Joe Rogan Experience #2427 - Bret Weinstein

Joe Rogan podcast. Check it out. >> The Joe Rogan Experience. >> TRAIN BY DAY. JOE ROGAN PODCAST BY. NIGHT. All day. >> What's happening, man? Hey, good to be. back. [music] Good to see you. 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 you. wanted to further discuss some. discoveries about evolution.

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 um that we um require. in order to explain the diversity of. forms that we see in biology. But I. haven't been specific on what I believe. that layer is. And I felt [snorts] like. it was time. I think um for one thing.

the advances in AI mean that such things. are going to emerge naturally and I. wanted to put it on the table before uh. it simply gets discovered as a matter of. computing horsepower. >> and we were just rambling about so many. different things and we never got to it. last time. So he said, "All right, let's. do another quick turnaround. Come back.". >> Right. >> All right. >> So, um, >> no beans. >> Let's let's talk biology. And let me. just say, [snorts] 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. Right? So the classic story is that you. have a genome that it contains a great. many genes. A gene is a sequence in DNA. that results in proteins being produced. The DNA describes exactly the sequence.

of amino acids in a protein. And a. protein would typically be one of two. things. It would either be um 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. Catalyst is misleading. It's really a. machine that puts other chemicals. together. So, a lot of the genes in the. genome are these little molecular. machines that assemble molecules. And. the other thing that proteins are likely.

to be are structural. So something like. collagen proteins can make a matrix that. allows you to sort of build a sculpture. biologically. And what we say is that the. uh the amino acid sequence is specified. by the genome in three letter sequences, right? Codons. Each three letters. specifies a particular amino acid that. gets tacked on. 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. 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. ways that greatly reduce. the energy.

um necessary and make the reactions much. more likely to happen. That's why we. call it a catalyst. But really the way. to think of it is a little molecular. machine. 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 and then that letter. will get replaced by a different letter. There are only four choices. But some.

fraction of the time you get a threelet. combination that specifies a new amino. acid. Almost all of the time that will. make the little molecular machine worse. or break it all together. Occasionally. it will leave the machine functional in. a way that's somewhat better than the. previous one. And then evolution will. collect all of those advances. And. that's how evolution works. That's the. story we typically tell. And in fact um.

that's the story that is encoded in. what's called the central dogma of. molecular biology. Um 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. 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. So.

if you've had that thought. that just doesn't seem powerful enough. and then biologists have said well. you're not realizing how much time. elapses that allows these very. occasional positive changes to. accumulate. And that's true. If that's a thought you've had this is. this 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. And by adding a different.

process, very much a Darwinian one, we. can see that the power to create all of. the creatures that we see is much. greater than the story that we've been. told. Okay? So, I'm going to put a. hypothesis on the table about what. enhances this. 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.". That's true. It's all binary. 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. Right? So there are multiple different. levels inside your computer. 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 the. what you've written that a computer. can't understand and turn it into a. computer understandable code. 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. That's the kind of thing I'm. I'm pointing to is a mechanism that. enhances the power of evolution to do. the stuff that we know evolution. accomplishes. Okay. So here's what I think is the. missing layer. And I will say I've done. a bunch of research to figure out how. much of this is understood and I find a. very confusing picture. It actually.

depends which field I come at it from to. see what the blind spots are. But I'm. going to leave that primarily. uh for another time. Let's just say the. two fields in question are my field. evolutionary biology and a a. interdisciplinary science called evode. Okay, Evodo is the evolution of. development and evo is um a much newer. uh in some ways a more vibrant field. I.

would argue my field is stuck. Evo DVO. has been making progress from the. developmental side on a number of. different questions. 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. So let me let me just start by saying. the 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. It explains a great many. things. My point is that what it primarily. explains are things at nano scale, right? It can explain the difference in. a pigment molecule very easily. And we. know that it does. It can explain things. somewhat larger than that like the very. special structure. When you're a kid, do.

you ever play with the feathers of a. bird? You pull them apart and then they. zip back together, >> right? Those kinds of things can be. readily explained by the mechanism as we. present it. What I'm going to argue is. difficult to explain. is the change from one macroscopic form. to another. So for example, the wing of a bat. The wing of a bat. evolved from the foot of a terrestrial.

or aroreal, meaning tree dwelling, mammal, like a shrew. So, I sent uh. Jamie a picture of a shrew's foot. Maybe. we should just put it up. Um, so what. we'll look at is the the foot of a. shrew, and it won't surprise you at all. It looks exactly as you would expect. It's got, you know, digits and it looks. like every other mammal's foot. So, here. we have an example of it. Okay. Now,

let's take a look at the the wing of a. bat. So, here we have the wing of a bat. Now, that wing is a highly modified front. foot. The ribs that suspend that uh that hold. the membrane the what we call the. patagia apart are highly elongated. fingers. Right? So what you're seeing.

are the fanges of that little shrew foot. elongated very much so. Now, what the Evo Divo folks will tell. you and and they are right about this is. that the difference between that bat's. wing and its fingers and that shrews. foot and its toes. is not a molecular difference. 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. What you're doing is distributing them. differently. You have different amounts. of molecules distributed in different. ways to make these elaborate structures. from the primitive structures. With me. so far? >> Yep. >> Okay. So, what I realized more than 25 years ago, um, many people who've heard you and me. talk before will have heard us talk. about my work on tieumirs.

So tieumirs, you'll remember, are. structures at the end of every. chromosome that are not genes. They are repetitive sequences. They're. written in DNA, but it's basically just. a repeated series of letters again and. again and again. And the tieumir. basically the number of repeats that are. there dictates how many times a cell.

line can duplicate. It loses repeats. Each time it duplicates and when it gets. down to a critically low number, it. stops reproducing. Now, we've talked before about why that. system exists. 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 hay flick. limit, and stops reproducing. So it.

prevents cancer, but it limits the. amount of repair that we can do in a. lifetime. So it causes us to sess to age. and grow feeble as we do so. 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. It's not what we would call a leic. It's. not written in three-letter codeons.

It's actually a number. stored the same way you would store a. variable in a computer program. Right? The tieumir, the length of the tieumir. is a count of how many times a cell line. is allowed to divide over a lifetime. It's a number. And what occurred to me. all those years ago was that the ability. to store a number in the genome is.

fantastically powerful. What it means if you could store a lot. of numbers in the genome is that you. could describe creatures by. aotting. 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. So the hypothesis that I'm putting on.

the table. is that the evolutionary process has. built a system in which variables. uh 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 uh. failanks the fanges in the in the.

fingers. 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. So, am I confusing you or is this making. sense? >> It's making sense. >> Okay. So the question is [clears throat]. all right the tieumir is a special case. The tieumir exists at the end of a. chromosome and it can only exist at the.

end of a chromosome because of the way. it functions. So a tieumir is not. actually just a string. It's actually a. loop and the tieumir 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. So if you loop the DNA at the. end of the chromosome back, it's called. a dloop. And then you get this one. little single stranded DNA that inserts.

between a double stranded and makes a. very tiny triple stranded like uh cap so. that it holds the loop in place. You. can't do that in the middle of a. chromosome. So it's not like there are. tieumirs all over the place. 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.

We use something called microatellites. Right? So a microatellite is a. repetitive sequence in DNA that does not. code for a protein. It's just like a. tieumir in that way. And they vary in. length. They vary in length a lot. 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.

microatellites. Changes that as far as. we know don't make any difference. 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 microatellite and. you can say these trees have a. microatellite 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. So we use them as a tool for.

assessing things like relatedness, but. we don't typically think of them as. a storage modality for a kind of. information that might be useful. So the. hypothesis that I'm putting on the. table, and by the way, these things are. extremely common in the genome. there. are many more. v variable number tandem repeats in the. genome than there are genes right 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. and the ability to store a variable I. feel highly confident that there will be. any variables stored in many different. ways that there are ways in which you. can store a variable in [clears throat].

um triplet codeon language but they're. clumsy they're crude. So you can have. things like um. a dosage compensation. 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. Right? >> [snorts]. >> So if you have three copies of alcohol. dehydrogenase, you'll have more alcohol. tolerance than two copies. Something. like that. So that demonstrates a way in.

triplicodon language that you can store. a variable. 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 I mean imagine for. a second the the most recent common. ancestor of all bats. Okay. Most recent common ancestor of all. bats is an animal that has gone from.

no ability to fly to the ability to fly. 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. >> Can I pause right there and ask a. question? Sure. >> So, >> here's the the real question. specifically in regards to flying. Y. >> 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? And. how would that even facilitate itself? Like how 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? All right, welcome to. the busy season. 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. But that's. where AG1 comes in. 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. 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 when you have so. much going on, don't leave it up to. chance. Take care of yourself. Drinking.

AG1 every morning is a simple action. that helps you stay one scoop ahead of. everything coming your way. And that's. why I've partnered with them for so. long. 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. AG1 has a special holiday. offer. If you head to drink ag.com/jo, 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. That's. over $100 in free gifts. Just head to. drinkag1.com/jogan. or visit the link in the description to. get started. >> This is why I love you, Joe. I mean, it's one of the reasons. Um, this is a question that has perplexed. biologists. We have done a lot of work. We know a lot. >> It's one of the most fantastic abilities. of all the animals, >> right? How surprising is it? That's the. question. Is it so surprising that it's. actually impossible? And I think the.

answer is just simply no. It's quite. possible. >> Well, it's obviously it's possible. Well, no. I mean, you know, let's let's. uh steal man the opposing position, >> intelligent design position. >> There there's certainly a lot of people. who would argue that actually no, there. are gaps you you can't jump. And. >> we should explain that as well. 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. Um, let's just say I have, you know, initially I thought that all of the. intelligent design folks were. anti-scientific. and uh really um basically just. religious people uh wielding uh.

sophistry. I now know several of them in. person and quite like them and I quite. like them scientifically. I think they. actually have done an excellent job of. pointing out the folly in evolutionary. biology. And in part, what I'm saying is. I appreciate they're pointing out that. the mechanism that we teach is not. powerful enough to do what we claim it. does. I I have the same suspicion. 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. So, let's go to your your question about. how you get from a creature that can't. fly at all to a creature that does fly. And now, my feeling is actually this one. is pretty easy. >> And I'm not saying that we know how it. did happen in the case of a bat. We are. hobbled in the case of bats by two. things. One, the fact that bats are.

primarily tropical. The bulk of the. species are tropical. And the other is. that the majority of bats are small with. spindly limbs. What that means is that they don't. fossilize well. Tropics are not a good. place for fossilization. >> And bats are not a good candidate for. fossilization. And so unfortunately, the. fossil record doesn't tell us a clear. story the way it does. >> well. The bird story is getting ever. clearer. We've got good bird fossils in.

a way that we didn't when you and I were. young. Um, but in the case of of a bat, I would say the way to think of it is. this. Um, have you seen flying squirrels? >> Yes. >> Okay. You've seen them fly? >> Mhm. >> Okay. >> Not in person, but videos. Oh, >> okay. I I have actually twice seen it. >> Yeah. >> The funny thing is they're not uncommon, but they are very uncommon to see. And. the reason they are uncommon to see is. that they're nocturnal and they are so.

damn silent. Right? So, the two times. I've seen it was when they got into an. argument with each other, >> okay? And they started chattering and I. was like, "Huh, what what what is this?". And okay, lo and behold, it's flying. squirrels and they're moving through, you know, a patch of forest and it's the. most amazing thing, right? These things, you know, technically they're not. flying. They're purely gliding. 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. So they climb a tree,

you know, they've got potential energy, and then they glide to the next tree. They'll go from the end of a branch and. they will glide much farther than you. would think is possible, right? It's. really like it challenges you. I'm Am I. really seeing what I'm seeing? It's hard. to believe they can do it. And then they. land on the trunk of the tree. That's. why they're so silent, right? 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. But. anyway, if you if you've seen these. creatures do it, then you can imagine a.

pretty clear story, right? Imagine a. squirrel that doesn't glide. A regular. garden variety squirrel. 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. 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. They are. Um, 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. So, there is an. advantage that comes from even a tiny. little increase in the distance you can. jump. 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? But it's still not. it's not flapping flight. It's not. powered. So you can imagine a story in. which the shrew ancestor climbed things. and had the same situation. And maybe it. starts out, in fact, it probably does.

start out with um maybe a little webbing. between the fingers that gives it just a. little extra lift, right? And you could. imagine once you get onto that little. foothill, a little lift, well, a little. more lift would be good. So those. individuals that had just slightly more. webbing out competed those individuals. that had slightly less webbing. >> But what would cause them to develop the. webbing in the first place? >> Well, that's just it is, you know, um. >> is that random mutation? Is that.

>> Well, yeah. I would say at some level. these things all have to start there. But my my overarching point is. selection. not only discovers forms, it discovers. ways to discover forms. So I call these. ways explorer modes. This is a a concept. I've taken a certain amount of crap. over, but I'm quite convinced of it. I.

would argue that our consciousness is an. explorer mode, right? 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. And. you know sooner or later you get you get. from you know the right 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. Right? It. it's that process that is the ability to. explore design space in some way that is. not random. 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, right, the first.

flyer, that animal has discovered. an adaptive landscape, a series of. opportunities that we represent as peaks. that is unknown, right? What can you do if you can fly. that you couldn't do when you could only. climb? Well, you can move between. distant trees and collect fruit. You can. catch insects that are flying on the. wing. You can seek out uh mammals and.

birds and slit them open and drink their. blood. You can catch fish that come to. the surface and cause ripples. These are. all things that bats do. And the point. is the initial bat presumably didn't do. much of any of that. It did some. probably a generalist something. But. having achieved flight, there's a. question about how evolution can find. all of the opportunities that are now. suddenly available. And the idea that. this happens through occasional random.

mutation of a protein coding gene that. alters something important is in my. opinion. ridiculous. That more likely, vastly more likely is. a system in which parameters like finger. length and the length of each failins in. the finger is stored as a variable. and those variables. get readily modified. In other words,

um, if you, you know, looked at the hand. of every human being, you would see that. there is already a ton of variation in, you know, the relative lengths of the. different digits and the relative. lengths to each of the knuckles. 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.

um and therefore. evolution can explore what uh Stuart. Kaufman would call the adjacent. possible. Right? Have you heard that. term? >> No. >> Have you had Stuart on? No. >> So Stuart Kaufman is a uh complex. systems theorist and his uh 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. Right? 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. 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. 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. 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. Right? There's nothing undarwinian about. this. 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. But basically everything. that the Darwin said was about a vague. hereditary information and numbers is no. less a candidate for that than triplet. codeons stored. uh that code for amino. acids. So my point is Darwin is. untouched by this. Darwin is still the.

guy. He nailed it. And this is just as. Darwinian as protein coding genes. 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. Um now there's lots of. nuances about how this could work. There's lots of questions I certainly. can't answer. I will say as as I was. mentioning at the top this story seems. to be largely unadressed. in adaptive evolution space. If I come.

at it from the evo devo side, I see much. more. uh description of mechanisms that work. like this. 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. and it does not seem to be there. Now.

it, you know, I'm not in a university. anymore. I'm not primarily working as a. biologist, so it's possible I've missed. something, but there's Well, I mean, as. you know, we have massively. dysfunctional institutions. and they. I you know, I've thought my field was. stuck in a ditch since really before I. entered it. You know the last major. progress in my field was 1976.

and. >> really. >> that's what I think. Yeah. >> And what was that? >> Um the selfish gene. provides us a mechanism. It's basically. a synthesis of what we understand about. adaptive evolution. It provides the. first gateway to understand cultural. evolution in rigorous Darwinian terms. I. don't think that that um that gateway I. don't think we ever went through it. In.

fact, when I've talked to Dawkins about. his uh effective discovery, the meme, he doesn't seem to understand the power. of it. Um he thinks of it as I mean he. says in chapter 11 of of the selfish. gene he says um that the landscape of. memes is like a new primeval soup which. is not what it is. 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. Right? We can evolve. at a cultural level which solves a. problem for the genes that the genes. can't solve directly. And that means. that all of the space of human culture. and the culture of other creatures, but. our culture is vastly uh more uh refined. and powerful and diverse. But that space is basically a an. enhanced it's 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 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. So in. any case, that was 1976.

The thing that has been a revolution. since then was Evo Divo, evolution of. development, but it didn't come from the. the Darwinists. It came primarily from. the developmental side. These are people. who were focused on mechanism. And so in. some sense the the story of the failure. of biology to update our evolutionary. model is the result of a historical.

accident. Right? So the the first. Darwinists including Darwin himself were. not focused on molecular scale. mechanisms because they couldn't be. They didn't have any tools to look at. those things. And so they looked at the. creatures and they saw patterns and so. they became very focused on recognizing. the patterns and what they imply about. what must be going on inside. But they. got out of the habit of thinking about. mechanism because the mechanisms weren't.

available to them. The developmental. biologists were exactly the inverse. They didn't really have patience for. evolutionary thinking. 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 that kind of thing. Um, 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 uh. the revolution in our understanding of. the most powerful process that exists. and it's frustrating. So anyway, I hope. um. I hope others will take this to heart. 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. That would be. interesting. 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. In other words, if 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, right? That that would be an.

amazingly powerful mapping to have. Um, so anyway, uh I didn't want to leave it as a vague. illusion to a hidden layer. 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. I was watching a documentary once on the. BBC uh about the Congo and it's a really.

amazing documentary and one of the. things that it points out to is the. rapid development of new abilities that. these animals have that live in the. Congo that used to be on the plains and. as the the rainforest expanded they were. kind of trapped in here. And one of them. they pointed to was dykers. you know. those little small analopes. >> that now have the ability to swim. underwater for as much as a hundred. yards and they eat fish.

>> 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 and. it it didn't seem to account for the. adaptation that they were seeing in. these animals. 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. >> It would have gone extinct,

>> right? >> That's the story again and again, right? >> Well, it's a story with humans, right? Inuits. It's a story with people that. live in extremely cold climates, right? They've developed all these adaptations. to uh be able to survive in this intense. weather where people who live in the. tropics if they you moved them to that. environment they would die. It's a story. with every cate of creatures. This is a chaotic planet right at levels.

that I think maybe we don't even fully. yet appreciate. 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. Right? 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. 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. The point is. anything that satisfies that objective. is valid. So for example, if you have So we have a process, it's. one of my favorites um to think about. which is called adaptive radiation.

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 a. thousand. species that are derived from that. initial discovery. Right? So you get. this blooming of forms, right? The first. bird, what was the first bird even. doing? We don't know, right? But what we. do know is that we have 11,000 species. of these things now all doing subtly.

different stuff, right? >> Some of them not even flying, >> right? Some of them have lost the. ability to fly. So the point is the. discovery of birdness opens up a huge. number of potential discoveries. Evolution would be a dumb process if it. didn't effectively search that space. if. it randomly waited to find each of those. opportunities. That's so much less. powerful than searching the space. And.

then once you get the search of a space, okay, so you get, you know, a hundred. hits, you get some innovation, it. provides a 100 niches that you could. move into from there. It creates a. hundred species. And it turns out most. of those niches are durable on the scale. of 10,000 years. but not 50,000 years. So you get a bunch of them going. extinct. But as long as one of them or two of. them have gotten through that.

bottleneck, right? The huge blooming of. branches and then the pruning of. branches, the ancestor has now gotten to the. future in the form of however many. species made it through that destructive. process. It is selection at a different. scale than we typically think of it. 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. It's much more powerful. than the clumsy version that we describe. even if we don't yet understand where. that power is lodged. 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?" Well, then you start finding. these explorer modes. And you know, I I. understand that I will be ridiculed for. saying that because it imposes on. selection a uh directionality that.

probably at a technical level we are. right to assume does not exist. But let. me point this out. We often say that. evolution cannot look forward. It can. only see the past. At a technical level, this is true. On the other hand, we all. agree that evolution built us. I can see the future, right? I can.

understand what is likely to happen. I. can extrapolate and see things that. haven't occurred yet. and I will do. hypothesis testing to see if my. understanding is correct. But the point. is evolution can't see the future, but. it can build creatures that see the. future on its behalf. Isn't that kind of. like it looking into the future? >> It feels a lot like it is to me. >> I've always been fascinated by animals. that don't change. Like animals that. have reached some very bizarre apex. predator r like crocodiles for instance.

crocodiles, dragon flies, sharks, >> horseshoe crabs. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. So, this is a place where I think um a good. evolutionary course says the right thing. about it. What a good evolutionary. course says about this is. we think of these creatures as. backwards. They are the opposite. They are so good. that in spite of competition from more. modern forms, they still persist. Right?

If you've watched a dragon fly, it's a. super agile creature, right? It's a. formidable predator. Um, 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. And um in some ways that's the greatest. strategy, right? Having to change in. order to deal with the changes in uh in.

the environment is. perilous. Having found something that is. so durable that it consists that it it. persists era after era, epoch after. epoch is um at least a very. comprehensible strategy and um arguably. the better one because anything that has. existed that long. Maybe we talked in a past podcast about. the the Lindy effect. >> Yes. >> Yeah. The 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. And so if it's. been around a long time, you might. expect to see it last a lot longer. Um, so it's it's that it's the Lindy effect. in in animal or plant form. >> So it's just essentially evolution. nailed it. They developed an animal. that's so adaptive and and so designed. to succeed in its particular environment.

that it doesn't really need to change. >> Yes. And in fact, you know, we are in. some ways, we haven't been around that. long, but our. it looks like we are a variation on that. theme precisely because we have a. generalist. body plan, right? The physical robot. that is the human being is capable of. doing a tremendous number of things. And. the software program can be essentially.

entirely rewritten. Right? 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 that the. body plan doesn't do on its own. Right? So that's a cool strategy, right? to. have a a generalist robot and a software. program that can be swapped out as 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 pulled. parallel processing of multiple. individuals of the species. Right? This. is what Heather and I describe in our. book as [snorts] campfire. Right? The light has faded. It's too. dark for you to be productive at. whatever your niche is. You gather. around the campfire and you talk. You.

talk about problems that you've run into. solutions that you're working on. You. pull the information. People have. different histories. They have different. skill sets 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. >> Right? >> The ability for me to put an abstract. idea into your head over open space by.

vibrating the air molecules between us. I mean that is a miracle. >> Pretty crazy. >> It's amazing. and you know that we can. prove that we're not fooling ourselves. I could say something, you know, that. nobody's ever thought of. Um, you know, like, uh, I don't know, uh, potato rocket ship, right? 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? 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. uh concepts is it's truly stunning and. in conjunction with the generalist robot. that can use tools. It's a it's an. amazingly good strategy. When [snorts] 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 uh input, meaning like. certain chemicals were exposed to uh. sedentary lifestyle. 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. you're one of the. things that people are talking about. with a a great concern like Dr. Channis.

Swan done a lot of work on this is the. impact of microplastics on our endocrine. system and how it's greatly diminishing. uh males ability to procreate and. females ability to uh bring a baby to. term. So you're getting many more. miscarriages and uh lower testosterone. counts, smaller testicles and penises, reduced size of the taints, all these. different things that she attributes to. phalates and various uh chemicals that. are endocrine disruptors that are. ubiquitous in our in our world. Um is.

this something that you think about? Do. you do you like is this something are we. in the middle of an adaptation or some. sort of a change of the human species? Um, no. >> Or is it just being poisoned? >> We We're being poisoned. And we're being. poisoned in a particular way. I would. say we have effectively. threatened to kill the goose that lays. the golden eggs. The normal pattern for human beings is.

you inherit your ancestors world. Every so often that's not true. Every so. often a generation finds itself in a. brand new circumstance. 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.

It's the same as. it's similar to the first flying. uh mammal is suddenly faced with a whole. set of opportunities that it has to. figure out how to solve. 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. 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. And for. some generations, you get this rapid. refinement process. And then eventually. you kind of figure it out. I know how. we're going to live in this valley and. here's how it works. And one generation. passes it on to the next and the valley. doesn't change very much. >> That process is sustainable. Humans are. excellent at dealing with it, right? Because we're good at parallel. processing puzzles, right? 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. However, there is a threshold at which. our amazing ability to adapt culturally. and physiologically. is outstripped. And that is the point at. which technological change is so fast. that you're not even a an adult in the. same environment you grew up in. That's. what we now consistently live in. Right?

The world you and I now live in doesn't. look anything like the world we grew up. in. Right? The 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. These things have all been. revolutionized. I've frankly seen. several revolutions. You and I have both. seen several revolutions already. You. know, we had the computer, then we had. the internet, then we had the. smartphone, then we had social media.

Now we're facing AI, right? 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. But we never get the chance to. figure that out because the next one is. already upon us. In fact, it's. you ever go body surfing and you get. into a situation where the the waves are. just coming too quick and as soon as you. catch your breath from one, the next one. is on you, right? It's just like that.

You can't you can't do that, right? You. need time to to settle. And our rate of. change is so high. This is what Heather. and I call hyper novelty. Hypern novelty. is the state at which even our amazing. ability to rapidly adapt is incapable of. keeping pace with technological change. >> That's where we are. >> Um that really concerns me with humans. that drop off of testosterone, the.

miscarriage rate increasing, like that's. that's really spooky because I don't see. any change in the environment. Like I I. don't see any change in the use of. plastics. I don't see any change in. these endocrine disrupting chemicals. being in in our systems. This episode is. brought to you by Zip Recruiter. We all. have a favorite holiday movie we like to. go back to again and again like Home. Alone. That movie is always a fun watch. The bad guys get their comeuppants a.

lot. And of course, there's the. wholesome feel-good moment at the end. that really gets to the heart of the. holidays. 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. When you. need to build your own team to make. something magical happen, use Zip. Recruiter. Try it for free at. ziprecruiter.com/rogan. Ziprecruiter is the number one rated. hiring site based on G2. And that's. because it works impossibly fast. As.

fast as Kevin arming his home with every. booby trap he can think of. Immediately. after you post your job, Zip Recruiter's. matching technology will connect you. with potential job seekers in your area. Make your hiring a little marrier with. Zip Recruiter. Four out of five. employers who post on Zip Recruiter get. a quality candidate within the first. day. Just go to this exclusive web. address right now to try ziprecruiter. for free. That's. ziprecruiter.com/roganogen. Again, that's ziprecruiter.com/rogan.

Ziprecruiter, the smartest way to hire. Well, I agree and I think, you know, we. need to think outside the box with. respect to what kinds of inputs might be. affecting us. I will say in parallel. with what I think is a much more toxic. environment, you know, and. developmentally toxic environment, um, we have a radical change in the way.

human beings are interacting with each. other, right? And it is unclear to me. what how farreaching the consequences of. that might be. But um you know we talked. last time about the impact of the sexual. revolution and of reliable birth control. and uh and abortion. >> on the way males and females interact. with each other. 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 uh radically reducing the risk. that females face in engaging in sex. with men who won't invest. It robbed us of. the central organizing principle of.

civilization. and the consequences of that central. organizing principle evaporating are. incredibly farreaching. Right? In. effect, we do not know that there is a. way for us to live without that central. organizing principle. We don't know that. it lasts. And we are running that. radical experiment. And then we're going. to augment that radical experiment um. now with AI and presumably.

AI powered sex robots and companions and. other things that the mind is not built. to properly understand. Right? So what. effect are all of these things having? you know, is there a feedback effect. from uh your perception of the sexual. landscape onto the development of your. children? I don't know. It's conceivable. that there is such a thing. Um, but I do. know that if we were wise,

we would. slow the pace of experienced change way. down. >> But how is that even possible at this. point? >> I'm not saying it is, >> right? But I'm saying if we don't, I. think we know that we're doomed. So in. light of that, what would you do if you. knew that down that path was. destruction? You would start thinking. about the question of is there some way. I'm, you know, maybe you can't reign in. the pace of technological change. You.

can certainly, and we should, if we were wise, we would. insulate. young people from exposure, especially to new stuff, right? There's. a question about what stuff that we. already have, what effect it's having on. them. But the fact that we're just going. to expose them to every new revolution. without figuring out what its comp it. its consequences are is insane, right? [clears throat]. We need to provide young people with a.

chemically andformationally. 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. But. not in not immunizing them is a terrible. error, right? It it can't work, right? The the reason human childhood is the.

longest developmental uh childhood in. the animal kingdom by far is that it is. the training for adult life. 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. It's. extremely disruptive and. >> 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. >> Completely new. >> and no road map, no manual of how to. navigate it. And then we're seeing all. the psychological harms, increase in. anxiety, self harm, especially amongst. young girls, y. >> suicidal ideiation, actual suicide. >> Well, I mean, in other contexts, I have said I.

probably said to you, you know, there. are no adults, >> right? That's one of the shocking. discoveries of becoming uh 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. One of the. reasons that you would have no adults is. that it's kind of impossible to imagine. where they would come from. Right? An. adult is somebody who has picked up the. wisdom for how to deal with the world. that you live in.

Where would that wisdom have come from. if the world just showed up five minutes. ago? Right? It's in principle impossible. to deal with this level of change. So at. at most what you can do is become you. know very robust. >> Do you think that this is where like. rights of passage ceremony come from. that there's a thing that differentiates. you between the younger version of. yourself. You've gone through this thing. and so it requires a shift in the way.

that you view yourself and the world. Now you have passed. Now you've gone. through, you know, whatever the ceremony. is, depending upon your culture. Now you. are a man. >> Yeah. In fact, >> or a woman. >> In a hunter gatherers's guide to the. 21st century, Heather and I argue that. rights of passage are the place. So. they're are they're artificial in a. sense, right? 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. >> Yeah. And the [snorts] point is, you.

know that that date is coming. You there. is a thing that causes you to have made. that transition, right? Maybe it's a. vision quest of some kind. Maybe it's uh. an animal that you have to hunt and. bring back or something. But the point. is, you grow up with the knowledge that. I am a prototype until that marker. And. after that marker, it's for real. Right? 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 and the. abandonment of these things. Right? What. we have is such a preposterous. dim shadow of what once was. you know, okay, you've graduated high school, >> right? >> Well, I assure you, graduating high. school means very little in terms of.

whether or not you know how to navigate. the adult world. >> 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. I'm 18 now. I [snorts] need. to get a job. 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, 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. 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.

It's very easy to pick on, you know, gender ideology or uh equity or. >> but these are good examples though. because they're preposterous, >> ridiculous, >> and they get adapted or adopted rather. by enormous groups of people and then. reinforced violently like like Well, I. always say that the more ridiculous the. idea is, the the more uh aggressively. people fight against the resistance of. this idea. >> Yeah. It's um they're solving some other.

problem. Yes. >> But at the level of how civilization is. going to run, we are. >> uh 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. That's And then another thing that we're. not course correcting, >> right? >> Yeah. I mean, people complain about it. when their kids are going to that. school, but more kids are going to that. school and it just keeps happening over.

and over again. 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. and actual people that have become. actual adults and are out there working. and and struggling go, "This is [ __ ]. horshit and I'm not going along with. this and [ __ ] your company." 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. This is bad for our. business. We've got to course correct.

But that seems like it's one of the only. ways that they do is by real world. application and it being soundly. rejected. >> well. >> and financial consequences. >> The problem is that all those. consequences are way too indirect to. correct the people who are driving the. change. >> Right. And. >> 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. 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. I. said, "Well, this guy must be right, you. know, and my parents must be really. stupid and they've ruined society and, you know, we got to give communism a. shot. It just hasn't been done. correctly, >> right? We just got to go far enough.". Um, well, the problem is the thing that. does turn you into an adult is a world.

of consequences. right now as a child somebody should. prune that world of fatal consequences. or you know ones that would get you. maimed but allowing you to experience. the harm of your wrong understanding of. the world is how you improve your. understanding of the world and so a. we're not even doing that right 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 a high-minded. um and important and then they are. immunized from consequences by uh what I. think you and I would agree was. initially a well-intentioned attempt to. protect people from bad luck. You know. that uh people who are liberal-minded as. as you and I both are don't want to see. people suffer because of bad luck. 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 uh gambled badly. with uh the resources of their. corporation or you know children who. make bad decisions and uh 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. 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. >> Yeah. >> Right. >> That it's it's. horrible reality, you know, because the. compassionate, kind people want a safety. net. You want a social safety net, but. making people rely on that social safety. net and then having generation after. generation relying on that social social. safety net, you stifle all growth and. development and make people dependent.

>> Well, my arg infants. >> Yeah, you do. Um, my argument would be a. system functions really well when people. are immunized from real bad luck, right? things that they it's not the. consequence of their bad. decision-making. 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. 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. Well, this. is my fear, my great fear about the. concept of universal basic income. >> Yep. That we're going to essentially. make an entire civilization dependent. upon its overlords. I can't see how it could go well. I. understand. >> I can't see how it could go well either.

I think if you're a nice person, you're. like, well, all these jobs are going to. be replaced by AI and automation. We. need to find some way to help people and. give them the quality of life that they. they need to succeed. But you're making. them dependent on the state forever, >> right? And what we really need to do, and I 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, how what.

problems we would like them to address. themselves to, right? 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. 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. But. PE and I think we talked about this last. time, people are not going to be.

coherent. absent purpose. They need to have. purpose. And it used to be that biology. itself forced purpose onto you right on. the frontier. The ability to. win a mate to provide enough shelter, consistent enough food, uh all of the. things necessary for life that that was. a full-time occupation. It was.

difficult. Not everybody could pull it. off. And so it created a very. concentrated purpose. you succeeded, if. you managed in this environment to do. all those things and leave some. offspring who were well adjusted to the. situation. In. our environment, there is nothing like. this. And the. winning a mate has been turned into. chaos. What does it even mean? Are there.

mates out there that you would want to. win? Are they interested in reproducing? Are they interested in raising children? Are they going to, you know, farm that. job out to some crazy person who uh. believes you can switch gender by just. saying you've done it, right? So the. purpose has become incoherent. The subordinate purposes which came. later, right? The ability to invest in a. career to climb some corporate ladder.

It doesn't sound very appealing to me, but at least I understand what it is, right? At least, you know, okay, there's. a game. The company wants certain things. accomplished. To the extent that you. accomplish them better than your. competitors, you rise farther. It leaves. you an income that you can spend in. whatever way you want, that will impress. a mate, right? It's at least. understandable. The puzzle that we have given people now. is. completely incoherent and universal.

basic income. I presume will keep people from starving. but it ain't nearly good enough. 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. they need at least. that much direction. >> 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, 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. 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 seem would would just be.

what's it would just be a thing that. you're using to acquire the means to. survive. And now you pursue this other. thing. Maybe not necessarily for a. monetary reason, not not necessarily to. acquire wealth, but instead to educate. yourself in instead, you know, to as a a. process of human development, a skill. that you're learning, um, a thing that. you're competing in, something. >> Sure. Except except for one thing.

What has to be true at the end of that. substitute purpose is some undeniably. valuable reward. Right. >> Cuz that's the motivating factor. >> That's the thing that will cause you to. do it. >> Right. >> Right. So not starving is a great. motivation. Right. >> Right. 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. That's a decent enough. motivation. the. nothing I think nothing is going to. substitute for the difficulty of. um well for males the difficulty of. winning. uh the ability to have a.

sexual relationship with a desirable. female. Right? We now have all sorts of. things that cause people not to want to. pursue that. Um there are things, you. know, obviously there's porn, there's going to. be sex robots. Um so that. >> prostitution, >> prostitution, right? 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. Um I'm I'm confused by why. that is not an affront. >> I think some women are there. They're. definitely um at arms uh about porn and. and they think that not only are they. competing with this, but it's changing. young men's view of sex. >> Oh, I think it absolutely is. In fact, I. think, you know, >> it's much more rejected amongst women.

>> That is not what I'm hearing really from. my sons. Um. >> I'm hearing Oh, okay. >> What are you hearing? that women are uh. increasingly involved with porn. That. it's really Yes. And which surprised. >> involved in the creation or the viewing? >> Watching it. God, that's that was never. the case when I was young. >> Oh, of course not. No, I think it I. think it's not. >> If you went over a girl's house and she. had a collection of porn, that that was. a [ __ ] warning signal. >> Huge red flag, >> right? Well, I think, you know, I don't.

there are plenty of voices out there. that are um focusing on the defects of. um modern women. 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. >> Right? Like the the boss lady is a lady. that behaves like a man at work. behaves. like a man at work. Um, treating sex. very casually is not a normal thing for. females to do. And. >> Right. And it's in a lot of films, it's. shown as a sign of character for the. woman. >> Exactly. >> The woman's just a boss [ __ ] and she. doesn't give a [ __ ] and she kicks these. men to the curb and and they're. distraught and they're like emotionally.

wrecked and she's just back to business. Get to work. >> Yeah. Exactly. >> Weird. >> The whole thing is weird. >> cuz it's so unattractive, too. It's. really unattractive. >> Yeah. It's odd. I mean, it's odd to even. say that it's unattractive, but look, I. find it unattractive in men. >> Yeah. Well, >> I mean, if I was a woman and a guy that. was just wholly desiring, conquering, and moving ahead and and and didn't give. a [ __ ] if uh he's like, "Fuck off. Everybody eat shit." Like, no compassion. for other people, just only focused on.

success and winning, winning, winning. winning. It's Gordon Gecko, you know? It's like the most unattractive. characters in films. The greedy. billionaire character that doesn't give. a [ __ ] about the consequences of his. actions and what happens to the world, >> right? It it makes no sense. And I think. [snorts] men and women are. obviously. substantially different. I. >> That's a controversial statement.

>> It [laughter] really shouldn't be. It. really shouldn't be. But I will just say. I have puzzled over the fact that our. culture does not have a profound. relationship with the. uh symmetry represented by a yinyang. symbol. >> The yin-yang symbol is profound as far. as I'm concerned because it describes a. perfect symmetry that is not. superficially symmetrical. Right? It's a.

complimentarity. that. is I think it's a very proper. description of what you're actually. searching for in a in a mate in a. marriage, right? You're looking you're. not looking for somebody to be the same. as you. You are looking for somebody to. be as perfectly complimentary with what. you are as is possible in in essentially. any every regard. And. what we are getting instead is this sort. of mindnumbing belief that you know.

what's good for the goose is good for. the gander which it it as I keep saying. it has robbed us of all coherence and I. think it also. um you know I've started paying. attention to a bunch of of these male. accounts that are fed up with females. people that I consider insightful but. who are not in any way where I am with.

respect [clears throat] to this topic, you know. So, people I don't know, do. you know the account Homath? >> Homath. >> Homath. [laughter]. Well, Homemath is pretty darn funny. He's very insightful about a lot of. things that have gone wrong, but he's. also. um. it's tragic. 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. Um,

likewise, >> that's ridiculous. >> Well, it depends. 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 um. 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. >> It wasn't obvious when I was young. either, but you just got to pick wisely. And you also have to find people. You.

have to you have to find them the type. of people that you're actually. interested. >> Yeah. But imagine imagine the following. thing, >> right? Imagine that. Um, first of all, who you are as a sexual. being is the result naturally of your. exposure, right? You come to understand. what sex is and how you're supposed to. behave from stories. Uh, in ancient.

cultures, you would observe a certain. amount because perfect privacy wasn't a. thing. that has all now been disrupted by porn. Right? So people get developmental. experiences of sex from this commodity. which is not accurate. It is not a. description of the way people actually. interact, right? It's meant to captivate. you and the different pornographers are. in competition with each other. So. they're providing you an increasingly.

extreme view of sex in order to get your. attention. >> It's almost like a superhero movie. >> Yeah. It's. >> like it doesn't exist in the real world. >> It's nonsense. >> for the most part. 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? Well, that guy is like the cartoon.

that men have been painted as. Right? You and I bristle at what the Me Too. movement portrayed men as. Not because. there aren't bad men. There are lots of. bad men. But it's not universal. And the. story of [clears throat] 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. 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 and. awful uh you know in the bedroom. So. that reinforces their sense of well you. know these aren't decent people. They're. they're putting on an act uh when. they're in public. So it creates the.

exact thing that men were falsely. accused of and it makes. women I think become very unsympathetic. as people right that to the extent that. women start viewing uh sex as. antagonistic which is what men at their. worst are is they are sexually they're. predators right they're men trying to 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. That's. evolutionarily. >> Yes, that's parasitic and predatory. Okay, that is a mode that exists in men, but it's not the only male mode. 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. So you had this.

built-in desire to try to spread your. genes as much as possible. >> Yeah. But I would also say that women. were wise. about not getting stuck with offspring. So the fact that men may have that mode. built into them did not manifest as um. successful males behaving in this way. because in general women shut them down. And the fact.

>> then birth control came along, >> right? And now women don't shut them. down. And basically what you have is. people exploring some uh 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. And I think. frankly. I think sex is really important that in.

a marriage it is playing a. very powerful dual role. Okay. On the one hand it is a barometer. It tells you what the status of your. relationship is and it's also a tool for. enhancing, fixing, modifying your. relationship. It is. and and evolution built it to be that, right? Sex is something very unique in.

humans because in humans unlike almost. every other creature, we have sex when. not fertile, right? Why is sex pleasurable when not. fertile? Because selection has given it. to us for a reason. It's given it to us. for a purpose. Why does sex continue. after menopause? Right? Seems pointless, but it's not pointless. It has. everything to do with maintaining that.

relationship. Why would selection care. if you maintain your sexual relationship. after you've stopped producing. offspring? Because the way human beings. work, your job isn't done at the point. that you've stopped producing offspring, right? You have kids who need guidance. and help in the world. You're going to. have grandkids, right? Your union is. still important. 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 [clears throat] 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 [clears throat]. this way. 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, right? The 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. It just it doesn't paint a very rosy. picture of the future, [laughter] 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. these lifelike robots. 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. 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. you you form a great bond with your. partner. All that goes away because the. robot just loves you. >> The robot loves you and your potential. partners are getting less desirable. Yeah. Right. The robots are getting more. desirable. You're. >> the robot doesn't argue. >> Right. >> The robot wants me to play golf. >> Exactly. So I think that look I keep. waiting for a movement to start in which. young people who [clears throat] 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 right? No porn, no robots. Um, [clears throat]. 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. You're not. committing to a long-term relationship. when you have sex with somebody. necessarily, but if you know somebody's.

not a candidate, you shouldn't be engaging in baby making. behavior with them, right? That that's. bad. The problem is that's like such a. primary force in our society for almost. everything. For selling things, for. exemplifying social status. >> Yeah. But nobody's happy. >> So given that they're not happy, the. answer is okay. Well, I'm doing. something. >> Nobody's happy. I would say happiness is. difficult to acquire. >> Well, I would say.

it is rare to find young people who. express that they are happy with this. part of their life. Have you ever met young people in any. time in history while you've been alive. that were happy with that process? The. process is kind of brutal. >> The process kind of sucks, but uh I've. met plenty of people and I've been uh a. happy young person. not you know it's. not all you know.

flowers and rainbows but. >> 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. >> right like it's not a real place and. >> I think that's um 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.

>> Yeah, I think there's a lot of that. >> Yeah, >> that 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. >> Well, makes sense to me. >> Yeah, man. 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 just it seems like a very very. bad path. >> Uh I agree. 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. >> Gender ideology with religion. >> There's a lot of wokeism in some some. religions but not traditional religions. It's almost like these breakoff versions. of a traditional religion where you have.

a transgender pastor and LGBTQ flag. behind them and you get like but you're. always going to have these weird. >> Yeah. >> offsets. Well, I'm glad to hear if you. Well, did any major religion pass the. COVID test. >> in terms of Well, first of all, almost. no institutions passed the COVID test. correctly. None of them. >> Yeah. >> And I think. >> you you have to.

look towards what they know. It's it's. very easy to look back in 2025 and say. all of these institutions failed the. COVID test. 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. I didn't know what. games were being played and I didn't. know the landscape. I didn't know what. games had previously. been played, especially in regards to.

the way the pharmaceutical drug uh. industry distributes propaganda and. information and then hires people to uh. gaslight folks. 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 CO 19 vaccines. 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. There's a bunch of problems with that. First of all, the problem is the reality. of the ve system. It is a very small. percentage of people that have actual. vaccine injuries that get recorded into. the VE system. 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 ver system. even if it's not accurate. 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. One, doctors are financially incentivized to. vaccinate people. And this is something. that I was not aware of at all until the.

COVID um lockdowns, until the the. vaccination push. Uh Mary Tally Bowden, who's been on the podcast before, um she. said that her own practice, a very small. practice in a strip mall, she would have. made an additional $1.5 million had she. vaccinated all of her patients. That's a. huge financial motivation for one person. with a private practice. Scale that out. to large places. You scale that out to.

large hospitals, large medical. institutions, large establishments, and. then you have financial incentives that. businesses had to v vaccinate their. their employees. And then you had these. pudatory these you had punishment that. would be befalling upon your business. had you not met the threshold. If you. have more than x amount of people, everyone must be fully vaccinated. Not.

just had COVID and recovered from it. So, it's not logical. You have the. antibodies, you you're you're protected. No, no, no. It's vaccinated and then. boosted. And then they continued that. practice even when it was shown that the. vaccine, unlike what we were told. initially, did not stop transmission, did not stop infection. It 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. If you look at the data it's. clear that there are shenanigans with. categorizing people in order to get that. result. >> They did that by measuring troponin. levels. Correct. Uh there are multiple. mechanisms. >> but the way they were trying to phrase. it that more people are getting. myocarditis that are unvaccinated that. are vaccinated. What they're doing they. were measuring while they were infected. >> They're measuring uh proxies. But the.

problem is the category vaccinated. versus unvaccinated. Right. Right. there. by categorizing people as unvaccinated. until they reach the category fully. vaccinated. >> Not just that, but 2 weeks or plus after. the injection, you're still up up to. you're still considered unvaccinated. So. if people died during that time period, they were listed as unvaccinated deaths. even if they potentially died from the.

vaccine itself. >> Right. In fact, >> which is [ __ ] fraud. >> 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 miscatategorized. vaccine injuries. But nonetheless, >> not only that, but there's also a. mechanism for what would cause these. vaccine injuries. >> Multiple mechanisms, multiple mechanisms. that actually uh arise because of the. defects of the platform itself, not even. the particulars of the co vaccine. So I.

will say I am. very heartened and surprised. to see Venet Prasad putting this memo. out within FDA saying that at least 10. children seem to have died from the. vaccines. I don't know if you've read. his letter. Um it's quite good. Uh it is. clearly the tip of a much larger. iceberg. Those of us who have circulated.

uh in communities of the vaccine injured. know just how many orders of magnitude. more we're really talking about. 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 uh causal. Right? In other words, they threw out. all of the cases in which somebody died, a child died days later. They they took.

only cases where, you know, the person. got the vaccine and then died. Um, so. anyway, I'm heartened because Venet. Prasad has been a mixed bag in my. opinion. He's been pretty good on. vaccines. He's been rather terrible on. ivormectin. 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 most of. the people that you and I know the. Pierre Cory's the Robert Malones Ryan. Kohl's these are people who were driven. from jobs had their licenses threatened. that sort of thing um Venet held on and. then he got a position in the. administration and now we can see in. this memo that he um. he's on the right side of history and. he's being cautious but nonetheless it's. it's uh a very positive sign as is Marty. Marqu's uh recent set of podcast.

appearances in which he talks about um. the reality of all sorts of things. including uh boweaponized ticks and. things. So. >> yeah, >> 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. Um can we talk a little bit about.

Ivormect? Yeah, because I think. >> I was just going to ask you about that. like what is how has he been bad? How is. Venet Prasad bad on Ivormectton? 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. because. >> does he not know? Have you communicated. with him? >> Well, it's been a it's been a little. difficult. I have um when he uh was.

promoted at his university um you know I. congratulated him and I said I hope that. having reached this final pillar that it. will embolden you to to look deeper and. I was disappointed in him after that. because I didn't think he did it. But. let's just say um at the moment I'm. super encouraged. He does seem to be. awake and that's really good for us. And. you also have to take into consideration. that for him to even say what he said is.

a a giant risk. >> Yeah. It's it's a huge leap. And you. almost h I mean I think everyone knows. anecdotally somebody who was [ __ ] up. by the vaccine. 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. And th 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 vaccines, >> right? And whose doctors have gas lit. them and said they're totally unrelated. This is just something genetic. You were. going to get this no matter what. >> Right? So, um we see all of this in. actuarial data. There are large. populations of people who have put two. and two together and uh. >> but it's a difficult equation because. you have to be confronted by so many.

different realities that are incredibly. uncomfortable. And then you also have. the the 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 another twist, gaslight, obuscate, use data that they know to be incorrect. to try to prove a position that. intellectually they must know is not.

accurate. Well, >> you see a lot of that to protect. themselves, protect ego, to protect. their reputation, their very careers, like the the longer they can keep this. ruse going and the more they can make. the data foggy in in terms of like is it. really effective? Did it really save. millions of people? Is it worth the. risk? Um I I 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. there. 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, it's a slam dunk. >> Yes. Um, we we will get back to Sam. Harris uh in a second here, but I wanted. to talk a little bit about, you know,

people and this uh 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 dying of it is a um is a. it's beyond criminal negligence. It's. it's it's unforgivable. Um 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. 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 uh Charlie. Kirk. Charlie Kirk and I were working. together um trying to get the shots. pulled. 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. Um [clears throat]. he sent me a text at one point. I had. congratulated him on I think the shots. having been pulled for uh no longer. being recommended for kids and pregnant. women. and he said something I think it was uh. we're doing holy work together and it. meant a lot 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 but anyway. back back to um Iram we'll return to. Charlie a little later. Um the vaccine story is breaking. Venet Prasad is helping it break inside. of FDA. That's a marvelous thing. Um the.

vaccine committee that Robert Malone is. on with uh Martin Culdorf and uh Rziff. Levy is also uh doing excellent work. 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. The. story that has not properly broken is. the ivoract story, right? More. generally, the repurposed drug story,

but this is when you and I lived um very. personally. You know, you were I don't. know what they did to you. They uh. colored you green. Yeah, [laughter] they. made me green on CNN. >> They made you green on CNN. Um, and. basically even people who are awake. about the vaccines. largely have arrived at the conclusion. that I showed promise and then 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,

it's time that we admitted that. And. this is a maddening nonsense story, right? Even the trials that say that. Ivormectin didn't work, if you dig into. what they actually found, you find a a. huge amount of fraud designed to produce. the impression that Ivormekin didn't. work. And amazingly enough, even in. trials that are designed to give that. result, it still shows that it's. effective. And there is a uh something I.

want to show you. Um one of these that I. think you probably haven't seen yet that. makes this point really clearly. Um so. can you bring up that tweet uh. Alexandros Marinos's tweet on uh the I. think it's called the principal trial. Um anyway this is shocking. This is. another one of these multi-arm platform. trials. So these are these highly. complex uh structures in which many.

drugs are tested simultaneously so that. they can share a placebo group. Okay, let's look at the whole tweet. Uh it. says um I think that's supposed to be. no. Did you know that the principal. trial out of the UK found that. Ivormectin was superior to the usual. care in practically every subgroup it. tested, but it sat on the results for. 600 days when it finally published. buried these results on page 364 of the.

appendex. Now look at this chart. The the way to read this chart. >> 346 page 346. >> What did I say? >> 364. >> Oh, just dyslexia strikes again. >> If they go back and. >> Yeah. 346. Okay. So, what this is is a. forest plot in which the there's a line. a vertical line at 1.00. That's the line that delineates. effective.

uh with ivormectin on the right and uh. with the usual. care on the left. In every single. tested category, Ivormectin is better than. no ivormectton. Right? The lines. So. even the one case the people greater. than 65 years where it's touching that. line, it's still to the right of that. line. So in every single case,

ivormectin is superior to not giving. ivormectin. Even though these people. were given ivormectin late, they were. given ivormectin in a sneaky way where. the regular dose is supposed to be. something like uh 3 milligrams per. kilogram of body weight. 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. So. you're underdosed, which so you don't. spot it unless you go looking for it.

But in any case, >> and overweight people are the most. vulnerable, >> right? Exactly. So it's a great way of. making a drug look not very effective. >> and a lot of people are overweight. >> Absolutely. >> So on this plot every So you see those. horizontal lines? You got a box in the. middle of a bunch of horizontal lines. The horizontal lines are confidence. intervals. >> If they don't touch the 1.0 line, then. the result is statistically significant. So in all of these categories,

Ivormectin is statistically significant. in its efficacy. In the one category. where it's not, it's still effective. It's just not statistically significant. in its in its effectiveness. Okay? And. they buried this in this appendix page. 346, right? And um actually if can you. scroll down to the next tweet in this. thread? Can you uh let's see. Uh click on the. link to the paper. Now scroll down. Let's get a background.

method. Stop. Uh go back up a little. bit. Uh interpretation. So this is their. take-home message from the paper. It. says Ivormectin for CO 19 is unlikely to. provide a clinic clinically meaningful. improvement in recovery, hospital. admissions, or longerterm outcomes. Further trials of ivormectin for SARS. KV2 infection in vaccinated community. populations appear unwarranted. So here. you have a trial that overwhelmingly. shows Ivormectin is effective. 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. And here they are. reporting that the answer is it's. unlikely to create meaningful outcomes. and there's no further work needed. Okay, this is absurd. This is the. quality of trial that we're going to. And what it does, this is them. gaslighting us, right? You and I said, look, the evidence suggests that this.

stuff works. 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, right? They mocked us. over that conclusion. This study makes. it very clear that even when people are. trying to hide that conclusion, that. it's there in the data if you go.

looking. >> Now, there's an even better one though. Um. there is a. have you read uh Pierre Corey's book the. war on Ivormectton? >> No. >> Okay. There's something reported in this. book that um it really stops you in your. tracks. >> It is an accidental. uh natural experiment. Okay. 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. You don't have to build islands, right? 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 Ivormekin to a desperately sick. family member.

Um, and they wanted the courts to intervene. and force the hospitals to administer. ivoract. 80 cases. In 40 of those cases, the courts granted. the family's request and ivormectin was. administered. In 40 cases, they refused. to intervene and no ivormectin was. given. In 38 of the cases where ivormectin was. given, the patient survived. In two, the. patient died anyway.

In 38 of the cases where no ivormectin. was given, the patient died. and in two. the patient survived. >> Wow. >> Okay. Now. I find this like this is incredibly. I cannot vouch for the data itself. I. because it's not published in a. scientific paper. 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 um. assuming that the data is accurate, the. level of statistical significance on. that accidental study is absolutely. astronomical. Right? I uh had Heather. run a a ki squared calculation and the p. value I checked it also with uh two. different ais. The p value comes out to. be 5.03. 03 * 10^ the -15.

right so what that means is that the. chances of. a result that strong if ivormectin does. not work are something like the chances. of you guessing a random 15digit number. on the first try. >> wow. >> I mean it's through the roof right this. is a level of statistical significance.

we essentially never see. >> and CNN turned it into a veterinary. medicine, >> right? It turned you green. >> Hilarious. >> Right. So my point here is a couple. fold. One, the Ivormectton story and the. repurposed drug story more generally is. a. very important puzzle piece 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 pull their information. If that. process had been allowed to unfold, COVID is an entirely manageable disease. in all but the most compromised people, right? There was no important pandemic. Repurposed drugs could have addressed. it. Instead, what we got was a.

propaganda campaign in which people like. you and me were gaslit and slandered and. the public was fed a story in which we. did the work. randomized control trials. are the gold standard of science and. they tell us that I is not effective. against COVID. This is total nonsense. Right? 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 that also happened to. compromise their health. Right? The.

vaccines. So that's the sum total of the. story. >> Well the story is really profit because. you got to get to the motivation of why. would one do something like this? I am. still not sure. I know. The crime is so. ghastly. Maybe I'm just naive. >> Let's hold this talk because I have to. pee real bad, but I want to get to it. from here and I don't want to be. compromised. Yep. >> All right, we're. >> back. All right. So, >> um, Ivormectton, where were we with it?

Well, um, one, the evidence is actually. really powerful that I. works. 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 control trials are the gold. standard of scientific tests. Randomized control trials in principle.

are capable of doing something best in. class and that is revealing very subtle. effects. However, they are very prone to. being distorted by biases of the. researchers. And in these cases of the. together trial and the principal 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. very difficult to rig. 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. uh where the. uh particular end points that are.

targeted uh are adjusted to make some. drugs look good and other drugs look. bad. All of those are places where fraud. can hide. 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. The accidental experiment that. uh I described that the courts ran.

is incredibly powerful evidence. These statistics are literally something. that you can do on one sheet of paper. Right? This is the simplest conceivable. test, the kaiquare goodness of fit test. There's no place for anything to hide. Either the data is what it says it is or. it's not. But if the data is what it. says it is, then the result leaves no. question whatsoever that Ivormectin. works in very sick people uh relative to.

an end point of death. That's a very. powerful kind of uh of evidence. And you. know I was recently on a podcast called. um why should I trust you? With Pierre Corey actually we were we. were at the CHD conference and this. podcast. >> great name for a podcast. It is a great. name for podcast and actually I loved. the podcast. The podcast was we didn't. really know what we were sitting down. to. Um but it was Pierre and me talking.

to three alipathic doctors and a host. and the alipathic doctors were curious. about the medical freedom movement but. they certainly weren't on board with. this. And um Pierre and I told them. about the accidental uh experiment run. by the courts the natural experiment. And it was clear that these doctors. couldn't grasp the significance of the. evidence, right? It's too mindblowing.

that this very simple circumstance. reveals the overwhelming power of this. drug. And it was [snorts] like, well, that can't be right, but it can be. right. And so, in any case, I would just. say, um, fraud is a serious problem. >> Why did they have a problem with the. data? I think, you know, let's give them their due. 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 um so it I think there's a natural. reaction to reject that which seems. uh I think 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 I mean I I don't use the word. proof proof lightly but you know. P = 5.03 * 10 -15. that is an amazing level of statistical. significance. >> How did the conversation play out like. when you gave them this data when you. discussed this? >> Well, what they said was well there.

could be lots of explanations for that. which is not true right. >> What what explanations do they provide. as possible? Um, I think they were reserving the right to. go find some explanation because think. about it this way. Let's let's. >> in front of a crowd. >> No. >> No. Okay. >> Um, >> let's imagine how this experiment could. not could be something other than it. seems to be, right? Let's say that the.

courts were biased in who they granted. the right to have ivormectin. uh administered to. If the courts were. biased, then the test isn't what it. appears to be. >> However, you would expect the courts to. be biased in exactly the inverse way as. the result. In other words, you would. expect the court to grant access to. ivormectin in more dire cases. So you. would expect people who got ivormectton. if there was a bias in the way the. courts granted that access you would. expect the people who got ivormeactin to.

be more likely to die because. >> that would be logical. >> 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. Right. It's. probably more effective than we think. Right. Um so in any case I just think. we've forgotten how science works. Right? It doesn't take any all of the. money and. uh 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 ivormectin and you discover. that actually, you know, they they're. playing games. They're telling you, oh, let me give you an example. Um, you can. create the impression that a drug. doesn't work by setting an unrealistic.

end point, right? Like if I let's say. that I had a a drug that was perfectly. successful at uh 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, but the end point of the experiment is. uh hospitalization, right? And I say, "Okay, was there any.

difference in how hospitalized the. patients who got my drug are versus. those who didn't?" Well, no. Nobody goes. to the hospital over a cold. So, the. point is it makes the drug look totally. ineffective. That's one trick you can. play. You can also underdose it. Um, you. know, one of the games played in the. principal trial is uh they detected no. difference at all in the patients who. got ivormectin and didn't get ivormectin. six months later. Well, I'm not sure you would expect a.

difference between the population that. did and didn't get it six months later, right? >> You've completely recovered, >> right? So, anyway, there's all kinds of. games. And the point is actually we do. not you know how when you go to buy a. car, nobody prioritizes the. simple vehicle, right? The point is what. what they sell you is the features, right? This car has all of these. different new features that your last. one didn't, >> but there's no value placed on 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. But that's just not the way it. works. 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. Oh, I want the new one. No, you. don't. 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. The older drug is. better for you, right? All else being. equal. The older drug is at least stands. a much greater chance of anything really. seriously wrong with it having been. spotted. 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. >> So, in the case of this podcast, how did. you guys resolve it? How did it end? >> Well, it actually ended really well. I. hope people will go listen to it. Um,

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 uh in a way that is not. the usual these days. Um, so anyway, I 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.

whether they like it or not. the the. window is shifted. >> Yes. Although I find it shifted. radically on vaccines and um in large. measure because Ivormectin was made. difficult to get and people were spooked. away from it. It's a much more abstract. question to most people and. >> well the just the sheer propaganda that. was the the amount of propaganda was. preposterous. It was unbelievable. 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 ivorme, which is virtually. impossible. >> It's pure lies. Not only that, they use. a stock photo of people in Oklahoma in. August with winter coats on. >> Oh man. Yeah. The propaganda was uh. >> [ __ ] It was designed for idiots. It. was designed for idiots. >> by idiots for idiots. They just like.

they didn't care how provable it was, how how quick it was to you could. research it very quickly and find out. that this is not true. You could visit. those hospitals and find out it's not. true. You could look up the cases of. people that were overdosing on. ivormectin which didn't exist. >> Right. >> There's a few people that called the. poison control hotline because they. panicked. >> Yeah. They worried. That's not the same. thing as being poisoned. >> Right. 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? This was a. 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. 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. >> I don't think that's what happened. I I. did I did think that's what happened, but I don't anymore. >> Oh, interesting. Um because these people. are so good at cheating that I think. they could have cheated their way past. that one. Also, um 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. So, you. think this was all about rolling out the. mRNA platform for many other purposes. other than just CO? This is just the. introduction to this and we've actually. heard talk about this. It's going to be. used to treat all these different. diseases and cancer and this and that. >> Oh, it's coming. They're already in the.

pipeline. And I think people need to be. aware that the the plan is to blame the. COVID shots, not the platform, so that. people will take the the new shots that. come out and I wouldn't touch them with. a barge pole. Um, so did you want to talk about uh given. that we are in this quadrant, did you. want to talk about Sam? >> Sure. >> All right. Um, well, I'm not sure quite.

where to start, but Sam has been uh 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. I've acknowledged the significant. place where I believe I was wrong. I. don't think I was way wrong, but. >> And what was that in. >> uh masks? >> Oh, okay. 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, I said. So, um I still think, you know, given. that we didn't know at the beginning. whether or not, uh COVID was transmitted. by fomite, in other words, by droplets. on surfaces, something that covers your. face and prevents you from coughing out. droplets or touching a droplet to your. your mouth is a decent bet. Um but.

anyway, okay. So, my error was was. masks. 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. Am I right about that? >> Allegedly I I don't listen to anything. he says anymore because it's depressing.

Um Sam is the reason for the joke that I. had in my special. We lost a lot of. people during COVID and most of them are. still alive. >> Yeah, >> I feel like we lost Sam and I think. whether Sam realizes it 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 in younger people. And I think.

any healthy person under a certain age. 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. I had a conversation on the. phone with them. I've only had a couple. over the last few years. I still love. Sam. I I always thought of him as a. friend and I think he's a very. interesting guy. Um, 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. Why. would I get vaccinated now when I. recovered from COVID?" And like I told. you, it wasn't a big deal. It was only a. couple. There was one day that sucked. and then I was fine three days later. when I made that video. Um, it didn't. there was no logical re it was the same. conversation that I had with Sanjay. Gupta on the podcast. He's like, "Are. you going to get vaccinated?" And now. I'm like, why would I do that? Like tell.

me why I would do that. Well, he and. Sam's saying it would offer you more. protection. I go, I just got through it. pretty easily. Like I am a healthy. person who exercises all the time. I. take a [ __ ] slew of vitamins. I sauna. every day. I do all these different. things that make my body more robust. than the average person. I got through. this disease relatively easily with all. the ways that I prescribed or that I. described rather. And only one of them. was problematic. One of them being. Ivormectin. Nobody said a damn thing.

about me taking IV vitamins, monocodal. antibodies, all the other things I. described. I didn't say Ivormectin, guys, you don't need a vaccine. Just go. out and get Ivormectin. What I said was. >> I got COVID and we threw the kitchen. sink at it. >> I remember. >> and I'm better. >> Y. >> and CNN's response was to turn me green. and to say that I'm promoting dangerous. horse dewormer and that it's. misinformation that's going to cost. people's lives. And the fact that Sam is. still saying that it cost people's lives. is [ __ ] crazy. And all I don't know.

if he's just convinced that he can. convince people that he's so good at. debating and he's so good at arguing. points and he's so articulate that he. could spin this in a way that it makes. sense. But it doesn't make sense. And in. fact, if you promoted the use of. vaccines, and it's been shown that the. these vaccines have caused serious. injuries and death to people that didn't. need them, I would say you cause death. Especially if you're a person that. people high that that people hold rather.

in very high esteem for someone that. people respect their opinion and and. take it very seriously and would refer. to them as an expert. Um, I I totally. agree with you and there's something. just weird about. the fact that here we have a. I think you and I would both agree 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 this case, even as Paul. Offett has now in several different. places said that all the top people in. the public health regime who were. issuing these dictats all knew that. natural immunity was the best immunity. you were going to get. Right? So the.

evidence is right there that they lied. to us in public that you had it right. There would have been no purpose in you. getting a vaccination after you had. already recovered. And I would add one. other thing. The evidence that vaccinations. often make you more vulnerable is. unambiguous. 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. 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. Well, what's that going to do? 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. 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. So. >> Sam is saying something nonsensical. Sanjay Gupta was saying something. nonsensical. 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 they're just simply not. saying something analytically robust. >> And I would also point out, you know, this question about whether or not Sam. is responsible for people's deaths. I I. want to do this carefully because I. think it matters and I know that you. >> I wouldn't say he is. I would only say. he is if he's saying that I am. >> right. That's.

>> that's not something that I would go out. and say. I wouldn't. >> Right. Here's how I would do it. rigorously. Okay. I think the discussion. a robust open discussion about a complex. set of facts. That discussion is how we. find the truth. Right? The truth gives. us an opportunity to become safer. So my. feeling is everybody gets credit for. participating. 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. >> I would agree with that. >> 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. You're setting a. standard that we have to be right or. we're responsible for whatever deaths. might befall us. We have to do more than. just participate in good faith in the. conversation. We have to be right. So. that means Sam, when you're wrong, you become.

responsible for the deaths that resulted. from your bad advice. You wouldn't have. been responsible in the first place. except that you decided these were the. rules of engagement. You decided that. the people who were wrong in the. argument are responsible for the deaths. And guess what, Sam? You were wrong. People died. People got a vaccine that. they shouldn't have gotten and they. died. Children died, right? That's on. you because you decided those were the. rules. And I don't know. I I hope Sam.

can find his way back. I think Sam has a. real problem with admitting wrong. 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. You made. errors. You trusted establishments that. were compromised. You trusted experts. who were incentivized to. deliver this propaganda that was this.

was the only way out of this. You had to. get vaccinated. And I think a lot of it. was he had an initial uh 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 uh I. don't know what treatment they got. I. don't know what the situation was. I do. know that supposedly they had been. heavily drinking while they were there, like on a ski trip, getting drunk, get. CO, got really sick. Um, and wind up.

getting very [ __ ] up by it. Um, I. think that scared him and I think he was. initially 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 um. I uh took it to heart and uh like I've. publicly said many times, I was not just. willing to get the vaccine. I tried to. get it. Uh the UFC allocated, this was. early on in COVID. UFC allocated a bunch. of COVID vaccines for their employees. I.

got there the day of the fights. I asked. to be vaccinated the day of the fights. I didn't even think about it. I thought. it was like a flu vaccine. I take a flu. shot and go commentate. It wouldn't even. bother me. I I don't think maybe I'd. feel a little bad, but it would it would. be fine. I'd drink coffee, whatever. I'll be I'll be okay. That that was my. position. And um I couldn't I would have. go to the clinic. They told me, "Can you. come back on Monday?" I said, "I cannot, but I'll be back in two weeks for the. next fights. We'll do it then." In that. time period, the vaccine was pulled. It. was the Johnson and Johnson.

>> So, it was pulled and I knew two people. that had strokes. Two two people that. were relatively healthy people that all. a sudden had strokes. >> And then I started getting nervous. And. then a bunch of people that I knew, Jamie being one of them. Bunch of other. people got it and recovered. And I'm. like, "All right, well, this isn't a. [ __ ] death sentence." Also, I was. around Jamie, I didn't get it. I was. around Tony, I didn't get it. Then my. whole family got it. My whole family got. it and I didn't get it. And I didn't do. anything. I did the opposite of trying. to not get it. I tried to get it and I.

didn't get it. >> And I'm like, "Okay, well, this isn't. what everybody's saying it is. It's. clearly not what everybody's saying it. is. Especially not to I would I would. say on the healthy scale I'm at I'm an. outlier. I'm very healthy because I. spent a lot of time working on it. >> Y. >> and I don't think you should punish. people that are unhealthy. I don't think. but I also don't think you should punish. me and force me to take a medication. under the guise that it's to protect to. people that are unhealthy if this. [ __ ] stuff works because if it works.

they should take it and they'll be. protected. It didn't make any sense that. everybody who is not vulnerable was. going to have to take this medication. It was just complete illogical thinking. Does it work? Does it stop transmission? Does it stop infection? That's the. initial assertion. If it works, I don't. need to take it, >> right? >> They need to take it and I'm the fool if. I don't take it. None of this made any. sense. But it was just like cult. thinking. 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. We'd. all been isolated, removed from. everybody. A lot of people had been. forbidden to go to work. People were. working remotely. Everyone was like. huddled together in fear without any. contact with the outside world for a. prolonged period of time. And in. California, which I think to this day is. probably the most devastated by it. psychologically, uh I was back recently, people are still wearing [ __ ] masks.

M. >> people are still putting masks on when. they go into Starbucks. It's bananas. There's a bunch of people like that. Like way more than you see in Texas. If. I see someone with a mask in Texas, I. assume it's either very vulnerable. person who's filled with anxiety, is. mentally ill, or severely. imunompromised, someone with cancer, someone who's going through. chemotherapy, what have you, which makes. sense. Y. >> but the 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 the. solution, you were keeping them from. returning to a normal life and you were. a [ __ ] problem. And I saw people that. I knew that I was friends with that were. referring to unvaccinated people as. plague rats online. I was like, this is. crazy. First of all, you're so. unhealthy. Like I wanted to post it, but. I'm not a mean person. I don't want to. attack people. But I was like, I know. you, [ __ ] You eat donuts all. day. 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. 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. invaccinated. I have to get injected. with some experimental gene therapy. And. that's the only way. Even after I've. gotten the [ __ ] cold and gotten over. it, this is pure madness with no. objective.

analysis of all the details and the. facts and a a logical. conclusion, a logical breakdown of their. perspective on what this thing was. No, it was all group think. It was all. adherence to this one doctrine. There's. the vaccinated and the unvac. I had. people on my podcast. This is a pandemic. of the unvaccinated. Like, shut the [ __ ]. up, you parrot. Like, are you a man? Are. you an actual human being? How the [ __ ]. did we survive a million years of.

evolution to get to you, you [ __ ] bag. of milk? Like, what are you talking. about? Everybody has to do what you did. You're not even healthy. This is so. crazy. You're jumping into the game in. the fourth quarter and telling people. how to play. Like, you didn't play the. game. You didn't do a D. You sat on the. [ __ ] bench. You did nothing. And now. all of a sudden you're talking about. health. This is crazy. It's like the. moment that I had Peter Hotz on. And. we're, you know, this is back when I was. like very pro vaccine. I had him on.

because I had talked to him early on way. before the pandemic when I did a. television show in 2012. I found him to. be very interesting. thing. He did a lot. of work on infectious diseases, particularly oddly enough and ironically. enough on parasites, you know, which is. what Ivormectin is so good for. He was. talking a lot about parasites in uh. tropical climates and how so many people. have parasites and this is a giant issue. that we that he works very hard to to. discuss and to educate people on and to. you know find solutions for and for that.

guy to be sitting on the podcast and and. then I started saying you know what do. you what do you eat? Do you work out? Oh, I'm kind of a junk food junkie. I. eat a lot of candy. Like, what? What? Like, what do you think you're. made out of, man? Do you Okay, if you. know anything about biology, your. [ __ ] cells. are literally constructed. based on the food that you eat. It's the. only thing they have. It's all you have.

to to keep your body robust and vital. Your your your body needs protein. It. needs vitamins. It needs carbohydrates. It needs all these things. They've been. documented. You're ignoring that because. you like mouth pleasure. You're obese. You're ignoring that. You don't work. out. You're not fit. Your body's not. robust. You don't sauna. You You. probably don't take any vitamins. Like. this is crazy that you're giving out.

advice and you're doing it publicly. 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. You know what's [ __ ] important is be. healthy. The the fact that you can. ignore that while giving advice is wild. Just absolutely wild. >> Well, it raises two things. one in Peter. Hotz's case um 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. and there has been a false dichotomy. painted between what's called terrain. theory and [clears throat] germ theory. right where it's like well which of. these things do you think it is and the. answer is these things are not mutually. exclusive. The health of the terrain. dictates how vulnerable you are to the.

germs and a very healthy person has very. low vulnerability, you know, um and a. lifetime of abuse makes you highly. vulnerable. And people like Hotz don't. get it. I remember that interaction that. you had with him. Uh goes to Shake Shack. with his daughter. >> Yeah, it's crazy. >> His daughter who has autism and uh he. swears it's not the vaccines. Um, but. you know, >> well, that's the other thing. I said, "Well, what does cause autism?" And he.

said, "It's uh we've narrowed it down to. five environmental factors." I said, "What are they?" And he couldn't tell. me. I'm 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 it would be on. billboards here. >> He's an expert who wrote a book about. his daughter, right? and he couldn't. tell me what those environmental factors. are that contribute to autism rates. being higher. >> He's uh an expert.

uh in quotes. >> Well, it's just the the limited thinking. and I like Peter as a person outside of. all this stuff. My interactions with him. been nothing but pleasant. I you know I. try to be as nice as possible. I try to. be as charitable as possible. But that. ability to live a life that is. measurably demonstrabably un unhealthy. like clearly unhealthy and yet be. talking about health.

>> That kind of thinking is wild. It's wild. thinking for hypocritical. It's also to. be a public expert and to have that kind. of flaw in your thinking that exposed by. a [ __ ] 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 you don't even. take this into consideration. the. primary factor of health, physical.

robustness, metabolic resistance, health. You don't take that into. consideration at all. 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 with a with a 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. That's that's crazy 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. Well, there's something very. wrong with our entire approach to public. health and uh hopefully we are going to. confront it because they've effectively.

uh staged a coup against doctors and. they're dispensing very lowquality. advice. I mean, it's really the inverse. of good advice. But this this brings me. back actually to Sam because. there's a dire lesson here. 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 uh 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, you are far better off to get it. done as quick as possible so that you. can get back to being right. And I heard. Sam 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. And yet here in the case of the. pandemic, I think he got everything wrong. And. worse than that, 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. However, you are now making unforced errors, refusing to see that you got it wrong. In fact, you're not even acknowledging.

what you know, Sam, you have stopped. getting boosters for COVID, despite all. of the things that you said about it. And. >> how do you know he stopped getting. boosters? >> Because he said so. I believe he said. so. >> Did he say why? How many did he get? >> That I don't know. Um. >> that might be also part of the problem, >> but my feeling it could be. Well, that. that that is an issue that people are. discussing. 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. >> Well, here's. >> which is really wild. >> It is a Oh, and this was another thing.

that people need to understand about it. We are way too focused on myocarditis. and paricarditis. This is a random tiss random haphazard. tissue destroying technology. The. platform itself, right? It's like. rolling the dice on destroying cells. 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. 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. So the fact that that. includes things in the nervous system, well, of course it does. It's completely. haphazard. 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. That's the. key to rigorous analytical thought. And. yet in this case he appears it's I mean.

ironically enough coming from from Sam. it's faith. He has faith that whatever. he said must have been right. Even if he. has to do that little trick he does. where it's like, well, if the facts had. been different, then I would have been. right. >> That thing was crazy. >> 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. No, that. actually was the second. The first one. was him asking me to get vaccinated. 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. >> Like if I was right, then I would be. right. [laughter] So basically saying. like if it the 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. So what. the [ __ ] are you saying? Right. And. other people were right. And the 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. >> So let me explain that. So this. conversation was after we had talked. about this on the podcast and I thought. I handled it very charitably. He was. upset that people were going to attack. him. So he called me and we talked. He. wanted to talk to me and I said that I. won't do it until you talk to Brett. He's terrified to talk to you. >> He he claims to be willing to sit down. and talk to everybody. He said he won't. platform you or something about the. disinformation that you spread or what?

Have a conversation with him. But it's. like a guy who knows he can't beat up. Mike Tyson. He's like, "Fuck Mike. Tyson." Like, "Why don't you go say it. to his face? [laughter] I I don't know. I don't have a desire to be in the room. with that guy." And like, "Oh, [ __ ] that. guy. If I see him, but I'm not going to. see him. I'm going to," you know, 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. So, he has the.

burden of this 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. It's kind of wild to. watch like some of these posts and the. chaos that goes on in the comment. section. It's just the complete dissolving of the. appreciation of him as an intellectual.

It's like we've watched it. He's. destroyed it in front of our eyes. Like. so many people that I talk to that used. to love Sam Harris will tell me like, "I. used to love that guy. What the [ __ ]. happened to him?". >> Oh, the people who are angriest at him. are people who were devoted fans of his. Yes. >> I don't know if he even knows that. >> No, I don't think they know it either. Well, I'm one of them, you know. I think. you you got to parse out the correct. things that a person said from the. incorrect things that the person said. I.

think Sam's had some pretty spectacular. debates in the past. I thought they were. fantastic. He's a great thinker and a. great speaker, but he's just been so. wrong on this for so long that he's. stuck. >> And so now he's not making sense. >> 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. >> But if he thinks he's right, have a. [ __ ] seat across the table from Mr.

Weinstein and talk. >> and he don't want to do that. He wants. to talk to me. He says that I'm. responsible for people's deaths. He said. that my show is a cultural disaster. I think that was the quote that he used, >> right? And in fact, >> what. >> I think it makes the same point as this. accidental natural experiment run by the. courts, right? >> Is the Joe Rogan experience like the, you know, the gold standard of uh how to.

make intellectual progress? >> Absolutely not. >> Yeah. [laughter] I mean, it look at your. table. Oh, you got mammoth teeth and I. got a [ __ ] anch head here and wolf. tooth. I got a wolf tooth. >> Right. This is the methods. The method. section tells the tale. 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? The right. people were lying. I don't exactly know. why they were lying. I don't know how. they got there. 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. challenge challenging them when they. said stuff that didn't make sense. That. method worked pretty well. Were you. going to get the shot? You were. Did you. get it? No. Did you end up avoiding it?

You know, did you get wise fast enough. to stay away from it? You did. Did you. have Ivormectin when you got sick? You. had it available and you used it. These. things worked well. And I guess the. point is this is a classic case of the. proof is in the pudding, right? You 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 goalpost in the. middle of it. any day of the week. >> Not only that, but of one that was. funded and designed specifically to. achieve a desired result and if it. didn't, they hit it. Right? 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. And then here's some. stuff that actually I can be pretty sure. I can check myself. There's nothing that.

can hide in the statistics of a kaiquare. test. So all I need to know is is the. data accurately represented and then the. kaiquare test leaves nowhere to hide. shenanigans. So. I 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. >> It would be great if we knew that. there's never been a time ever where. they lied during these studies. There's. never been scientists that were bribed. like the whole sugar versus saturated. fat thing. There's there's been too many. times where the course of civilization. has been altered because of fraudulent. studies. I mean, that's you could. demonstrate that really quickly with a. good quick AI search. 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. And then they go through the. studies, they realize, well, there's 10. studies that show that there was real. [ __ ] problem. So they buried those. studies and then rigged one study with. very specific parameters to try to show. some. statistically significant result that. was very small just so they could sell. these drugs. >> 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. And if they manage. to do those things, it starts spitting. out money. And. >> I think the best example of that is. probably a use during the AIDS pandemic. because a look to come up with a new. drug. It would took a long time. 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 in us as a chemotherapy. that it was killing people quicker than. cancer was. So what did they do? 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. You. know, people that had tested positive. for HIV presumably uh probably during. with a PCR method, right? There was a. lot of them. That was one of the things. that Carrie Mullis famously was talking.

about Fouchy. before the pandemic. A lot of people. attribute it to him saying it about. Fouchy and the PCR test after the. pandemic. No, it's before and it was in. regards to the AIDS crisis. He had done. I believe he had done that interview in. the 1990s. >> And he was saying that that's not a way. to detect whether or not someone is. infected with a [ __ ] disease. That's. not what it's intended for. >> 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. >> and the admission in false positives. with COVID is through the roof. I mean, false positives were an immense part of. the situation. Well, you know, 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, not. only maximally spooked, but primed. before the thing supposedly hit our. shores. We were primed to be expecting a. certain disease. And so we hallucinated. that disease. 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. For one thing, I don't think we have properly figured. out what the meaning of tabletop. exercises is. You remember event 2011? >> Yes. >> Like shortly before. >> Explain that to people. So event 2011. 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. you know, false news reports and. things were uh broadcast to the. participants, you know, 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. It's. possible it was just a coincidence. I. think it's highly unlikely it was just a. coincidence, but I don't think we know. why they run them. I I think there's a. there's a meaning to it, right? I I. don't know if it is a pump priming thing. where the idea is 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 they have to go through a rehearsal. right is that what it was 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. force is engaged in something. 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 CO. >> Yeah. And people would just say that was. a coincidence that they. >> could have been. But the question is. what I want to know is, you know, if. you're constantly running tabletop. exercises with infectious diseases so. that event 2011 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 it's like when I first discovered. that I had. uh 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 uh. we start seeing this thing about a. corona virus and this is our first. awareness of it and oh the corona virus. the first case in the new world is in. Ecuador. We're reading this in Spanish. trying to understand what it is. And. it's, you know, oh, a bat corona virus. has escaped the zunotic this, that, and. the other. And because I was a bat. biologist,

I uh briefly looked into it, figured out. who the bats in question were, where the. disease came from, that all of that, and. I tweeted to my followers, 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. 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? 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. Then this is significant. 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, I take back what I said. The. story may not be what it appears to be. It was a little. >> This is very, very early on. >> Is right is my first awareness. It took. exactly one hour for. >> How does this other guy know about the. biosafety lab already? Well, I don't. know. >> what's his uh background or her. background. >> It's an anonymous account. I He still. follows me, but uh I don't I don't know. what his background was. >> Probably a fed. >> I don't think so. >> I think this was I think this was. already being discussed in public and. because I was coming out of the Amazon, I was a couple weeks behind, right? And.

so anyway, but anyway, it 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 with just by pure accident. >> So that was like the, you know, the. beginning of my being redpilled on COVID. was getting schooled over biosafety. level four laboratories studying bat. corona viruses in the exact place where. this thing emerges. Um, so.

in any case, point is if there were a. thousand biosafety level four labs. studying bat corona viruses, 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. 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. It's a conspicuous piece of. evidence. Of what? I don't know. But I. think we need to understand. how. how it works. >> Do you hear this? 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.

>> I never even heard anybody talk about. that. [sighs] There's an article posted. in the New York Times on March 19th, 2020 about that. >> Wow. Yeah. March 19th. >> Wow. A ca before a virus outbreak, a cascade. of warnings went unheeded. Government. exercise, including one last year, made. it clear the US government was not ready. for a pandemic like the Corona virus. But little was done. That's one way to. put it. [laughter]. You know, it showed they weren't ready.

>> Well, >> what it it might be they were preparing. for whatever the hell this was that they. knew was going to come. 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 ready. >> Not ready with cures, >> right? Not ready with ways to protect. the public, to inform them and how to. behave and all of that. What they were. ready with was a campaign of lies. designed to do what? That I don't know.

Like if the idea. was to make money, I don't know why they. delivered such a dangerous shot. 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. Um, they could have used their statistical. shenanigans to pretend that anything had. happened. and they seem to me to have. screwed up having delivered a shot. dangerous enough that we can all detect. the safety signal among our friends. Right? So. that raises the question to me, did they. not understand that it was as dangerous. as it was? I don't think that can be. true based on what we know from Robert.

Malone about the history of this. technology. They didn't think it was. safe. So, is there something important. about injecting people with it? Do they. want people actually injected with the. thing? That that's not consistent with. the argument that they were just trying. to make money, right? Because blanks. would have been. uh safe, not effective, but what they. gave us wasn't effective. What was the. purpose of of injecting people with a. contaminated. dangerous novel platform so-called.

vaccine that just. >> When you say contaminated, do you think. they realize that it was contaminated? And when by contaminated, we're talking. about SV40. We're talking about DNA. >> Um, I think they knew. Yes, they had to know. that it was contaminated. >> So, what would be the motivation to do. something like that? It doesn't even. make sense other than money. But the and. the money was substantial, right? To. dismiss the money aspect of it when you. talk about hundreds of billions of. dollars. >> Okay? But if we're going to talk about. the money, then we have to put the money.

in the proper context. Okay? >> Okay. >> The huge amount of money that was made. on the mRNA platform during the pandemic. is nothing compared to the money that. will be made from the mRNA platform in. the aftermath of the pandemic. accept. that because. podcast world caused the. dangerousness of the vaccine campaign to. become famous.

>> And that's not an understatement. Imagine if we had to live off the. narrative of the mainstream television. >> Well, this is why the First Amendment is. this absolute. um must be protected at all costs. question, right? the censorship, you. know, just as the Ivormekin story. doesn't get enough play because really. the Ivormectin story is the flip side of. the vaccine story. The vaccine campaign. wouldn't have worked if people had safe. alternatives, of which there were many.

Okay. The uh. the vaccines were. um. would it have been possible if. censorship had succeeded in masking the. safety signal from the public? I think. probably yes. Um, 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. um. correct them for next time. Which. actually brings me to another matter. It's a little strange, but I do want. people to be aware. They may have. noticed um Michael Bur who was um famous.

character from the big short the real. broker uh who's represented in the big. short by Christian Bale. has been uh sounding the alarm about. bubbles in the stock market. I'm concerned that there is also a great. deal of fraud in the stock market. So. these are two different mechanisms by.

which. um the wealth of average people gets. transferred to. wellpositioned people who have better. information. The degree to which the stock market may. be overvalued. is substantial. And I don't know if you've been. tracking, have you ever read uh The. Great Taking? >> No.

>> Great Taking is a very good, very scary. short book. 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 a. financial collapse. So for example, stocks used to be held in paper form. 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 your indication of. ownership. The way we own stocks has now changed.

So if you have stocks, you don't have a. stock certificate. your stocks are held. in sort of the same way that um your. cryptocurrency is held 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 uh. solvent then it's the same. You can use. it, you can take it out, you can put it. in. Um, but the problem is that these stock.

certificates that we no longer have have. been replaced by an agreement that has. contingency clauses. 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. insolveny that your stock becomes the. way to satisfy the debt. 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, right? It's not a big deal as. long as the market remains stable. because the creditors in question aren't. going to go uh or the debtors in. question aren't going to go insolvent. But okay, the the punchline though is. this. That's not the only place where we. in the public are vulnerable. 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. Um, 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. 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. Here's. what I'm concerned might happen and I'll. connect it back to the question of free. speech in a second. My concern is if your bank goes. insolvent, 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. 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? You're actually financially ahead if you. do that. But if you suddenly can't pay. your mortgage, then your house can be. taken, right? 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 uh in a position to. allow us to just simply service our. debts, your house could be vulnerable. And then. here's the punch line of the story. Your bank account is insured by the. FDIC, the Federal Deposit Insurance. Corporation. So, I've forgotten what the. exact number is. It might be a quarter. million per account, something like.

that. 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. You can spend it just. like real money, but you're going to get.

it in this form." Seems to me that that. in one fell swoop puts us into a. potentially tyrannical. scenario. 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. 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? >> Very unlikely. >> That's what I think, too. So.

anyway, hopefully. >> we know this, but just based on Elon. buying Twitter and the examination of. the Twitter files, >> right? Exactly. So. Elon buying Twitter carves out an. exception where we can still talk there. 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. 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 um if they can get. us into a regime where we have to accept. CBDC's. as the means of exchange, then it seems to me we are in a much. worse position to fend off tyranny of.

all sorts, including medical tyranny, because the ability to punish us for. wrong think becomes extremely powerful. >> Yeah. And we're seeing the consequences. of that in the UK. We're seeing places. where people don't have the same laws. and don't have the same rights. They're. being punished in unimaginable ways in. America. Are you aware of the uh the. Irishman? Um God, I can't remember his. name. Uh I believe he's a religious guy.

who's uh a school teacher who refused to. address someone by their transgender. pronouns and now he's being jailed. Yeah. >> And not not just being jailed, but a. very long sentence. 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 h. you're having trials just by judges and. the judge will just appoint a sentence,

>> right? Uh it's apocalyptically bad if. you understand what our what the West is. based on. >> Yeah. You're watching a. shining example of Western freedoms. getting pushed over the cliff, right? And you know, it's not 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. It's. wrong think, right? that acknowledging. that you have an immigration problem and. that there's a uh. >> a dynamic in play that involves certain. populations that are prone.

to seeing. uh the British people 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. 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 the wisdom of this is of course. downstream of their right to speak. freely. So, um I mean I will say I have. multiple friends in the UK who are all. looking at the system and thinking about. getting out. >> Yeah, I do too. I know quite a few. >> Yeah, >> it's spooky. >> It's beyond spooky because um again, it's the differences in the quality of. our constitution.

that has protected us so far. But it's. not like it hasn't been targeted. >> Right. Clearly, the 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. >> Yeah. >> Whether it's the Hunter Biden laptop. story, which Sam Harris also had a wild. take on, >> like that was he didn't care if Hunter. Biden had children's corpses buried in. his basement or whatever the [ __ ] he.

said. Like what? You don't you wouldn't. care about that. Like that wouldn't be. nuts to you. I don't I I get you're. trying to be hyperbolic and you're. trying to be, you know, entertaining, but that's [ __ ] crazy to say. >> Well, and you know. the. what he was trying to say is. >> that Trump is really bad. >> Yeah. Well, as always, that's what he. was trying to say. But in this case, what he was really trying to say is. Hunter Biden isn't Joe. But 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 Berisma on the board. uh 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. A money. laundering operation. Uh you know, who. knows? I mean, all sorts of ghastly.

things are possible, but we out here in. public are forced to guess at the. meaning of all of these events. 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. They're not in anyone's basement. there. in Ukraine, which has some relationship to Biden. family corruption, which has some. relationship to DNC corruption. So,

listen up, Sam. You got to pay attention. to that stuff because these things. aren't unconnected. It's not that. somebody who happens to share the last. name of the president, you know, has a. drug problem and a a sex problem. It's. that the presidential family is deeply. corrupted by something which is manifest. in this son who can't keep a lid on it. >> Well, also just the the obvious take of.

them all being pardoned like the whole. family being pardoned for everything. Like what did you do? You're not even. being charged with anything. Like why. are you pardoning his whole family if. there's not some real thing that you're. concerned with them being prosecuted. for? >> Pardoning his whole family plus Anthony. Fouchy. >> Yes. From 2014 on which is just first of. all leaves him very vulnerable to the. AIDS crisis. >> Right. >> I don't know if they took that in. consideration.

>> Also, does that leave him vulnerable to. perjury? Well, >> because like when it comes to like the. Rand Paul stuff like where he was saying. that it it was not in any way, shape, or. form gain of function research. You do. not know what you're talking about. That. was not gain of function research. Everybody agrees it's gain of function. research. Now, >> that was just a flatout bald-faced lie. Um, I think the pardon, well, a I think. the pardon is invalid on at least one, maybe two grounds. Not my area of.

expertise. However, the idea of a blanket pardon where you. do not specify what the person is being. pardoned for, I believe that that is a. violation of equal protection under the. law. 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. Secondly, there's a question about.

whether or not Joe Biden actually. pardoned Anthony Fouchy knowingly given. his compromised mental state, given the. uh likelihood that the pardon was auto. pen signed. So, I think there is a. question about whether or not the pardon. would be upheld by the courts. Um, but I. do think uh they're telling us an awful. lot by virtue of the fact that Anthony. Fouchy was pardoned, >> right? He's supposed to be the guy that.

saved us [laughter]. and he he gets a pardon that goes all. the way back to 2014. >> Yeah. He 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. And it's it's a. little too coincidental. >> Yeah, it's crazy. Um, we're well over. three hours here. Anything else? Should. we wrap this up? >> Maybe we should wrap it up. >> Okay. Thank you, Brett. It's always. great to see you, my friend. >> Great to see you, too. >> Thank you for everything. Really. appreciate you. All right. Bye,

everybody. [music].