11
over time, you know, just doing all of that scrolling. That's,
1:10:14
That's really scary when you think about our current generation.
1:10:17
Speaker 1: Yeah. Imagine if it could make you smarter. How many
1:10:19
more people would be interested in doing it? Right? Like
1:10:22
if there was a thing, if you could just stare
1:10:23
at your phone for a few hours a day and
1:10:25
you get significantly smarter. It's a 10 point jump in IQ.
1:10:29
Do you know my wife calls our Wi-Fi at our house? What?
1:10:31
Speaker 2: If you find the Wi-Fi, it's called read a book.
1:10:33
Speaker 1: I'm not kidding. That's funny. That's funny. And then you
1:10:37
hear things like you shouldn't have Wi-Fi in your house
1:10:39
because all the signals flying around are bad for you.
1:10:41
Like how bad? Are you sure? Like what is that?
1:10:44
Like how long have we been doing the Wi-Fi thing?
1:10:47
A decade, two decades, three decades?
1:10:49
Speaker 2: I mean on the course of the length of humanity,
1:10:52
that's not very long.
1:10:53
Speaker 1: That's not very long. I mean look. I hope Wi-Fi
1:10:55
is not killing us. I really do. It's so convenient.
1:10:58
Speaker 2: Look at most– listen. Obviously, most things that will just
1:11:01
kill you get identified.
1:11:04
Speaker 1: Right.
1:11:04
Speaker 2: It's not the things that kill you immediately that are
1:11:06
a problem, typically, because they killed you. And so, you know,
1:11:10
it's the things that that cause slow issues, ongoing issues.
1:11:15
I mean, we know folks who work on high power
1:11:17
lines of higher, far higher rates of cancer. Study after
1:11:19
study reflects that, for example.
1:11:21
Speaker 1: Which makes sense. I mean, I mean, if the iPod's
1:11:25
bad for you, you know what I mean? If AirPods
1:11:28
are bad in your ears, imagine being next to those
1:11:31
power lines. What does that do to you?
1:11:33
Speaker 2: I don't want to go down this rabbit hole because
1:11:35
it's not my area per se. But for the whole
1:11:37
length of humanity, right, when you think of the spectrum, right,
1:11:43
we were pretty much only exposed to natural light, which
1:11:45
is a very narrow light, narrow band of the spectrum.
1:11:48
Speaker 1: Okay. Right. When you think of waves.
1:11:51
Speaker 2: So as you go down on the left side of
1:11:53
the spectrum, the waves get longer, like AM raves, really long,
1:11:56
FM raves, microwaves, natural light.
1:12:00
Speaker 1: And then above that, you get X-rays, cosmic rays.
1:12:02
Speaker 2: And anything above natural light, they say, oh, it's really bad.
1:12:05
Speaker 1: That's just going to mess you up.
1:12:06
Speaker 2: And stuff below natural light, they say, well, as long
1:12:10
as it doesn't heat up your cells, that's typically the
1:12:12
standard our government uses, it's safe. So as long as
1:12:15
it's not heating your cell, but that's not, that's a
1:12:19
very old standard, but it's still the one in effect today.
1:12:22
So in any event, when you think about microwaves, they
1:12:27
should stay away from even those below natural light. There's,
1:12:31
you know, what is the cumulative effect of being, if
1:12:35
you put your wifi around under your bed every night,
1:12:37
your whole life, what is the effect? There are numerous
1:12:39
studies that show that it does have certain effects that
1:12:42
But anyway, it's not worth going down that road.
1:12:44
Speaker 1: But yeah. But it might just be minor or it
1:12:47
might be cumulative, right? Yeah. And then how about cell
1:12:50
phone signals? You can't even stop those. They're around you
1:12:53
all the time. Yeah. I mean, if you can FaceTime
1:12:57
someone in New Zealand right now from your phone, clearly
1:12:59
something's going on in the air. I'll put it this way.
1:13:02
Speaker 2: Every environmental insult has the potential to cause some kind
1:13:05
of dysregulation in your body, whether it's microplastics, whether it's
1:13:09
you name it.
1:13:10
Speaker 3: Okay.
1:13:11
Speaker 2: And the precautionary principle would indicate that until you know
1:13:14
it's safe, the onus is on those who want to
1:13:17
expose you to it to prove to you it is, right?
1:13:19
Speaker 1: It shouldn't be the other way around.
1:13:22
Speaker 2: I don't think anybody has to prove to you that
1:13:24
Wi-Fi is not safe to say, you know what, based
1:13:26
on the precautionary principle, I'm just going to turn off
1:13:28
the Wi-Fi every night in my house because I don't know.
1:13:31
Like that doesn't seem unreasonable to me because humans have
1:13:35
been exposed to it forever. I've not seen the studies
1:13:38
that validate that it doesn't cause an issue or large,
1:13:41
robust studies. And so, you know, but obviously, I think
1:13:46
what I just said, some people might hear and go, well,
1:13:48
that sounds crazy.
1:13:49
Speaker 1: But why? Why would it be crazy if we found
1:13:53
out that there's a particular frequency that's bad for your
1:13:55
memory or bad for your brain and that we're using
1:13:57
it to broadcast something that that completely makes sense?
1:14:01
Speaker 2: Yeah, except that I never think about harms the way
1:14:04
you just said it, because that would indicate that we
1:14:07
have to find out what harms it causes. To me,
1:14:12
when I go into a car dealership, for example, I
1:14:15
walk in and the salesman says, all right, this car, okay?
1:14:20
Speaker 1: And I say, well, is it safe?
1:14:22
Speaker 2: And the car dealer says to me, prove to me
1:14:25
it's not safe. I said, well, and I said, well,
1:14:28
what do you, what do you, what do you mean?
1:14:29
You can't prove it. You got to take this car.
1:14:32
By the way, that's how vaccines work.
1:14:34
Speaker 1: That's how I lie.
1:14:35
Speaker 2: And that is the, that is become a little bit
1:14:38
of the, depending on the, mostly for vaccines, but a
1:14:40
little bit for some of these other products where it's like,
1:14:42
you got to.
1:14:43
Speaker 1: Prove it's not safe. No, I don't have to prove
1:14:44
it's not safe. I'm not buying this car. You prove
1:14:46
to me it's no, you prove to me this vaccine
1:14:49
causes harm or you better take it.
1:14:51
Speaker 2: Uh, That's the way it's approached, a little bit like
1:14:54
that Wi-Fi and with 5G and the LTE and all
1:14:58
that stuff. It's almost like you proved to me that
1:15:00
doing this all day is going to cause brain cancer
1:15:03
or else you're a kook. No, why don't you show
1:15:05
me the study shows it doesn't do that? That's the
1:15:07
way it should work with.
1:15:08
Speaker 1: Products and product safety. That makes sense. That's very reasonable. Again,
1:15:14
I don't know. I'm not saying that it does. But
1:15:16
what I'm saying is there's been things that human beings
1:15:19
did and they found it was really bad for you.
1:15:21
We've talked about it a few times. But those ladies,
1:15:24
they used to test the x-ray machines with their hands.
1:15:28
And no one told them. No one told them that
1:15:31
x-rays can give you cancer and fuck you up. And
1:15:33
these poor ladies, every day when they would show up
1:15:36
at the medical office, they would put their hand in
1:15:38
the x-ray machine to make sure it worked. And then
1:15:40
you see their hands next to each other.
1:15:42
Speaker 2: It's horrifying. Like they got horrible lesions on their hands.
1:15:46
And it's like, it's really creepy. They x-rayed pregnant women
1:15:48
until the 70s. Until the 70s, they were x-raying pregnant women.
1:15:53
Not with the x-rays of today that are far less
1:15:55
radiation exposure. The x-rays of the 70s, which is a lot.
1:15:59
They gave the, I believe the Nobel Prize. I'm pretty
1:16:03
sure about this for the lobotomy.
1:16:05
Speaker 1: Yeah. I'm not mistaken. I think they did. I think
1:16:07
you're right. I think they did. Find that out. Jamie,
1:16:09
put that into our sponsor perplexity. The Nobel Prize, Peter
1:16:13
Berg told me about the origins of it. And I
1:16:15
was like, wait, what? It was a guy who made dynamite.
1:16:20
And there was a false story about his death. And
1:16:23
in the newspaper, they called him the merchant of death.
1:16:27
And he realized it. And he was like, oh, shit,
1:16:29
I got to change my PR. I got to change
1:16:32
my image. And so he came up with the Nobel Prize.
1:16:34
He started awarding this prestigious prize. And then instead of
1:16:38
him being connected with blowing people up with dynamite, He
1:16:42
became connected with the most prestigious prize in all of
1:16:47
medicine and all of government and the peace, the Nobel
1:16:52
Peace Prize. It's pretty crazy.
1:16:54
Speaker 2: It's amazing when you have money how you can influence
1:16:58
the world to think certain things about, in his instance, him,
1:17:02
and other certain products.
1:17:03
Speaker 1: Exactly. Absolutely. But what's really stunning is you're also allowed
1:17:07
to influence the people that actually deliver the news, which
1:17:10
is– That's the crazy one. Like Callie Means talked about that.
1:17:14
Like they're advertising not because they want to sell their
1:17:18
products with the advertisement that they're putting on the air.
1:17:21
They're doing that too. But they're also ensuring that this
1:17:25
steady stream of revenue that's going to these networks, they
1:17:28
won't be opening up any lines of investigation into the
1:17:35
vaccine injuries. Like that's not going to happen. You're not
1:17:38
going to see a giant CNN piece about COVID-19 vaccine injuries.
1:17:42
It's not happening. It's not happening. You're not going to
1:17:45
hear much about anything. It has to be a big
1:17:48
fucking story where they have to say it. Well, they
1:17:51
just mention a judgment real quick and then move on.
1:17:54
Moving on.
1:17:57
Speaker 2: The Rasputin poll, I don't know if you remember this one,
1:18:00
found that I believe one in four, and I think
1:18:03
that's right, but I'm not sure, 100%. People said they
1:18:06
believed they knew somebody that died of COVID vaccine or
1:18:10
knew somebody that died of COVID vaccine. When you have
1:18:12
that many people with that lived experience and yet the
1:18:18
mainstream media, as you just said, was still able to
1:18:20
continue to push the narrative around COVID vaccines the way
1:18:23
they did at the Nobel Prize.
1:18:26
Speaker 1: Wow. Nobel Prize related lobotomy refers to 1949 Nobel Prize
1:18:32
in Physiology or Medicine. awarded to Antonio Agos Moniz, a
1:18:36
Portuguese neurologist, for developing prefrontal lobotomy. I believe that continued
1:18:41
until the 60s, by the way. Yeah, imagine that. He
1:18:44
got that prize in 49. They're like, good job.
1:18:46
Speaker 2: Meaning the medical profession as it stood in the 60s
1:18:49
when measles and vaccine was rolling out.
1:18:51
Speaker 1: He's still doing this, by the way. I think they
1:18:54
stopped lobotomies in 60s. Was it 67?
1:18:57
Speaker 3: He developed something called a leucotomy, which was slightly different
1:19:02
than what became known as the lobotomy, which we know
1:19:05
as like the ice pick.
1:19:06
Speaker 1: Method? What was his? It said also called the Leucotomy.
1:19:10
Speaker 3: So that was this Freeman. That's the guy who was
1:19:14
like the doctor.
1:19:15
Speaker 1: I think they called him even Dr. Death or something
1:19:17
like that.
1:19:18
Speaker 3: He did a ton of lobotomies all.
1:19:20
Speaker 1: Over the country.
1:19:21
Speaker 2: Unfortunately, today, you don't need a lobotomy, apparently, to have
1:19:23
a lobotomy. Just spend a lot of time on social
1:19:26
media and get your information from certain places.
1:19:29
Speaker 1: It's so bad for people.
1:19:30
Speaker 2: You can maybe end up in the same place.
1:19:32
Speaker 1: It's just hard to recommend a certain amount of it.
1:19:35
It's like how much Twinkies should you eat a day?
1:19:38
I don't mind if you eat Twinkies, but if you're
1:19:39
eating Twinkies all day long, you're going to be fucked up, man.
1:19:42
And that's how I feel about social media interactions. But
1:19:46
I do think it's an important way to distribute information.
1:19:50
It's– if you're a– say if you're working for some
1:19:52
corporation and you know something fucked up is going on
1:19:55
and you could put it up on Twitter and with
1:19:59
details and facts and people could look into it. You
1:20:02
can open up a line of reporters and investigative journalists
1:20:07
that are going to find this, expose it, and you
1:20:09
could really break a story that is like good for everybody.
1:20:12
Like having– a way to communicate ideas like that is fantastic.
1:20:17
Everything else, like all the arguing, all the shit that
1:20:20
people do back and forth, you're just rotting your brain out.
1:20:23
And we're all guilty of it if you're on it.
1:20:26
Speaker 2: I mean, during the COVID pandemic, when all of these
1:20:30
government overreaches were occurring, but for the existence of social media,
1:20:36
you know, podcasts like yours and other alternative platforms, right?
1:20:40
The information in many respects wouldn't have come out if
1:20:43
you didn't have Peter McCullough on, Robert Malone on, and
1:20:48
if Fox and some– just that little portion of the
1:20:51
I guess more traditional media sphere wasn't willing for a
1:20:53
time period to have folks on. I mean– trust me.
1:20:57
When I started doing vaccine-related work a decade ago, I
1:21:00
never thought a single outlet, whether it's Fox or CNN,
1:21:03
would ever have me on. They had me on numerous
1:21:06
times until vaccines kind of like, all right, let's not
1:21:09
touch that again.
1:21:10
Speaker 1: Was this during– this was during the Biden administration then
1:21:13
and I think– Part of that was because it was
1:21:16
a point of contention between the right and the left, right?
1:21:19
It was the right opposing the draconian measures that the
1:21:23
left who is in power– and we got to get
1:21:25
the right back in power because we're all about freedom.
1:21:28
So I think there was a little bit of that
1:21:29
going on there, right?
1:21:31
Speaker 2: So for sure, there was some of that going on,
1:21:33
as you pointed out, I believe, in the past when
1:21:36
Trump was promoting the vaccine.
1:21:38
Speaker 1: We're not taking that vaccine. And in the moment, Biden
1:21:41
was like, we're taking the vaccine. Congress was saying it.
1:21:43
Why would you trust him and whatever his vaccine is like?
1:21:46
That is so crazy. These people are fake.
1:21:48
Speaker 2: I mean, if Trump came out tomorrow and said everybody
1:21:51
should get every vaccine out there, I, you know, see
1:21:54
what would happen.
1:21:54
Speaker 1: I don't know.
1:21:55
Speaker 2: That's the way it would stop saying it. Yeah.
1:21:58
Speaker 1: If he really got into trans kids. They put a
1:22:01
ban to it immediately. Yeah, it's weird. It's weird to watch.
1:22:05
Weird to watch us so divided and at each other's throats.
1:22:09
And I really do think that a giant percentage of
1:22:12
the uptick and the craziness is just social media. I
1:22:15
don't think people are designed for it. I just thank
1:22:18
God Elon bought Twitter because if he didn't, we would
1:22:21
not have the kind of access to the actual truth,
1:22:26
the real data. It would all be suppressed. You would
1:22:29
never find out about it. How would you know about
1:22:31
these studies? You're not going to go scouring through journals.
1:22:34
Even if you do, what are you going to do?
1:22:35
Are you going to get on Rumble and talk about it?
1:22:37
That's probably the only way you can. And if anybody
1:22:40
from Rumble tries to share that on Twitter, they'll get banned.
1:22:43
So it's like we were in a real pickle. It
1:22:47
was a bad spot. It was just a few years ago,
1:22:49
which is nuts.
1:22:50
Speaker 2: We could have gone a very different direction. I'll use
1:22:53
an analogy. Remember the airlines, because CDC required masks on planes.
1:22:58
Speaker 1: Yeah.
1:22:59
Speaker 2: When that got struck down by the courts, okay, a
1:23:03
number of airlines said, we're going to keep our mask mandate.
1:23:06
Speaker 1: I don't know if you remember that.
1:23:07
Speaker 2: You know, they proudly came out. The CEO said, we're
1:23:10
going to keep it. Half of them said they're going
1:23:11
to keep it. The other half immediately lifted the mask
1:23:13
mandate on planes. And those that decided to keep it,
1:23:16
they dropped it within a day or two, I think,
1:23:18
or something like that, really rapidly, because economically, they were
1:23:21
losing business. And I think that changed the center of
1:23:25
gravity on that issue. I think Elon buying Twitter, X,
1:23:31
basically changed the center of gravity on censorship whereby without that,
1:23:36
they might have all just kept going even in the
1:23:38
worst direction and they saw they were losing market share
1:23:41
to X once he bought it and he didn't have censorship.
1:23:45
I think that can form their conduct.
1:23:47
Speaker 1: Well, it was also– it was indicative of how people
1:23:50
actually felt versus what was suppressed. Like when– You realize
1:23:55
that there's– well, have you ever seen like how people
1:23:59
identifying as non-binary and trans dropped off like right after
1:24:05
purchase of Twitter? It's because people got a chance to
1:24:07
talk about it now and you can criticize and people
1:24:10
can put up memes and they can call it a
1:24:11
mental illness again. And then all of a sudden everybody
1:24:13
is like, hey, what are we supporting? Men with penises
1:24:16
in the women's room? Like did we get hypnotized? Like
1:24:20
what the fuck happened? And now you're seeing even prestigious
1:24:24
mainstream media publications talking about the dangers of gender transition
1:24:30
for young kids. Wow. Okay. So what happened? What happened?
1:24:35
What happened was Elon bought Twitter and people were out
1:24:37
to actually accurately gauge what people are willing to tolerate
1:24:41
and what they actually want versus what's being shoved down
1:24:44
everybody's throats with censorship and with mainstream media narratives. They
1:24:49
just keep piping back and forth, pretending everybody agrees with them.
1:24:53
Speaker 2: That's one piece of it. They are also, by the way,
1:24:55
a lot of the hospitals and doctors are getting sued.
1:24:58
Speaker 1: Right. Left and right on this. In fact, you know,
1:25:01
especially after that first ruling. Right.
1:25:04
Speaker 2: We have, you know, I can't talk about it, but
1:25:11
it's very, very troubling. Well, there was one grueling suicide
1:25:17
and hiding it from parents.
1:25:18
Speaker 1: Yeah. School districts. I mean it's really troubling stuff. Do
1:25:22
you have children? Yeah, I do. I do too. And
1:25:25
one of the things you realize if you have children
1:25:27
is that they are very malleable and they want to
1:25:30
fit in and they are subject to social contagions. And
1:25:35
that social contagion can be dressing up goth. It could
1:25:38
be like whatever it is. Like they want to fit
1:25:40
in and they're experimenting. They're kids. And if you just decide, oh,
1:25:44
you're a boy. And then you bring that kid to
1:25:47
it and you're giving them all this positive attention and
1:25:49
you're giving them all this positive feedback. And then you
1:25:51
go to school. I'm trans now. And everyone says you're brave.
1:25:54
Like for awkward kids, that is absolutely enticing. And not
1:26:00
only that, they do it in clusters. Like Abigail Schreier
1:26:02
has written about this, that this is a lot of
1:26:04
these girls have autism. And a lot of these girls,
1:26:07
they're socially awkward and they're very uncomfortable with their body.
1:26:10
And they're going through puberty, which kind of freaks them
1:26:12
out already, freaks out any girl. And then something comes
1:26:15
along like this and now you've been taken to a
1:26:19
doctor and had your breasts removed and you're 15. That's
1:26:22
fucking crazy. And to say anything in opposition to that
1:26:28
somehow became you're a bigot or you're a Nazi or
1:26:32
you're transphobic. This is crazy talk. Like you're talking about
1:26:36
very malleable children doing something. You can't even get a
1:26:39
fucking tattoo if you're 15. Why can you get your
1:26:41
breasts removed? That's nuts.
1:26:44
Speaker 2: Unfortunately, it became a very big business. The number of
1:26:47
centers in America that perform these surgeries exploded. And so
1:26:52
with that explosion, you need clients. Like every business, it
1:26:56
needs to feed that business model.
1:27:02
Speaker 1: That is so evil. It's so creepy to think that
1:27:05
people are willing to talk people into that just for money.
1:27:10
But They've done it with so many other things. It's
1:27:14
not impossible to believe that it's true. It's scary.
1:27:19
Speaker 2: A lot of times, if you follow the money trail,
1:27:22
you can see how things develop and where they go.
1:27:25
It often helps, you know, puts in perspective. And look,
1:27:29
rare is the person that says, I'm evil, I'm bad.
1:27:32
I mean, people find a way to justify things. They
1:27:34
find a way to excuse them and, you know, find,
1:27:38
you know, the Well, I'm doing more good than bad.
1:27:41
Justification in their minds.
1:27:43
Speaker 1: Or there's the diffusion of responsibility that comes with being
1:27:45
a part of a corporation that's doing something. Hey, look,
1:27:48
I'm just an accountant. Or, hey, I'm just an engineer. Or, hey,
1:27:52
I'm doing– I don't want the company to move in
1:27:54
this direction. However, I do own stock. So as it
1:27:57
goes up.
1:27:57
Speaker 2: Especially in public-traded companies, which brings us back to the
1:28:00
very beginning of this, which is that is what happens
1:28:04
in those corporations.
1:28:05
Speaker 1: Should that be a thing? Like if you could redo
1:28:08
the– if you had a magic wand and you could
1:28:11
completely redo the economy, would you have the stock market?
1:28:14
I mean isn't it enough that people just buy things,
1:28:18
sell things? Your company is worth money because it makes money.
1:28:22
Isn't that enough? Why do we have to complicate it?
1:28:25
Why do we have a stock market?
1:28:28
Speaker 2: I don't know if the stock market itself is the problem.
1:28:30
I mean stocks– the whole idea is just to find
1:28:33
a more– efficient way for me to sell you shares
1:28:39
in my company.
1:28:40
Speaker 1: That's all it is.
1:28:41
Speaker 2: But the underlying problem is not the market, in my view.
1:28:45
It's not the existence of the stock market. It's the
1:28:47
government intervening into the market forces in a way that
1:28:54
do not result in a good outcome. And often that
1:28:59
is at the behest of industry. When government– there needs
1:29:02
to be some government regulation.
1:29:03
Speaker 1: So that's the problem. The problem is the corporations have money.
1:29:06
They can use that money to influence laws, influence government.
1:29:11
Speaker 2: That is a significant part of the problem because, look,
1:29:15
most regulatory agencies are born out of some crisis, right?
1:29:20
Speaker 1: Right.
1:29:20
Speaker 2: So they often start as a great idea, like people
1:29:23
wanting to do good, members of our Congress wanting to
1:29:25
do good. But then who's got the time, money, and
1:29:28
inclination to influence that regulatory agency? You?
1:29:31
Speaker 1: No.
1:29:32
Speaker 2: Well, you do have some money, but.
1:29:33
Speaker 1: You, me, who?
1:29:36
Speaker 2: No, it's going to be even with, even, even with, even,
1:29:39
even wealthy folks don't have it. They don't, they're not
1:29:43
going to do it. The very, it's not even the
1:29:45
lobbyists per se. It's the very industry they're trying to regulate.
1:29:50
They have the money, time, patience, inclination to do that,
1:29:53
to create the revolving door, right?
1:29:55
Speaker 1: Right. Right. Think about it like this. Article one of
1:29:58
the Constitution creates Congress. Right. First article. And what's its purpose?
1:30:03
Primary purpose is to pass laws. Right. How many laws
1:30:07
a year has it passed, you think, approximately?
1:30:09
Speaker 2: About 200.
1:30:10
Speaker 1: Okay.
1:30:12
Speaker 2: Our agencies and the federal government, do you know how
1:30:15
many regulations which have the same exact weight as law,
1:30:17
they pass every year?
1:30:19
Speaker 1: Can I guess? Yeah. 2000. It depends on the year,
1:30:23
but often more.
1:30:24
Speaker 2: Really? Yes. There's a chart on this. I'm sure it
1:30:28
can be pulled up. But it's something to that effect.
1:30:31
Depends on the year. But somewhere between, let's say, 100,
1:30:34
300 to thousands on the other side.
1:30:36
Speaker 1: And who are those folks passing?
1:30:38
Speaker 2: Are they part of the Article 1, the constitutional branch
1:30:41
that's supposed to pass laws that are elected representatives?
1:30:42
Speaker 3: No.
1:30:44
Speaker 2: The unelected bureaucrats sitting there and you've named your alphabet
1:30:49
agency that you've probably never heard of. that pass these
1:30:53
regs are the same force of law. And who's really
1:30:56
has the, again, the time and inclination to influence them.
1:31:00
It's often the very industry. So it starts as a
1:31:03
good idea, but unfortunately it ends up being what, what
1:31:07
the literature calls. This is the political science literature came
1:31:11
out of Harvard and Yale and all those places.
1:31:14
Speaker 1: They don't want to talk.
1:31:15
Speaker 2: About it today.
1:31:16
Speaker 1: Captive agencies. Okay.
1:31:18
Speaker 2: That's what they often become. CDC, FDA, and very much
1:31:23
to varying degrees, depending on what they're doing, are very
1:31:28
much captive agencies when you look closely at it and
1:31:31
you understand it. That's true of many other parts of
1:31:34
the government.
1:31:36
Speaker 1: Well, particularly people don't know, a lot of people don't know,
1:31:40
that haven't gone down these rabbit holes, that a lot
1:31:43
of these people, it's a revolving door. They leave the
1:31:45
FDA and then they go and work for the pharmaceutical
1:31:47
drug companies and they make a lot of money.
1:31:50
Speaker 3: Yes.
1:31:52
Speaker 2: Like Julie Gerberding, who is the head of the CDC
1:31:55
in the 90s, that oversaw some of the most controversial
1:31:58
disputes about what?
1:32:00
Speaker 1: Whose products? Merck's vaccine products. Okay.
1:32:05
Speaker 2: And then after her, you know, she cleaned all that up,
1:32:09
left CDC and went to work for who?
1:32:12
Speaker 1: Merck.
1:32:13
Speaker 2: Making tens of millions of dollars, I believe, she's made
1:32:16
over the time that she's been there.
1:32:18
Speaker 1: So she did good. She got rewarded.
1:32:21
Speaker 2: You think if she didn't do good, she wouldn't get rewarded?
1:32:23
You don't think other people see that in the federal health?
1:32:25
Speaker 1: Of course they know. They all know.
1:32:27
Speaker 3: Of course.
1:32:28
Speaker 1: So it's the golden parachute and everybody strives for it.
1:32:30
If you can get that post, you can get the
1:32:33
top of the food chain over at the CDC. Guys,
1:32:36
see you in about five years. In five years, you're
1:32:39
thinking about your Lamborghini. You got a yacht in your future.
1:32:44
It's just, it's kooky. It's kooky that it's legal.
1:32:47
Speaker 2: Look, I don't know if it's as nefarious to that
1:32:50
in the minds of people in public health. Let's put
1:32:52
it that way, since we're talking about public health officials.
1:32:55
But I think that it has a corrupting influence that
1:33:00
cannot be detangled from the fact that they're human. It
1:33:04
will influence them.
1:33:06
Speaker 1: There's also a precedent. There's a precedent that's been set
1:33:09
with many people before them, so it's something they look
1:33:11
forward to. If you get this job, You will likely
1:33:14
get a job like this afterwards. A bunch of people have.
1:33:18
And so you think about that while you're trying to
1:33:20
get that job. It's part of the motivation is financial reward. Absolutely.
1:33:24
Speaker 2: Well, there was a– It has to be. There's a
1:33:26
Pfizer executive who was serendipitously recorded specifically saying that. Something–
1:33:32
I have the exchange in my book. It's something to
1:33:35
the effect of, well, those who are working at the
1:33:38
FDA are– They're eventually going to come work for industry,
1:33:43
so they don't want to hurt industry too much. And
1:33:48
the person asking the question says, well, you think that's bad?
1:33:50
He goes, yeah, it's bad for America, but not bad
1:33:54
for the companies.
1:33:55
Speaker 1: That's the problem. That's exactly right. Well, this is the
1:33:57
thing about having an obligation to your shareholders, which brings
1:34:00
me back to the whole stock market thing. I know
1:34:02
this is a kooky thought. But I mean if we
1:34:04
never had the stock market in the first place and
1:34:07
you didn't have an obligation to your shareholders to consistently
1:34:09
make more money every quarter. Yeah. If people could just
1:34:12
like accept the fact that you own this business, this
1:34:15
person– you make a certain amount of money. Everybody is
1:34:17
doing great. Like why have all these people making money
1:34:22
and just moving stocks around, insane amounts of wealth, manipulating
1:34:26
systems to crash stocks? There's people that are like in
1:34:30
public office that say things. that aren't necessarily true, that
1:34:35
influence the market. And then it turns out they were
1:34:37
totally wrong. And then you find out that they bet
1:34:40
on it and they made a bunch of money in
1:34:41
the stock market. This is crazy. This is crazy. And
1:34:44
it's all true. And it's all legal, which is so
1:34:47
fucking bizarre that in a time where we are completely
1:34:54
aware that all this stuff is taking place.
1:34:57
Speaker 3: All right.
1:34:57
Speaker 1: Can I put that into three different buckets? Yeah, please.
1:34:59
Speaker 2: I'll put it in three different buckets. There's the bucket
1:35:01
of making products. There are companies that make products. There
1:35:03
are companies that provide services, including financial services that can
1:35:06
be useful. Like you need a mortgage if you can
1:35:08
buy a house.
1:35:09
Speaker 1: You can't afford it. So mortgage products are a service
1:35:11
that are brought from the financial industry.
1:35:12
Speaker 2: And then there is, I think, what you're talking about,
1:35:14
which is the part of our economy that is finance.
1:35:19
It's just moving money. It's just moving numbers where they've
1:35:21
got high-speed computers that are trying in micro fractions of
1:35:25
a second to beat out the other guy to basically
1:35:28
triage and make money based on– that adds no value
1:35:33
to our economy.
1:35:34
Speaker 1: Products and services– Add value.
1:35:37
Speaker 2: And to to to to everything you see around that
1:35:40
we're sitting in right now was made by a company.
1:35:42
Speaker 1: Right.
1:35:43
Speaker 2: And so and I'm not aware of a system that
1:35:51
has been more efficient at producing products and services that
1:35:55
improve the lives of others than the free market system.
1:35:59
With some regulation, okay? I'm not aware of one. Socialism
1:36:03
doesn't do it. We've seen that in action.
1:36:05
Speaker 1: Right.
1:36:05
Speaker 2: Communism does not do it. We've seen that in action.
1:36:07
We need to just do it right.
1:36:08
Speaker 1: Dictators, neither. So kidding. Clearly. So I wouldn't throw out
1:36:14
the whole system is what I'm saying. What I'm saying
1:36:15
is that- I'm not saying that. Yeah. I'm saying that
1:36:17
that part of it's good.
1:36:18
Speaker 2: Now, when you break the alignment of economic self-interest of
1:36:26
the companies, the market interest- to whatever it is, protect consumers,
1:36:31
that's when you're a problem. And that is the idea,
1:36:35
or at least they sell it as the idea from
1:36:37
a lot of government regulations. Well, the company is not
1:36:42
on its own going to do what's right in this instance.
1:36:47
So we need government to do it. And if government
1:36:50
really only stepped in when it was truly needed, it
1:36:54
would be a good system.
1:36:55
Speaker 1: You're right.
1:36:56
Speaker 2: But the system often breaks when they step in when
1:37:00
they're not needed. Sometimes when they step in and have
1:37:03
the opposite effect, when they're really just protecting the industry
1:37:07
at the expense of consumers, which happens too often.
1:37:11
Speaker 1: Is the benefit of the stock market? And this is, again, nonsense.
1:37:15
I'm not an economist, clearly. But if we had never
1:37:19
invented it, if human beings had never come up with
1:37:21
this idea, if instead we just had a free market.
1:37:25
What has the stock market, what has publicly traded companies,
1:37:30
what has the ability to own stock in companies and
1:37:32
hedge funds and all that stuff? What has that done
1:37:35
for innovation and for progress and for creating more products?
1:37:40
Do you think it's encouraged more products and encouraged more
1:37:44
activity in the economy and we're further ahead than we
1:37:47
would have been if no one had invented it? Because
1:37:49
it seems like at the very least, it's a weird opening.
1:37:55
For people that just move money around and add no
1:37:58
value and extract enormous amounts of wealth. So that seems
1:38:02
like you got a hole in your pipe. Like, why
1:38:05
are people that aren't even involved? Why do they get
1:38:07
to make all the money on this? Like, what is
1:38:09
going on here? You're doing a weird thing that I
1:38:12
don't know if you had to do to achieve the
1:38:14
same result that you achieved with a free market capitalist
1:38:18
society that doesn't have a stock market, that just has
1:38:21
a bunch of companies making money. And everybody doing the
1:38:24
stuff they do is like, is it a necessity is
1:38:27
what I'm asking. Well, outside of my air expertise, but
1:38:32
definitely outside of mine. Um, I mean, I'll give you
1:38:36
my musings. Yes.
1:38:37
Speaker 2: So this is just my off the cuff musings. And
1:38:39
that's something I'd actually really want to think about more.
1:38:41
But so when I think about, you know, companies going public, um,
1:38:49
It certainly appears to help drive capital to those companies
1:38:53
because hedge, you know, venture capital funds, a lot of
1:38:58
times they're exit strategy. So I'm willing to give you
1:39:04
all this. I'm a venture capital. I'm willing to give
1:39:06
you all this money to start this company because I
1:39:11
know what the, you know, my goal is three to
1:39:13
five years from now, it can go public and I,
1:39:16
the venture capital fund can get back X amount of
1:39:19
my money. That's the X strategy for that investment. Now,
1:39:24
if there was no efficient market to do that, meaning
1:39:30
you couldn't just have a publicly traded market where it's
1:39:33
just easy to have this public offering, what would that
1:39:38
do to venture capital funds? Well, I mean, would they
1:39:42
still invest as much?
1:39:44
Speaker 1: They might.
1:39:44
Speaker 2: And instead, they might just focus on hard money returns.
1:39:48
They want companies that really just make money cash on
1:39:53
cash versus this immediate bubble of equity inflation that happens
1:39:59
when you go public because it's now liquid, the ownership.
1:40:02
Speaker 1: Right. Market caps. I don't know if that answers your question. No,
1:40:05
it does.
1:40:06
Speaker 2: Well, I don't think it does because– no, your question
1:40:09
was a good one. It's far more sophisticated than what
1:40:12
I answered because you're saying what does it contribute to society?
1:40:18
Speaker 1: Right. I don't think it contributes anything.
1:40:20
Speaker 2: I just answered it so narrowly and said, well, it
1:40:23
might add some– it might entice venture capitalists. Though I
1:40:25
don't know if– I don't even know if what I
1:40:27
just said is entirely– like they might still do it
1:40:29
anyway because they'll just might do the best thing.
1:40:31
Speaker 1: Now, what does it add to the side?
1:40:34
Speaker 2: I mean it would be harder to have like a
1:40:37
retirement account in the way you have right now to
1:40:39
own stock. That would be more difficult to put your
1:40:42
money in and buy shares of Coca-Cola.
1:40:45
Speaker 1: Would you prefer for.
1:40:46
Speaker 2: Big corporations to be owned by certain families or would
1:40:51
you rather them be owned by the public?
1:40:54
Speaker 1: I think you should be allowed to keep your company
1:40:57
in your family if you own it. Well, you should– well,
1:41:00
you certainly can look at the New York Times.
1:41:03
Speaker 2: The New York Times, the family kept control– my understanding– again,
1:41:07
we're outside of my normal area of expertise– But the family,
1:41:10
my understanding, has the controlling of votes in that company,
1:41:14
but it's publicly traded as well in The New York Times. Yeah.
1:41:17
Speaker 1: If I'm not mistaken. I know people that have taken
1:41:20
their company public and regretted it. Like, it's too much shit.
1:41:24
You deal with too much nonsense afterwards. And they're like,
1:41:26
it wasn't worth it. Just for the hassle and the
1:41:29
quality of life, I would have never done it if
1:41:32
I had known this. I guess it depends what they wanted.
1:41:34
I guess it depends what they wanted. But the question is, like, if...
1:41:39
A bunch of people are making money that aren't contributing.
1:41:41
They're just like siphoning money by moving money around all
1:41:43
over the place. Isn't that leaky money? Like if you
1:41:46
don't really contribute anything, you don't provide any value and
1:41:49
you're extracting extreme wealth, don't you have a leak in
1:41:52
the pipe? It seems like if that money was just
1:41:55
being distributed normally, like the buying and selling of goods
1:41:58
and services, that would be a much more like honest society.
1:42:03
But would it have the same amount of innovation and
1:42:09
would it have the same amount of productivity? Or is
1:42:12
that productivity not just enhanced by this flood of capital
1:42:17
but also encouraged? So it like stimulates everything. So like
1:42:21
having these vampires sucking on the pipe, like ultimately it
1:42:26
does move numbers around and it gets more stuff out there,
1:42:30
which also encourages innovations. I don't know. I mean, I
1:42:35
think that there is a great. All right.
1:42:37
Speaker 2: I think there's a gray area between the second and
1:42:40
third bucket. So we were like products and services. Maybe
1:42:43
we make that one bucket because those can have value
1:42:45
to society from many of them.
1:42:48
Speaker 1: And then there are the extreme.
1:42:49
Speaker 2: There's like just like triage nonsense that happens, you know.
1:42:54
I put my supercomputer as close as possible to the–
1:42:58
The stock exchange.
1:42:59
Speaker 1: The stock exchange.
1:43:00
Speaker 2: And so I can like make money on fractions of
1:43:03
a fraction.
1:43:03
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's crazy.
1:43:04
Speaker 2: That's like the– and then there's something– then there's like
1:43:06
that gray zone in between where there's– mortgage is good, OK?
1:43:12
Speaker 1: Right.
1:43:13
Speaker 2: Help the American family achieve their dream of owning a home. Now,
1:43:18
mortgage-backed securities– Well, maybe not so good. Mortgage-backed securities that
1:43:23
are double, triple sliced into all these tranches, getting worse,
1:43:27
going down that road. Like there's a degree where you're
1:43:29
getting further and further away from the very point of
1:43:32
that financial instrument that had good. So I think that
1:43:37
there is a point at which, yeah, no good. But
1:43:42
I think it's hard to talk in generalities in my mind.
1:43:44
Like if you have a specific example, let's go down
1:43:46
that road.
1:43:46
Speaker 1: Well, Bernie Madoff is the best example. All right. Obviously,
1:43:51
everybody had to know something was– there were some shenanigans
1:43:54
taking place because the returns were too crazy. But look
1:43:57
at how many intelligent people invested money with him because
1:44:00
he was so successful.
1:44:02
Speaker 2: Just– My old office in Manhattan when I used to
1:44:06
work at Latham & Watkins was I think three floors
1:44:08
above Bernie's office in the Lipstick Building.
1:44:10
Speaker 1: It was on 23rd. I think it was on 24th.
1:44:11
Nothing to do with him.
1:44:13
Speaker 3: Anyways.
1:44:14
Speaker 1: Zero.
1:44:14
Speaker 3: Zero.
1:44:17
Speaker 1: Okay, but Bernie just straight up stole. Just stole. I mean,
1:44:21
that's not even a thing.
1:44:23
Speaker 2: Come on.
1:44:23
Speaker 1: No, no, no. You're right.
1:44:25
Speaker 2: He just stole money and gave out fake returns as
1:44:29
far as I know.
1:44:30
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, yeah. He had people thinking that they were
1:44:34
making all this money. Yeah, he's just a pyramid scheme basically. 100%.
1:44:38
Speaker 2: That was eventually going to fail. I mean, it only
1:44:40
could go on for so long.
1:44:41
Speaker 1: Well, I think it fucked up because of the 2008 crisis, right?
1:44:45
They think he could have kept it going if there
1:44:47
wasn't the crash. Wasn't that what did him in?
1:44:49
Speaker 2: There's always going to be a dip. So it was
1:44:51
only a matter of time. I mean he was going
1:44:53
to get.
1:44:53
Speaker 1: That was a big one though and people wanted their
1:44:54
money back and he was like, yikes.
1:44:57
Speaker 2: I mean that's an incredible– it's an incredible scheme. It's
1:45:01
amazing that somebody could even pull that off frankly.
1:45:04
Speaker 1: It is crazy and it is incredible. But it just
1:45:05
shows you that this is a weird system that you
1:45:09
can pretend to be moving money around and you don't
1:45:11
have any products. But it corrected. It corrected. It did.
1:45:14
It's a good point because he did go to jail.
1:45:15
He corrected.
1:45:16
Speaker 2: He went to jail.
1:45:17
Speaker 1: And, man, did he become the post-trial of like– Yeah.
1:45:20
Don't do that. Don't do that. Don't do that. He
1:45:22
became don't do that. Yeah. It's just– it's probably a
1:45:26
stupid question because I don't know anything about economics. But
1:45:29
I was just thinking that, like, couldn't we have the
1:45:32
same world and not have that? Wouldn't that be more
1:45:36
honest and more beneficial? But it would have to have
1:45:39
happened from the beginning. It would have to be like
1:45:42
there was never publicly traded companies from the beginning. All right.
1:45:46
Let's think of a company you like. Coca-Cola. You like Coca-Cola?
1:45:50
I like a little Diet Coke every now and then
1:45:52
when I want some brain fog. All right. I don't
1:45:55
want a nice taste in my mouth and an aspartame hangover.
1:45:59
Speaker 3: Okay.
1:46:00
Speaker 1: I'll think of another one. I don't know. Chevy. Chevy. Okay. Chevy.
1:46:04
So I don't know.
1:46:07
Speaker 2: Without the ability to raise money– In liquid capital markets,
1:46:11
would Chevy have grown to what Chevy became or at
1:46:15
least in the speed at which it did that then
1:46:18
revolutionized automotive and other industries?
1:46:21
Speaker 1: Probably not.
1:46:22
Speaker 2: Maybe not.
1:46:22
Speaker 1: Yeah, maybe not.
1:46:23
Speaker 2: Maybe not.
1:46:24
Speaker 1: But you wonder like if people were motivated and people
1:46:27
were ambitious and we always have been, you know, like
1:46:30
if that wasn't a part of our economy.
1:46:32
Speaker 2: Yeah.
1:46:32
Speaker 1: I wonder. I bet it has a pretty big impact
1:46:35
when you put it that way. You think about something
1:46:37
as big as Chevy, you know. But it's just the
1:46:42
motivation of money is always going to be there. And
1:46:47
if people ignore it because it's inconvenient and it doesn't
1:46:51
align with their ideology, you've been captured. And this is
1:46:56
why I think what you're talking about all the time
1:46:59
is so hard for people that are true believers to
1:47:02
swallow because it makes you have– you're forced to reformulate
1:47:06
your entire worldview. If you've been duped that hard by
1:47:10
something like the actual data on vaccine efficacy and, you know,
1:47:16
who's really profiting and why it's set up the way
1:47:17
it is and what the studies really are. When you
1:47:20
realize you've been duped that hard, it's a hard pill
1:47:23
to swallow for a lot of people. Absolutely. But I
1:47:26
will say this.
1:47:28
Speaker 2: You don't need to go down a rabbit hole, okay,
1:47:30
because that happens to a lot of people with vaccines
1:47:32
I've seen. Not the majority, not most, but it happens
1:47:37
to some where it's like, oh, my goodness. If the
1:47:39
government's lying or not telling me the truth about these products,
1:47:44
then what can I believe? And, you know, people, some
1:47:48
folks can go down some different alleys. And I would
1:47:51
say that I really, truly, I have not seen anything
1:47:56
like vaccines. Vaccines really are in their own bucket because
1:47:59
of that immunity. It's what I call original sin in
1:48:01
my book. There really is no product, no product that
1:48:06
I'm aware of, that operates in this kind of landscape.
1:48:10
Like I said, every other product, the market force will,
1:48:15
to varying degrees with wrinkles, correct for the issues because
1:48:18
there's economic self-interest. They broke that with vaccines. So we've
1:48:23
gone from three shots following in 1986, one before the
1:48:28
first year of age.
1:48:29
Speaker 1: At the beginning of 2025.
1:48:29
Speaker 2: You know how many shots it was that a baby
1:48:32
got on or before the first birthday? Take a guess.
1:48:35
Speaker 1: 72. No, no. That's their whole childhood. 29. 29 by
1:48:39
the first birthday? Yes.
1:48:41
Speaker 2: On or before the first birthday. It went from three
1:48:43
to 29 shots, including in utero. Now, with the recent changes,
1:48:48
it's down to 19. And the reason I focus on
1:48:50
the first year, most of the shots in the first
1:48:52
six months of life, is that's when the baby is
1:48:55
going through really critical stages of neurological, immunological development, right?
1:49:01
Speaker 1: Synapse.
1:49:02
Speaker 2: Think how small a baby is, okay? And so, they're
1:49:05
really susceptible to various effects. Also, Babies can't express what's
1:49:10
going wrong with them.
1:49:11
Speaker 1: Okay.
1:49:12
Speaker 2: So now in the normal course, okay, in the normal course,
1:49:17
you've got a product. You've gone from three of them
1:49:21
in 1986 by the first year. You're up to 29
1:49:25
beginning of 2025. Now you're at 19 still. During that period,
1:49:29
you've gone from under 10% of kids had a chronic
1:49:32
health issue in the early 1980s, according to the data.
1:49:35
You now have over 40 percent, some data show over
1:49:37
50 percent of kids having chronic health issues, often multiple
1:49:41
times the rate. And what are those chronic health issues
1:49:44
that have exploded? To be sure, by the way, any
1:49:47
environmental insult can cause dysregulation in the body, including a
1:49:52
pharmaceutical product, including vaccines. But when you look at those
1:49:58
chronic diseases that have exploded, almost all of them have
1:50:01
an etiology problem. relating to some form of immune system dysregulation.
1:50:06
Speaker 1: Look at asthma. Look at atopic issues.
1:50:08
Speaker 2: Look at ticks. Look at ADHD. Nobody thinks about it
1:50:11
this way, but if you look at the PubMed literature,
1:50:14
there's immune markers that have gone awry in kids with ADHD, okay?
1:50:19
So you look at that. Now, I'd say, okay, the lawyers,
1:50:24
those who would hold these companies accountable, would look at that,
1:50:27
and then they would start looking at the data. And
1:50:29
I'll show you what some of the data shows. We
1:50:32
talked about the Amish earlier, for example. The Amish that
1:50:35
I represent in New York, there's three schools. The New
1:50:39
York Health Department decided that it doesn't like what the
1:50:42
Amish beliefs are. It wants the Amish to adopt their
1:50:45
beliefs and abandon their real religious beliefs and to give
1:50:49
their kids these vaccines. Otherwise, they were going to impose
1:50:51
crushing fines on these three Amish schools. Three schools, by
1:50:55
the way, which means a room, no electricity, a teacher,
1:50:59
you know what I mean, on Amish land. They don't
1:51:01
take tax money. They pay taxes, but they refuse to
1:51:04
take tax money taught by Amish teachers. And so we,
1:51:09
amongst those families of those three schools, there was like
1:51:12
160 or something kids. And what we did is we,
1:51:16
we did a survey. We asked them what health conditions
1:51:19
do those kids have? Those 160 kids, many of them
1:51:21
are already older too. So you would know their health outcomes.
1:51:25
And this is all in our court papers on a
1:51:27
federal docket. Anybody can go and read it for themselves. Okay.
1:51:30
Amongst those children, you would expect to have because like
1:51:34
one in 10 kids approximately have asthma. You would expect
1:51:37
to have like nine cases of asthma. You'd expect to
1:51:39
have six cases. They have none, zero of the chronic
1:51:45
health conditions plaguing kids in America today. And the approximately
1:51:50
10 or so studies that have been done. And I'm
1:51:53
bringing this back to my legal point. The approximately 10
1:51:56
or so studies that have done that compare kids with
1:51:58
no exposure, meaning zero vaccines. So kids that have had
1:52:01
one or more vaccines show the same outcome. Kids with
1:52:06
zero vaccines, almost none of the chronic health issues that
1:52:09
face kids today in America. Kids with one or more vaccines,
1:52:13
multiple rates of the chronic health issues facing kids today. Now,
1:52:18
that data all exists. I put those studies in my
1:52:21
book and you can read them. I even put the
1:52:22
Amish information in my book. It's all cited. You can
1:52:24
go look at it yourself if you're out there. Some
1:52:25
of them are even on PubMed. The market could have
1:52:28
corrected for that. if you could hold those pharma companies accountable,
1:52:32
but you can't.
1:52:35
Speaker 1: Is it correct that the only instances of autism they
1:52:38
found in Amish kids were adopted kids?
1:52:43
Speaker 2: There are data and some reports that reflect that. But
1:52:50
if we, so there are that, but those are more
1:52:53
news reports. Those are not Somebody will criticize you, by
1:52:56
the way. You're going to get criticism and say, well,
1:52:58
that's not a peer-reviewed study.
1:52:59
Speaker 1: Well, I had a follow-up question to maybe clarify. Yeah.
1:53:02
Speaker 2: And so we can move on to what does the
1:53:07
peer-reviewed literature show if you want.
1:53:09
Speaker 1: The follow-up question would be are they even being diagnosed?
1:53:12
So if they're getting Amish care and Amish teachers and
1:53:16
Amish– is it possible that there are some kids that
1:53:20
are just behaving oddly? That would be diagnosed like this
1:53:24
is the criticism. Yes. People say like this is when
1:53:26
you hear some mainstream suit talking on television. Well, there
1:53:30
was always someone odd when we were kids. You know,
1:53:33
there's no they just the diagnosis is different today. That's
1:53:36
why it's one in 12 boys in California. They're over diagnosing.
1:53:39
And I'm like, no, no, I have friends that have
1:53:43
multiple friends that have nonverbal children that I'd never had
1:53:46
that when I was a kid. That was not normal.
1:53:49
That was not a common thing. It was very, very,
1:53:51
very rare.
1:53:52
Speaker 2: The notion that autism is just better diagnosed and that's
1:53:57
the only reason for the increase is, I don't know
1:54:01
a better word for it than to say nonsense.
1:54:03
Speaker 1: Okay.
1:54:05
Speaker 2: Even if you look at the, because they've changed the DSM-5,
1:54:09
which is what we're up to, the diagnostic manual, that
1:54:11
is the psychiatric manual that has the criteria for diagnosing autism,
1:54:18
it has changed over time. But when you even just
1:54:20
look at severe autism, just severe autism, which California has
1:54:25
very good data on, from the 70s and onward into today,
1:54:29
it's exploded.
1:54:30
Speaker 1: Okay?
1:54:30
Speaker 2: So the notion that we just have better diagnosis is
1:54:34
not a serious point. But putting that aside, the Amish
1:54:37
do go to doctors.
1:54:38
Speaker 1: Do they go to Amish doctors? No.
1:54:40
Speaker 2: Okay. They go to regular doctors.
1:54:41
Speaker 1: The Amish.
1:54:42
Speaker 2: The Amish, for example, could even go in a car.
1:54:45
They just can't drive a car.
1:54:46
Speaker 1: So they can get an Uber?
1:54:48
Speaker 2: There's different– I should be more– Somebody orders it? I
1:54:50
should be clearer about that. Just like every religion, there
1:54:54
are different, you know, communities.
1:54:57
Speaker 1: And so there's like.
1:54:59
Speaker 2: Old, old line Amish and then there's old line Amish
1:55:02
and so– Got it. You know, and Christianity and Islam
1:55:06
and Judaism and all different– you know, there's different degrees.
1:55:09
Speaker 1: The black had Jews and there's– so forth.
1:55:11
Speaker 2: Right.
1:55:11
Speaker 1: So– In many respects, they do still go.
1:55:17
Speaker 2: But, you know, as I was told by one of
1:55:21
the main folks who I interact with, and I've been
1:55:23
up there and I've slept there and I've interacted with them.
1:55:26
He told me, he said, yeah, you know, there are
1:55:29
a few that mistake got some vaccines. And he goes,
1:55:31
one of those kids, they just don't act right. He
1:55:33
said to me, but we don't see that with our
1:55:35
other kids. And I'll tell you this about the Amish community.
1:55:38
They don't have phones.
1:55:42
Speaker 1: Not, you know, smartphones. They have old school phones, some
1:55:46
of them.
1:55:47
Speaker 2: They don't have TVs. When they're with their kids, they're
1:55:52
with their kids. When they're there at the end of
1:55:54
the day, they really are so much more in tune.
1:55:57
When I spend time with them and when I went
1:55:59
up there, I mean, it's incredible, you know. It's a
1:56:04
hard thing to experience, maybe for somebody who keeps like,
1:56:08
Maybe the closest thing I think of is like those
1:56:10
who observe the Sabbath biblically, you know, so they're just
1:56:13
totally locked in. They lock in with their families for
1:56:15
a day or things like that. And so they're very
1:56:18
in tune with their kids. They know if those kids
1:56:20
have health issues. And those kids don't have those issues.
1:56:23
But forget the Amish. Go to the rest of the
1:56:26
kids in the other studies that are not Amish studies.
1:56:29
The 10 other studies that I just told you about.
1:56:31
One is three pediatric practices that have vaccinated unvaccinated kids.
1:56:35
There are a whole line of studies of nothing to
1:56:38
do with the Amish community. But if you do want
1:56:40
to focus on autism, okay, which is just one potential
1:56:44
issue from vaccines, by the way, what you find in
1:56:52
the peer-reviewed literature is that 40 to 70 percent of
1:56:55
parents of a child with autism report, still report, that
1:57:01
they believe vaccines cause their child's autism.
1:57:04
Speaker 1: OK, 47 percent.
1:57:05
Speaker 2: That's after how much billions of dollars to try to
1:57:07
tell them and gaslight them and convince them that it's
1:57:11
not that vaccines don't cause autism. Apparently, no matter how
1:57:15
much you beat these families, they're just not going to
1:57:19
change their lived experience. And what vaccines do they point to?
1:57:23
They often they point to the vaccines given in the
1:57:26
first six months of life. When you ask them what
1:57:27
vaccines you think cause your child's autism, they'll say the
1:57:30
vaccines given in the first six months of life. And
1:57:33
then they'll also point to MMR vaccine, which is given
1:57:34
no earlier than one year of age. Okay. And so
1:57:40
on behalf of ICANN, which is the informed consent action
1:57:42
nonprofit that our law firm represents, we sent a Freedom
1:57:47
of Information Act request, FOIA request, to the CDC. And
1:57:51
we said, hey, your website says vaccines do not cause autism.
1:57:55
Speaker 1: Great.
1:57:56
Speaker 2: Please give us the studies that show that hep B
1:57:59
vaccine given three times in the first six months of
1:58:01
life do not cause autism. Please give us the studies
1:58:05
that show that DTaP vaccine given three times in the
1:58:07
first six months of life do not cause autism. Same
1:58:10
thing for IPV vaccine, for PCV vaccine, and for.
1:58:19
Speaker 1: Hib vaccine.
1:58:20
Speaker 2: Each one of those vaccines is given three times each
1:58:23
in the first six months of life.
1:58:24
Speaker 1: 15 injections. Okay?
1:58:27
Speaker 2: Okay. Okay. You say vaccines don't cause autism. These parents
1:58:32
are saying these vaccines cause their child's autism.
1:58:36
Speaker 1: Provide us the studies. They never gave us the studies.
1:58:40
Speaker 2: I sued them in federal court. I didn't go to Texas.
1:58:42
I sued them in Southern District.
1:58:43
Speaker 1: Of New York.
1:58:44
Speaker 3: Okay.
1:58:44
Speaker 2: Not the friendliest territory to bring that kind of lawsuit.
1:58:46
Speaker 1: Okay.
1:58:49
Speaker 2: Days before the hearing, I get a list of 20
1:58:53
studies finally from also from the DOJ because they represent
1:58:57
the CDC. Okay. Maybe they think I don't read. So
1:59:01
I looked at the 20 studies.
1:59:03
Speaker 1: I've read them.
1:59:05
Speaker 2: 19 of them have nothing to do with the vaccines
1:59:08
given in the first six months of life. They were
1:59:10
all either MMR studies or studies of an ingredient that
1:59:14
wasn't in those vaccines. One of them was an Institute
1:59:18
of Medicine review from 2012 that canvassed all the literature
1:59:23
on whether DTaP vaccine does or does not cause autism
1:59:27
because the CDC and HRSA, which is the agency in
1:59:30
HHS that fights vaccine injury claims, asked the IOM to
1:59:35
look at whether DTaP causes autism because it remained one
1:59:38
of the most commonly claimed injuries still, according to them.
1:59:41
Speaker 1: Okay.
1:59:43
Speaker 2: And the Institute of Medicine came back and said, we
1:59:45
could only find one study on DTaP and autism. And
1:59:48
in fact, it showed an association between vaccine, DTaP vaccine
1:59:52
and autism, but the IOM threw it out because it
1:59:55
said there's no unvaccinated control in it. So, They threw
1:59:57
out the studies based on VAERS data, if you know
1:59:58
what that is. So I called up the DOJ attorney.
2:00:03
This is days before the hearing. And I said, I
2:00:06
got the list of 20 studies. I said, are you
2:00:12
sure that your client, the CDC, wants to settle this
2:00:17
case basically on the basis that these are the studies
2:00:20
they rely upon to claim that vaccines don't cause autism?
2:00:23
The vaccines in the first six months of life do
2:00:26
not cause autism. Because that's what the lawsuit was about,
2:00:28
that FOIA request. He went, he called me back and
2:00:31
he said, yeah, they want to settle it.
2:00:32
Speaker 1: I said, all right.
2:00:33
Speaker 2: I gave him another chance. Those 20 studies were put
2:00:37
into a settlement agreement between the CDC and ICANN, my client.
2:00:42
The DOJ signed it on behalf of the CDC. I
2:00:44
signed it on behalf of my client. And a federal
2:00:46
judge in the Southern District of New York entered as
2:00:48
an order of the court in 2019, I believe it was.
2:00:52
Speaker 1: And there it was.
2:00:53
Speaker 2: I mean, I had done years and years of work
2:00:56
fighting with them to try and figure out, show me
2:00:58
the vaccines don't cause autism.
2:00:59
Speaker 1: This was the crescendo. This was the end. I mean,
2:01:01
when their back was to the wall, they had nothing.
2:01:06
Speaker 2: There are no studies. They could not produce one that
2:01:10
showed the vaccines given in the first six months of
2:01:12
life do not cause autism. And here's the thing they
2:01:16
left out. There is one study out there regarding hep
2:01:19
B vaccines and autism. It's from Gallagher and Goodman out
2:01:22
of the University of Stony Brook. It's in the peer-reviewed literature.
2:01:24
And it showed that kids that got hep B vaccine
2:01:27
versus those that did in the first month of life
2:01:28
had three times the rate of autism. Statistically significant. Gallagher, Goodman,
2:01:33
University of Stony Brook. It's on PubMed. That is the
2:01:36
only study of hep B vaccine and autism you will
2:01:38
find in peer-reviewed literature. If you're going to do it
2:01:40
based on the science, on the published literature, that's the
2:01:43
only one out there. That DTaP vaccine study is the
2:01:45
only one out there for DTaP given in the first.
2:01:47
Speaker 1: Six months of life. So when this narrative, which you
2:01:50
hear all the time on these panels, on these news shows,
2:01:54
vaccines do not cause autism, that has been thoroughly debunked.
2:02:01
Where does that come from? Vaccines, amen. That's why I
2:02:05
call my book Vaccines, Amen. The crowd cheers. Have you
2:02:07
seen those live shows where crowds cheer?
2:02:09
Speaker 2: But this is what I'm talking about. This is why
2:02:11
I wrote the book. I wrote the book because in
2:02:14
10 years that I have litigated hundreds– 200 lawsuits against
2:02:19
federal and state health agencies that I have deposed the
2:02:22
world's leading vaccinologists, including Dr. Stanley Plotkin. You go down
2:02:27
the list and chasing them when they're in a deposition,
2:02:32
when they are back as against the wall in a
2:02:34
federal or state lawsuit, and they have no choice but
2:02:38
to admit the truth or give the evidence, put up
2:02:40
or shut up. What I have found is that the
2:02:42
claims they make about vaccines versus the reality of are
2:02:47
completely different.
2:02:48
Speaker 1: And it is disjarring. When I came into this, had
2:02:53
you told me, Yeah, they don't have.
2:02:55
Speaker 2: Any studies that show vaccines don't cause autism. I'd be like,
2:02:58
you're crazy.
2:02:59
Speaker 1: Get out of here. They tell you it's thoroughly debunked,
2:03:02
thoroughly studied. The most studied thing ever. They have a
2:03:05
mountain of science. Joe, there's a mountain of studies. You
2:03:07
know how big it is? It's so big. And you
2:03:09
know what's on top of that mountain? Another mountain of studies.
2:03:11
Speaker 2: You know, another mountain. There's so many studies. They're drowning
2:03:16
in studies that vaccines don't cause autism. But then when
2:03:19
you demand it, not the bull crap. that they say
2:03:23
on TV, but you actually demand it. That's the result.
2:03:26
And that you could pull it up on the internet,
2:03:28
by the way, that, that, that, that, that, that, that
2:03:31
court stipulation, it's right there. You could also hear me
2:03:33
depose Dr. Stanley Plotkin, the world's leading vaccinologist. Why I
2:03:36
said to him, I said, doctor, you know, and you
2:03:39
have this clips on the internet. I said, I said,
2:03:44
There's no studies that support that DTaP does not cause autism, right?
2:03:46
And at first he said, well, I said, well, what
2:03:49
do you think the IOM concluded? He goes, well, I
2:03:51
would assume they said it doesn't. I showed it to him.
2:03:53
He goes, oh, it's the world's leading vaccinologist. He didn't
2:03:55
even know this.
2:03:56
Speaker 1: He goes, oh, okay, there are no studies.
2:03:58
Speaker 2: Okay. He goes, so I said, shouldn't you wait until
2:04:00
you do? Shouldn't you wait until you have the studies
2:04:03
that show that DTaP doesn't cause autism to then tell
2:04:06
parents that vaccines don't cause autism?
2:04:08
Speaker 1: You know what he said to me? No. No, I
2:04:12
don't wait.
2:04:13
Speaker 2: I don't wait because I have to take into account
2:04:15
the health of the child. He said, I said, so
2:04:17
for that reason, you're willing to tell parents that vaccines
2:04:20
don't cause autism, even though you don't have the data
2:04:22
to support it.
2:04:22
Speaker 1: He said, absolutely. You can play that clip if you want.
2:04:26
It's on the internet.
2:04:27
Speaker 2: And then I deposed in a case about vaccines and autism.
2:04:31
Speaker 1: It was about it. Dr.
2:04:33
Speaker 2: Catherine Edwards, who is one of the four, I guess,
2:04:36
leading vaccinologists in the world. One of the four editors
2:04:39
of the medical textbooks on vaccine, which is called Plotkin's Vaccines.
2:04:43
I deposed her about vaccines and autism. And I said,
2:04:46
do you have a study that shows Hep B vaccine
2:04:48
doesn't go to autism? This was after this court stipulation,
2:04:50
the court order I told you about. She didn't have
2:04:53
any for Hep B, for the ones I just took
2:04:56
the first six months of life. So, yes, they say
2:05:00
on TV it's thoroughly debunked. But I'm telling you, that
2:05:04
is a belief that is not science. That is not fact.
2:05:09
It is not based on data. It is based on
2:05:11
pure belief.
2:05:13
Speaker 1: And they say it just like they say, you know,
2:05:15
Jesus Christ is Lord.
2:05:17
Speaker 2: I think they believe actually in vaccines more because they'll
2:05:20
kick kids out of school in some archdioceses, even in
2:05:24
some other Christian schools, far less. Most archdioceses won't if
2:05:29
the kid won't get vaccine. So I actually think they
2:05:31
believe in vaccines more than Jesus in some places, by
2:05:34
the way.
2:05:36
Speaker 1: What an amazing job of gaslighting and propaganda they've done.
2:05:40
Speaker 2: But I just want to– I just got to be
2:05:42
clear because anybody hearing this might think that that just
2:05:45
sounds crazy. But I implore anybody who heard me say that,
2:05:49
pull up the court order yourself. Look at it yourself.
2:05:53
Watch the depositions. Go to PubMed. See for yourself. Oh,
2:05:57
and by the way, do not rely on AI because
2:05:59
I've done this fun job with them. I'm like, do
2:06:02
you have B vaccines because of autism? It's been thoroughly
2:06:05
researched and there's no studies. I go, okay, great. So
2:06:07
how do you– and I say to AI, I go,
2:06:09
how do you reach a scientific conclusion?
2:06:11
Speaker 1: Well, you use peer-reviewed studies. I go, wonderful.
2:06:12
Speaker 2: So to conclude that hep B vaccine does not cause autism,
2:06:15
you need peer-reviewed studies.
2:06:16
Speaker 1: That is correct. Wonderful.
2:06:17
Speaker 2: Now please put in a list these studies that show
2:06:20
hep B vaccine does cause autism.
2:06:27
Speaker 1: Give me three studies.
2:06:29
Speaker 2: I've had, I've had a chat GPT makeup studies, literally
2:06:33
happy vaccine does not cause.
2:06:34
Speaker 1: And I'm like, that doesn't exist. Give me the pub
2:06:36
bed number. You are correct.
2:06:37
Speaker 2: I aim to provide a valid information, but in this instance,
2:06:41
I fell short, literally made up a, I'm not joking.
2:06:43
Speaker 1: I made up a study. I've had it. I've done
2:06:48
this for fun with friends. And so I'm like, watch this,
2:06:50
watch this.
2:06:51
Speaker 2: And finally, I'll get it to admit that the only
2:06:53
study is the Gallagher and Goodman study and That is
2:06:55
the only study. I will get it to admit. It
2:06:57
takes about often 45 minutes to an hour.
2:07:00
Speaker 1: Really? Yeah.
2:07:00
Speaker 2: It takes a while, but it will eventually admit it.
2:07:03
And they all do it.
2:07:04
Speaker 1: Grok does it too, by the way. Grok's better, by
2:07:06
the way. Better? But it's bad too.
2:07:09
Speaker 2: And they will say, you know, on all of these questions,
2:07:12
they will make stuff up. And unless you know, like
2:07:16
I know the universe of studies.
2:07:17
Speaker 1: I know it's belonging. Can I ask you this? Do
2:07:19
you think that these large language models are programmed– with
2:07:25
certain truths that they can't fight against? Or do you
2:07:28
think it's because they're pulling from so much bullshit on
2:07:31
the internet and so many bullshit narratives on the internet
2:07:34
from trusted sources that'll tell you that vaccines don't cause autism?
2:07:38
There's a ton of major newspapers, major magazines. There's a
2:07:43
ton of them that have talked about how it's been
2:07:45
thoroughly debunked. And then they'll quote doctors and scientists that
2:07:49
don't list any specific studies, but they'll say, we've done
2:07:52
exhaustive studies, they've been thoroughly debunked. They'll say that, and
2:07:56
they'll print that. And so is the, is the AI
2:07:58
just pulling from so much bullshit online that it like
2:08:02
looks through all the noise and this is like 89%
2:08:06
say vaccines do not cause autism. Therefore it must be true.
2:08:11
Or is it programmed to say, Hey, this is what
2:08:14
you say. Vaccines don't cause autism.
2:08:17
Speaker 2: You must hold me in very high regard. You've held
2:08:19
me to incredibly complex economic questions and now language model questions.
2:08:25
Speaker 1: You're a very smart guy.
2:08:27
Speaker 2: I appreciate the compliment so far on that score. With
2:08:29
that said, I mean, I don't know the answer, but
2:08:36
I will speculate because I don't know the answer. I'm
2:08:39
going to guess, I'm really guessing, that.
2:08:44
Speaker 1: It might be a mix of some....
2:08:48
Speaker 2: Programming because Google, for example, I'm in, you know, if
2:08:54
you go and you search for Aaron Siri sub stack,
2:08:59
you get Paul off at sub stack.
2:09:02
Speaker 1: Why?
2:09:03
Speaker 2: How in the world do you get Paul off at
2:09:06
sub stack when you search for mine?
2:09:09
Speaker 1: And mine's like, It's not even like on the first page.
2:09:12
I don't think it's on the second. Now, maybe they
2:09:14
fixed that. I don't know. So some of that- Is
2:09:17
that using Google? That's using Google. Let's look right now.
2:09:20
Last time I've done it. Let's do it right now.
2:09:23
Let's do it right now. Let's do it. Because have
2:09:25
you seen Robert Epstein's work? Robert Epstein's been on my
2:09:29
podcast a few times, unfortunately, last name. But he has
2:09:31
nothing to do with that. He is a data scientist. Well,
2:09:34
I don't know what his original background is, but what
2:09:37
he does is, He is very vocal about how they're
2:09:42
using these coordinated– it's very curated search results. And through that,
2:09:48
especially during election times, they can take a lot of
2:09:51
people that are undecided voters and swing them a very
2:09:56
noticeable number. Like I forget what the number was, but
2:09:58
it's a large percentage, 10 percent, 20 percent, something like that.
2:10:01
So if you Google something about, say, Hillary Clinton, for instance,
2:10:04
during that first election, you would get all these positive articles.
2:10:08
If you Google Trump, you would get all these negative articles.
2:10:11
And if you asked it certain things, it would give
2:10:15
you things that were completely contrary to that. So you
2:10:17
would look at that first. And I think that's you
2:10:19
and Paul Offit. It could be. So let's find out.
2:10:21
Maybe it's fixed at this point. How do you want
2:10:23
me to word this? Aaron's series sub stack. Yeah, just
2:10:26
do Aaron's series sub stack. Just do that on Google.
2:10:29
Let's see what the results are.
2:10:31
Speaker 2: But while he's pulling that up, I'll add that. So
2:10:33
this might be some of that. Again, I'm on speculation territory.
2:10:36
And then separately.
2:10:37
Speaker 1: So it goes right.
2:10:39
Speaker 2: Away to you.
2:10:39
Speaker 1: It goes right away to me this time. You know
2:10:42
what it is? They got Jamie's fucking data and they
2:10:45
know from your metadata.
2:10:47
Speaker 3: If you ask a question in a word way, it
2:10:49
might come up differently.
2:10:51
Speaker 1: That's what I did.
2:10:53
Speaker 2: Try Aaron's Siri injecting freedom sub stack.
2:10:56
Speaker 1: See what happens. That could be the way we search
2:10:59
for it.
2:10:59
Speaker 2: Oh.
2:11:02
Speaker 1: Oh.
2:11:04
Speaker 3: See, I'm telling you, when you add words, it kind
2:11:06
of really fucks up.
2:11:07
Speaker 1: All Google searches. Yeah, but I don't see Paul Offit
2:11:10
in there. I don't see Paul Offit in there. Have
2:11:11
you talked about this publicly before? No, never. Oh, too bad.
2:11:15
Speaker 2: No, I just did– this happened– this was actually literally
2:11:18
just a few days ago.
2:11:20
Speaker 1: Well, I think one of the things that Robert Epstein,
2:11:23
because he's been on my podcast, been on multiple podcasts,
2:11:26
but he's been talking about the dangers of these curated
2:11:28
search engines and how it's– It's essentially election rigging. Like
2:11:32
you're manipulating a statistically significant number of people to one
2:11:36
side or the other, and you can do it by
2:11:37
curating search engines.
2:11:38
Speaker 2: Well, the experiment we just did might reflect that my
2:11:42
first theory might be.
2:11:45
Speaker 1: Less of that, right? Because look, there it is. It's happenstance.
2:11:48
That's why I said I have no idea. I'm speculating.
2:11:51
But it could be– it could not. It could be
2:11:53
also your own algorithm because maybe you were searching for
2:11:58
Paul Offit. Maybe you had Googled Paul Offit's full of
2:12:01
shit just before that. I don't need to Google that.
2:12:07
Speaker 3: I don't know when they've added this, but they definitely
2:12:10
added on the screen what they call personalization for these results.
2:12:14
Speaker 1: Results are personalized. Try without personalization. That could have something
2:12:18
to do with it. Interesting. Let's try it without personalization.
2:12:21
Let's see if it changes.
2:12:22
Speaker 3: Well, I've already done a different round.
2:12:24
Speaker 1: Oh, you already put Paul Offit in there? Yeah, I
2:12:26
already started searching for that. So if you do without percentage,
2:12:28
it doesn't delete the prior one? Interesting. Personalized. It knows
2:12:32
you're a right winger. Well, they started using AI a
2:12:34
long time ago. It knows you're a radical.
2:12:36
Speaker 2: But I would speculate that the probably bigger component is
2:12:41
the who's got, again, it comes back to who's got
2:12:44
the money to understand how these AI algorithms are worth
2:12:47
and to maybe put the stuff out there that it's
2:12:50
going to most likely read from. I mean, when you
2:12:52
do AI, you, you can get that. I see that
2:12:54
like crazy scroll of all things it's looking at.
2:12:56
Speaker 1: Right. Right.
2:12:57
Speaker 2: So if I've got, if I am a pharma company
2:13:00
and I've got a multi-billion dollar budget every year to
2:13:03
influence and to market and so forth, you know, I'm,
2:13:06
I'm going to deploy that. And in the way that's
2:13:09
probably the most effective, one of the things I probably
2:13:11
would do is maybe do the things that would influence
2:13:15
the results on AI potentially.
2:13:18
Speaker 1: Yeah, I would do. Especially if there's no regulations. That's
2:13:21
the weird thing about curating search engines. If it's like
2:13:25
your search engine, you can kind of do whatever you want,
2:13:28
especially if your company– like wasn't it like one of
2:13:31
the major tech companies after Donald Trump won in 2016
2:13:34
that had a meeting? They were like, we can't let
2:13:36
this happen again. Was that Facebook or Google? Do you remember, Jamie?
2:13:41
It was like very famous that people were like, what
2:13:43
are you talking about? You– what? What? How can you
2:13:46
say that? How can you even say that? Even if
2:13:49
you're right. Like the idea that you can somehow or
2:13:52
other stop someone from being elected if the public wants
2:13:56
that person to be elected because you disagree with it
2:13:59
is kind of a crazy thing to say out loud.
2:14:02
Speaker 2: Well, you know, I'm thinking more about your question. So
2:14:05
when we found that thing with Paul Offit, we found
2:14:08
that thing with Paul Offit a few days ago, my
2:14:10
social media manager and my– I've got.
2:14:12
Speaker 1: A lot of folks in my law firm.
2:14:15
Speaker 2: And we have somebody who does like Google AdWords stuff
2:14:17
and SEO stuff. And then we have another guy who
2:14:21
does the web-related stuff. I know they did some things.
2:14:25
And maybe with my little measly budget, it had that effect.
2:14:29
Speaker 1: Perhaps.
2:14:29
Speaker 2: So that would go to my second point that with
2:14:33
enough dollars– and who cares about my– I.
2:14:35
Speaker 1: Mean I don't think pharma cares about my sub stack.
2:14:37
Trust me. They're not scared of my sub stack. Well–
2:14:39
I don't know about that because even if you don't
2:14:42
have a ton of subscribers, it's still out there. And
2:14:46
all it takes is one podcast appearance like this one
2:14:50
and people go there. And then all it takes is
2:14:53
one investigative reporter to talk about it, to get it.
2:14:57
It's a weird time for stuff like that. Let's see
2:15:01
if two weeks from now it goes back. They'll never
2:15:03
put it back. They'll never put it back. But if
2:15:05
you guys did do something about it, that does make sense.
2:15:08
They corrected it. You complained about it. Well, no.
2:15:11
Speaker 2: I think that they had brought up doing keywords and
2:15:14
stuff like that because I did– there was some emails
2:15:17
about– I remember trying to fix it. I'm amazed that
2:15:20
it looks like it did.
2:15:22
Speaker 1: Well, I don't want that smoke. So maybe it's– it
2:15:24
just– They just need to be– yeah, shine light on it.
2:15:28
It's the best disinfection, sunlight. I just don't like the
2:15:33
idea of curated search engines. It's really spooky. It's no
2:15:37
different to me than curating information on social media platforms
2:15:41
based on whatever your ideology is. Like I don't think
2:15:43
you should be able to do that in terms of
2:15:45
like– I don't think the company should be able to
2:15:46
tell you you can't see certain things. And YouTube was
2:15:50
terrible about that during the pandemic. All the things that
2:15:52
turned out to be true could have got you banned
2:15:55
from YouTube. The lab leak theory kicked off. The fact
2:15:59
that the vaccines, even if you get vaccinated, you still
2:16:03
can catch COVID. Remember that was a breakthrough infection. It
2:16:06
was extremely rare. Extremely rare breakthrough infection. Never heard of it.
2:16:13
And now it's everybody. Literally everybody. And then it became
2:16:15
this weird thing. Fucking everybody did these weird mental gymnastics
2:16:19
where they started repeating, oh, but it stops hospitalization and death.
2:16:24
What are you talking about? You never said that before.
2:16:27
You are saying that they were saying it stops hospitalization
2:16:31
and death. And you don't even have anything to gain here.
2:16:33
You just don't want to be wrong about your decision
2:16:36
to get injected and to promote it, which is nuts.
2:16:38
It's like people are doing the man's work for the man.
2:16:42
They've signed up as volunteers in the propaganda army. And
2:16:46
shaming all the people that didn't go along with it
2:16:49
and never apologizing. No one wants to apologize for calling
2:16:53
people plague rats and telling people that they should have
2:16:56
their children taken away from them. Nutty, weird, dystopian shit.
2:17:01
Speaker 2: They don't realize that they are the– they are creating
2:17:04
more vaccine hesitancy with that kind of conduct than anything
2:17:08
that you and I could do on this podcast at
2:17:11
all because– and like they say– You know the CDC
2:17:15
webpage on vaccines and autism has now been updated, and
2:17:18
it says now that there's effectively no studies to show
2:17:21
the vaccines in the first six months of life do
2:17:23
not cause autism. It now says that, and that the
2:17:26
CDC has misled the public on that score, and people trashed,
2:17:32
the mainstream media trashed Bobby for that, while instead of
2:17:36
celebrating it as an opportunity to correct course of transparency, honestly,
2:17:41
People are more likely to trust our federal health agencies
2:17:44
when they're honest, when they're apologized, when they're willing to
2:17:47
admit mistakes. They're not there yet, though, unfortunately.
2:17:51
Speaker 1: No, because it's still a part of their political ideology.
2:17:54
It's a part of their clan. And they don't even
2:17:57
think about it. They don't look into it. They don't
2:18:00
read any studies. They don't read any synopsis of any studies.
2:18:03
They just go full bore ahead. It's been thoroughly debunked
2:18:07
and they'll argue with you. It's been thoroughly debunked. This
2:18:09
is all nonsense.
2:18:10
Speaker 2: You know how many depositions I've taken of vaccinologists, pediatricians,
2:18:14
infectious disease experts, immunologists, where I will say something about this.
2:18:18
You know, these studies show that, for example, the studies
2:18:21
show that children that have had cancer and measles have
2:18:24
lower rate of cancers and they'll go out.
2:18:26
Speaker 1: That's that.
2:18:26
Speaker 2: That's just nonsense.
2:18:27
Speaker 1: Those studies are just junk. I'll say. Have you read
2:18:30
the studies? No. Have you seen them?
2:18:34
Speaker 2: No. But see, but they knew already. You know, they've
2:18:38
already reached that a priori conclusion. I remember my deposition,
2:18:41
not to go back to autism, of Dr. Edwards, where
2:18:44
I said to her, do you have any studies show
2:18:47
that hep B vaccine does not cause autism?
2:18:48
Speaker 1: She said, no.
2:18:49
Speaker 2: I said, but there is a study that shows three
2:18:52
times rate of autism amongst kids that didn't get hep
2:18:55
B vaccine. And she says, well, I don't think that's,
2:18:57
that's not a good study. I said, what study is that?
2:19:00
She goes, why don't you show me the study? Because
2:19:05
she hadn't read it.
2:19:06
Speaker 1: She doesn't know.
2:19:07
Speaker 2: Why don't you show me the study? That's because it
2:19:12
doesn't fit within the belief system, unfortunately, when it comes
2:19:17
to this. And it's so easy because, like you said,
2:19:20
all you got to do is just say, they're just
2:19:22
an anti-vaxxer.
2:19:24
Speaker 1: Exactly. And it's all– when you have a company, like
2:19:28
whatever company it is, whether it's Google or Facebook or whatever,
2:19:31
and that company operates on an ideology that's not grounded
2:19:34
in reality and then they enforce it across their platform,
2:19:39
it's very frustrating and really nutty to watch. And just
2:19:43
thank god there exists some alternatives. Like you would need
2:19:48
a crazy person worth a ton of money, like Elon,
2:19:51
to just go and buy it. And then also show, hey,
2:19:54
it's still the number one platform for distributing information.
2:19:57
Speaker 2: In the same way that what Elon did for social media,
2:20:01
if he could do that for search, that would be great.
2:20:04
But I think search is dying. I don't think– I
2:20:07
think AI is searching now. Yes. AI is going to
2:20:09
take over.
2:20:09
Speaker 1: I don't see– I hardly ever search things anymore.
2:20:11
Speaker 2: Everybody goes to AI these days from what I could see.
2:20:13
Speaker 1: Because I can ask a question. Like how did this
2:20:15
come about? I could ask follow-ups. Are there any dissenting opinions?
2:20:19
I love doing that.
2:20:21
Speaker 2: It's good but it also requires less thinking. So it's
2:20:23
bad in that regard.
2:20:24
Speaker 1: But yes. Well, it depends on how you're using it.
2:20:26
When I'm using it is usually when I'm writing. I'm
2:20:27
writing about a certain subject. I'm like, well, who are
2:20:30
the first people to discover these Aztec pyramids? I'll get
2:20:33
into something like that. Like what were they looking for?
2:20:35
You know what I mean? It's almost like you're talking
2:20:38
to an expert. So instead of it being like something
2:20:41
that I use to think for me, it's like a
2:20:44
super smart friend I'm bouncing questions off of. You could
2:20:47
find so much about things so quickly as opposed to
2:20:51
having to go through article after article after article and
2:20:53
like– and that's what I'm looking for. How did he
2:20:56
trick those people and give them up their land? There's
2:20:58
only fucking 600 of them. How did they do that?
2:21:02
Like AI is fantastic for that kind of shit. But
2:21:06
if you're using it all day, like a lot of
2:21:07
kids in my kids' schools are getting busted for writing
2:21:12
papers that are 100 percent AI. Like they were a moron.
2:21:19
Seventh grade. It's like PhD genius level paper.
2:21:22
Speaker 2: Yeah. These 12-year-olds are fucking wizards.
2:21:27
Speaker 1: It's hilarious. It's not good. That's not good. You saw
2:21:30
those studies that came out.
2:21:31
Speaker 2: Again, not my area.
2:21:33
Speaker 1: And I don't know. I've only read the abstracts. I
2:21:35
don't know.
2:21:36
Speaker 2: But the more that technology has been adopted into classrooms,
2:21:41
it appears the more detrimental it has been and actually–
2:21:44
The markers of what you would consider an educated or
2:21:48
education or intelligence.
2:21:49
Speaker 1: 100 percent. It's a distraction. It's like it's there's no
2:21:52
way it could be good. You're on TikTok all day.
2:21:54
Speaker 2: But if you're using AI, the one thing I will say,
2:21:56
depending on the topic, we probably do for all topics is.
2:22:00
Speaker 1: Never just rely on the output.
2:22:02
Speaker 2: You got to ask, show me the primary source and
2:22:04
look at it yourself. It's so critical in every area.
2:22:07
Speaker 1: Especially if it's something controversial. I mean, generally I'm asking
2:22:10
questions about something I'm looking up that's not that controversial
2:22:13
in terms of like whether or not it's argued. You
2:22:15
ever look up yourself?
2:22:16
Speaker 2: No.
2:22:17
Speaker 1: No, I'm not. Jesus Christ. I don't look up myself
2:22:19
ever because I don't want to know. I don't want
2:22:21
to know people's opinions. I don't want to know what
2:22:23
it thinks of me. I couldn't care less. I think
2:22:26
it's much better to just keep on going. If you're
2:22:29
in a public eye, including you now, everyone is subject
2:22:33
to an opinion. And there's certain opinions that are just,
2:22:36
they're not people that you would ever want to talk to.
2:22:40
And those kind of people exist. There's going to be
2:22:43
shitty people out there. And their opinion written down looks
2:22:47
just like your opinion. Better to not have any of it.
2:22:50
Better to not watch any videos. Better to not listen
2:22:54
to anything. Just Be a good internal judge. Be objective
2:22:59
about your own self and be self-critical to the point
2:23:02
where it's healthy and leave it alone. I was watching–
2:23:05
like I was talking to this the other day. I
2:23:06
was watching this lady who was this very boring, not
2:23:09
very exciting lady talking about how bad the Beatles were.
2:23:12
And I was like, you should shut the fuck up. Like, no,
2:23:17
the Beatles are incredible. You're just a moron. You're just
2:23:20
a dull-brained fucking dork just wandering through life. But you're
2:23:25
allowed to. You're allowed to have those opinions. It's like
2:23:27
good luck finding a bunch of people that agree with you,
2:23:30
but you're allowed to try. But I don't want to
2:23:32
be a part of it. I don't want to be washing,
2:23:35
swimming through bullshit opinions all day long. I don't think
2:23:38
it's healthy.
2:23:39
Speaker 2: But I do think facing the opinions and the views,
2:23:45
substantive opinions, views of those that don't agree with you
2:23:47
is an important exercise in life and in any– in
2:23:50
every area, frankly. I mean I'm– When it comes to
2:23:54
the work that I do, I welcome having debates with
2:23:59
those who claim they are the vaccine experts.
2:24:02
Speaker 1: Well, this is– we're talking about a very different kind
2:24:04
of thing than looking at yourself. Yeah, you're looking up
2:24:06
hardline data and it's very important what you do because
2:24:09
it's crazy to say that being honest in this regard
2:24:14
is courageous. But it is courageous because I've seen you attacked.
2:24:18
I've seen crazy shit that people said about you. And
2:24:22
it's like, good lord, are you paying attention to what
2:24:24
he's actually saying? Or are you some bot from somewhere,
2:24:29
some fucking bot farm in Vietnam that's been hired to
2:24:33
push a narrative? I don't know. But there's a reality
2:24:40
to data that's undeniable that needs to be promoted. And
2:24:44
I think that's what you're doing. There's a reality to
2:24:46
the data. You really– I don't imagine a whole lot
2:24:48
of people are lining up to– debate you about this?
2:24:54
Speaker 2: Well, Paul Offit and I had an exchange on the internet. First,
2:24:57
we had it on Twitter.
2:24:58
Speaker 1: In person? In Twitter. No, he won't do it. So
2:25:00
we had it on Twitter. Yeah, that's what I'm talking about.
2:25:02
Speaker 2: And then he moved it onto Substack and it's all there.
2:25:04
It's a great exchange. And I've offered him, and not,
2:25:08
just to be clear, not like a gotcha debate. I've
2:25:11
offered him to have a debate where we each get
2:25:14
10 minutes, 10 minutes, 10 minutes, and we each get
2:25:17
to present the evidence. So we have a screening We
2:25:21
can put up our evidence and we can go back
2:25:22
and forth with equal amount of time so nobody's talking
2:25:25
over each other. It's civil and it's based on the substance.
2:25:29
I've offered him to do that. But the truth is
2:25:31
I don't need to debate him. I've already debated the
2:25:33
world's leading vaccinologist, Dr. Stanley Plotkin, in a nine-hour deposition.
2:25:37
People talk about we should have a vaccine debate. Well,
2:25:41
I've done that.
2:25:41
Speaker 1: That was it. It's nine hours.
2:25:42
Speaker 2: It's all on the internet and you can watch it.
2:25:45
And when my client put it out there and it
2:25:47
ended up on YouTube– This was many years ago. It
2:25:50
had like millions of views at one point.
2:25:52
Speaker 1: And then YouTube took it off. And then people keep
2:25:55
putting it back on. And it's just a deposition.
2:25:57
Speaker 2: It just keeps coming back and forth and back and forth.
2:26:00
Speaker 1: Why are they– YouTube, leave it up. Stop. Well, I
2:26:02
don't know if they're still taking it down right now.
2:26:04
I hope now the climate has changed enough. It used
2:26:07
to take it on and down.
2:26:08
Speaker 2: And I've done Senate hearings where they– But those vaccinologists,
2:26:13
they don't want to show up anymore.
2:26:14
Speaker 1: I offered Peter Hotez that opportunity on the podcast. And
2:26:18
I told him I would donate $ 100, 000 to whatever charity
2:26:20
of his choice. And he, like, mocked that number as
2:26:23
being insignificant. I'm like, well, tell me what the fucking
2:26:25
number is. Like, just come on. And I was going
2:26:28
to have him and RFK Jr. because he was talking
2:26:30
about me having RFK Jr.
2:26:32
Speaker 2: On.
2:26:32
Speaker 1: They're saying a bunch of lies. And, like, well, instead
2:26:34
of saying that– and I think he– God, I forget
2:26:38
what term he used for me. I'm like, Peter, you've
2:26:40
been on my podcast twice. So what the fuck are
2:26:42
you talking about? Like, why are you behaving like this?
2:26:44
This is crazy. What did he call me? Like, it
2:26:50
was something about some alt-right adjacent or neo-fascist adjacent podcast.
2:27:00
Speaker 2: The point is it was ad hominem instead of substance.
2:27:02
You gave him an opportunity to show he was right
2:27:04
in front of the world. He is the vaccinologist. Bobby,
2:27:08
just a lawyer, obviously will drool on himself.
2:27:11
Speaker 1: Like debate him. Well, it's the big deal. I only
2:27:13
did this after he did that. I didn't, I didn't,
2:27:17
he had said all this stuff about me because Bobby
2:27:20
was on the podcast. And it was one of the
2:27:22
rare times that I have to go after, that I
2:27:24
ever go after anyone on Twitter. But I was like, stop.
2:27:27
I remember. Why are you saying that? This is stupid.
2:27:29
Speaker 2: And I remember a whole bunch of people added in,
2:27:31
like they were willing to add.
2:27:32
Speaker 1: I thought it was over. I forgot the number.
2:27:34
Speaker 2: It was in like a.
2:27:35
Speaker 1: Million, two million. It was in the millions.
2:27:37
Speaker 2: And he still would not sit down and do it. And,
2:27:40
the argument that you'll often hear is they'll say, well,
2:27:42
I'm not good at debating.
2:27:45
Speaker 1: He's a lawyer. He'll use lawyer tricks. Peter Hotez is
2:27:48
a lawyer?
2:27:48
Speaker 2: Yeah.
2:27:49
Speaker 1: No, no, no, no. Oh, he's a lawyer. Bobby's a lawyer.
2:27:50
Bobby's a lawyer.
2:27:51
Speaker 2: Or they'll say that he's a lawyer or I'm a lawyer,
2:27:54
you know. And what they don't– but, you know.
2:27:58
Speaker 1: Data wins. Exactly. And I would let that data win.
2:28:01
The substance should win. If you're right, I want to know.
2:28:04
I don't fucking know. You tell me.
2:28:06
Speaker 2: I'm willing to debate Peter Hotez here any day.
2:28:09
Speaker 1: I don't think he's going to do it. I'll call
2:28:10
off it. Any of them.
2:28:13
Speaker 2: In fact, Stanley Plotkin just wrote me a letter after
2:28:16
all these years, after I deposed him, first time ever,
2:28:18
wrote me a letter.
2:28:18
Speaker 1: Really? What did he say?
2:28:19
Speaker 2: He said, I heard you wrote a book. I heard
2:28:21
you wrote a book. And your deposition went very, very long.
2:28:26
And I wasn't prepared enough. He's the world's leading vaccinologist.
2:28:29
And I will be credited with saving millions. And you
2:28:33
will go down in history as the one who's harmed
2:28:35
and killed children. That's what he wrote me a letter.
2:28:38
And I wrote him back a response. And I said, look,
2:28:44
I said, Dr. Plotkin, I said, thank you for your letter.
2:28:46
I appreciate that you're writing me finally because I've reached
2:28:48
out to him before one time at least. And I said, look,
2:28:52
I said, I think we can agree on one thing.
2:28:56
We want to save as many children as possible. I
2:29:00
want to save children from infectious disease.
2:29:01
Speaker 1: That's important. I agree.
2:29:03
Speaker 2: But I also want to save children from the harm
2:29:05
from these products. They matter too. They're not just– There
2:29:10
shouldn't be accepted casualties. The tens of thousands of families
2:29:15
have contacted my law firm. Devastating harm from these products.
2:29:18
They matter too. And I said, let's work together. Let's
2:29:22
work constructively. I said, because look, at the end of
2:29:24
the day, if you don't address this, if you don't
2:29:28
address this issue, I said, history is not going to
2:29:31
remember you for the good. History is going to remember
2:29:34
you for all the harm you caused. Because when people
2:29:36
look back in history at, products that cause devastating harm,
2:29:40
which vaccines can do, they don't remember the good those
2:29:43
products did. They remember the harms that people ignored, that
2:29:46
were overlooked, and those were just cast aside. I said,
2:29:49
that will be your legacy. I said, but there's time
2:29:51
to correct. He hasn't written me back. Of course he
2:29:53
hasn't written you back. I posted both letters on my
2:29:55
sub stack and I tweeted them out. So this way,
2:29:57
I figured they could do some good that way. So
2:29:59
they're available to everybody to read.
2:30:00
Speaker 1: Well, I think it's a very unique time. that this
2:30:07
message can get out there because what they did when
2:30:12
they removed liability and they gave them blanket protection like that,
2:30:16
they opened up the door to a bunch of people
2:30:21
that really don't give a shit about you. They just
2:30:23
want to make as much money as possible. There's the scientists.
2:30:26
That's why I always describe like these companies. You've got
2:30:29
the people that are making these drugs. You've got these
2:30:31
really interesting, brilliant scientists and then you have the fucking
2:30:34
money people. The money people don't give a shit. They
2:30:38
just want to make more money and they're both together.
2:30:40
So you have this weird contradictory world where you have
2:30:43
like some amazing pharmaceutical drugs that helped so many people
2:30:47
and kept people alive and cured diseases. And then you
2:30:51
got the money people who want everybody to get shot
2:30:54
up because it's going to make them more money. And
2:30:56
those two working together is a very bad mixture, especially
2:31:01
when you have mandates. Then you mandate that these people
2:31:05
have to be able to inject you and inject your
2:31:07
children with this thing that's going to make them money
2:31:10
and they have zero liability. Like how could that possibly
2:31:13
go well? Knowing what you know about human beings, who
2:31:17
would sign off on that? That's crazy.
2:31:21
Speaker 2: You know, I had a business idea for you.
2:31:22
Speaker 1: Okay. You want to hear it? Sure.
2:31:23
Speaker 2: It's a great business idea. Listen, we're going to sell
2:31:25
this product to you. Okay.
2:31:27
Speaker 1: We're going to meet. Let's go. Okay.
2:31:28
Speaker 2: We can inject it into people. Are you worried it's
2:31:30
going to hurt people?
2:31:31
Speaker 1: Well, I'm a little worried. I want to hear your
2:31:33
story first. Don't worry. Don't worry. Don't worry.
2:31:36
Speaker 2: Don't worry about it because governments can give us immunity
2:31:38
to liability no matter how many people we hurt or kill. Oh. Yes.
2:31:40
Speaker 1: How did you work that out? Yeah, I know.
2:31:43
Speaker 2: Now, the weird part is you might be saying to me,
2:31:45
you say, Aaron, Aaron, wait a second.
2:31:47
Speaker 1: But who the heck did I take that? And I'll say, Joe,
2:31:50
don't worry. The government's going to mandate it, too. And
2:31:53
you might say, OK, but what if people rise up?
2:31:56
And I'll say, Joe, don't worry.
2:31:58
Speaker 2: They're going to spend billions convincing the public it's the
2:32:02
best thing.
2:32:03
Speaker 1: Since sliced bread. And then you're going to say, but
2:32:07
what if people still don't want to pay for it?
2:32:08
And I'll say, don't worry.
2:32:10
Speaker 2: The government, through a program, literally pays for half of
2:32:13
all vaccine, guarantees payments to the pharma companies, even if people...
2:32:17
Cannot pay.
2:32:19
Speaker 1: Sounds like a good investment.
2:32:21
Speaker 2: No liability, guaranteed market, free promotion, guaranteed payment.
2:32:26
Speaker 1: If it.
2:32:29
Speaker 2: Wasn't vaccines, you'd say it's insane. It is insane, and that.
2:32:32
Speaker 1: Is the business model of vaccines. That literally is what
2:32:34
I just said. So you're right, it's perverse.
2:32:37
Speaker 2: But this thing that you were just saying before about
2:32:41
the money men who want to just make money, look,
2:32:44
we live in a capitalist system where We have tapped
2:32:48
into that.
2:32:52
Speaker 1: Self-interest.
2:32:54
Speaker 2: But we try to harness it for good. So every
2:32:57
company has that to some degree. People have that to
2:33:00
some degree. But the idea with capitalism is, yeah, but
2:33:03
you got to channel that and you got to do good.
2:33:05
Speaker 1: You got to do a good product. You got to
2:33:07
do a good service. You got to do something positive.
2:33:09
And if you don't, you'll be held accountable.
2:33:12
Speaker 2: So it's got guardrails. Yes. So it's– because I– People
2:33:18
are like, well, what are you saying? Like people are
2:33:20
sitting there on the farm coming with horns and evil. No,
2:33:23
they're just– but they're just– they don't have guardrails. And
2:33:25
they've gone totally– they've gone totally off the rail.
2:33:29
Speaker 1: Do you like my business idea? It's a great idea.
2:33:32
I'm going to talk to my lawyer first because I
2:33:34
don't want to go to jail. Oh, you're right. I
2:33:37
would think in a sane society I'd get locked up
2:33:40
for the rest of my life, especially if he killed
2:33:42
a bunch of people, which is really crazy that none
2:33:44
of these people do wind up going to jail. They
2:33:46
pay giant criminal fines and then they slip away. I
2:33:49
mean look at the Sackler family. They haven't been jailed, right?
2:33:53
Wasn't there like– they were going to get immunity in
2:33:56
favor of like $ 6 billion or something crazy. But then
2:33:59
a judge kind of put the kibosh on that after Painkiller,
2:34:02
the Netflix docudrama came out.
2:34:05
Speaker 2: Yeah, and then– critically too I would say it's like
2:34:09
remember during the bank crisis, there were the banks that
2:34:12
were too big to fail?
2:34:12
Speaker 1: Yeah.
2:34:13
Speaker 2: So they want to touch those. The Sackler family, to me,
2:34:16
it's like the smaller bank that they could– I mean
2:34:20
it was bad. But they could sacrifice them. They could
2:34:23
sacrifice that pharma company. Are they going to sacrifice Merck, Sanofi, Pfizer, GSK,
2:34:29
any of those guys? Are they really going to sacrifice
2:34:32
them at the end of the day no matter how
2:34:34
much harm they do? I don't know.
2:34:37
Speaker 1: It's hard to see it. Well, listen, I'm glad you're
2:34:41
out there. And I'm glad you can articulate these points
2:34:44
so clearly and passionately because people need to hear it.
2:34:48
They need to know what the actual data is, what
2:34:51
the actual story is about all of it. And it's
2:34:54
better for all of us. And as hard as it is,
2:34:56
a pill to swallow, people need to get that glass
2:34:58
of water and start swallowing. So thank you very much.
2:35:02
Thanks for being here. I really enjoyed it. And tell
2:35:04
everybody your book. Did you do an audio version of it?
2:35:07
I did. Did you read it? I did.
2:35:09
Speaker 2: Oh. I did.
2:35:09
Speaker 1: How much work was it? Oh, my gosh.
2:35:11
Speaker 2: Look at that. Oh, my gosh. That was a lot.
2:35:15
I thought I could read, by the way. I was like, yeah,
2:35:19
it's reading. And then I realized when I had to
2:35:21
read the book, it was like I couldn't read anymore.
2:35:23
Speaker 1: Oh, that's hilarious.
2:35:24
Speaker 2: Oh, my gosh.
2:35:24
Speaker 1: Did you ever have to read an audio book? No,
2:35:26
but I do ads for the podcast, and Jamie will
2:35:28
tell you. I'm always like... I'm always fucking up sentences.
2:35:32
Then you got to redo them. It's brutal. Yeah. I talk,
2:35:35
just talking is fine.
2:35:36
Speaker 3: Right.
2:35:37
Speaker 1: When you have to read out loud, like your tongue
2:35:39
gets all tripped up. And I'm like, I go to
2:35:41
federal court. I can argue. I go, I go to
2:35:43
Senate hearings. I can like, I'm like, tell him the
2:35:45
audio guy.
2:35:46
Speaker 2: Cause we're in the studio alone. I'm like, I'm, I
2:35:48
really am. I think I'm you. I, it might seem
2:35:52
like a total moron. But I probably am a moron,
2:35:55
but I'm just a little bit– I don't know.
2:35:57
Speaker 1: I felt like such a moron. Yeah, I have friends
2:36:00
that have read their own books and they feel the
2:36:01
exact same way. It was so painful. Oh, my goodness.
2:36:05
But I did it. It's done. It's out there on
2:36:08
Audible and the books on Amazon. All right. Aaron, thank
2:36:12
you very much. It was an honor and a pleasure
2:36:14
having you in here. I really appreciate it.
2:36:16
Speaker 2: Thank you.
2:36:16
Speaker 1: Goodbye, everybody.