The Joe Rogan Experience - Joe Rogan Experience #2427 - Bret Weinstein

00:00:01.000 Joe Rogan Podcast, check it out!

00:00:03.000 The Joe Rogan experience.

00:00:06.000 Join my day, Joe Rogan, podcast by night, all day!

00:00:12.000 What's happening, man?

00:00:13.000 Hey, good to be back.

00:00:14.000 Good to see you.

00:00:15.000 So the reason why we had such a quick turnaround is because the last episode, one of the main reasons why you wanted to come on in the first place is you wanted to further discuss some discoveries about evolution.

00:00:32.000 Yes, specifically, I have alluded in a number of different places, including here, to there being another level to Darwinian evolution that does a lot of the heavy lifting that we require in order to explain the diversity of forms that we see in biology.

00:00:51.000 But I haven't been specific on what I believe that layer is.

00:00:56.000 And I felt like it was time.

00:00:59.000 I think, for one thing, the advances in AI mean that such things are going to emerge naturally.

00:01:07.000 And I wanted to put it on the table before it simply gets discovered as a matter of computing horsepower.

00:01:14.000 And we were just rambling about so many different things that we never got to it last time.

00:01:17.000 So I said, all right, let's do another quick turnaround, come back.

00:01:20.000 Right.

00:01:21.000 All right.

00:01:21.000 So let's talk biology.

00:01:24.000 And let me just say, you know, I know it's not everybody's bag, but I do think just about everybody has at some point listened to the story that we tell about adaptive evolution and wondered if it's really powerful enough to explain all of the creatures that we all know and love.

00:01:44.000 So the classic story is that you have a genome that it contains a great many genes.

00:01:52.000 A gene is a sequence in DNA that results in proteins being produced.

00:01:59.000 The DNA describes exactly the sequence of amino acids in a protein.

00:02:03.000 And a protein would typically be one of two things.

00:02:06.000 It would either be an enzyme, which is a little bit misleading as a term, but an enzyme, well, enzyme isn't misleading, but an enzyme is a catalyst.

00:02:16.000 Catalyst is misleading.

00:02:18.000 It's really a machine that puts other chemicals together.

00:02:22.000 So a lot of the genes in the genome are these little molecular machines that assemble molecules.

00:02:29.000 And the other thing that proteins are likely to be are structural.

00:02:33.000 So something like collagen proteins can make a matrix that allows you to sort of build a sculpture biologically.

00:02:41.000 And what we say is that the amino acid sequence is specified by the genome in three letter sequences, right?

00:02:52.000 Codons.

00:02:53.000 Each three letters specifies a particular amino acid that gets tacked on.

00:02:58.000 You get a sequence of amino acids that then collapse into whatever they're going to be, whether it's an enzyme or a structure based on little electromagnetic affinities that they have, little side chains that have a positive or a negative charge that attract each other.

00:03:15.000 So basically, these machines assemble themselves by folding in very complex ways that then causes them to interact with the molecules around them in very specific ways.

00:03:27.000 Ways that greatly reduce the energy necessary and make the reactions much more likely to happen.

00:03:36.000 That's why we call it a catalyst.

00:03:37.000 But really the way to think of it is a little molecular machine.

00:03:41.000 So we say the way evolution works is random changes happen to the DNA because DNA is imperfectly copied or is impacted by radiation, which will eliminate a letter in the DNA.

00:03:56.000 And then that letter will get replaced by a different letter.

00:03:58.000 There are only four choices.

00:04:00.000 But some fraction of the time, you get a three-letter combination that specifies a new amino acid.

00:04:08.000 Almost all of the time, that will make the little molecular machine worse or break it altogether.

00:04:13.000 Occasionally, it will leave the machine functional in a way that's somewhat better than the previous one.

00:04:21.000 And then evolution will collect all of those advances.

00:04:25.000 And that's how evolution works.

00:04:26.000 That's the story we typically tell.

00:04:28.000 And in fact, that's the story that is encoded in what's called the central dogma of molecular biology.

00:04:37.000 Now, the problem, most people will have thought about that, and they will have heard: okay, random mutations that change this code in ways that alter proteins.

00:04:49.000 That doesn't sound that sounds like a very haphazard process and a very difficult way to get from one form of animal or plant or fungus to another.

00:05:00.000 So if you've had that thought, that just doesn't seem powerful enough.

00:05:05.000 And then biologists have said, well, you're not realizing how much time elapses that allows these very occasional positive changes to accumulate.

00:05:15.000 And that's true.

00:05:17.000 If that's a thought you've had, this process isn't powerful enough to explain the creatures I'm aware of, then what I'm going to tell you is a way in which that process is not the only process.

00:05:29.000 And by adding a different process, very much a Darwinian one, we can see that the power to create all the creatures that we see is much greater than the story that we've been told.

00:05:39.000 Okay, so I'm going to put a hypothesis on the table about what enhances this.

00:05:45.000 And essentially what I'm arguing is if you sat down to a computer game, right, something very realistic, and somebody says, well, that's all binary.

00:05:58.000 That's true.

00:05:59.000 It's all binary.

00:06:00.000 But what they're not telling you is that there's an intervening layer that greatly increases the power to use binary to make something like a computer game.

00:06:08.000 So there are multiple different levels inside your computer.

00:06:11.000 One of them is that your computer can be programmed in a language that is much closer to English, and then a compiler can take what you've written that a computer can't understand and turn it into a computer understandable code.

00:06:26.000 And so the ability to make powerful programs depends on our ability not to have to program our computers in binary, but to be able to program them in C or whatever.

00:06:38.000 That's the kind of thing I'm pointing to, is a mechanism that enhances the power of evolution to do the stuff that we know evolution accomplishes.

00:06:47.000 Okay, so here's what I think is the missing layer.

00:06:51.000 And I will say I've done a bunch of research to figure out how much of this is understood.

00:06:58.000 And I find a very confusing picture.

00:07:00.000 It actually depends which field I come at it from to see what the blind spots are.

00:07:06.000 But I'm going to leave that primarily for another time.

00:07:10.000 Let's just say the two fields in question are my field, evolutionary biology, and an interdisciplinary science called Evo Devo.

00:07:21.000 Evo Devo is the evolution of development.

00:07:24.000 And Evo Devo is a much newer, in some ways, a more vibrant field.

00:07:31.000 I would argue my field is stuck.

00:07:32.000 Evo Devo has been making progress from the developmental side on a number of different questions.

00:07:39.000 Okay, so now let's talk about adaptive evolution and what adaptive evolutionists seem to be missing that I think does a bunch of the heavy lifting in terms of explaining creatures.

00:07:53.000 So let me just start by saying the thing I said at the beginning about protein-coding genes being altered by random mutation resulting in changes, I'm not arguing that that is in any way a false story.

00:08:06.000 It explains a great many things.

00:08:10.000 My point is that what it primarily explains are things at nanoscale.

00:08:16.000 It can explain the difference in a pigment molecule very easily, and we know that it does.

00:08:22.000 It can explain things somewhat larger than that, like the very special structure.

00:08:29.000 When you're a kid, do you ever play with the feathers of a bird?

00:08:32.000 You pull them apart, and then they zip back together.

00:08:35.000 Those kinds of things can be readily explained by the mechanism as we present it.

00:08:41.000 What I'm going to argue is difficult to explain is the change from one macroscopic form to another.

00:08:51.000 So for example, the wing of a bat.

00:08:56.000 The wing of a bat evolved from the foot of a terrestrial or arboreal, meaning tree-dwelling, mammal, like a shrew.

00:09:08.000 So I sent Jamie a picture of a shrew's foot.

00:09:12.000 Maybe we should just put it up.

00:09:15.000 So what we'll look at is the foot of a shrew, and it won't surprise you at all.

00:09:20.000 It looks exactly as you would expect.

00:09:22.000 It's got, you know, digits, and it looks like every other mammal's foot.

00:09:27.000 So here we have an example of it.

00:09:31.000 Okay, now let's take a look at the wing of a bat.

00:09:38.000 So here we have the wing of a bat.

00:09:41.000 Now that wing is a highly modified front foot.

00:09:47.000 The ribs that suspend, that hold the membrane, what we call the patagia, apart, are highly elongated fingers.

00:09:59.000 So what you're seeing are the phalanges of that little shrew's foot, elongated, very much so.

00:10:08.000 Now, what the EvoDevo folks will tell you, and they are right about this, is that the difference between that bat's wing and its fingers and that shrew's foot and its toes is not a molecular difference.

00:10:26.000 There may be molecular differences between the foot and the wing, but you could build that wing and that foot out of the very same molecules.

00:10:35.000 What you're doing is distributing them differently.

00:10:38.000 You have different amounts of molecules distributed in different ways to make these elaborate structures from the primitive structures.

00:10:48.000 With me so far?

00:10:49.000 Yep.

00:10:49.000 Okay.

00:10:50.000 So what I realized more than 25 years ago, many people who've heard you and me talk before will have heard us talk about my work on telomeres.

00:11:02.000 So telomeres, you'll remember, are structures at the end of every chromosome that are not genes.

00:11:11.000 They are repetitive sequences.

00:11:13.000 They're written in DNA, but it's basically just a repeated series of letters again and again and again.

00:11:21.000 And the telomere, basically the number of repeats that are there, dictates how many times a cell line can duplicate.

00:11:32.000 It loses repeats each time it duplicates.

00:11:36.000 And when it gets down to a critically low number, it stops reproducing.

00:11:41.000 Now, we've talked before about why that system exists.

00:11:47.000 The short version is in creatures like us, it prevents cancers from happening because if a cell line runs away and just starts reproducing, it runs into this limit, the Hayflick limit, and stops reproducing.

00:12:00.000 So it prevents cancer, but it limits the amount of repair that we can do in a lifetime, so it causes us to senesce, to age, and grow feeble as we do so.

00:12:12.000 But what it said to me when I was doing that work was that there is a kind of information that can be stored in genomes in DNA that is not protein-oriented.

00:12:27.000 It's not what we would call allelic.

00:12:29.000 It's not written in three-letter codons.

00:12:32.000 It's actually a number stored the same way you would store a variable in a computer program.

00:12:41.000 The telomere, the length of the telomere, is a count of how many times a cell line is allowed to divide over a lifetime.

00:12:49.000 It's a number.

00:12:51.000 And what occurred to me all those years ago was that the ability to store a number in the genome is fantastically powerful.

00:13:03.000 What it means, if you could store a lot of numbers in the genome, is that you could describe creatures by allotting something, either a quantity of material or an amount of time in development, that you could specify things in the language of numbers that you can't specify in the language of amino acids.

00:13:27.000 So the hypothesis that I'm putting on the table is that the evolutionary process has built a system in which variables,

00:13:42.000 in which integers are stored in DNA, and those integers dictate phenomena like developmental timing, turning on and off something like the growth of one of those phalanx, the phalanges in the fingers.

00:14:01.000 If you could radically increase the number that dictated the length of one of those bones, then selection would effectively be in a position to play with adjacent forms.

00:14:16.000 So am I confusing you, or is this making sense?

00:14:20.000 Okay, so the question is: all right, the telomere is a special case.

00:14:26.000 The telomere exists at the end of a chromosome, and it can only exist at the end of a chromosome because of the way it functions.

00:14:34.000 So a telomere is not actually just a string, it's actually a loop.

00:14:38.000 And the telomere loops back, and at the very tip, there's a little section where the DNA is not double-stranded, it's single-stranded, and that single-strand inserts between two other strands of DNA.

00:14:52.000 So if you loop the DNA at the end of the chromosome back, it's called a D-loop.

00:14:56.000 And then you get this one little single-stranded DNA that inserts between a double-stranded and makes a very tiny triple-stranded cap so that it holds the loop in place.

00:15:09.000 You can't do that in the middle of a chromosome.

00:15:10.000 So it's not like there are telomeres all over the place.

00:15:13.000 But what there are are a bunch of sequences that were traditionally dismissed as junk DNA that have been used as a molecular marker in biology for decades.

00:15:32.000 We use something called microsatellites.

00:15:35.000 So a microsatellite is a repetitive sequence in DNA that does not code for a protein.

00:15:40.000 It's just like a telomere in that way.

00:15:43.000 And they vary in length.

00:15:46.000 They vary in length a lot.

00:15:48.000 So that you may have a species in which the genome is very homogeneous, but between populations, there will have been change in the length of these microsatellites, changes that, as far as we know, don't make any difference.

00:16:04.000 But if you're a biologist in the field and you want to know if the trees in this valley are more closely related to the trees in valley A or valley B, you can look at a particular microsatellite and you can say these trees have a microsatellite at this location that is more similar in length to population A than to population B. Thus, with some confidence, we think it's more close, it evolved from population A, something like that.

00:16:30.000 So we use them as a tool for assessing things like relatedness.

00:16:36.000 But we don't typically think of them as a storage modality for a kind of information that might be useful.

00:16:45.000 So the hypothesis that I'm putting on the table, and by the way, these things are extremely common in the genome.

00:16:52.000 There are many more variable number tandem repeats in the genome than there are genes.

00:17:01.000 And my point is, I don't know whether evolution uses them as a place to store variables that then become important in describing creatures, but evolution is a very clever process.

00:17:18.000 And the ability to store a variable, I feel highly confident that there will be many variables stored in many different ways.

00:17:25.000 That there are ways in which you can store a variable in triplet codon language, but they're clumsy, they're crude.

00:17:35.000 So you can have things like a dosage compensation.

00:17:41.000 You can have a gene that's repeated multiple times, and the more copies you have, the larger dose of the product that you get.

00:17:49.000 So if you have three copies of alcohol dehydrogenase, you'll have more alcohol tolerance than two copies, something like that.

00:17:57.000 So that demonstrates a way in triplet codon language that you can store a variable.

00:18:03.000 But what I'm arguing is that there's, at least in principle, the possibility for a vast library of variables that have developmental implications for the way creatures look that allows you to go.

00:18:18.000 I mean, imagine for a second the most recent common ancestor of all bats.

00:18:26.000 Most recent common ancestor of all bats is an animal that has gone from no ability to fly to the ability to fly.

00:18:37.000 As soon as you have the ability to fly, the number of things that you could do, the number of niches that are available, is very large.

00:18:46.000 Can I pause there and ask a question?

00:18:48.000 Sure.

00:18:48.000 So here's the real question, specifically in regards to flying.

00:18:54.000 How does an animal go from being a shrew or some other rodent-type creature to something that eventually can fly, and what are the steps along the way?

00:19:07.000 And how would that even facilitate itself?

00:19:09.000 Like, how would you get an animal that's completely stuck on the ground and can only hop a little bit to something that can literally traverse 3D space?

00:19:19.000 All right, welcome to the busy season.

00:19:21.000 There's probably a lot on your plate, and chances are that your plate isn't full of everything we need to maintain our daily health.

00:19:28.000 But that's where AG1 comes in.

00:19:31.000 To keep you ahead of all those seasonal struggles, AG1 is the daily health drink that can help you stay one scoop ahead of the stress, socializing, and snacking that comes with the season.

00:19:42.000 I've talked about AG1 for a long time, and I know one scoop of AG1 takes care of your multivitamin, pre- and probiotics, superfoods, and antioxidants to support your daily health, even when you get thrown off your nutrition routine.

00:19:56.000 When you have so much going on, don't leave it up to chance.

00:19:59.000 Take care of yourself.

00:20:00.000 Drinking AG1 every morning is a simple action that helps you stay one scoop ahead of everything coming your way.

00:20:06.000 And that's why I've partnered with them for so long.

00:20:09.000 If you want to stay ahead of the season with support for your energy, immune health, daily nutrition, and more, it's time to start your AG1 routine.

00:20:18.000 AG1 has a special holiday offer.

00:20:20.000 If you head to drinkag1.com slash Joe Rogan, you'll get the welcome kit, a morning person hat, a bottle of vitamin D3 plus K2, and an AG1 flavor sampler for free with your first subscription.

00:20:34.000 That's over $100 in free gifts.

00:20:36.000 Just head to drinkag1.com slash Joe Rogan or visit the link in the description to get started.

00:20:42.000 This is why I love you, Joe.

00:20:44.000 I mean, it's one of the reasons.

00:20:47.000 This is a question that has perplexed biologists.

00:20:50.000 We have done a lot of work.

00:20:51.000 We know a lot.

00:20:52.000 It's one of the most fantastic abilities of all of the animals.

00:20:55.000 Right.

00:20:56.000 How surprising is it?

00:20:57.000 That's the question.

00:20:58.000 Is it so surprising that it's actually impossible?

00:21:00.000 And I think the answer is just simply no.

00:21:02.000 It's quite possible.

00:21:03.000 Well, obviously, it's possible.

00:21:05.000 Well, no.

00:21:05.000 I mean, you know, let's steel man the opposing position.

00:21:11.000 Intelligent design position.

00:21:12.000 There's certainly a lot of people who would argue that actually no, there are gaps you can't jump.

00:21:18.000 We should explain that as well.

00:21:20.000 Like, this is one of the reasons why this argument has come up, because intelligent design asserts that random mutation and natural selection does not account for the vast variety of species, and it could not account for a rodent or a shrew, which is believed to be our common ancestor, eventually becoming a human being.

00:21:43.000 Let's just say I have, you know, initially I thought that all of the intelligent design folks were anti-scientific and really basically just religious people wielding sophistry.

00:22:03.000 I now know several of them in person and quite like them, and I quite like them scientifically.

00:22:09.000 I think they actually have done an excellent job of pointing out the folly in evolutionary biology.

00:22:15.000 And in part, what I'm saying is I appreciate their pointing out that the mechanism that we teach is not powerful enough to do what we claim it does.

00:22:24.000 I have the same suspicion.

00:22:25.000 My argument is there is a mechanism that is powerful enough, and we haven't been looking at it because we've been telling the story that we've got it nailed already, and I just don't think we do.

00:22:37.000 So let's go to your question about how you get from a creature that can't fly at all to a creature that does fly.

00:22:44.000 And now, my feeling is actually this one is pretty easy.

00:22:49.000 And I'm not saying that we know how it did happen in the case of a bat.

00:22:54.000 We are hobbled in the case of bats by two things.

00:22:59.000 One, the fact that bats are primarily tropical.

00:23:03.000 The bulk of the species are tropical.

00:23:05.000 And the other is that the majority of bats are small with spindly limbs.

00:23:14.000 What that means is that they don't fossilize well.

00:23:17.000 Tropics are not a good place for fossilization, and bats are not a good candidate for fossilization.

00:23:23.000 And so unfortunately, the fossil record doesn't tell us a clear story the way it does.

00:23:27.000 Well, the bird story is getting ever clearer.

00:23:30.000 We've got good bird fossils in a way that we didn't when you and I were young.

00:23:34.000 But in the case of a bat, I would say the way to think of it is this.

00:23:40.000 Have you seen flying squirrels?

00:23:42.000 Yes.

00:23:42.000 Okay.

00:23:43.000 You've seen them fly.

00:23:44.000 Okay.

00:23:44.000 Mm-hmm.

00:23:45.000 Not in person, but videos.

00:23:46.000 Oh, okay.

00:23:47.000 I have actually twice seen it.

00:23:49.000 Yeah.

00:23:50.000 The funny thing is, they're not uncommon, but they are very uncommon to see.

00:23:55.000 And the reason they are uncommon to see is that they're nocturnal and they are so damn silent.

00:24:02.000 So the two times I've seen it was when they got into an argument with each other.

00:24:06.000 Okay, and they started chattering, and I was like, huh, what is this?

00:24:10.000 And okay, lo and behold, it's flying squirrels, and they're moving through a patch of forest, and it's the most amazing thing.

00:24:17.000 These things, you know, technically, they're not flying.

00:24:21.000 They're purely gliding.

00:24:22.000 I would argue that that's actually not a really good distinction because at some level what they're doing is powering flight by climbing trees.

00:24:29.000 So they climb a tree, you know, they've got potential energy, and then they glide to the next tree.

00:24:35.000 They'll go from the end of a branch and they will glide much farther than you would think is possible.

00:24:42.000 It's really like it challenges you.

00:24:44.000 Am I really seeing what I'm seeing?

00:24:46.000 It's hard to believe they can do it.

00:24:48.000 And then they land on the trunk of the tree.

00:24:50.000 That's why they're so silent.

00:24:52.000 They land on the trunk so it doesn't make a big noise as they hit some branch and the leaves rustle and all of that.

00:24:57.000 But anyway, if you've seen these creatures do it, then you can imagine a pretty clear story.

00:25:05.000 Imagine a squirrel that doesn't glide, a regular garden variety squirrel.

00:25:10.000 Well, that squirrel certainly faces gaps between trees that push it to its limit, and then there's gaps that are just a little beyond its limit.

00:25:19.000 And you could imagine lots of scenarios in which a predator is chasing a squirrel, and it's got it out onto the end of a branch, and the squirrel has to leap, and so it's got to be pretty durable in case it can't make it to the next tree.

00:25:34.000 They are.

00:25:36.000 But any squirrel that had just a little advantage in getting to that next tree would out-compete ones that got consumed or died because they, you know, hit the ground too hard or fell in front of a predator that took advantage of it or something like that.

00:25:53.000 So there is an advantage that comes from even a tiny little increase in the distance you can jump.

00:25:59.000 So that gets you pretty clearly from no ability to glide at all, ability to jump as is, to the ability to glide a little, to the ability to glide a lot, to the ability to glide the way modern flying squirrels do, which is like so impressive, right?

00:26:17.000 But it's still not, it's not flapping flight.

00:26:19.000 It's not powered.

00:26:21.000 So you can imagine a story in which the shrew ancestor climbed things and had the same situation.

00:26:28.000 And maybe it starts out, in fact, it probably does start out, with maybe a little webbing between the fingers that gives it just a little extra lift, right?

00:26:40.000 And you could imagine once you get onto that little foothill, a little lift, well, a little more lift would be good.

00:26:47.000 So those individuals that had just slightly more webbing outcompeted those individuals that had slightly less webbing.

00:26:52.000 But what would cause them to develop the webbing in the first place?

00:26:55.000 Well, that's just it.

00:26:59.000 Is that random mutation?

00:27:02.000 Well, yeah, I would say at some level, these things all have to start there.

00:27:07.000 But my overarching point is selection not only discovers forms, it discovers ways to discover forms.

00:27:21.000 So I call these ways explorer modes.

00:27:26.000 This is a concept I've taken a certain amount of crap over, but I'm quite convinced of it.

00:27:31.000 I would argue that our consciousness is an explorer mode.

00:27:35.000 Our consciousness allows us to come up with ideas that might be useful and to kind of test them in our heads and to figure out how we would try them out in life and then to build a prototype and see how it works and then discover how it might be improved.

00:27:53.000 And sooner or later, you get from the Wright Flyer of 1903, which can stay off the ground for barely half a minute, to not so many years later, a modification of the same aircraft that can circle the Eiffel Tower.

00:28:09.000 It's that process.

00:28:10.000 That is the ability to explore design space in some way that is not random.

00:28:16.000 And to the extent that the genome is capable of storing a large number of variables and then applying them, what that means is at the point that you have the first true bat, the first flyer, that animal has discovered an adaptive landscape, a series of opportunities that we represent as peaks that is unknown.

00:28:43.000 What can you do if you can fly that you couldn't do when you could only climb?

00:28:48.000 Well, you can move between distant trees and collect fruit.

00:28:53.000 You can catch insects that are flying on the wing.

00:28:56.000 You can seek out mammals and birds and slit them open and drink their blood.

00:29:04.000 You can catch fish that come to the surface and cause ripples.

00:29:08.000 These are all things that bats do.

00:29:10.000 And the point is the initial bat presumably didn't do much of any of that.

00:29:15.000 It did some, probably a generalist something.

00:29:18.000 But having achieved flight, there's a question about how evolution can find all of the opportunities that are now suddenly available.

00:29:27.000 And the idea that this happens through occasional random mutation of a protein-coding gene that alters something important is, in my opinion, ridiculous.

00:29:41.000 That more likely, vastly more likely, is a system in which parameters like finger length and the length of each phalanx in the finger is stored as a variable, and those variables get readily modified.

00:30:01.000 In other words, if you looked at the hand of every human being, you would see that there is already a ton of variation in the relative lengths of the different digits and the relative lengths to each of the knuckles.

00:30:18.000 And that if those things are reflective of a particular state stored as essentially an integer in the genome, that all of the adjacent states are very available and therefore evolution can explore what Stuart Kaufman would call the adjacent possible.

00:30:44.000 Have you heard that term?

00:30:45.000 No.

00:30:46.000 Have you had Stuart on?

00:30:47.000 No.

00:30:48.000 So Stuart Kaufman is a complex systems theorist and his point, one of many, is that effectively the creatures we see exist in a design space and that selection finds the things that are similar to what you've got near enough to be accessed and advantageous.

00:31:16.000 So if you have a rodent of one size and there is, you know, let's say you have a rodent that specializes on a particular seed and it exists in a habitat where there's another seed that's similar but much bigger.

00:31:34.000 Well, then you need to access the adjacent possible in order for a second species or subspecies of this rodent to evolve to take advantage of this untapped resource.

00:31:45.000 So if you think of, you know, all of the things that you've got and then all of the things that you might want that are similar, that's the adjacent possible.

00:31:55.000 And my point is variables as one of the primary modes of information storage in the genome provides a mechanism for evolution to explore the adjacent possible in a radically more effective way than the story we typically tell about random mutations to protein-coding genes.

00:32:20.000 There's nothing undarwinian about this.

00:32:22.000 Darwin didn't know anything about genes, probably to his advantage in the long term, because if he had understood genes, he might have made many of the same mistakes that we made in the middle of the 20th century in evolution where we became overly focused on the genes we understood.

00:32:38.000 But basically, everything that Darwin said was about a vague hereditary information, and numbers is no less a candidate for that than triplet codons stored that code for amino acids.

00:32:55.000 So my point is Darwin is untouched by this.

00:32:59.000 Darwin is still the guy.

00:33:01.000 He nailed it.

00:33:02.000 And this is just as Darwinian as protein-coding genes.

00:33:07.000 It's just vastly more powerful with respect to taking a form that you've already got and finding a similar form that you don't yet have.

00:33:15.000 Now there's lots of nuances about how this could work.

00:33:18.000 There's lots of questions I certainly can't answer.

00:33:20.000 I will say, as I was mentioning at the top, this story seems to be largely unaddressed in adaptive evolution space.

00:33:30.000 If I come at it from the Evo-Devo side, I see much more description of mechanisms that work like this.

00:33:41.000 But I don't see the revolution that should happen when you've come to understand that you have this very powerful additional evolutionary mechanism that should be causing a massive uptick in the power of what we can address adaptively.

00:33:59.000 And it does not seem to be there.

00:34:02.000 Now, I'm not in a university anymore.

00:34:05.000 I'm not primarily working as a biologist.

00:34:07.000 So it's possible I've missed something.

00:34:10.000 But there's, well, I mean, as you know, we have massively dysfunctional institutions.

00:34:17.000 And they, you know, I've thought my field was stuck in a ditch since really before I entered it.

00:34:25.000 You know, the last major progress in my field was 1976.

00:34:30.000 And that's what I think.

00:34:33.000 Yeah.

00:34:33.000 And what was that?

00:34:35.000 The selfish gene provides us a mechanism.

00:34:41.000 It's basically a synthesis of what we understand about adaptive evolution.

00:34:45.000 It provides the first gateway to understand cultural evolution in rigorous Darwinian terms.

00:34:54.000 I don't think that that gateway, I don't think we ever went through it.

00:34:59.000 In fact, when I've talked to Dawkins about his effective discovery, the meme, he doesn't seem to understand the power of it.

00:35:10.000 He thinks of it as, I mean, he says in chapter 11 of The Selfish Gene, he says that the landscape of memes is like a new primeval soup, which is not what it is.

00:35:24.000 It's actually a solution that the genes have come up with for how to evolve things like humans more rapidly than can be done at the genetic level.

00:35:36.000 We can evolve at a cultural level, which solves a problem for the genes that the genes can't solve directly.

00:35:41.000 And that means that all of the space of human culture and the culture of other creatures, but our culture is vastly more refined and powerful and diverse.

00:35:54.000 But that space is basically an enhanced, it's another enhancement to the toolkit of Darwinian evolution, which we have unfortunately often dismissed as non-evolutionary or as a parallel kind of evolution,

00:36:14.000 rather than as a turbocharged adaptive evolution that is targeted at the same objectives as our genes are, which is what it really turns out to be.

00:36:27.000 So in any case, that was 1976.

00:36:31.000 The thing that has been a revolution since then was Evo Devo, evolution of development.

00:36:40.000 But it didn't come from the Darwinists.

00:36:42.000 It came primarily from the developmental side.

00:36:44.000 These are people who were focused on mechanism.

00:36:48.000 And so in some sense, the story of the failure of biology to update our evolutionary model is the result of a historical accident.

00:37:03.000 So the first Darwinists, including Darwin himself, were not focused on molecular scale mechanisms because they couldn't be.

00:37:12.000 They didn't have any tools to look at those things.

00:37:14.000 And so they looked at the creatures and they saw patterns.

00:37:19.000 And so they became very focused on recognizing the patterns and what they imply about what must be going on inside.

00:37:26.000 But they got out of the habit of thinking about mechanism because the mechanisms weren't available to them.

00:37:31.000 The developmental biologists were exactly the inverse.

00:37:35.000 They didn't really have patience for evolutionary thinking.

00:37:38.000 They were purely about mechanism and all kinds of experiments, like, you know, taking a piece of one egg and grafting it into another egg and watching the weird monster that is created when the egg is getting the same signal from two different directions, right?

00:37:55.000 That kind of thing.

00:37:57.000 And, you know, Evo Devo is a very good start on bringing these things together, but I don't know if it's academic territoriality or just lack of imagination seems to be preventing the revolution in our understanding of the most powerful process that exists.

00:38:18.000 And it's frustrating.

00:38:21.000 So anyway, I hope others will take this to heart.

00:38:27.000 It could easily be that the larger point is right, that variables in the genome are very important and that the variable number tandem repeats are not the way that they are stored.

00:38:38.000 That would be interesting.

00:38:40.000 Maybe the variable number tandem repeats are the way it's stored, in which case there's an awful lot to be learned about how that information is read.

00:38:47.000 In other words, once you know that that's true, if it is, then the question is, okay, well, how do we look into a particular genome and see the mapping of those variables onto the creature that we see running around in the forest?

00:39:01.000 That would be an amazingly powerful mapping to have.

00:39:06.000 So anyway, I didn't want to leave it as a vague allusion to a hidden layer.

00:39:17.000 I wanted to point to a hidden layer that would explain how this process that we've all learned about might be much more powerful than the story we've been told about it.

00:39:27.000 I was watching a documentary once on the BBC about the Congo, and it's a really amazing documentary.

00:39:34.000 And one of the things that it points out, too, is the rapid development of new abilities that these animals have that live in the Congo that used to be on the plains.

00:39:43.000 And as the rainforest expanded, they were kind of trapped in here.

00:39:48.000 And one of them they pointed to was dikers, you know, those little small antelopes that now have the ability to swim underwater for as much as 100 yards and they eat fish.

00:40:00.000 And they were talking about it, like, this is this fantastic development because they know how long it took for the grasslands to have been overtaken by the rainforest, and it wasn't that long.

00:40:11.000 And it didn't seem to account for the adaptation that they were seeing in these animals.

00:40:17.000 This is exactly the thing that bugs me, is imagine what would have happened if there was not an enhanced evolutionary toolkit to that creature.

00:40:29.000 It would have gone extinct.

00:40:30.000 Right.

00:40:31.000 That's the story again and again.

00:40:34.000 Well, it's a story with humans, right?

00:40:35.000 Inuits.

00:40:36.000 It's a story with people that live in extremely cold climates, right?

00:40:39.000 They've developed all these adaptations to be able to survive in this intense weather where people who live in the tropics, if you've moved them to that environment, they would die.

00:40:51.000 It's a story with every clade of creatures.

00:40:56.000 This is a chaotic planet, right?

00:41:00.000 At levels that I think maybe we don't even fully yet appreciate.

00:41:04.000 The difference between committing to a particular way of existing that seems really awesome for some period of time and then is suddenly impossible and the ability to leap from one way of being to another is the key to getting through time, which is what evolution is doing.

00:41:22.000 I always phrase it as the purpose that evolution points towards is lodging your genes as far into the future as you can get them.

00:41:32.000 And people don't, I think, fully appreciate when I say that that it's not just a clever rephrasing of what might be more standard might be found in a textbook.

00:41:42.000 The point is anything that satisfies that objective is valid.

00:41:50.000 So for example, if you have, so we have a process.

00:41:55.000 It's one of my favorites to think about, which is called adaptive radiation.

00:42:00.000 Adaptive radiation is where you get some creature that either solves some problem or gets to some new place and then diversifies and we get 50 or 100 or 1,000 species that are derived from that initial discovery, right?

00:42:17.000 So you get this blooming of forms, right?

00:42:19.000 The first bird.

00:42:21.000 What was the first bird even doing?

00:42:23.000 We don't know.

00:42:25.000 But what we do know is that we have 11,000 species of these things now all doing subtly different stuff.

00:42:32.000 Some of them not even flying.

00:42:34.000 Right.

00:42:34.000 Some of them have lost the ability to fly.

00:42:36.000 So the point is the discovery of birdness opens up a huge number of potential discoveries.

00:42:44.000 Evolution would be a dumb process if it didn't effectively search that space. 0.77

00:42:51.000 If it randomly waited to find each of those opportunities, that's so much less powerful than searching the space.

00:43:00.000 And then once you get the search of a space, okay, so you get, you know, 100 hits.

00:43:07.000 You get some innovation.

00:43:08.000 It provides 100 niches that you could move into from there.

00:43:12.000 It creates 100 species.

00:43:14.000 And it turns out most of those niches are durable on the scale of 10,000 years, but not 50,000 years.

00:43:22.000 So you get a bunch of them going extinct.

00:43:26.000 But as long as one of them or two of them have gotten through that bottleneck, right?

00:43:31.000 The huge blooming of branches and then the pruning of branches.

00:43:35.000 The ancestor has now gotten to the future in the form of however many species made it through that destructive process.

00:43:44.000 It is selection at a different scale than we typically think of it.

00:43:48.000 And so thinking of evolution as this dynamic process that is not only searching design space, but learning to enhance its capacity to search design space in order to get into the future is the way to think of it.

00:44:04.000 It's much more powerful than the clumsy version that we describe, even if we don't yet understand where that power is lodged.

00:44:11.000 If we were imaginative and we said, okay, what would I do if I was evolution to enhance the likelihood of getting to the future?

00:44:19.000 Well, then you start finding these explorer modes.

00:44:22.000 And, you know, I understand that I will be ridiculed for saying that because it imposes on selection a directionality that probably at a technical level we are right to assume does not exist.

00:44:38.000 But let me point this out.

00:44:42.000 We often say that evolution cannot look forward.

00:44:46.000 It can only see the past.

00:44:48.000 At a technical level, this is true.

00:44:51.000 On the other hand, we all agree that evolution built us.

00:44:56.000 I can see the future, right?

00:44:58.000 I can understand what is likely to happen.

00:45:02.000 I can extrapolate and see things that haven't occurred yet, and I will do hypothesis testing to see if my understanding is correct.

00:45:10.000 But the point is, evolution can't see the future, but it can build creatures that see the future on its behalf.

00:45:17.000 Isn't that kind of like it looking into the future?

00:45:19.000 It feels a lot like it is to me.

00:45:21.000 I've always been fascinated by animals that don't change.

00:45:25.000 Like animals that have reached some very bizarre apex predator, like crocodiles, for instance.

00:45:31.000 Crocodiles, dragonflies, sharks, horseshoe crabs.

00:45:36.000 Yeah.

00:45:37.000 So this is a place where I think a good evolutionary course says the right thing about it.

00:45:45.000 What a good evolutionary course says about this is we think of these creatures as backwards. 0.99

00:45:53.000 They are the opposite.

00:45:55.000 They are so good that in spite of competition from more modern forms, they still persist.

00:46:02.000 If you've watched a dragonfly, it's a super agile creature.

00:46:07.000 It's a formidable predator.

00:46:10.000 And so anyway, when you see one of these creatures that has been very little modified, it's because it did find a form that's durable over a very long period of time.

00:46:21.000 And in some ways, that's the greatest strategy.

00:46:26.000 Having to change in order to deal with the changes in the environment is perilous.

00:46:35.000 Having found something that is so durable that it consists, that it persists era after era, epoch after epoch, is at least a very comprehensible strategy and arguably the better one because anything that has existed that long, maybe we talked in a past podcast about the Lindy effect.

00:46:56.000 Yes.

00:46:57.000 Yeah.

00:46:58.000 The idea that we tend to think that the longer something's been around, that it's overdue to be destroyed, but that often the answer is something that's been around a long time is actually built to last.

00:47:10.000 And so if it's been around a long time, you might expect to see it last a lot longer.

00:47:14.000 So it's that.

00:47:16.000 It's the Lindy effect in animal or plant form.

00:47:20.000 So it's just essentially evolution nailed it.

00:47:24.000 They developed an animal that's so adaptive and so designed to succeed in its particular environment that it doesn't really need to change.

00:47:33.000 Yes, and in fact, you know, we are in some ways, we haven't been around that long, but it looks like we are a variation on that theme, precisely because we have a generalist body plan.

00:47:53.000 The physical robot, that is the human being, is capable of doing a tremendous number of things.

00:47:59.000 And the software program can be essentially entirely rewritten.

00:48:04.000 The culture that you inherit can take a person and it can rewire them for a very different niche, including the ability to avail themselves of whatever tools are necessary to do whatever things the body plan doesn't do on its own.

00:48:20.000 So that's a cool strategy, right?

00:48:23.000 To have a generalist robot and a software program that can be swapped out as needed, that evolution can rewrite very rapidly, that evolution can rewrite on the basis of not only the conjecture of an intelligent creature, but the pooled parallel processing of multiple individuals of the species.

00:48:49.000 This is what Heather and I describe in our book as campfire.

00:48:53.000 The light has faded.

00:48:55.000 It's too dark for you to be productive at whatever your niche is.

00:48:58.000 You gather around the campfire and you talk.

00:49:01.000 You talk about problems that you've run into, solutions that you're working on.

00:49:07.000 You pool the information.

00:49:09.000 People have different histories.

00:49:11.000 They have different skill sets.

00:49:13.000 And they parallel process the puzzles and they come up with ideas which, you know, the most amazing adaptation of all is the one we're using right now.

00:49:25.000 The ability for me to put an abstract idea into your head over open space by vibrating the air molecules between us.

00:49:35.000 I mean, that is a miracle.

00:49:38.000 Pretty crazy.

00:49:39.000 It's amazing.

00:49:40.000 And that we can prove that we're not fooling ourselves.

00:49:43.000 I could say something that nobody's ever thought of, like, I don't know, potato rocket ship, right?

00:49:54.000 And you could draw on the piece of paper your interpretation and I could say, yeah, that's the thing I was thinking of, right?

00:50:00.000 That ability to prove that we are, in fact, exchanging abstract ideas across open air and that that allows multiple minds that are not physically touching each other to process together concepts is.

00:50:17.000 It's truly stunning and, in conjunction with the generalist robot that can use tools, it's a it's an amazingly good strategy.

00:50:26.000 When you talk about humans, one of the things that fascinates me about people is the, the changes in human beings because of the environment, because of input meaning, like certain chemicals we're exposed to, sedentary lifestyle.

00:50:44.000 There's changes that are taking place that we can measure from human beings that lived in the beginning of the 20th century to people that live now in the beginning of the 21st century.

00:50:55.000 One of the things that people are talking about with a great concern, like Dr. Shanna Swan has done a lot of work on this, is the impact of microplastics on our endocrine system and how it's greatly diminishing males' ability to procreate and females' ability to bring a baby to term.

00:51:14.000 So you're getting many more miscarriages and lower testosterone counts, smaller testicles and penises, reduced size of the taints, all these different things that she attributes to phthalates and various chemicals that are endocrine disruptors that are ubiquitous in our world.

00:51:32.000 Is this something that you think about?

00:51:36.000 Is this something, are we in the middle of an adaptation or some sort of a change of the human species?

00:51:44.000 No, or is it just being poisoned?

00:51:46.000 We're being poisoned.

00:51:47.000 And we're being poisoned in a particular way.

00:51:50.000 I would say we have effectively threatened to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.

00:51:57.000 The normal pattern for human beings is you inherit your ancestors' world.

00:52:06.000 Every so often, that's not true.

00:52:09.000 Every so often, a generation finds itself in a brand new circumstance.

00:52:14.000 You know, you kayak, kayak across some body of water and you end up in some foreign place in which the animals and plants aren't the same and your old way of life isn't going to work and you have to bootstrap something new.

00:52:31.000 It's the same as it's similar to the first flying mammal is suddenly faced with a whole set of opportunities that it has to figure out how to solve.

00:52:45.000 But the point is, every so often a generation gets a wild curveball and it has to start not from scratch, but close to it.

00:52:53.000 But in general, okay, that first generation figures out how we're going to make a living here and it passes that information on to its descendants who have a lot of room to refine what their ancestors figured out.

00:53:05.000 And for some generations you get this rapid refinement process.

00:53:09.000 And then eventually you kind of figure it out.

00:53:12.000 I know how we're going to live in this valley.

00:53:14.000 And here's how it works.

00:53:15.000 And one generation passes it on to the next and the valley doesn't change very much.

00:53:20.000 That process is sustainable.

00:53:23.000 Humans are excellent at dealing with it, right, because we're good at parallel processing puzzles, right?

00:53:30.000 A population of people can figure out how to live here when the way to do it doesn't look like how we lived there.

00:53:38.000 However, there is a threshold at which our amazing ability to adapt culturally and physiologically is outstripped.

00:53:49.000 And that is the point at which technological change is so fast that you're not even an adult in the same environment you grew up in.

00:53:59.000 That's what we now consistently live in.

00:54:01.000 The world you and I now live in doesn't look anything like the world we grew up in.

00:54:05.000 A number of radical differences in terms of the chemicals that we encounter, in terms of the behavior of other people, in terms of the information that comes into our eyes.

00:54:16.000 These things have all been revolutionized.

00:54:18.000 I've frankly seen several revolutions.

00:54:20.000 You and I have both seen several revolutions already.

00:54:24.000 You know, we had the computer, then we had the internet, then we had the smartphone, then we had social media.

00:54:31.000 Now we're facing AI, right?

00:54:34.000 Each of these things would take time to metabolize, to deal with the harms of them, to learn how to address them in a wise way.

00:54:43.000 But we never get the chance to figure that out because the next one is already upon us.

00:54:48.000 In fact, it's you ever go body surfing and you get into a situation where the waves are just coming too quick, and as soon as you catch your breath from one, the next one is on you, right?

00:54:59.000 It's just like that, you can't do that, right?

00:55:03.000 You need time to settle.

00:55:07.000 And our rate of change is so high, this is what Heather and I call hyper novelty.

00:55:11.000 Hyper novelty is the state at which even our amazing ability to rapidly adapt is incapable of keeping pace with technological change.

00:55:21.000 That's where we are.

00:55:24.000 That really concerns me with humans, that drop off of testosterone, the miscarriage rate increasing.

00:55:31.000 Like, that's really spooky because I don't see any change in the environment.

00:55:41.000 Like, I don't see any change in the use of plastics.

00:55:44.000 I don't see any change in these endocrine-disrupting chemicals being in our systems.

00:55:49.000 This episode is brought to you by ZipRecruiter.

00:55:52.000 We all have a favorite holiday movie we like to go back to again and again, like Home Alone.

00:55:56.000 That movie is always a fun watch.

00:55:58.000 The bad guys get their come-up ends a lot.

00:56:00.000 And of course, there's the wholesome feel-good moment at the end that really gets to the heart of the holidays.

00:56:07.000 Whatever film you like to watch, it took a team of talented people to make it what it is: actors, editors, props people, the sound crew.

00:56:14.000 When you need to build your own team to make something magical happen, use ZipRecruiter.

00:56:20.000 Try it for free at ziprecruiter.com/slash Rogan.

00:56:24.000 ZipRecruiter is the number one rated hiring site based on G2, and that's because it works impossibly fast.

00:56:30.000 As fast as Kevin arming his home with every booby trap he can think of.

00:56:34.000 Immediately after you post your job, ZipRecruiter's matching technology will connect you with potential job seekers in your area.

00:56:42.000 Make your hiring a little merrier with ZipRecruiter.

00:56:45.000 Four out of five employers who post on ZipRecruiter get a quality candidate within the first day.

00:56:50.000 Just go to this exclusive web address right now to try ZipRecruiter for free.

00:56:56.000 That's ziprecruiter.com/slash Rogan.

00:56:59.000 Again, that's ziprecruiter.com/slash Rogan.

00:57:03.000 ZipRecruiter, the smartest way to hire. 0.96

00:57:06.000 Well, I agree, and I think we need to think outside the box with respect to what kinds of inputs might be affecting us.

00:57:15.000 I will say, in parallel with what I think is a much more toxic environment, you know, and developmentally toxic environment, we have a radical change in the way human beings are interacting with each other.

00:57:34.000 Right.

00:57:35.000 And it is unclear to me how far-reaching the consequences of that might be.

00:57:43.000 But, you know, we talked last time about the impact of the sexual revolution and of reliable birth control and abortion on the way males and females interact with each other.

00:57:58.000 that basically sex being the ultimate reward, the most powerful motivator that exists, when birth control made sex common or made it possible for sex to be common by virtue of radically reducing the risk that females face in engaging in sex with men who won't invest,

00:58:24.000 it robbed us of the central organizing principle of civilization, and the consequences of that central organizing principle evaporating are incredibly far-reaching.

00:58:41.000 In effect, we do not know that there is a way for us to live without that central organizing principle.

00:58:47.000 We don't know that it lasts.

00:58:49.000 And we are running that radical experiment and then we're going to augment that radical experiment now with AI and presumably AI-powered sex robots and companions and other things that the mind is not built to properly understand.

00:59:11.000 So what effect are all of these things having?

00:59:15.000 Is there a feedback effect from your perception of the sexual landscape onto the development of your children?

00:59:23.000 It's conceivable that there is such a thing.

00:59:23.000 I don't know.

00:59:27.000 But I do know that if we were wise, we would slow the pace of experienced change way down.

00:59:39.000 But how is that even possible at this point?

00:59:42.000 I'm not saying it is, but I'm saying if we don't, I think we know that we're doomed.

00:59:47.000 So in light of that, what would you do if you knew that down that path was destruction?

00:59:53.000 You would start thinking about the question of is there some way, maybe you can't rein in the pace of technological change.

01:00:01.000 You can certainly, and we should, if we were wise, we would insulate young people from exposure, especially to new stuff.

01:00:14.000 There's a question about what stuff that we already have, what effect it's having on them.

01:00:19.000 But the fact that we're just going to expose them to every new revolution without figuring out what its consequences are, is insane.

01:00:29.000 We need to provide young people with a chemically and informationally stable environment where the puzzles are solvable and they are relevant to the adult world we expect them to live in, which is difficult because we don't know what world they're going to live in.

01:00:48.000 But not immunizing them is a terrible error.

01:00:55.000 It can't work.

01:00:57.000 The reason human childhood is the longest developmental childhood in the animal kingdom by far is that it is the training for adult life.

01:01:11.000 If the training ground doesn't match the world that you're going to be an adult in, because the world you're going to be an adult in is something nobody can predict, it is guaranteed to make you a fish out of water as an adult.

01:01:25.000 It's extremely disruptive.

01:01:27.000 And essentially every new groundbreaking technology, every new breakthrough, every new paradigm shifting thing that gets created is a completely new environment for these children.

01:01:41.000 Completely new environment.

01:01:42.000 And no roadmap, no manual of how to navigate it.

01:01:46.000 And then we're seeing all the psychological harms, increase in anxiety, self-harm, especially amongst young girls, suicidal ideation, actual suicide.

01:01:56.000 Well, I mean, in other contexts, I have said, I've probably said to you, you know, there are no adults.

01:02:06.000 That's one of the shocking discoveries of becoming adult age, is that it's not like there's some set of adults who knows what to think about this and how to approach it.

01:02:16.000 One of the reasons that you would have no adults is that it's kind of impossible to imagine where they would come from.

01:02:23.000 An adult is somebody who has picked up the wisdom for how to deal with the world that you live in.

01:02:31.000 Where would that wisdom have come from if the world just showed up five minutes ago?

01:02:35.000 It's in principle impossible to deal with this level of change.

01:02:39.000 So at most, what you can do is become very robust.

01:02:46.000 Do you think that this is where rites of passage ceremony come from?

01:02:51.000 That there's a thing that differentiates you between the younger version of yourself.

01:02:56.000 You've gone through this thing, and so it requires a shift in the way that you view yourself and the world.

01:03:02.000 Now you have passed, now you've gone through whatever the ceremony is, depending upon your culture, now you are a man.

01:03:09.000 Yeah, in fact, in A Hunter-Gatherer's Guide to the 21st Century, Heather and I argue that rites of passage are the place.

01:03:20.000 So they're artificial in a sense, right?

01:03:22.000 We dictate that this is the moment at which you go from being a boy to being a man who is eligible to marry or something like that.

01:03:30.000 And the point is, you know that that date is coming.

01:03:33.000 There is a thing that causes you to have made that transition, right?

01:03:39.000 Maybe it's a vision quest of some kind.

01:03:40.000 Maybe it's an animal that you have to hunt and bring back or something.

01:03:45.000 But the point is, you grow up with the knowledge that I am a prototype until that marker.

01:03:52.000 And after that marker, it's for real, right?

01:03:55.000 So you pick up an increasing level of reality until you hit that agreed upon boundary, at which point everybody is in a position to hold you responsible for your behavior and to expect you to have certain skills on board.

01:04:13.000 And the abandonment of these things, right?

01:04:17.000 What we have is such a preposterous dim shadow of what once was.

01:04:24.000 Okay, you've graduated high school.

01:04:27.000 Right.

01:04:27.000 Well, I assure you graduating high school means very little in terms of whether or not you know how to navigate the adult world.

01:04:34.000 And, in fact, it leaves people with more anxiety because you don't feel like you're an adult, but yet you're supposed to be one.

01:04:41.000 I'm 18 now.

01:04:42.000 I need to get a job.

01:04:44.000 And you're out there in the world and very confused and trying to figure it out along the way and also trying to pretend that you're a man because maybe that somehow will make you feel more like one or take on male behavior, start smoking cigarettes, whatever it is.

01:04:59.000 Like whatever you see adult people do, go to the bar, like whatever it is, and try to emulate what you think are men or women.

01:05:09.000 Especially, you know, if you think about what we actually do to these kids, we put them in schools where the adults are in some sense themselves immunized from the realities of the adult world and they end up having these ridiculous notions about, you know, whatever it may be.

01:05:30.000 It's very easy to pick on, you know, gender ideology or equity or— But those are good examples, though, because they're preposterous. 0.95

01:05:38.000 And they get adapted or adopted, rather, by enormous groups of people and then reinforced violently.

01:05:38.000 Ridiculous.

01:05:44.000 Like, I always say that the more ridiculous the idea is, the more aggressively people fight against the resistance of this idea.

01:05:56.000 Yeah.

01:05:59.000 It's—they're solving some other problem.

01:06:01.000 But at the level of how civilization is going to run, we are signing our own death warrant, putting our children in environments in which what they pick up is a determination to be unrealistic in the face of evidence that they are wrong.

01:06:01.000 Yes.

01:06:19.000 That's— And then another thing, we're not course-correcting.

01:06:22.000 Right.

01:06:23.000 Yeah.

01:06:23.000 I mean, people complain about it when their kids are going to that school, but more kids are going to that school.

01:06:29.000 And it just keeps happening over and over again.

01:06:31.000 And then they go into the workforce, and they have these crazy ideas, and they tank companies, you know, because they try to impose these ridiculous ideologies in the real world.

01:06:39.000 And actual people that have become actual adults and are out there working and struggling go, this is fucking horse shit, and I'm not going along with this, and fuck your company.

01:06:50.000 And then all of a sudden, that company gets— And then there's some adaptation that way, because people realize, like, hey, we can't do this anymore.

01:06:57.000 This is bad for our business.

01:06:58.000 We've got to course correct.

01:07:00.000 But that seems like it's one of the only ways that they do is by real-world application and it being soundly rejected and financial consequences.

01:07:10.000 The problem is that all those consequences are way too indirect to correct the people who are driving the change.

01:07:17.000 Right, and the people that aren't connected to that world at all, because their entire existence is based in this La La Land, where they're being funded by La La Land, they're teaching La La Land ideology, they're reinforcing it, and then they're in a position of authority.

01:07:33.000 So they are the person that these young people look up to, and they're very articulate, and they string words together well, so they look impressive.

01:07:40.000 I said, well, this guy must be right, you know, and my parents must be really stupid, and they've ruined society.

01:07:46.000 And, you know, we've got to give communism a shot.

01:07:49.000 It just hasn't been done correctly.

01:07:51.000 Right, we've just got to go far enough.

01:07:53.000 Well, the problem is the thing that does turn you into an adult is a world of consequences, right?

01:08:03.000 Now, as a child, somebody should prune that world of fatal consequences or, you know, ones that would get you maimed.

01:08:11.000 But allowing you to experience the harm of your wrong understanding of the world is how you improve your understanding of the world.

01:08:20.000 And so, A, we're not even doing that, right?

01:08:24.000 We've got this system in which we are allowing people who know nothing to teach children the nothing that they know as if it was high-minded and important.

01:08:34.000 And then they're immunized from consequences by what I think you and I would agree was initially a well-intentioned attempt to protect people from bad luck, you know, that people who are liberal-minded as you and I both are don't want to see people suffer because of bad luck.

01:08:57.000 But when you start immunizing people from the consequences of their bad decision-making, whether the people you're immunizing are corporate executives who have gambled badly with the resources of their corporation or, you know, children who make bad decisions and it causes them to be disliked at school, people have to have those consequences come back to haunt them so that they will stop making the same mistakes and get wiser.

01:09:24.000 And any place that you break that with the equivalent of a welfare program, you are guaranteeing that you will end up with an infantilized adult population. 0.55

01:09:36.000 Yeah.

01:09:38.000 It's a horrible reality, you know, because the compassionate, kind people want a safety net.

01:09:45.000 You want a social safety net.

01:09:47.000 But making people reliant on that social safety net and then having generation after generation reliant on that social safety net, you stifle all growth and development and make people dependent.

01:10:00.000 Well, my argument.

01:10:01.000 You turn them into infants.

01:10:02.000 Yeah, you do.

01:10:03.000 My argument would be a system functions really well when people are immunized from real bad luck, right?

01:10:13.000 Things that they – it's not the consequence of their bad decision-making.

01:10:16.000 It's actually, you know, you happen to get a tumor because of a genetic vulnerability or an encounter with some chemical that you had no ability to know was there.

01:10:26.000 But that as soon as you start immunizing people from the downstream effects of their own bad decisions where they had better decisions that were available to them, you just get the evolution of civilization into a quagmire.

01:10:43.000 Well, this is my fear, my great fear about the concept of universal basic income.

01:10:47.000 Yep.

01:10:48.000 That we're going to essentially make an entire civilization dependent upon its overlords.

01:10:55.000 I can't see how it could go well.

01:10:58.000 I can't see how it could go well either.

01:10:58.000 I understand.

01:11:00.000 I think if you're a nice person, you're like, well, all these jobs are going to be replaced by AI and automation.

01:11:05.000 We need to find some way to help people and give them the quality of life that they need to succeed.

01:11:12.000 But you're making them dependent on the state forever.

01:11:16.000 Right.

01:11:17.000 And what we really need to do, and I do not see any mechanism that is capable of it, but what we really need to do is figure out how we want people to allocate their time, what problems we would like them to address themselves to, right?

01:11:37.000 And then we need to reward them for success relative to those problems and allow them to suffer from the failure to make progress relative to those problems.

01:11:45.000 Now, I don't exactly know what those problems are because civilization is changing so fast that it's very hard to even define what it is that will need to be done.

01:11:54.000 But I think we talked about this last time.

01:11:59.000 People are not going to be coherent, absent purpose.

01:12:06.000 They need to have purpose.

01:12:08.000 And it used to be that biology itself forced purpose onto you, right?

01:12:13.000 On the frontier, the ability to win a mate, to provide enough shelter, consistent enough food, all of the things necessary for life, that that was a full-time occupation.

01:12:30.000 It was difficult.

01:12:31.000 Not everybody could pull it off.

01:12:33.000 And so it created a very concentrated purpose.

01:12:37.000 You succeeded if you managed in this environment to do all those things and leave some offspring who were well-adjusted to the situation.

01:12:46.000 In our environment, there is nothing like this.

01:12:51.000 And the winning a mate has been turned into chaos.

01:12:58.000 What does it even mean?

01:13:00.000 Are there mates out there that you would want to win?

01:13:02.000 Are they interested in reproducing?

01:13:05.000 Are they interested in raising children?

01:13:08.000 Are they going to, you know, farm that job out to some crazy person who believes you can switch gender by just saying you've done it, right?

01:13:20.000 So the purpose has become incoherent.

01:13:23.000 The subordinate purposes, which came later, right, the ability to invest in a career to climb some corporate ladder, that doesn't sound very appealing to me, but at least I understand what it is, right?

01:13:37.000 At least, you know, okay, there's a game.

01:13:40.000 The company wants certain things accomplished.

01:13:43.000 To the extent that you accomplish them better than your competitors, you rise farther.

01:13:47.000 It leaves you an income that you can spend in whatever way you want.

01:13:50.000 That will impress a mate, right?

01:13:52.000 It's at least understandable.

01:13:53.000 The puzzle that we have given people now is completely incoherent.

01:14:00.000 And universal basic income, I presume, will keep people from starving, but it ain't nearly good enough.

01:14:12.000 People have to know what they're supposed to be doing because not doing it causes them to suffer and succeeding at it causes them to feel good.

01:14:23.000 They need at least that much direction.

01:14:26.000 But is it possible that we can move past the idea that providing people or a person being able to provide themselves with shelter and food, which is essentially what we're saying with universal basic income.

01:14:39.000 We're saying you will have enough money to have shelter, you will have enough money to have food, and you could acquire basic goods.

01:14:46.000 That this is not really what we should be working towards in life anymore and that it's possible to find some other purpose, goal, or task that would replace those things and money would just be a thing that you're using to acquire the means to survive and now you pursue this other thing,

01:15:10.000 maybe not necessarily for a monetary reason, not necessarily to acquire wealth, but instead to educate yourself.

01:15:19.000 Instead, you know, as a process of human development, a skill that you're learning, a thing that you're competing in, something.

01:15:29.000 Sure, except for one thing.

01:15:33.000 What has to be true at the end of that substitute purpose is some undeniably valuable reward, right?

01:15:44.000 Because that's the motivating factor.

01:15:46.000 That's the thing that will cause you to do it, right?

01:15:48.000 So not starving is a great motivation, right?

01:15:53.000 Right.

01:15:54.000 Being able to buy stuff is a decent enough motivation to the extent that there is stuff that's desirable that's out of reach unless you get enough wealth.

01:16:05.000 That's a decent enough motivation.

01:16:08.000 The nothing, I think, nothing is going to substitute for the difficulty of, well, for males, the difficulty of winning the ability to have a sexual relationship with a desirable female, right?

01:16:34.000 We now have all sorts of things that cause people not to want to pursue that.

01:16:40.000 There are things, you know, obviously there's porn, there's going to be sex robots. 0.87

01:16:47.000 So that must...

01:16:49.000 Prostitution.

01:16:50.000 Prostitution, right. 1.00

01:16:51.000 And, you know, part of me is wondering why women are not up in arms over the fact that they are being competed with with ever more sophisticated technology.

01:17:07.000 I'm confused by why that is not an affront.

01:17:11.000 I think some women are. 1.00

01:17:12.000 They're definitely at arms about porn and they think that not only are they competing with this, but it's changing young men's view of sex.

01:17:26.000 Oh, I think it absolutely is.

01:17:27.000 In fact, I think, you know...

01:17:29.000 It's much more rejected amongst women.

01:17:32.000 That is not what I'm hearing.

01:17:34.000 Really?

01:17:34.000 From my sons.

01:17:35.000 I'm hearing...

01:17:36.000 Oh, okay.

01:17:37.000 What are you hearing?

01:17:39.000 That women are increasingly involved with porn.

01:17:43.000 Really?

01:17:43.000 Yes.

01:17:44.000 And which surprises me.

01:17:45.000 Involved in the creation or the viewing?

01:17:47.000 Watching it.

01:17:48.000 God, that was never the case when I was young.

01:17:51.000 Oh, of course not.

01:17:52.000 No, I think it's not...

01:17:53.000 If you went over a girl's house and she had a collection of porn, that was a fucking warning signal. 0.70

01:17:57.000 Huge red flag.

01:17:58.000 Run! 0.68

01:17:59.000 Right.

01:17:59.000 Well, I think, you know, I don't...

01:18:02.000 There are plenty of voices out there that are focusing on the defects of modern women. 0.97

01:18:11.000 I don't want to add to that chorus, but I do think there is something shocking about the degree to which young women seem to have signed up for the idea that being liberated, that the measure of whether or not they have been liberated is how much they are behaving like men at their worst. 0.78

01:18:35.000 Like, the boss lady is the lady that behaves like a man at work. 1.00

01:18:35.000 Right. 1.00

01:18:39.000 Behaves like a man at work. 1.00

01:18:42.000 Treating sex very casually is not a normal thing for females to do. 1.00

01:18:47.000 And in a lot of films, it's shown as a sign of character for the woman. 0.87

01:18:47.000 Right. 0.87

01:18:51.000 Exactly.

01:18:52.000 The woman's just a boss bitch and she doesn't give a fuck and she kicks these men to the curve and they're distraught and they're, like, emotionally wrecked and she's just back to business. 1.00

01:19:02.000 Get to work.

01:19:04.000 Yeah, exactly.

01:19:05.000 Weird.

01:19:06.000 The whole thing is weird.

01:19:07.000 Because it's so unattractive, too.

01:19:08.000 It's really unattractive.

01:19:10.000 Yeah, it's odd.

01:19:10.000 I mean, it's odd to even say that it's unattractive, but look, I find it unattractive in men.

01:19:14.000 Yeah.

01:19:15.000 Well, I mean, if I was a woman and a guy that was just wholly desiring, conquering, and moving ahead and didn't give a shit, if he's like, fuck off, everybody eat shit, like, no compassion for other people, just only focused on success and winning, winning, winning, it's Gordon Gekko, you know?

01:19:33.000 It's like the most unattractive characters in films, the greedy billionaire character that doesn't give a shit about the consequences of his actions and what happens to the world.

01:19:43.000 It makes no sense.

01:19:43.000 Right.

01:19:45.000 And I think men and women are obviously substantially different.

01:19:59.000 That's a controversial statement.

01:20:01.000 It really shouldn't be.

01:20:03.000 It really shouldn't be.

01:20:04.000 But I will just say, I have puzzled over the fact that our culture does not have a profound relationship with the symmetry represented by a yin-yang symbol.

01:20:18.000 The yin-yang symbol is profound as far as I'm concerned because it describes a perfect symmetry that is not superficially symmetrical.

01:20:29.000 Right?

01:20:30.000 It's a complementarity that is, I think it's a very proper description of what you're actually searching for in a mate, in a marriage.

01:20:42.000 Right?

01:20:43.000 You are not looking for somebody to be the same as you.

01:20:46.000 You are looking for somebody to be as perfectly complementary with what you are as is possible in essentially every regard.

01:20:56.000 And what we are getting instead is this sort of mind-numbing belief that, you know, what's good for the goose is good for the gander, which, as I keep saying, it has robbed us of all coherence.

01:21:11.000 And I think it also, you know, I've started paying attention to a bunch of these male accounts that are fed up with females. 1.00

01:21:26.000 People that I consider insightful but who are not in any way where I am with respect to this topic.

01:21:33.000 You know, so people, I don't know, do you know the account Homath?

01:21:36.000 Homath?

01:21:37.000 Homath.

01:21:38.000 Well, Homath is pretty darn funny.

01:21:41.000 He's very insightful about a lot of things that have gone wrong.

01:21:45.000 But he's also, it's tragic.

01:21:51.000 He's just bitter about the state of modern women and has given up on finding anyone because he thinks he's discovered that it's impossible.

01:22:01.000 That's ridiculous.

01:22:03.000 Well, it depends.

01:22:04.000 I mean, I think you and I are in the fortunate position of being happily married to wonderful people and I will tell you that having two sons and looking at the world that they are supposed to be finding a mate in, it's not obvious how this is supposed to work.

01:22:24.000 It wasn't obvious when I was young either.

01:22:26.000 But you just got to pick wisely and you also have to find people.

01:22:31.000 You have to find them the type of people that you're actually interested.

01:22:36.000 Yeah, but imagine the following thing.

01:22:39.000 Imagine that, first of all, who you are as a sexual being is the result naturally of your exposure, right?

01:22:39.000 Right.

01:22:53.000 You come to understand what sex is and how you're supposed to behave from stories in ancient cultures you would observe a certain amount because perfect privacy wasn't a thing.

01:23:08.000 That has all now been disrupted by porn, right?

01:23:11.000 So people get developmental experiences of sex from this commodity which is not accurate.

01:23:19.000 It is not a description of the way people actually interact, right?

01:23:22.000 It's meant to captivate you and the different pornographers are in competition with each other.

01:23:27.000 So they're providing you an increasingly extreme view of sex in order to get your attention.

01:23:32.000 It's almost like a superhero movie.

01:23:34.000 Yeah.

01:23:34.000 Like it doesn't exist in the real world.

01:23:36.000 It's nonsense.

01:23:37.000 For the most part.

01:23:38.000 But given what a human being is and given that it doesn't come wired with a sexual persona that it acquires a sexual persona through exposure, the fact that we are flooding that channel with this very unrealistic stuff means that, well, what do women discover when they end up in bed with a guy?

01:23:57.000 Well, that guy is like the cartoon that men have been painted as, right?

01:24:07.000 You and I bristle at what the Me Too movement portrayed men as.

01:24:13.000 Not because there aren't bad men.

01:24:15.000 There are lots of bad men.

01:24:17.000 But it's not universal.

01:24:19.000 And the story of how men and women are supposed to interact, you know, in terms of flirting and dating and all of that is not as straightforward as people will paint that picture.

01:24:31.000 But if you've got a generation of men that's being exposed to the same, frankly, violent garbage and that is informing them about what sex is and then women are discovering that, oh, yeah, men are kind of brutal and awful, you know, in the bedroom.

01:24:49.000 So that reinforces their sense of, well, you know, these aren't decent people.

01:24:56.000 They're putting on an act when they're in public.

01:24:59.000 So it creates the exact thing that men were falsely accused of.

01:25:06.000 And it makes women, I think, become very unsympathetic as people, right? 0.92

01:25:15.000 That to the extent that women start viewing sex as antagonistic, which is what men at their worst are, is they are sexually, they're predators, right?

01:25:27.000 They're men trying to have sex with women they have no intention of investing in are, whether they understand it or not, engaging in behavior designed to impregnate that female and stick her with the job of raising the offspring.

01:25:41.000 That's...

01:25:42.000 Revolutionarily.

01:25:43.000 Yes.

01:25:44.000 That's parasitic and predatory.

01:25:47.000 Okay?

01:25:48.000 That is a mode that exists in men, but it's not the only male mode.

01:25:52.000 And it's a mode that is a relic of ancient times when it was just an opportunity to spread your genes because you weren't going to live very long.

01:25:59.000 So you had this built-in desire to try to spread your genes as much as possible.

01:26:05.000 Yeah, but I would also say that women were wise about not getting stuck with offspring. 1.00

01:26:15.000 So the fact that men may have that mode built into them did not manifest as successful males behaving in this way because in general women shut them down.

01:26:29.000 And the fact...

01:26:30.000 And birth control came along.

01:26:31.000 And now women don't shut them down. 1.00

01:26:31.000 Right. 1.00

01:26:33.000 And basically what you have is people exploring some landscape that's been primed with porn violent porn because that's how pornographers compete with each other and it is causing them to live an entirely different life.

01:26:53.000 And I think frankly I think sex is really important.

01:27:00.000 That in a marriage it is playing a very powerful dual role.

01:27:09.000 Okay.

01:27:10.000 On the one hand it is a barometer.

01:27:13.000 it tells you what the status of your relationship is.

01:27:17.000 And it's also a tool for enhancing fixing modifying your relationship.

01:27:25.000 It is and evolution built it to be that.

01:27:29.000 Sex is something very unique in humans because in humans unlike almost every other creature we have sex when not fertile. 0.56

01:27:29.000 Right. 0.56

01:27:40.000 Right.

01:27:41.000 Why is sex pleasurable when not fertile? 0.95

01:27:44.000 Because selection has given it to us for a reason.

01:27:49.000 It's given it to us for a purpose.

01:27:51.000 Why does sex continue after menopause?

01:27:53.000 Right.

01:27:54.000 Seems pointless but it's not pointless.

01:27:56.000 It has everything to do with maintaining that relationship.

01:28:00.000 Why would selection care if you maintain your sexual relationship after you've stopped producing offspring?

01:28:06.000 because the way human beings work your job isn't done at the point that you've stopped producing offspring.

01:28:14.000 You have kids who need guidance and help in the world.

01:28:14.000 Right.

01:28:17.000 You're going to have grandkids.

01:28:19.000 Your union is still important.

01:28:19.000 Right.

01:28:21.000 And so the idea that we've disrupted this with a consumer good that pushes men into the worst of their modes and is now exposing women to that and that women are now being induced to think that that's sophisticated to behave in this way that men at their worst are behaving and so women are now behaving this way.

01:28:43.000 It's like well you couldn't ask for a better recipe for disrupting functional relationships and those functional relationships are vital to civilization working.

01:28:54.000 Right.

01:28:55.000 The family unit is profoundly important and we are disrupting not only are we disrupting the way it functions but we're disrupting whether or not it even forms because frankly it's not that attractive a deal to sign up for a lifelong relationship with somebody who's been broken in this way.

01:29:15.000 It's just it doesn't paint a very rosy picture of the future.

01:29:20.000 You know when you look at where this is going and then the possibility of AI porn that's you know virtual reality porn and then the sex robot thing which is they're getting really close to that.

01:29:33.000 These lifelike robots.

01:29:34.000 It's hard to tell what's real and what's not online with AI, but there's definitely work being done on lifelike robots to be housekeepers or to be companions or someone you could talk to in your home, and it's just a matter of time before those become sexual companions and they replace regular sexual companions.

01:29:55.000 And then all of the motivation to be a better person, to be successful, to be someone that's good at conversation, so that someone who's reasonable, so you form a great bond with your partner all that goes away because the robot just loves you.

01:30:10.000 The robot loves you and your potential partners are getting less desirable.

01:30:15.000 The robots are getting more desirable.

01:30:15.000 Yeah.

01:30:17.000 The robot doesn't argue.

01:30:18.000 Right.

01:30:18.000 The robot wants me to play golf.

01:30:20.000 Exactly.

01:30:21.000 So I think that look I keep waiting for a movement to start in which young people who have yet to form these relationships put out a set of rules and they say here are the rules I'm going to abide by and I'm only going to date people who abide by them too.

01:30:41.000 Right.

01:30:42.000 No robots.

01:30:42.000 No porn.

01:30:46.000 I would say this is you know if I was writing the rules one of them would be no sex with somebody that you know is not a long-term partner.

01:30:54.000 You're not committing to a long-term relationship when you have sex with somebody necessarily but if you know somebody is not a candidate you shouldn't be engaging in baby-making behavior with them.

01:31:06.000 Right.

01:31:07.000 That's bad.

01:31:09.000 The problem is that's like such a primary force in our society for almost everything.

01:31:14.000 For selling things, for exemplifying social status.

01:31:18.000 Yeah but nobody's happy.

01:31:20.000 Right.

01:31:21.000 So given that they're not happy the answer is okay well I'm doing something nobody's happy.

01:31:25.000 I would say happiness is difficult to acquire.

01:31:28.000 Well I would say it is rare to find young people who express that they are happy with this part of their life.

01:31:39.000 Have you ever met young people in any time in history while you've been alive that were happy with that process?

01:31:46.000 The process is kind of brutal.

01:31:47.000 The process kind of sucks but I've met plenty of people and I've been a happy young person.

01:31:56.000 Not you know it's not all you know flowers and rainbows.

01:32:01.000 Right.

01:32:01.000 But the point is there is something achievable and I think it is being treated increasingly as if it's just kind of a story.

01:32:14.000 Right.

01:32:15.000 Like it's not a real place.

01:32:16.000 And I think that's a dangerous thing and I would love to see I mean and maybe it's happening in religious communities that people are opting into a different set of rules and looking for mates within their community because those mates will abide by it. 0.98

01:32:31.000 Yeah I think there's a lot of that.

01:32:33.000 Yeah.

01:32:33.000 That is the place where people are going and I think it's probably one of the reasons one of many reasons why you're seeing an uptick in religious participation amongst young people.

01:32:43.000 Well it makes sense to me.

01:32:44.000 Yeah.

01:32:45.000 Especially if they're looking at the world that you know they find themselves and they find their friends in that are just crashing out left and right and it just seems like a very bad path.

01:32:56.000 I agree.

01:32:57.000 I will say I wish that the religious communities had navigated the landscape of COVID and gender ideology better that there's you know I don't know how healthy those communities are in light of the fact that they seem to have I don't think universally but largely failed those tests. 0.92

01:33:18.000 Gender ideology with religion? 0.55

01:33:19.000 How so?

01:33:20.000 There's a lot of wokeism in some some religions but not traditional religions.

01:33:26.000 It's almost like these break off versions of a traditional religion we have a transgender pastor and LBGTQ flag behind them and you get like but you're always going to have these weird yeah offsets.

01:33:41.000 Well I'm glad to hear if you well did any major religion pass the COVID test?

01:33:49.000 In terms of well first of all almost no institutions passed the COVID test correctly.

01:33:57.000 Yeah.

01:33:57.000 none of them and I think you have to look towards what they know.

01:34:04.000 It's very easy to look back in 2025 and say all of these institutions failed the COVID test.

01:34:10.000 Well I think I probably would have failed it you know if I had been a different person in a different job in a different part of my life and I didn't have access to the information that I had access to.

01:34:21.000 I didn't know what games were being played and I didn't know the landscape.

01:34:25.000 I didn't know what games had previously been played especially in regards to the way the pharmaceutical drug industry distributes propaganda and information and then hires people to gaslight folks.

01:34:40.000 You're seeing this now right it's a good way to pivot to this conversation now you're seeing now this most recent study that showed that without doubt children were killed by the COVID-19 vaccines.

01:34:52.000 So that's not surprising but what is surprising to me is the enormous number of gaslighters on social media that are not just denying this data saying this data is inaccurate and saying far more children healthy children were killed by COVID-19 than were killed by these vaccinations.

01:35:16.000 There's a bunch of problems with that.

01:35:18.000 First of all the problem is the reality of the VAIR system.

01:35:22.000 It is a very small percentage of people that have actual vaccine injuries that get recorded into the VAIR system.

01:35:28.000 And then of course the opposite side of that they would say yeah but anybody can say they have a vaccine injury and anybody can get their vaccine injury put into the VAIR system even if it's not accurate.

01:35:41.000 That's kind of true but also not because doctors are very incentivized to not put you into the vaccine injury category for a bunch of reasons.

01:35:52.000 doctors are financially incentivized to vaccinate people and this is something that I was not aware of at all until the COVID lockdowns until the vaccination push.

01:36:06.000 Mary Tally Bowden, who's been on the podcast before.

01:36:09.000 She said that her own practice a very small practice in a strip mall she would have made an additional 1.5 million dollars had she vaccinated all over patients.

01:36:21.000 That's a huge financial motivation for one person with a private practice.

01:36:27.000 Scale that out to large places.

01:36:31.000 You scale that out to large hospitals, large medical institutions, large establishments, and then you have financial incentives that businesses had to vaccinate their employees.

01:36:43.000 And then you had these punitory punishment that would be befalling upon your business had you not met the threshold.

01:36:56.000 If you have more than X amount of people, everyone must be fully vaccinated, not just had COVID and recovered from it.

01:37:06.000 So it's not logical.

01:37:07.000 You have the antibodies, you're protected.

01:37:09.000 No no, it's vaccinated and then boosted.

01:37:13.000 And then they continue that practice, even when it was shown that the vaccine, unlike what we were told initially, did not stop transmission, did not stop infection.

01:37:23.000 It didn't do anything, which meant that, even saying well, far more people got myocarditis from COVID than the vaccines, which is not true.

01:37:33.000 If you look at the data, it's clear that there are shenanigans with categorizing people.

01:37:38.000 In order to get that, they did that by measuring troponin levels correct.

01:37:43.000 There are multiple mechanisms, but the way they were trying to phrase it that more people are getting myocarditis that are unvaccinated than are vaccinated.

01:37:55.000 What they're doing they're measuring while they were infected, they're measuring proxies, but the problem is the category, vaccinated versus unvaccinated.

01:38:05.000 Right, right they're, by categorizing people as unvaccinated until they reach the category fully vaccinated.

01:38:13.000 Not just that, but two weeks or plus after the injection you're still up to, you're still considered unvaccinated.

01:38:24.000 So if people died during that time period, they were listed as unvaccinated deaths, even if they potentially died from the vaccine itself.

01:38:33.000 Right, in fact?

01:38:34.000 Which is fucking fraud?

01:38:36.000 I believe it is fraud and I believe the evidence will ultimately reflect that myocarditis is not being caused by Covid and that these are miscategorized vaccine injuries.

01:38:46.000 But nonetheless, there's also a mechanism for what would cause these vaccine injuries, multiple mechanisms yes, multiple mechanisms that actually arise because of the defects of the platform itself, not even the particulars of the Covid vaccine.

01:39:00.000 So I will say I am very heartened and surprised to see Vinay Prasad putting this memo out within FDA, saying that at least 10 children seem to have died from the vaccines.

01:39:19.000 I don't know if you've read his letter.

01:39:22.000 It's quite good.

01:39:24.000 It is clearly the tip of a much larger iceberg.

01:39:28.000 Those of us who have circulated in communities of the vaccine injured know just how many orders of magnitude more we're really talking about.

01:39:39.000 But he says in the letter, look, the number of people, of kids, who were killed by this is actually higher, but these 10 are ones in which it was so unambiguous that their analysis regards it as causal right.

01:39:55.000 In other words, they threw out all of the cases in which somebody died, a child died days later.

01:39:59.000 They took only cases where, you know, a person got the vaccine and died.

01:40:05.000 So anyway, I'm heartened because Vinay Prasad has been a mixed bag, in my opinion.

01:40:12.000 He's been pretty good on vaccines.

01:40:15.000 He's been rather terrible on Ivermectin and in some ways he, you know, he's one of the academics who managed to hold on to his position through all of the tyranny right.

01:40:31.000 Most of the people that you and I know the Pierre Corey's, the Robert Malone's, Ryan Cole's these are people who were driven from jobs, had their licenses threatened, that sort of thing.

01:40:43.000 Vinay held on and then he got a position in the administration and now he's on the right side of history and he's being cautious, but nonetheless it's.

01:40:56.000 It's a very positive sign, as is Marty Marquet's recent set of podcast appearances in which he talks about the reality of all sorts of things, including bio weaponized ticks and things.

01:41:10.000 So we have people in the administration who have managed to hold on to their position in the institutional world, who are seemingly either waking up or telling us what they have understood, and it's a very positive sign.

01:41:29.000 Can we talk a little bit about ivermectin?

01:41:32.000 Yeah, because I think he's just going to ask you about that, like, what is?

01:41:34.000 How has he been bad?

01:41:35.000 How is Vene Prasad bad on ivermectin?

01:41:38.000 Well, he has regarded it as not useful, based on the randomized control trials which claimed that it wasn't useful, and in my opinion, he fell down on the job, not pursuing what actually happened in those trials.

01:41:53.000 Does he not know?

01:41:54.000 Have you communicated with him?

01:41:56.000 Well, you know, I congratulated him and I said I hope that, having reached this final pillar, that it will embolden you to look deeper.

01:42:15.000 And I was disappointed in him after that because I didn't think he did it.

01:42:18.000 But let's just say, at the moment I'm super encouraged.

01:42:23.000 He does seem to be awake and that's really good for us.

01:42:27.000 And you also have to take into consideration that for him to even say what he said is a giant risk.

01:42:34.000 Yeah it's, it's a huge leap.

01:42:36.000 And you almost I mean I think everyone knows anecdotally somebody who was fucked up by the vaccine.

01:42:44.000 Almost everyone that I've ever talked to other than Sam Harris, almost everyone that I've ever talked to claims they know someone who was irrevocably harmed by the vaccine oh yeah, if not killed, yes.

01:42:58.000 And this.

01:42:59.000 This is such a gigantic population of people, not to mention all the people who don't know, who have some sort of new pathology that they've not connected to the vaccine right and whose doctors have gaslit them and said they're totally unrelated.

01:43:12.000 This is just something genetic.

01:43:14.000 You are going to get this no matter what right.

01:43:16.000 So we see all of this in actuarial data.

01:43:21.000 There are large populations of people who have put two and two together and, but it's a difficult equation because you have to be confronted by so many different realities that are incredibly uncomfortable right.

01:43:33.000 Then you also have the problem of people that have asserted a very specific thing and done so very aggressively, and now realize they're wrong and do not want to admit they're wrong and will fight vehemently to somehow or twist gaslight obfuscate, use data that they know to be incorrect to try to prove a position that intellectually, they must know is not accurate.

01:44:00.000 You see a lot of that to protect themselves, protect ego, to protect their reputation, their very careers, like.

01:44:07.000 The longer they can keep this ruse going and the more they can make the data foggy in terms of like.

01:44:15.000 Is it really effective?

01:44:17.000 Did it really save millions of people?

01:44:18.000 Is it worth the risk I?

01:44:22.000 Those people probably don't listen to your podcast, but to the extent that they might hear this, there is a piece of wisdom that you need which is, however painful it may be, to face the error that you've made, you are far better off to face it right.

01:44:41.000 I'm not saying there's not a big cost, but the weight off your shoulders of setting the record straight with respect to your errors.

01:44:51.000 It's a slam dunk.

01:44:52.000 Yeah, we will get back to Sam Harris in a second here, but I wanted to talk a little bit about you know people and this recent memo inside of FDA about children who had no reason to get the COVID vaccine in the first place because they stood to gain nothing from it.

01:45:13.000 Dying of it is beyond criminal negligence.

01:45:23.000 It's unforgivable people.

01:45:26.000 It's a very positive sign, but you and I know that the vaccine story has been breaking because I think in large measure, so many people virtually everybody knows somebody who was injured, and so it's very hard to keep people in the dark about that, and people's acceptance of the boosters has plummeted.

01:45:49.000 People do need to understand that there's a huge number of mRNA shots that are being cooked up at this very minute, that the damage is not from the COVID part of the shot, it's from the platform itself, and so we need to stop that vast array of mRNA shots from ever making it to the market and we need to get the COVID shots pulled which, again another thing I want to get back to is Charlie Kirk and

01:46:19.000 I were working together trying to get the shots pulled.

01:46:23.000 He had the president's ear, I was helping to inform him about what's really going on with the mRNA platform and anyway, we were making great progress.

01:46:35.000 He sent me a text at one point I had congratulated him on, I think, the shots having been pulled for no longer being recommended for kids and pregnant women, and he said something I think it was, we're doing holy work together and it meant a lot.

01:46:55.000 I'm obviously not a religious person, but it meant a lot for me to hear that from him, and I do think, among the many tragedies that are the result of his terrible death is the fact that it slowed progress on getting these shots removed from the market.

01:47:12.000 But anyway, back to Ivermectin.

01:47:15.000 We'll return to Charlie a little later.

01:47:19.000 The vaccine story is breaking.

01:47:22.000 Vinay Prasad is helping it break inside of FDA.

01:47:26.000 That's a marvelous thing.

01:47:29.000 The vaccine committee that Robert Malone is on with Martin Kulldorff and Ratzif Levy is also doing excellent work.

01:47:42.000 So there's lots of positive signs on the vaccine front, although it's painfully slow from the point of view of shots that shouldn't be on the market are still being injected into people.

01:47:52.000 The story that has not properly broken is the Ivermectin story, right.

01:47:58.000 More generally, the repurposed drug story.

01:48:00.000 But this is when you and I lived very personally.

01:48:05.000 You know you were.

01:48:06.000 I don't know what they did to you.

01:48:08.000 They colored you green.

01:48:10.000 Yeah, they made me green on CNN and basically, even people who are awake about the vaccines largely have arrived at the conclusion that Ivermectin showed promise and that it turned out it didn't work and that the evidence is overwhelming that it didn't work and that those of us who said otherwise.

01:48:31.000 It's time that we admitted that.

01:48:34.000 And this is a maddening nonsense story, right, even the trials that say that Ivermectin didn't work.

01:48:43.000 If you dig into what they actually found?

01:48:45.000 You find a huge amount of fraud designed to produce the impression that Ivermectin didn't work and, amazingly enough, even in trials that are designed to give that result, it still shows that it's effective.

01:48:59.000 And there is a something I want to show you, one of these that I think you probably haven't seen yet, that makes this point really clearly.

01:49:10.000 So can you bring up that tweet, Alexandros Marinos tweet on the I think it's called the Principal trial.

01:49:20.000 Anyway, this is shocking.

01:49:23.000 This is another one of these multi arm platform trials.

01:49:27.000 So these are these highly complex structures in which many drugs are tested simultaneously so that they can share a placebo group.

01:49:35.000 Okay, let's look at the whole tweet.

01:49:39.000 It says, I think that's supposed to be.

01:49:43.000 No, did you know that the principal trial out of the UK found that ivermectin was superior to the usual care in practically every subgroup it tested, but it sat on the results for 600 days.

01:49:55.000 When it finally published, buried these results on page 364 of the appendix.

01:50:01.000 Now look at this chart, the way 346.

01:50:07.000 What did I say?

01:50:08.000 364, oh okay, dyslexia strikes again if they go back.

01:50:12.000 And yeah 346, okay.

01:50:14.000 So what this is is a forest plot in which the there's a line, a vertical line at 1.00.

01:50:23.000 That's the line that delineates effective with ivermectin on the right and with the usual care on the left.

01:50:37.000 In every single tested category ivermectin is better than no.

01:50:49.000 Ivermectin, right the lines.

01:50:53.000 So even the one case people greater than 65 years where it's touching that line, it's still to the right of that line.

01:50:59.000 So in every single case ivermectin is superior to not giving ivermectin.

01:51:04.000 Even though these people were given ivermectin late, they were given ivermectin in a sneaky way where the regular dose is supposed to be something like three milligrams per kilogram of body weight.

01:51:18.000 But there's a sneaky thing that they slide into the methods where, if your weight is above a certain number, they cap the dose.

01:51:26.000 So you're under dosed, so you don't spot it unless you go looking for it.

01:51:30.000 But in any case and overweight people are the most vulnerable, right?

01:51:33.000 Exactly so it's a great way of making a drug look not very effective.

01:51:37.000 And a lot of people are overweight, absolutely so.

01:51:40.000 On this plot every so you see those horizontal lines.

01:51:44.000 You've got a box in the middle of a bunch of horizontal lines.

01:51:47.000 The horizontal lines are confidence intervals.

01:51:49.000 If they don't touch the 1.0 line, then the result is statistically significant.

01:51:58.000 So in all of these categories, ivermectin is statistically significant in its efficacy.

01:52:04.000 In the one category where it's not, it's still effective.

01:52:07.000 It's just not statistically significant in its effectiveness.

01:52:10.000 Okay, and they buried this in this appendix, page 346 right, and actually, can you scroll down to the next tweet in this thread?

01:52:20.000 Can you?

01:52:23.000 Click on the link to the paper now.

01:52:23.000 Let's see.

01:52:28.000 Scroll down.

01:52:29.000 Let's get a background method.

01:52:31.000 Stop, go back up a little bit interpretation.

01:52:35.000 So this is their take home message from the paper.

01:52:38.000 It says ivermectin for COVID-19 is unlikely to provide a clinically meaningful improvement in recovery, hospital admissions or longer term outcomes.

01:52:48.000 Further trials of ivermectin for SARS-CoV-2 infection in vaccinated community populations appear unwarranted.

01:52:54.000 So here you have a trial that overwhelmingly shows, ivermectin is effective.

01:52:59.000 It reduced the recovery time by a couple of days, even though they gave it super late which, with all antivirals, makes them very much weaker than they would otherwise be.

01:53:11.000 And here they are reporting that the answer is it's unlikely to create meaningful outcomes and there's no further work needed.

01:53:18.000 Okay, this is absurd.

01:53:20.000 This is the quality of trial that we're going to, and what it does.

01:53:25.000 This is them gaslighting us right.

01:53:27.000 You and I said, look, the evidence suggests that this stuff works.

01:53:32.000 It's quite safe compared to almost any other drug you could take in fact, I can't think of one that's safer and that therefore, in light of the evidence that it seems to meaningfully improve outcomes, it's a good bet.

01:53:47.000 Right, they mocked us over that conclusion.

01:53:51.000 This study makes it very clear that, even when people are trying to hide that conclusion, that it's there in the data.

01:53:59.000 If you go looking now there's an even better one, though.

01:54:03.000 Um, there is a.

01:54:08.000 Have you read uh, Pierre Cory's book, the war on Ivermectin?

01:54:11.000 No okay, there's something reported in this book that um, it really stops you in your tracks.

01:54:19.000 It is an accidental uh, natural experiment.

01:54:24.000 Okay, so a natural experiment is something in science where maybe you happen on an archipelago in which you have a bunch of different islands that have different conditions, and you can go to each island and measure the you know whatever parameter it is, because nature has given you an experiment that you can analyze.

01:54:40.000 You don't have to build islands, right.

01:54:42.000 In this case, what Pierre reports is that there were 80 court cases in which a family sued a hospital that was refusing to give ivermectin to a desperately sick family member and they wanted the courts to intervene and force the hospitals to administer ivermectin 80 cases.

01:55:10.000 In 40 of those cases the courts granted the family's request and ivermectin was administered.

01:55:18.000 In 40 cases they refused to intervene and no ivermectin was given.

01:55:22.000 In 38 of the cases where ivermectin was given, the patient survived, and two the patient died anyway.

01:55:30.000 In 38 of the cases where no ivermectin was given, the patient died, and in two the patient survived.

01:55:38.000 Wow, okay.

01:55:39.000 Now I find this like this is incredibly.

01:55:46.000 I cannot vouch for the data itself because it's not published in the scientific paper.

01:55:52.000 I can't go look at the methods, I can't go find the court cases, but assuming that the data is accurately reported and I know Pierre well, he didn't make it up so, assuming that the data is accurate.

01:56:05.000 The level of statistical significance on that accidental study is absolutely astronomical right, I had Heather, run a chi-squared calculation and the p-value.

01:56:23.000 I checked it also with two different Ais.

01:56:26.000 The p-value comes out to be 5.03 times 10 to the negative 15, right?

01:56:35.000 So what that means is that the chances of a result that strong if ivermectin does not work are something like the chances of you guessing a random 15 digit number on the first try.

01:56:53.000 I mean, it's through the roof right, this is a level of statistical significance we essentially never see.

01:57:02.000 And CNN turned it into a veterinary medicine right, it turned you green hilarious, right. 0.55

01:57:09.000 So my point here is a couple fold.

01:57:13.000 One, the ivermectin story and the repurposed drug story more generally, is a very important puzzle piece.

01:57:23.000 Because if repurposed drugs had been allowed to be used, if doctors had been allowed to go through the normal process of medicine that doctors go through, where they look at a patient who's ill, they see what their symptoms are, they try to figure out what might work for them, they talk to other doctors, they pool their information, if that process had been allowed to unfold, Covid is an entirely manageable disease in all but the most compromised people right,

01:57:53.000 there was no important pandemic repurposed drugs could have addressed instead.

01:57:59.000 What pain in which people like you and me were gaslit and slandered and the public was fed a story in which we did the work.

01:58:10.000 Randomized controlled trials are the gold standard of science and they tell us that ivermectin is not effective against Covid.

01:58:18.000 This is total nonsense, right?

01:58:21.000 So part of the crime was in denying us the stuff that did work, which then forced people into the stuff that didn't work.

01:58:28.000 That also happened to compromise their health right, the vaccine.

01:58:31.000 So that's the sum total of the story.

01:58:34.000 Well, the story is really profit, because you got to get to the motivation of why would one do something like this?

01:58:39.000 I am still not sure I know the crime is so ghastly.

01:58:46.000 Maybe i'm just naive.

01:58:47.000 Let's hold this thought because I have to be real bad, but I want to get to it from here and I don't want to be compromised.

01:58:52.000 Yep, we're back, all right.

01:58:55.000 So ivermectin where were we with it?

01:58:59.000 Well one, the evidence is actually really powerful that ivermectin works.

01:59:09.000 It also reveals something about what's wrong with medical science at the moment, because what's really going on here is we don't correctly respond when we are told that randomized controlled trials are the gold standard of scientific tests.

01:59:28.000 Randomized controlled trials, in principle, are capable of doing something best in class and that is revealing very subtle effects.

01:59:38.000 However, they are very prone to being distorted by biases of the researchers and, in these cases, of the Together trial and the Principle trial and the others, what you seem to have is a cottage industry of generating results that are favorable to the pharma regime, and what we in the public should want are tests that are

02:00:09.000 very difficult to rig.

02:00:12.000 So randomized control trial, in this case, where you have multiple drugs being tested, where they share a placebo group, where end points are adjusted midstream, where the particular end points that are targeted are adjusted to make some drugs look good and other drugs look bad all of those are places where fraud can hide.

02:00:40.000 It is way more important to have good experiments than to have highly sensitive experiments that are very prone to fraud, because there's so much incentive for fraud in our current system.

02:00:53.000 The accidental experiment that I described, that the courts ran, is incredibly powerful evidence.

02:01:05.000 The statistics are literally something that you can do on one sheet of paper.

02:01:12.000 This is the simplest conceivable test, the chi square goodness of fit test.

02:01:12.000 Right?

02:01:17.000 There's no place for anything to hide either.

02:01:20.000 The data is what it says it is or it's not.

02:01:23.000 But if the data is what it says it is, then the result leaves no question whatsoever that ivermectin works in very sick people relative to an end point of death.

02:01:35.000 That's a very powerful kind of evidence and you know, I was recently on a podcast called why should I trust you, with Pierre,

02:02:04.000 and the allopathic doctors were curious about the medical freedom movement, but they certainly weren't on board with this, and Pierre and I told them about the accidental experiment run by the courts, the Natural Experiment, and it was clear that these doctors couldn't grasp the significance of the evidence.

02:02:28.000 Right, it's too mind blowing that this very simple circumstance reveals the overwhelming power of this drug, and it was like well, that can't be right.

02:02:38.000 But it can be right and so, in any case, I would just say fraud is a serious problem.

02:02:46.000 Why did they have a problem with the data?

02:02:49.000 I think you know let's give them their due.

02:02:54.000 They're sitting down talking to two people who, I think they don't know, can't assess whether or not we're being honest, whether the data is as reported, but so I think there's a natural reaction to reject that, which seems, I think,

02:03:22.000 when you've been lied to as much as these doctors had been lied to about repurposed drugs for covid and vaccines and things that being confronted with very powerful in fact, if the data is what it's supposed to be incontrovertible proof and I don't use the word proof lightly, but you know, p equals 5.03 times 10 to negative 15.

02:03:47.000 That is an amazing level of statistical significance.

02:03:51.000 How did the conversation play out like when you gave them this data, when you discussed this?

02:03:56.000 Well, what they said was, well, there could be lots of explanations for that, which is not true.

02:04:02.000 Right really, what explanations do they provide as possible?

02:04:09.000 I think they were reserving the right to go find some explanation, because think about it this way, let's let's let's, let's.

02:04:17.000 In front of a crowd no no okay, let's imagine how this experiment could not, could be something other than it seems to be right.

02:04:28.000 Let's say that the courts were biased in who they granted the right to have ivermectin administered to.

02:04:37.000 If the courts were biased, then the test isn't what it appears to be.

02:04:40.000 However, you would expect the courts to be biased in exactly the inverse way.

02:04:46.000 As the result, in other words, you would expect the court to grant access to ivermectin in more dire cases, so you expect that access.

02:04:58.000 You would expect the people who got ivermectin to be more likely to die.

02:05:01.000 Because yeah, and so the fact that we see exactly the inverse means that actually, the result, if there's any bias at all, is probably conservative.

02:05:09.000 Right, it's probably more effective than we think, right?

02:05:13.000 So, in any case, I just think we've forgotten how science works.

02:05:19.000 Right, it doesn't take any all of the money and the complexity of running one of these multi arm trials is huge, and yet an accidental experiment run by the courts gives you a powerful result like this that tells you without a doubt that this is effective, which is actually what you find when you go and look at all these trials that attempted to sabotage ivermectin, and you discover that actually, you know they,

02:05:50.000 they're playing games they're telling you.

02:05:52.000 Let me give you, you can create the impression that a drug doesn't work by setting an unrealistic end point.

02:06:04.000 Right, like if I let's say that I had a drug that was perfectly successful at stopping the common cold right, you take it, and one day later your common cold is gone okay, and I decide to run an experiment.

02:06:20.000 But the end point of the experiment is hospitalization right, and I say okay, was there any difference in how hospitalized patients who got my drug are versus those who didn't?

02:06:37.000 Well no, nobody goes to the hospital over a cold.

02:06:40.000 So the point is it makes the drug look totally ineffective.

02:06:42.000 That's one trick you can play.

02:06:44.000 You can also under dose it.

02:06:46.000 You know, one of the games played in the principal trial is, they detected no difference at all in the patients who got ivermectin and didn't get ivermectin six months later.

02:06:56.000 Well, i'm not sure you would expect a difference between the population that did and didn't get it six months later.

02:07:04.000 Right, you've completely recovered, right?

02:07:06.000 So anyway, there's all kinds of games and the point is, actually we do not.

02:07:11.000 You know how, when you go to buy a car, nobody prioritizes the simple vehicle, right?

02:07:20.000 The point is, what they sell you is the features.

02:07:22.000 Right, this car has all of these different new features that your last one didn't, but there's no value placed on.

02:07:29.000 Actually, I want fewer features, I want a tiny number of features that I actually use and I want the car to be, you know, capable of dealing with everything, never need any service, all of those things.

02:07:39.000 But that's just not the way it works.

02:07:41.000 So scientifically, we're in the same boat where it's like the fancier trial has the priority in our mind, just as the new drug has the priority in our mind.

02:07:50.000 No, you don't.

02:07:50.000 Oh, I want the new one.

02:07:51.000 You want the one that all of the interactions with other drugs have already been spotted, that your doctor has a lot of experience knowing how people react to it.

02:08:01.000 The older drug is.

02:08:11.000 So i'm just advocating for simpler experiments where nothing can hide and simple statistics can be used and us normal folks can understand what was done.

02:08:23.000 So in the case of this podcast, how did you resolve it?

02:08:26.000 How did it end?

02:08:27.000 Well, it actually ended really well.

02:08:28.000 I hope people will go listen to it.

02:08:29.000 The positive thing about it was we clashed, we definitely disagreed, but it was all quite respectful and I feel like Pierre and I both felt that we were heard in a way that is not the usual these days.

02:08:48.000 So anyway, I thought it was a very encouraging well, I think even people that were initially highly skeptical and very pro vaccine have had their eyes opened a bit.

02:08:59.000 Whether they like it or not.

02:09:01.000 The window has shifted yes, although I find it shifted radically on vaccines, and in large measure because ivermectin was made difficult to get and people were spooked away from it.

02:09:17.000 It's a much more abstract question to most people.

02:09:20.000 Just the sheer propaganda that was the amount of propaganda was preposterous.

02:09:28.000 It was unbelievable.

02:09:29.000 Rolling Stone magazine remember that article that they had about people that were waiting in line at the emergency room for gunshot wounds because so many people were overdosing on horse medication, overdosed on ivermectin, which is virtually impossible.

02:09:44.000 It's pure lies.

02:09:47.000 Not only that, they use a stock photo of people in Oklahoma in august with winter coats on.

02:09:52.000 Oh man yeah, the propaganda was fucking.

02:09:55.000 It was designed for idiots.

02:09:58.000 It was designed for idiots by idiots for idiots. 0.90

02:10:01.000 They just like they didn't care how provable it was, how quick it was to.

02:10:07.000 You could research it very quickly and find out that this is not true.

02:10:11.000 You could visit those hospitals and find out it's not true.

02:10:14.000 You could look up the cases of people that were overdosing on ivermectin, which didn't exist, right.

02:10:19.000 There's a few people that called the poison control hotline because they panicked yeah, they worried.

02:10:23.000 Yeah, that's not the same thing is being poisoned, right.

02:10:26.000 Well, what I want people to understand is that all of those vaccine injuries are actually downstream of the propaganda campaign about repurposed drugs, that because this was a manageable disease with well-known repurposed drugs that were readily available, there was no argument for these vaccines in anybody right.

02:10:48.000 This was experimental technology that was fraught with dangers that turned out to be massive harms, but the gaslighting was all about profit because of the emergency use authorization.

02:10:59.000 So to have the emergency use authorization, you couldn't have any effective drugs that existed to treat it right, otherwise you wouldn't have had an emergency use authorization for a new drug that hasn't really been tested.

02:11:11.000 I don't think that's what happened.

02:11:13.000 I did think that's what happened, but I don't anymore.

02:11:16.000 Oh interesting because also, my suspicion is that the mRNA platform needed to be debuted in an emergency, with radically reduced safety testing, because the dangers of the mRNA platform are so great that they would have revealed themselves under any sort of normal testing regime.

02:11:43.000 So you think this was all about rolling out the mRNA platform for many other purposes other than just COVID.

02:11:51.000 This is just the introduction to this and we've actually talked about this.

02:11:55.000 It's going to be used to treat all these different diseases and cancer and this and that.

02:11:59.000 Oh, it's coming.

02:12:00.000 They're already in the pipeline and I think people need to be aware that the plan is to blame the COVID shots, not the platform, so that people will take the new shots that come out and I wouldn't touch them with a barge pull.

02:12:20.000 So did you want to talk about, given that we are in this quadrant?

02:12:25.000 Did you want to talk about Sam?

02:12:26.000 Sure, all right.

02:12:29.000 Well, I'm not sure quite where to start, but Sam has been, he's continued to be aggressive, going after you and me over COVID, where my impression is that you and I turned out to be right pretty well across the board.

02:12:48.000 I've acknowledged the significant place where I believe I was wrong.

02:12:52.000 I don't think I was way wrong, but what was that?

02:12:56.000 Masks.

02:12:56.000 I thought masks stood a decent chance of being useful and at the point that it turned out, there was no evidentiary support for that.

02:13:07.000 I said so.

02:13:09.000 I still think you know, given that we didn't know at the beginning, whether or not COVID was transmitted by fomite, in other words, by droplets on surfaces, something that covers your face.

02:13:22.000 Coughing out droplets or touching a droplet to your mouth is a decent bet, but anyway, okay.

02:13:30.000 So my error was was masks.

02:13:34.000 I don't think Sam has acknowledged any of his errors and he said some really aggressive stuff about me and I think recently he said some stuff about you and he's actually still beating this drum about your podcast killing people.

02:13:53.000 Am I right about that?

02:13:55.000 Allegedly, I don't listen to any things he says anymore because it's depressing.

02:14:00.000 Sam is the reason for the joke that I had in my special.

02:14:03.000 We lost a lot of people during COVID and most of them are still alive.

02:14:07.000 Yeah, I feel like we lost Sam and I think, whether Sam realizes or not, it had a massive impact on the number of people that take his position seriously, because he's unwilling to acknowledge that the vaccines clearly damaged a lot of people, unwilling to acknowledge that they weren't necessary, especially in kids and younger people and, I think, any healthy person under a certain age.

02:14:34.000 Unwilling to acknowledge that many other things could have been done to prevent serious illness and hospitalization other than just this vaccination, and that this vaccination is seriously flawed.

02:14:48.000 I had a conversation on the phone with them.

02:14:50.000 I've only had a couple over the last few years.

02:14:52.000 I still love Sam.

02:14:53.000 I always thought of him as a friend and I think he's a very interesting guy.

02:14:59.000 The first one was after I recovered from COVID, where he was trying to convince me to get vaccinated and I was like this is the dumbest conversation I've ever had.

02:15:07.000 Why would I get vaccinated now?

02:15:18.000 When I made that video it didn't.

02:15:21.000 There was no logical.

02:15:22.000 It was the same conversation that I had with Sanjay Gupta on the podcast, where he's like, are you going to get vaccinated?

02:15:28.000 And I'm like, why would I do that?

02:15:29.000 Tell me why I would do that.

02:15:31.000 It would offer you more protection.

02:15:34.000 I just got through it pretty easily.

02:15:37.000 I am a healthy person who exercises all the time.

02:15:41.000 I take a fucking slew of vitamins, I sauna every day.

02:15:45.000 I do all these different things that make my body more robust than the average person.

02:15:49.000 I got through this disease relatively easily with all the ways that I prescribed and only one of them was problematic, one of them being ivermectin.

02:15:58.000 Nobody said a damn thing about me taking IV vitamins, monoclonal antibodies, all the other things I described.

02:16:03.000 I didn't say ivermectin.

02:16:05.000 Guys, the kitchen sink at it and i'm better.

02:16:14.000 And Cnn's response was to turn me green and say that i'm promoting dangerous horse dewormer and that it's misinformation that's going to cost people's lives.

02:16:24.000 And the fact that Sam is still saying that it cost people's lives is fucking crazy and all.

02:16:30.000 I don't know if he's just convinced that he can convince people that he's so good at debating, and.

02:16:42.000 But it doesn't make sense.

02:16:43.000 And, in fact, if you promoted the use of vaccines and it's been shown that these vaccines have caused serious injuries and death to people that didn't need them.

02:16:53.000 I would say you cause death, especially if you're a person that people high, that people hold rather in very high esteem.

02:17:02.000 For someone that people respect their opinion and take it very seriously and would refer to them with you.

02:17:12.000 And there's something just weird about the fact that here we have a highly intelligent person who prides himself on analytics and yet, even as the story is breaking, even as the evidence of vaccine harms becomes unambiguous and maybe more to the point in

02:17:42.000 this case, even as Paul Offit has now in several different places said, that all the top people in the public health regime who were issuing these diktats all knew that natural immunity was the best immunity you were going to get right.

02:18:00.000 So the evidence is right there that they lied to us in public that you had it right.

02:18:06.000 There would have been no purpose in you getting a vaccination after you had already recovered.

02:18:10.000 And I would add one other thing, the evidence that vaccinations often make you more vulnerable is unambiguous.

02:18:21.000 In the case of something like a COVID vaccine or, you know, in the recent revelations about flu vaccines making people more susceptible to flu, there's a strong argument to be made that what's going on is, you have acquired an immunity through an infection.

02:18:44.000 Now somebody injects you with something that either, in the case of the flu shot, has a bunch of antigen in it or, in the case of the COVID shot, causes your body to produce a bunch of antigen.

02:18:55.000 What's that going to do?

02:18:57.000 That is going to attract the attention of all of the cells in your immune system that are supposed to be surveilling for the disease in question, and it's going to occupy them.

02:19:07.000 So one of the mechanisms by which a vaccine can actually make you more vulnerable is that it can take an immunity that you've already gotten through fighting off an infection and it can draw it to the wrong place when the disease is still circulating.

02:19:21.000 So Sam is saying something nonsensical.

02:19:25.000 Sanjay Gupta was saying something nonsensical.

02:19:28.000 They were actually giving you advice that has a very clear mechanism by which it would make you more vulnerable to the disease that they think you should do everything in your power to make yourself less vulnerable to they're.

02:19:38.000 They're just simply not saying something analytically robust.

02:19:41.000 And I would also point out, you know, this question about whether or not Sam is responsible for people's deaths.

02:19:49.000 I want to do this carefully because I think it matters.

02:19:53.000 I wouldn't say he is.

02:19:55.000 I would only say he is.

02:19:57.000 If he's saying that I am right, that's.

02:19:59.000 It's not something that I would go out and say I wouldn't right.

02:20:03.000 Here's how I would do it, rigorously, okay.

02:20:06.000 I think the discussion a robust, open discussion about a complex set of facts that discussion is how we find the truth right.

02:20:18.000 The truth gives us an opportunity to become safer.

02:20:21.000 So everybody gets credit for participating.

02:20:25.000 Anybody who participates in good faith in the conversation about what the right thing to do is is part of the solution, even the people who get it wrong.

02:20:32.000 I would agree with that.

02:20:34.000 However, as soon as you start making the argument that you're wrong and that means you're putting people's lives in jeopardy, my feeling is, well then, you're changing the rules.

02:20:45.000 You're setting a standard that we have to be right or we're responsible for whatever deaths might befall us.

02:20:52.000 We have to do more than just participate in good faith in the conversation.

02:20:55.000 We have to be right.

02:20:56.000 So that means Sam, when you're wrong, you become responsible for the deaths that resulted from your bad advice.

02:21:05.000 You wouldn't have been responsible in the first place, except that you decided these were the rules of engagement.

02:21:10.000 You decided that the people who were wrong in the argument are responsible for the deaths.

02:21:16.000 And guess what Sam, you were wrong.

02:21:17.000 People died.

02:21:18.000 People got a vaccine that they shouldn't have gotten and they died.

02:21:21.000 Children died right, that's on.

02:21:30.000 Can find his way back.

02:21:31.000 I think Sam has a real problem with admitting wrong.

02:21:34.000 Admitting you're wrong requires you to admit that you're fallible, that your intellectual rigor in pursuing this very complex scenario that we all find ourselves in that's very novel.

02:21:48.000 You made errors.

02:21:49.000 You trusted establishments that were compromised.

02:21:52.000 You trusted experts who were incentivized to deliver this propaganda that was.

02:22:00.000 This was the only way out of this.

02:22:01.000 You had to get vaccinated and I think a lot of it was.

02:22:05.000 He had an initial experience with someone that he knew that had got COVID, that got very sick and was a young, healthy person who was a skier relatively young in Italy and I don't know what treatment they got.

02:22:19.000 I don't know what the situation was.

02:22:21.000 I do know that supposedly they had been heavily drinking while they were there, like on a ski chip, getting drunk, get COVID got really sick and wind up getting very fucked up by it.

02:22:34.000 I think that scared him and I think he was initially.

02:22:37.000 He was one of the bigger, like the people that I was in contact with, that was warning me that this is not the flu, this is really dangerous, and I took it to heart and, like I've publicly said many times, I was not just willing to get the vaccine.

02:22:53.000 I tried to get it.

02:22:54.000 The UFC allocated a bunch of COVID vaccines for their employees.

02:23:01.000 I got there the day of the fights.

02:23:03.000 I asked to be vaccinated.

02:23:04.000 The day of the fights I didn't even think about it.

02:23:06.000 I thought it was like a flu vaccine.

02:23:08.000 I take a shot.

02:23:14.000 That was my position and I couldn't.

02:23:20.000 I would have to go to the clinic.

02:23:21.000 They told me, can you come back on Monday?

02:23:23.000 I said I cannot, but I'll be back in two weeks for the next fights, we'll do it.

02:23:26.000 Then in that time period the vaccine was pulled.

02:23:29.000 It was the Johnson And Johnson, so it was pulled and I knew two people that had strokes two, two people.

02:23:35.000 That people got it and recovered and I'm like, all right well, this isn't a fucking death sentence.

02:23:48.000 Also, I was around Jamie.

02:23:49.000 I didn't get it.

02:23:50.000 I was around Tony I didn't get it.

02:23:51.000 Then my whole family got it and I didn't get it and I didn't do anything.

02:23:56.000 I did the opposite of trying to not get it, I tried to get it and I didn't get it.

02:24:04.000 And clearly not what everybody saying it is, especially not to, I would say, on the healthy scale, I'm an outlier.

02:24:13.000 I'm very healthy because I spent a lot of time working on it, and I don't think you should punish people that are unhealthy.

02:24:19.000 I don't think.

02:24:20.000 But I also don't think you should punish me and force me to take a medication under the guise that it to protect the people that are unhealthy, if this fucking stuff works because if it works, they should take it and they'll be protected.

02:24:33.000 It didn't make any sense that everybody who is not vulnerable was going to have to take this medication.

02:24:39.000 It was just complete illogical thinking.

02:24:42.000 Does it work?

02:24:43.000 Does it stop transmission?

02:24:45.000 Does it stop infection?

02:24:46.000 That's the initial assertion.

02:24:47.000 If it works, I don't need to take it.

02:24:49.000 Right, they need to take it and I'm the fool if I don't take it.

02:24:53.000 None of this made any sense, but it was just like cult thinking.

02:24:57.000 It was like it had become this, we had been isolated, this bizarre psychology experiment had been done on every living human on the planet.

02:25:08.000 We had all been isolated, removed from everybody.

02:25:11.000 A lot of people been forbidden to go to work, people were working remotely, everyone.

02:25:20.000 And in California, which I think to this day is probably the most devastated by it psychologically.

02:25:27.000 I was back recently.

02:25:29.000 People are still wearing fucking masks.

02:25:30.000 People are still putting masks on when they go into Starbucks.

02:25:33.000 It's bananas.

02:25:34.000 There's a bunch of people like that, like way more than you see in Texas.

02:25:38.000 If I see someone with a mask in Texas, I assume it's either a very vulnerable person who's filled with anxiety, is mentally ill or severely immunocompromised, someone with cancer, someone is going through chemotherapy, what have you, which makes sense?

02:25:50.000 Yep, but the the psychology aspect of it was very strange, because people just thought that this one solution was the only way out and if you resisted this solution, you were keeping them from returning to a normal life and you were a problem.

02:26:08.000 And I saw people that plague rats online.

02:26:15.000 I was like this is crazy.

02:26:17.000 First of you are so unhealthy.

02:26:20.000 I wanted to post, but I'm not a mean person, I want to attack people.

02:26:23.000 But I was like I know you motherfucker, you eat donuts all day.

02:26:26.000 You haven't worked out a day in your life and now you're telling everyone that they have to do this or they're the problem.

02:26:33.000 Like you're so vulnerable to everything, you have no vitamins in your system and you're out there telling me that the only way for me to get healthy is that I have to get injected with some experimental gene therapy, and that's the only way, even after I've gotten the fucking cold and gotten over it.

02:26:54.000 This is pure madness, with no objective analysis of all the details and the facts and a logical conclusion, a logical breakdown of their perspective on what this thing was.

02:27:11.000 No, it was all group think.

02:27:12.000 It was all adherence to this one doctrine.

02:27:15.000 There's the vaccinated and the unvaccinated.

02:27:17.000 I had people on my pocket.

02:27:18.000 This is a pandemic of the unvaccinated. 0.99

02:27:21.000 Shut the fuck up, you parrot like. 1.00

02:27:24.000 Are you a man?

02:27:25.000 Are you an actual human being?

02:27:26.000 How the fuck did we survive a million years of evolution to get to you?

02:27:31.000 You fucking bag of milk talking about, everybody has to do what you did.

02:27:38.000 You're not even healthy.

02:27:39.000 This is so crazy.

02:27:41.000 You're jumping into the game in the fourth quarter and telling people how to play.

02:27:45.000 You didn't play the game.

02:27:47.000 You sat on the fucking bench, you did nothing and now, all of a sudden, you're talking about health.

02:27:52.000 This is crazy.

02:27:54.000 It's like the moment that I had Peter Hotez on and you know this the pandemic.

02:28:05.000 When I did a television show in 2012.

02:28:07.000 I found it to be very interesting.

02:28:08.000 He did a lot of work on infectious diseases, particularly oddly enough and ironically enough, on parasites.

02:28:14.000 You know which is what Ivermectin is so good for.

02:28:17.000 He was talking a lot about parasites in tropical climates and how so many people have parasites, and this is a giant issue that he works very hard to discuss and to educate people on.

02:28:34.000 Then I started saying, you know what do you eat?

02:28:36.000 Do you work out?

02:28:37.000 I'm kind of a junk food junkie.

02:28:39.000 I eat a lot of candy.

02:28:40.000 Like what what, like what do you think you're made out of man, do you?

02:28:47.000 Okay, if you know anything about biology, your fucking cells are literally constructed based on the food that you eat.

02:28:58.000 It's the only thing they have.

02:28:59.000 It's all you have to keep your body robust and vital.

02:29:06.000 Your body needs protein, it needs vitamins, it needs carbohydrates, it needs all these things.

02:29:11.000 They've been documented.

02:29:12.000 You're ignoring that because you like mouth pleasure.

02:29:16.000 You're obese.

02:29:18.000 You're ignoring that.

02:29:20.000 You don't work out.

02:29:21.000 You're not fit.

02:29:22.000 Your body's not robust.

02:29:24.000 You don't sauna.

02:29:25.000 You probably don't take any vitamins like this is crazy that you're giving out advice and you're doing it publicly.

02:29:34.000 You're publicly discussing all these things as if it's not that big of a deal that you don't do these other things because you vaccines are very important.

02:29:43.000 You know it's fucking important is be healthy and the the fact that you can ignore that while giving advice is wild, just absolutely wild.

02:29:54.000 Well, it raises two things.

02:29:56.000 One, in Peter Hotez's case, he is part of a pharma religion right, where the idea is that things happen, that they're not your fault and that they are corrected with interventions.

02:30:14.000 And there has been a false dichotomy painted between what's called terrain theory and germ theory, right where it's like.

02:30:22.000 Well, which of these things do you think it is?

02:30:23.000 And the answer is, these things are not mutually exclusive.

02:30:27.000 The health of the terrain dictates how vulnerable you are to the germs, and a very healthy person has very low vulnerability, you know, and a lifetime of abuse makes you highly vulnerable.

02:30:40.000 And people like Hotez don't get it. 1.00

02:30:43.000 I remember that interaction that you had with him goes to shake shack with his daughter who has autism, and he swears, it's not the vaccines, but that's the other thing.

02:30:58.000 I said, well, what does cause autism?

02:31:00.000 And he said it's.

02:31:01.000 We've narrowed it down to five environmental factors.

02:31:04.000 I said, what are they?

02:31:05.000 And he couldn't tell me.

02:31:06.000 I'm.

02:31:06.000 Like listen man, if my daughter had autism and I knew for a fact that it came from five things, I would tell you what those things were, because I would know what those things were, because I'd want to warn other people right, you would.

02:31:18.000 It would be on billboards.

02:31:19.000 He's an expert who wrote a book about his daughter, right?

02:31:23.000 And he couldn't tell me what those environmental factors are that contribute to autism rates being higher.

02:31:28.000 He's an expert in quotes.

02:31:33.000 Well, it's just the limited thinking and I like Peter as a person outside of all this stuff, my interactions with him, but nothing but pleasant.

02:31:40.000 I, you know I try to be as nice as possible, I know I try to be as charitable as possible, but that ability to live a life that is measurably, demonstrably unhealthy, like clearly unhealthy, and yet be talking about health, that kind of thinking is wild.

02:32:03.000 It's wild thinking, it's hypocritical.

02:32:06.000 It's also to be a public expert and to have that kind of flaw in your thinking that exposed by a fucking comedian like I'm not even an expert, just a guy who's like asking you questions, and it's so blunt, so obvious by your response that you don't even take this into consideration.

02:32:27.000 The primary factor of health, physical robustness, metabolic resistance, health you don't take that into consideration at all.

02:32:36.000 The idea that there's no difference between an unhealthy unfit, obese person who eats garbage and is vitamin deficient in virtually all measurable areas, versus a healthy person with a, with a strong body and a robust immune system and constantly consuming vitamins and exercising and staying healthy and getting a lot of sleep and water and electrolytes, like there's no difference and the only difference is vaccines.

02:33:04.000 That's.

02:33:06.000 That's crazy.

02:33:07.000 That a public health person can have those points and not just have them behind closed doors, where you're not challenged, but espouse them publicly.

02:33:17.000 Well, there's something very wrong with our entire approach to public health, and hopefully we are going to confront it, because they've effectively staged a coup against doctors and they're dispensing very low quality advice.

02:33:35.000 I mean, it's really the inverse of good advice.

02:33:38.000 But this this brings me back actually, to Sam, because there's a dire lesson here.

02:33:47.000 For one thing, I quite like Sam also, and I will tell you, one of the early experiences I had as I was getting to know him was that I heard him say something that I had said many, many times as a professor, which is that and I said it, I think, at the beginning of this podcast that when you are wrong, that as painful as it is to acknowledge it,

02:34:13.000 you are far better off to get it done as quick as possible so that you can get back to being right.

02:34:19.000 And I heard him say something almost exactly like that right, and I thought, ah, here's somebody who has the same intellectual approach, somebody who appreciates that same, maybe slightly subtle, piece of wisdom.

02:34:32.000 And yet here, in the case of the pandemic.

02:34:36.000 I think he got everything wrong and worse than that.

02:34:41.000 I mean, you know, you and I both think that you know you can get stuff wrong, and it was a very confusing time and the information was very low quality and lots of people got stuff wrong.

02:34:50.000 However, you are now making unforced errors, refusing to see that you got it wrong.

02:34:58.000 In fact, you're not even acknowledging what you know, Sam.

02:35:02.000 You have stopped getting boosters for COVID, despite all of the things that you said about it.

02:35:07.000 And how do you know he stopped getting boosters?

02:35:10.000 Because he said so?

02:35:10.000 I believe he said so.

02:35:12.000 How many did he get that?

02:35:12.000 Did he say why?

02:35:14.000 I don't know.

02:35:15.000 That might be also part of the problem, but my feeling it could be.

02:35:18.000 Well, that is an issue that people are discussing.

02:35:21.000 There's a mental decline in people that have had too many of these boosters because of the impact that it has on the body, which is really wild.

02:35:28.000 It is a oh, and this is another thing that people need to understand about it.

02:35:32.000 We are way too focused on myocarditis and pericarditis.

02:35:36.000 This is a random maybe not random haphazard tissue destroying technology, the platform itself.

02:35:45.000 Right, it's like rolling the dice on destroying cells.

02:35:49.000 There are cells in your body you can afford to lose and there are other cells in the body that you can't afford to lose.

02:35:55.000 And if you take a bunch of boosters, each time you take one, you're rolling the dice on losing a bunch of cells that you may or may not be able to afford losing.

02:36:03.000 So the fact that that includes things in the nervous system well, of course it does it's completely haphazard.

02:36:09.000 So anyway, what I don't get is somebody who obviously believes in rigorous thought must believe in correcting their course when they've got something wrong.

02:36:26.000 That's the key to rigorous analytical thought, and yet in this case he appears it's.

02:36:33.000 I mean, ironically enough, coming from from Sam it's faith. 0.75

02:36:37.000 He has faith that whatever he said must have been right, even if he has to do that little trick.

02:36:43.000 He does where it's like.

02:36:44.000 Well, if the facts had been different then I would have been right.

02:36:47.000 That thing was crazy.

02:36:48.000 That argument was the most bizarre, and that was the first conversation that I had with him where he was upset that we were making fun of that.

02:36:56.000 No, that actually was the second.

02:36:57.000 The first one was him asking me to get vaccinated.

02:37:00.000 The second one was this, we were talking about how crazy it is to say that if it killed a bunch of kids, then of course you would have to take it like what, what right?

02:37:10.000 Well, if I was right, then I would be right.

02:37:13.000 It's basically saying like if the disease was way worse and I was right, then I'm right, but the disease wasn't that and you weren't right and they didn't have to say, what the fuck are you saying right?

02:37:24.000 And other people were right.

02:37:26.000 And again, you could be on the same level with all the people who got it more right than you if you were simply decent about what it meant to disagree.

02:37:35.000 So let me explain this.

02:37:36.000 So this conversation was after we talked about this on the podcast and I thought I handled it very charitably.

02:37:41.000 He was upset that people were going to attack him, so he called me, we talked, he wanted to talk to me and I said that I won't do it until you talk to Brett.

02:37:49.000 He's terrified to talk to you.

02:37:51.000 He claims to be willing to sit down and talk to everybody.

02:37:55.000 He said he won't platform you or something about the disinformation that you spread.

02:37:59.000 Have a conversation with him, but it's like a guy who knows he can't beat up Mike Tyson.

02:38:06.000 He's like, fuck Mike Tyson, like why don't you go say it to his face.

02:38:10.000 I don't have a desire to be in the room with that guy and like, oh fuck that guy if I see him, but I'm not going to see him.

02:38:17.000 It's like he's avoiding you and he's avoiding you because he has said so many things that are incorrect, that are provably incorrect, and he has not admitted any of that.

02:38:30.000 So he has the burden of these years of saying all this incorrect stuff and then being supported by a bunch of other people that have also said a bunch of incorrect stuff, and they all kind of group up together and gang up and talk in the comments and then they get destroyed by everybody else.

02:38:46.000 It's kind of wild to watch like some of these posts and the chaos that goes on in the comment section.

02:38:54.000 It's just the complete dissolving of the appreciation of him as an intellectual.

02:39:01.000 It's like we've watched.

02:39:03.000 He's destroyed it in front of our eyes.

02:39:05.000 So many people that I talk to that used to love Sam Harris will tell me I used to love that guy.

02:39:10.000 What the fuck happened to him?

02:39:12.000 Oh, the people who are angriest at him are people who were devoted fans of his.

02:39:16.000 I don't know if he even knows that.

02:39:18.000 No, I don't think they know it either.

02:39:20.000 Well, I'm one of them, you know.

02:39:22.000 I think you gotta parse out the correct things that a person said from the incorrect things the person said.

02:39:29.000 I think Sam's had some pretty spectacular debates in the past.

02:39:34.000 I thought great speaker.

02:39:36.000 But he's just been so wrong on this for so long that he's stuck and so now he's not making sense.

02:39:43.000 Yeah, he's stuck and I would say, you know, look the principle that you and I shared Sam, where it doesn't matter how painful it is to admit that you were wrong, you're just far better off doing it at whatever point.

02:39:56.000 But if he thinks he's right, have a fucking seat across the table from Mr. Weinstein and talk.

02:40:02.000 And he don't want to do that.

02:40:04.000 He wants to talk to me.

02:40:05.000 He says that I'm responsible for people's deaths.

02:40:09.000 He said that my show is a cultural disaster.

02:40:12.000 I think that was the quote that he used.

02:40:14.000 Right, and in fact I think it makes the same point as this accidental natural experiment run by the courts.

02:40:22.000 Right?

02:40:24.000 Is the Joe Rogan experience, like the, you know, the gold standard of how to make intellectual progress?

02:40:34.000 Absolutely not.

02:40:36.000 Yeah, I mean, look at your table.

02:40:38.000 No, mammoth teeth and I got a, an Olmec head here. 1.00

02:40:43.000 And wolf tooth I got a wolf tooth right.

02:40:46.000 This is the methods.

02:40:47.000 The methods section tells the tale.

02:40:49.000 On the other hand, on the other hand, by you know how, by what degree, did you beat Sam Harris, whose method amounted to listening to the right people right.

02:41:01.000 The right people were lying.

02:41:02.000 I don't exactly know why they were lying.

02:41:04.000 I don't know how they got there.

02:41:05.000 Maybe it's a wide range of explanations, but the point is actually the method that you used, which was talking to people and hearing them out and challenging them when they said stuff that didn't make sense.

02:41:22.000 That method worked pretty well.

02:41:25.000 Were you going to get the shot?

02:41:26.000 You were.

02:41:27.000 No, did you end up avoiding it?

02:41:27.000 Did you get it?

02:41:29.000 You know, did you get wise fast enough to stay away from it?

02:41:33.000 You did.

02:41:34.000 Did you have ivermectin when you got sick?

02:41:37.000 You had it available and you used it.

02:41:39.000 These things worked well, and I guess the point is this is a classic case of the proof is in the pudding, right?

02:41:48.000 I will take that accidental natural experiment run by the courts over some fancy randomized control trial, where I can't even figure out what they did and why they kept moving the goal posts in the middle of it any day of the week.

02:42:04.000 Not only that, but one that was funded and designed specifically to achieve a desired result, and if it didn't, they hit it right.

02:42:12.000 So the point is we should just be way more ready to say, I don't know what that complicated thing is, but it doesn't look reasonable.

02:42:25.000 And then here's some stuff that actually I can be pretty sure I can check myself.

02:42:30.000 There's nothing that can hide in the statistics of a chi-square test, so all I need to know is is the data accurately represented, and then the chi-square test leaves nowhere to hide shenanigans.

02:42:42.000 So I I radically prefer that style of method rather than the fancy stuff, and I think people are just addicted to, you know, the highest tech version of everything, whether it's a drug or stats or whatever.

02:43:00.000 It would be great if we knew that there's never been a time ever where they lied during these studies.

02:43:06.000 There's never been scientists that were bribed, like the whole sugar versus saturated fat thing.

02:43:12.000 There's been too many times where the course of civilization has been altered because of fraudulent studies.

02:43:19.000 I mean that's.

02:43:20.000 You could demonstrate that really quickly with a good, quick AI search.

02:43:25.000 You could find all the different times where that's been the case, where studies have been proven to not just been inaccurate, but then the drug gets released, kills a bunch of people and gets pulled off of the market.

02:43:37.000 And then they go through the studies and realize, well, there's 10 studies that show that there was real fucking.

02:43:42.000 So they buried those studies and then rigged one study with very specific parameters to try to show some statistically significant result.

02:43:50.000 That was very small, just so they could sell these drugs.

02:43:53.000 Right it's, it's I call it the game of pharma, and the idea is they are trying to own a piece of intellectual property yes, to find a plausible use case for it, to portray it as safer than existing drugs, whether or not it is, to portray it as more effective than existing drugs, whether or not it is.

02:44:13.000 And if they manage to do those things, it starts spitting out money.

02:44:17.000 I think the best example of that is probably AZT use during the AIDS pandemic.

02:44:22.000 Because AZT to come up with a new drug, it would take a long time.

02:44:25.000 You had to develop it, you had to do this, but they knew that they had a drug that wasn't being used anymore because it was so problematic and used as a chemotherapy that it was killing people quicker than cancer was.

02:44:35.000 So what did they do?

02:44:37.000 They just said well, we'll take this drug that we already own and we could already sell, and now we'll prescribe it to people that have HIV, which killed them and killed a lot of people that were asymptomatic, which is really wild.

02:44:49.000 You know people that tested positive for HIV, presumably probably during, with a PCR method.

02:44:56.000 Right, there was a lot of them.

02:44:58.000 That was one of the things that Kerry Mullis famously was talking about Fauci before the pandemic.

02:45:03.000 A lot of people attributed to him saying it about Fauci and the PCR test after the pandemic.

02:45:08.000 No, it was before and it was in regards to the AIDS crisis.

02:45:11.000 He'd done I believe he'd done that interview in the 1990s and he was saying that there's not a way to detect whether or not someone is infected with a fucking disease.

02:45:20.000 That's not what it's intended for.

02:45:21.000 Well right, and I mean the short answer in that case is, it's an inappropriate test because what it is is an amplifier and if you turn the cycle threshold up, it can amplify absolutely anything to a positive.

02:45:37.000 And the admission and false positives with COVID is through the roof.

02:45:40.000 False positives were an immense part of the situation.

02:45:43.000 Well, you know.

02:45:44.000 This is why, when you say it was about the money, that I'm just not convinced is I can certainly tell a story about lots of places where a huge profit was made but the commitment across the board to making sure that certain things happened, that we were maximally spooked, and, what's more,

02:46:13.000 not only maximally spooked but primed before the thing supposedly hit our shores.

02:46:19.000 We were primed to be expecting a certain disease and so we hallucinated that disease.

02:46:25.000 Doctors were primed to imagine that they were about to be dropping like flies because they were going to be forced to deal with these sick people who had this very destructive disease, and I don't know why this happened.

02:46:40.000 For one thing, I don't think we have properly figured out what the meaning of tabletop exercises is.

02:46:50.000 You remember event 201?

02:46:52.000 Yes, like shortly before.

02:46:54.000 Explain that to people.

02:46:55.000 So event 201 was a tabletop exercise shortly before the Covid pandemic, in which a scenario suspiciously like the Covid pandemic was portrayed, with sort of medium production values.

02:47:12.000 You know, false news reports and things were broadcast to the participants, you know.

02:47:18.000 And so basically, you took a bunch of people who would ultimately play some role in the pandemic and you put them through a trial run where they got to make the decisions that caused them to censor the misinformation spreaders and to mandate the this and that and to advocate for the so and so I don't think we have yet understood why a tabletop exercise happened.

02:47:45.000 It's possible it was just a coincidence.

02:47:48.000 I think it's highly unlikely it was just a coincidence, but I don't think we know why they run them.

02:47:53.000 I think there's a, there's a meaning to it, right?

02:47:56.000 I don't know if it is a pump priming thing, where the idea is.

02:48:00.000 We know this is coming for some reason and in order to make it go down the way we want it to go down, everybody has to have practiced their role.

02:48:09.000 They have to go through a rehearsal, right?

02:48:11.000 Is that what it was?

02:48:12.000 Is it a mechanism of spreading a kind of word, you know, in a, in a way that has plausible deniability, so that people will understand that some powerful force is engaged in something?

02:48:28.000 I don't know, but what I do know is that we haven't figured it out, that it's just this weird historical anomaly that oh yeah, there was a tabletop exercise, wasn't there and it looked an awful lot like COVID yeah, and people would just say that was a coincidence, that they did that, yeah.

02:48:45.000 But the question is, what I want to know is, you know if you're constantly running tabletop exercises with infectious diseases?

02:48:56.000 So that event 201 stands out because it just happened to be the one that was shortly before the pandemic and it got lucky with respect to some of the parameters being right okay, but it's like.

02:49:07.000 It's like when I first discovered that I had I think I probably mentioned this to you when Heather and I finished the first draft of our book we were in the Amazon for two weeks, intentionally insulated from all contact with the world, and we emerged to this military checkpoint at which you transition from out of contact to back in contact, and so we're sort of looking at our phones and we

02:49:38.000 start seeing this thing about a coronavirus and this is our first awareness of it.

02:49:44.000 And oh, the coronavirus.

02:49:46.000 The first case in the new world is in Ecuador and we're reading this in Spanish, trying to understand what it is and it's, you know, a bat coronavirus has escaped zoonotic this, that and the other, and because I was a bat biologist, I briefly looked into it, figured out who the bats in question were, where the disease came from, all of that, and I tweeted to my followers.

02:50:09.000 You know this is a developing story, but it adds up based on what I know about the bats, and one of my longtime followers tweeted back.

02:50:19.000 He says, oh, so you think it's just a coincidence that it happened on the doorstep of a biosafety level 4 laboratory studying these very viruses and I thought first of all, what's a biosafety level 4 laboratory?

02:50:33.000 And then I thought well, maybe that's not a piece of information worth processing if there are a thousand laboratories studying these viruses, but if there's only one, then I just got it wrong.

02:50:48.000 Then this is significant.

02:50:50.000 And so it literally is exactly one hour between my tweeting hey, this story makes sense to me my getting this push back and my tweeting.

02:51:00.000 I take back what I said.

02:51:01.000 The story may not be what it appears to be.

02:51:04.000 This is very, very early on.

02:51:06.000 It's right.

02:51:06.000 It's my first awareness.

02:51:08.000 It took exactly one hour.

02:51:09.000 How does this other guy know about the biosafety lab already?

02:51:12.000 Well, I don't know what's his background or her background.

02:51:16.000 It's an anonymous account.

02:51:17.000 He still follows me, but I don't.

02:51:19.000 I don't know what his background was probably a fed, I don't think so.

02:51:23.000 I think this was.

02:51:24.000 I think this was already being discussed in public and because I was coming out of the Amazon, I was a couple weeks behind and so anyway, but anyway A I'm really glad that it got caught on Twitter, that both my error and my correction one hour later, like almost exactly one hour later, just by pure accident.

02:51:44.000 So that was, like the, you know, the beginning of my being red pilled on.

02:51:49.000 COVID was getting schooled over biosafety level 4 laboratories studying bat coronaviruses in the exact place where this thing emerges.

02:51:59.000 So in any case.

02:52:02.000 Point is, if there were a thousand biosafety level 4 labs studying bat coronaviruses, then the fact that there happened to be one nearby where this virus showed up wouldn't necessarily mean anything, but if there's only one, it means a ton.

02:52:14.000 If there were a tabletop exercise per year simulating a pandemic, then the fact that there happened to be one right before COVID wouldn't be very meaningful, but if there aren't one a year, then it is highly significant that something happened.

02:52:30.000 It's a conspicuous piece of evidence of what I don't know, but I think we need to understand how how it works.

02:52:41.000 Crimson contagion was a joint exercise conducted from January to August 2019, in which numerous national, state and local and private organizations in the US participated in order to test the capacity of the federal government and 12 states to respond to a severe pandemic of influenza originating in China whoa.

02:53:00.000 I've never heard anybody talk about that.

02:53:02.000 There's an article posted in the NEW YORK Times on March 19th 2020 about that.

02:53:08.000 Wow, March 19th, wow.

02:53:15.000 Okay.

02:53:15.000 Before virus outbreak.

02:53:17.000 A cascade of warnings went unheeded.

02:53:19.000 Government exercise, including one last year, made it clear the US government was not ready for a pandemic like the coronavirus, but little was done.

02:53:27.000 That's one way to put it.

02:53:29.000 You know it showed they weren't ready.

02:53:31.000 Well, it might be they were preparing for whatever the hell this was that they knew was going to come.

02:53:36.000 Well, and you know, I think what I now know as somebody who got educated by the pandemic is they were very ready, not ready in the way that you and I would want them.

02:53:48.000 Not ready with cures right, not ready with ways to protect the public, to inform them and how to behave and all of that.

02:53:54.000 What they were ready with was a campaign of lies designed to do what that I don't know like.

02:54:02.000 If the idea was to make money, I don't know why they delivered such a dangerous shot.

02:54:11.000 Seems to me and I've wondered a lot about this if they had delivered an inert shot, I don't know what world we'd be living in today, because they could have pretended that it was highly effective, that it saved us from the terrible disease, that those of us who worried about the technology were wrong.

02:54:34.000 They could have used their statistical shenanigans to pretend that anything had happened, and they seemed to me to have screwed up, having delivered a shot dangerous enough that we can all detect the safety signal among our friends, right?

02:54:48.000 So that raises the question to me, did they not understand that it was as dangerous as it was?

02:54:56.000 I don't think that can be true, based on what we know from Robert Malone about the history of this technology.

02:55:03.000 They didn't think it was safe.

02:55:05.000 So is there something important about injecting people with it?

02:55:09.000 Do they want people actually injected with the thing that?

02:55:12.000 That's not consistent with the argument that they were just trying to make money right, because blanks would have been safe, not effective, but what they gave us wasn't effective.

02:55:23.000 What was the purpose of injecting people with a contaminated, dangerous novel platform, so-called vaccine that just when you say contaminated, do you think they realized that it was contaminated, and when?

02:55:35.000 By contaminated we're talking about SV40, we're talking about DNA.

02:55:41.000 I think they knew yes, they had to know that it was contaminated.

02:55:47.000 So what would be the motivation to do something like that?

02:55:49.000 It doesn't even make sense, other than money.

02:55:51.000 But and the money was substantial, right to dismiss the money aspect of it.

02:55:55.000 We're talking about hundreds of billions of dollars.

02:55:58.000 Okay, but if we're going to talk about the money, then we have to put the money in the proper context.

02:56:03.000 Okay, the huge amount of money that was made on the mRNA platform during the pandemic is nothing, is nothing compared to the money that will be made from the mRNA platform in the aftermath of the pandemic, except that because podcast world caused the dangerousness of the vaccine campaign to become famous, and that's not an understatement.

02:56:33.000 Imagine if we had to live off the narrative of the mainstream television.

02:56:36.000 Well, this is why the first amendment is this, absolute must be protected at all costs.

02:56:46.000 Question right, the censorship.

02:56:48.000 You know, just as the ivermectin story doesn't get enough play, because really the ivermectin story is the flip side of the vaccine story.

02:56:55.000 The vaccine campaign wouldn't have worked if people had safe alternatives, of which there were many.

02:56:59.000 Okay, the the vaccines were.

02:57:05.000 Would it have been possible if censorship had succeeded in masking the safety signal from the public?

02:57:20.000 I think probably.

02:57:21.000 Yes, something about the way podcast world functioned allowed us to break through, but we are now in danger of whoever these people are having understood what their errors were and working to correct them for next time, which actually brings me to another matter.

02:57:49.000 It's a little strange, but I do want people to be aware.

02:57:56.000 They may have noticed Michael Burry, who was famous character from the big Short.

02:58:04.000 The real broker who's represented in the big short by Christian Bale has been sounding the alarm about bubbles in the stock market.

02:58:22.000 i'm concerned that there is also a great deal of fraud in the stock market so these are two different mechanisms by which the wealth of average people gets transferred to well positioned people who have better information

02:58:46.000 The degree to which the stock market may be overvalued is substantial, and I don't know if you've been tracking.

02:58:57.000 Have you ever read the Great Taking?

02:58:59.000 No, Great Taking is a very good, very scary short book.

02:59:04.000 David Webb is the author, and what he describes is a trap that we in the public have been subjected to that we don't know is there yet because it hasn't been tripped, and what he argues is that there are a great many assets that we think we hold, that we believe we understand our relationship to that are actually poised to be taken from us in

02:59:35.000 a financial collapse.

02:59:37.000 So, for example, stocks used to be held in paper form.

02:59:44.000 You had stock certificates in your safe right, and so the laws that govern physical ownership governed them by virtue of the fact that this piece of paper was your indication of ownership.

02:59:57.000 The way we own stocks has now changed.

03:00:00.000 So if you have stocks, you don't have a stock certificate.

03:00:02.000 Your stocks are held in sort of the same way that your cryptocurrency is held.

03:00:10.000 If it's in an exchange where you don't really have cryptocurrency, what you have is an IOU from a company that has cryptocurrency, and as long as the company remains solvent, then it's the same.

03:00:23.000 You can use it, you can take it out, you can put it in.

03:00:28.000 But the problem is that these stock certificates that we no longer have have been replaced by an agreement that has contingency clauses.

03:00:37.000 Those contingency clauses mean that your stock can be used as collateral by the holder and, if they need to satisfy a debt because of insolvency, that your stock becomes the way to satisfy the debt.

03:00:55.000 So, in other words, there's a hidden mechanism whereby you could suddenly discover that somebody else has used your stock and not paid you in order to settle a debt of theirs.

03:01:06.000 Right, it's not a big deal as long as the market remains stable, because the creditors in question aren't going to go, or the debtors in question aren't going to go insolvent, but okay.

03:01:20.000 The punchline though, is this, that's not the only place where we in the public are vulnerable.

03:01:28.000 Another place and this is speculative on my part I would love to be told that I'm imagining things and the danger that I see is not real.

03:01:39.000 I look forward to somebody telling me that, but so far, that's not what I've heard, as I've talked to people about this concept.

03:01:45.000 If the stock market is wildly overvalued as a result of bubbles and fraud and it comes unglued and it causes a run on currency, people trying to get money out of banks and the banks turn out not to be stable.

03:02:09.000 Here's what I'm concerned might happen, and I'll connect it back to the question of free speech in a second.

03:02:16.000 My concern is if your bank goes insolvent.

03:02:21.000 A. You're now in jeopardy with your house because almost everybody it's in fact considered financially wise not to have your house paid off.

03:02:32.000 If you borrowed money to buy your house under favorable conditions, then you can make more money by not paying off your house and taking the money that you would use to pay off your house and putting it into investments that pay better right.

03:02:45.000 You're actually financially ahead if you do that.

03:02:47.000 But if you suddenly can't pay your mortgage, then your house can be taken right.

03:02:53.000 So if there's a collapse that causes us to be unable to service our mortgages not because of anything we did wrong, but because the whole system is now not in a position to allow us to just simply service our debts your house could be vulnerable.

03:03:10.000 And then here's the punchline of the story.

03:03:17.000 Your bank account is insured by the FDIC, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, so I've forgotten what the exact number is.

03:03:27.000 It might be a quarter million per account, something like that.

03:03:32.000 If the banks can't deliver your money, if they were to collapse and the federal government were to say, don't worry, your account is insured, but we're going to pay you in central bank digital currency, you're going to have to take your money in central bank digital currency.

03:03:58.000 You can spend it just like real money, but you're going to get it in this form.

03:04:01.000 Seems to me that that, in one fell swoop, puts us into a potentially tyrannical scenario.

03:04:15.000 Because at the point that you have accepted central bank digital currency, now there's it's basically programmable money that can be cut off, you can be debanked, you can be told what you're allowed to spend it on and what you're not allowed to spend it on.

03:04:30.000 So the question is, if we rerun the pandemic, let's say, but all of our money is in CBDC, how likely is it that people like you and me get to put information into the public square that allows people to make higher quality decisions, to avoid the shots, to avail themselves of alternative?

03:04:55.000 Very unlikely, that's what I think too.

03:04:57.000 So anyway, hopefully we know this, but just based on Elon buying Twitter and the examination of the Twitter files.

03:05:06.000 Right, exactly so.

03:05:09.000 Elon buying Twitter carves out an exception where we can still talk there.

03:05:17.000 It's not perfect, but it's so far ahead of anything else that it does create a place you can go for information that is not being filtered by the regime.

03:05:31.000 But at the point, if it is true that we can be forced into a CBDC and I believe the plan to force us into a CBDC exists, whether the scenario I'm painting is plausible or not but if they can get us into a regime where we have to accept CBDCs as the means of exchange, then it seems to me we are in a much worse position to fend off tyranny of all sorts,

03:06:01.000 including medical tyranny, because the ability to punish us for wrong think becomes extremely powerful.

03:06:10.000 Yeah, and we're seeing the consequences of that in the UK.

03:06:15.000 We're seeing places where people don't have the same laws and don't have the same rights.

03:06:20.000 They're being punished in unimaginable ways in America.

03:06:23.000 Are you aware of the Irishman I can't remember his name, I believe he's a religious guy who's a school teacher who refused to address someone by their transgender pronouns, and now he's being jailed?

03:06:41.000 Yeah, and not not just being jailed, but a very long sentence.

03:06:46.000 The other thing they're doing in the UK is they're eliminating trials by jury I'm aware of that yeah, which is crazy, and you're having trials just by judges and the judge will just appoint a sentence.

03:06:58.000 Right?

03:07:01.000 It's apocalyptically bad if you understand what our, what the West, is based on.

03:07:10.000 Yeah, you're watching a shining example of Western freedoms getting pushed over the cliff right, and you know it's not.

03:07:22.000 It's bad enough that somebody refusing to use somebody else's pronouns is being jailed, but this is happening at the same time that you have grooming gangs raping young women, and talking about it is understood.

03:07:44.000 It's wrong thing right, that acknowledging that you have an immigration problem and that there's a a dynamic in play that involves certain populations that are prone to seeing the British people and not as their countrymen, but as something else as prey yeah, that's something that obviously a society needs to be able to talk about,

03:08:14.000 and this is happening at exactly the moment when the society in question is losing the ability to talk freely because it doesn't have an industrial strength constitution the way we do, and that same society is having digital ID pushed on them yes, they are and their ability to discuss.

03:08:32.000 The wisdom of this is, of course, downstream of their right to speak freely.

03:08:35.000 So I mean, I will say I have multiple friends in the UK who are all looking at the system and thinking about getting out.

03:08:47.000 Yeah, I do too.

03:08:48.000 I know quite a few.

03:08:49.000 Yeah, it's spooky, it's beyond spooky because again, it's the differences in the quality of our constitution that has protected us so far.

03:09:02.000 But it's not like it hasn't been targeted right, clearly.

03:09:08.000 Just the twitter files alone just shows you what happens when intelligence agencies get involved in distribution of actual factual information and they suppress it.

03:09:20.000 Whether it's the Hunter Biden laptop story, which Sam Harris also had a wild take on.

03:09:24.000 Like that was he didn't care if Hunter Biden children's corpses buried in his basement, or whatever the fuck he said.

03:09:31.000 Like what, you don't, you wouldn't care about that.

03:09:33.000 Like that wouldn't be nuts to you.

03:09:35.000 I don't know, I get, you're trying to be hyperbolic and you're trying to be, you know entertaining, but that's fucking crazy to say.

03:09:43.000 Well, and you know the.

03:09:49.000 What he was trying to say is that Trump is really bad.

03:09:52.000 Well, as always, that's what he's trying to say, but in this case, what he was really trying to say is, Hunter Biden isn't Joe?

03:10:02.000 That's not really true, because Hunter Biden and Joe are tied together in their corruption, and that's obvious from the fact that Hunter Biden was at Burisma on the board making deals in Ukraine, which then breaks out into war, a war whose purpose i'm not sure we understand seems to have multiple purposes.

03:10:24.000 A money laundering operation, you know who knows?

03:10:29.000 I mean all sorts of ghastly things are possible.

03:10:31.000 But we out here in public are forced to guess at the meaning of all of these events.

03:10:37.000 And when Sam says that it wouldn't matter if Hunter Biden had, you know, children's corpses in his basement, the answer is actually there are children's corpses.

03:10:47.000 They're not in anyone's basement, they're in Ukraine, which has some relationship to Biden family corruption, which has some relationship to DNC corruption.

03:11:00.000 So listen up Sam, you gotta pay attention to that stuff, because these things aren't unconnected.

03:11:07.000 It's not that somebody happens to share the last name of the president.

03:11:11.000 You know has a drug problem and a sex problem, it's it's.

03:11:18.000 The presidential family is deeply corrupted by something which is manifest in the son who can't keep a lid on it.

03:11:27.000 Well also, just the obvious take of them all being pardoned, like the whole family being pardoned for everything, like what did you do?

03:11:38.000 You're being charged with anything like.

03:11:40.000 Why are you pardoning his whole family if there's not some real thing that you're concerned with them being prosecuted for?

03:11:47.000 Pardoning his whole family plus Anthony Fauci yes, and from 2014 on, which is just?

03:11:54.000 First of all, it leaves him very vulnerable to the AIDS.

03:12:44.000 Because what it effectively does is allows the person with the power to pardon to create a enabled class of citizens that are capable of simply engaging in whatever crime they want.

03:12:59.000 Secondly, there's a question about whether or not Joe Biden actually pardoned Anthony Fauci knowingly, given his compromised mental state, given the likelihood that the pardon was auto pen signed.

03:13:14.000 So I think there is a question about whether or not the pardon would be upheld by the courts, but I do think they're telling us an awful lot by virtue of the fact that Anthony Fauci was pardoned.

03:13:28.000 Right, he's supposed to be the guy that saved us and he gets a pardon that goes all the way back to 2014.

03:13:34.000 Yeah, he just so happens to be both the guy who saved us and the guy who offshored the research to Wuhan that produced the thing.

03:13:45.000 It's a little too coincidental.

03:13:47.000 Yeah, it's crazy.

03:13:50.000 We're well over three hours here.

03:13:51.000 Should we wrap this up?

03:13:53.000 Maybe we should wrap it up, okay.

03:13:54.000 Thank you, Brett.

03:13:55.000 It's always great to see you, my friend, great to see you too.

The Joe Rogan Experience - December 17, 2025

Joe Rogan Experience #2427 - Bret Weinstein

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript