America's Obesity & Health Crisis, MAKE AMERICA HEALTHY AGAIN w/ Dr. Robert Malone, Del Bigtree, & Tristian Scott
BUY CAST BREW COFFEE TO SUPPORT THE SHOW - https://castbrew.com/ Become A Member And Protect Our Work at http://www.timcast.com Host: Tim Pool @Timcast (everywhere) Guest: Dr. Robert Malone @RWMaloneMD (X) Tristian Scott | https://daylightcomputer.com/ Del Bigtree @delbigtree (X) Producers: Lisa Elizabeth @LisaElizabeth (X) Kellen Leeson @KellenPDL (X) My Second Channel - https://www.youtube.com/timcastnews Podcast Channel - https://www.youtube.com/TimcastIRL
When the whole Maha thing happened, RFK Jr.'s campaign, everything he was talking about with environmental toxins, that's 10 out of 10, 100%, 11 out of 10. I was like, this is what I'm talking about.
This is what we need.
So you get a Donald Trump administration.
You get RFK Jr. I'm a big fan.
You get Tulsi Gabbard.
Wow, Elon Musk.
Man, talk about the whole package.
So obviously, if you guys have followed the show, the Tim Hats IRL, the things we've talked about with health, I'm always talking about some crazy thing or another, and I'm not even the craziest.
You guys ever listen to that Luke Rutkowski guy over at We Are Change?
He wears crystals, coffee enemas.
I don't even know what's going on with all that.
Look, I'm just trying to get better sleep, finding the right diet, exercising, and making sure I'm doing everything I can to be the best version of myself.
That being said, we got a lot of stuff to talk about.
They're killing chickens.
Needless to say, I was mortified when I heard that the Biden administration was killing chickens, because you know how I feel about chickens.
They're great.
But there's fear of bird flu.
We now have this big fear of measles.
There's controversy around RFK Jr. statements on the MMR vaccine, which I think is largely fake.
And questions about why Americans are so morbidly obese.
What has caused this?
And I certainly have a lot of ideas.
So the first thing I'm going to say is, as always, I'm not a doctor.
And I recommend you don't get medical advice from podcasts, especially from a guy like me who just reads stuff on the internet and complains about it.
Find a doctor you trust.
Get second opinions if you think you need to, but always take your advice from trusted medical professionals.
Literally, that's what I do.
And we're going to have some opinions, thoughts, stories, views from a cultural and political standpoint and scientific and research and all that stuff.
But your health is your health, man.
So you've got to make sure when you're addressing your health needs, someone tells you.
Because I can sit here and say things like, you know, I've talked about, oh, I cut the carbs down.
You know, I was doing keto for a while.
Yeah, diabetics can't do that.
So obviously I'm not trying to talk to every individual.
Specifically, what I am trying to say, me personally, is you guys should seek good advice on how you can improve your health.
And we're going to talk about the bigger picture here, what RFK Jr. is bringing, what the administration is bringing.
And there's a lot of stuff to talk about, particularly around RFK Jr.'s views on the MMR vaccine and now with the measles outbreak.
There's a really funny video showing how the Brady Bunch handled measles versus how Law& Order handles measles.
West Virginia has banned artificial dyes.
So that could have a major effect nationwide.
We're going to go over all of this stuff to the best of our abilities.
I was Director of Communications for Robert Kennedy Jr. when he was running for president.
I was with him when he was a Democrat.
I was with him when he switched to being independent.
And I was there when he was making the decision whether or not to join President Trump.
And we've all seen how that turned out.
My background, I was a CBS producer on the daytime talk show The Doctors.
I won an Emmy Award as a journalist.
celebrating the best that science and medicine has to offer.
I got into an investigation to vaccines and made a documentary about it called Vaxxed, which I think a lot of people credit with sort of igniting this medical freedom movement around the world.
And I do a weekly talk show online like you, thehighwire.com.
I actually am a physician and a scientist, so I'm licensed in the state of Maryland.
Let's see, how do I give a comparable background to Del here, who I consider a friend for many years now.
I guess talking about Bobby, I got to know Bobby pretty well when he called me to ask some questions as he was building this book called The Real Anthony Fauci.
And then he asked me to do extensive editing on it twice.
I've also written a couple books, The Lies My Government Told Me and The Better Future Coming and Cywar Enforcing the New World Order.
My story that kind of catapulted me out into the public space was that for years I'd been working in biodefense and in academe.
I actually am a vaccine developer and a vaccine innovator.
I was the guy that originally came up with the idea of using RNA for vaccines.
And I guess the shocker was that I also spoke out quite strongly about the bioethics of what was going down with the whole COVID crisis.
And in particular, started answering a lot of questions about the mRNA technology and raising my own concerns about that tech and what was being observed in the data.
And that led to just a barrage of attacks from corporate media, Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Washington Post, Atlantic Monthly, etc.
And led me down the path of trying to understand how modern media is working and these topics like psychological warfare and fifth-generation warfare.
We write a podcast daily.
I'm sorry, a Substack daily.
And sometimes I do five or six podcasts a day, but I don't have one of my own.
Yeah, tough person to follow there, but my name is Tristan Scott.
I'm an electrical engineer by training and could say an expert or talk often online about the electromagnetic aspects of our biology and our environment, things like light, EMFs, and I'm now head of operations for a tech startup called Daylight Computer, and our whole mission is to build healthier, less stimulating, less addicting technology and get people back into the real world, which we like to say is outside.
So it's, yeah, over the past six, seven years kind of transformed my, you know, beliefs and understandings about what actually matters from a health perspective.
And for me, it really comes back to trying to get back to a natural living in a modern world.
You know, speaking of light and stuff, you know, I don't necessarily want to start right here, but there was one thing that really fascinated me that I had no idea, and I'm sure all of you did, is, You mentioned light and how it affects people and the electromagnetic spectrum and things like that.
Obviously, I knew about blue light, melatonin stimulation with red light.
I've got this headset that glows orange before bed.
But recently, I became a dad, and everybody won't stop hearing about it.
That's what happens when people have kids.
But they offered up blue light therapy as a precaution for jaundice, babies who are bilirubin building up in the blood.
That didn't happen to my child, but they said, we can wait and see if the baby becomes jaundiced, It's not.
The baby's fine.
And then we were like, why don't we just do blue light?
Is it bad?
And I was surprised to see, because it never occurred to me, literally they put a baby under a blue light.
That's it.
And they put a little blindfold on the baby.
And the blue light...
It has an effect on the bilirubin in the blood, which makes it—it transforms it into a different particle or whatever, I don't know, protein or something, making it easier to remove.
And that kind of blew my mind because I never actually thought about light actually affects the things in your blood.
And at hospitals, they literally have blue lights to change things in your blood.
So people really don't consider how your screens, your TVs, how it's affecting your brain, your blood, your body.
And so when we're setting up the show, it's like, what should we talk about?
There's all these things.
There's the bird flu, the culling of the chickens.
And there's this war on the health of human beings, essentially.
I'm not saying literally there's evil people throwing their mustaches and being like, how can we harm as many people as possible?
But we've built this world with artificial dyes.
Preservatives that are toxic and poisonous and TV screens that blast us with these lights and we don't realize.
And not to mention non-ionizing radiation and often inadvertently ionizing radiation.
And we are living in this world where we're looking at chronic disease, questions around why it's happening.
And then we have a population that's not getting enough sleep.
They're getting blasted with blue light before sleep.
They're eating.
Their diets are all.
They're eating way too many sugars, way too few proteins, getting no vitamins.
So I guess we can just start here somewhere at the beginning.
What is, in your guys' opinion, the largest contributor to the chronic health epidemic in the United States?
And it's interesting because, you know, I've been a journalist most of my life in looking at medicine and science, but working with Bobby for the first time, I've always had an opinion about politics and, you know, decisions that politicians are making.
But when you start, you know, really running a candidate, and then as he got closer and closer and finally made his decision to be HHS secretary, You know, things like, I want a free market, right?
I scream for free market.
But then when you look at, like, red dye number three, which was removed, I think, two days before Biden left office, and Califf, who was the FDA head, they were asking him, you know, what took so long?
You knew for 10 years this, you know, can cause cancer.
It's an endocrine disruptor.
We took it out of cosmetics, but left it in food.
And he said, you know, and it was like sort of the discussion we've all been hearing about Froot Loops.
The colors in Froot Loops are, there's chemicals that are poisonous, it's illegal in Europe, they have a totally different Froot Loops box than we have.
Why is that here?
And he said, because we took the colors out, and the product, or Kellogg said the product didn't sell as well, so the bright colors made it sell better, and who are we to get involved with the commerce of a company?
It is where you do see this real conflict that we don't think about, right?
The beauty of this country is we have this open, free market system, and we want to have capitalism.
Everything thrived, but you don't think about, is there a place for regulation, right?
And I think that that's really going to be the question right now over the next couple of years.
So, Tim, to kind of support where you're coming from, I think.
And I think, personally, I think this is a real challenge for Maha.
I think it's one of the most fundamental issues that Maha is going to have to grapple with as it moves from populism to policy, to kind of long-term sustainable implementation, is how do we avoid the nanny state?
How do we avoid a situation in which the government has an overbearing hand on everything in our lives, which once the bureaucrats get a hold of things that seem like a good idea, it often seems to go down that road.
So here's an example.
Glyphosate.
Roundup.
I mean, you're living out here in rural West Virginia and everybody's using Roundup all the time.
What has happened over the last decade?
is the use of glyphosate as a desiccant.
Now, what does that mean?
When you're growing crops, corn, wheat, soybeans, you have to have a big harvester come through to harvest that.
Those things are super expensive.
Most farmers these days don't own one.
They basically contract with a company that comes through and does it.
What does that mean in a practical sense?
It means that you have to be able to say that on Wednesday the 23rd, we're going to be ready for you to bring in your machine.
And it's going to cost a lot of money to do that.
So how do you do that?
Because you can't naturally control when your crop is going to be ready, when the grain is going to be dry.
So what do you do?
As the grain is now matured, you go and spray the whole field with Roundup.
And then it dies, and the harvester comes in and harvests all that.
As a consequence, almost all of our wheat, soy, oats, Quaker oats, is contaminated with glyphosate, with Roundup.
So who cares?
Well, Bobby cares.
This is one of the things that really made his career was the lawsuit against Monsanto having to do with Roundup.
And by the way, this was not what was done a decade ago.
So now you've got a situation in which your children and you are eating glyphosate without even knowing it.
And does it matter?
Why does it matter?
Well, there's plenty of studies out now that show that Roundup ingestion in animal models in fetal development has two main impacts, autism and obesity.
Ever heard those two before?
The point is, this is something that's banned in Europe, just like the dyes.
And I think this is a proper—as we talk about kind of the fine line, where does the government step in and where do they stay behind?
I think that they have got to get toxins out of our food supply.
I think it's a lot more than just educating people.
I don't know the nuances of what's going on in Europe in terms of how they're maintaining their integrity of their food supply, but I know in the United States there is testing done, and it's demonstrating that we have high levels of glyphosate in virtually all of our soybean and grain crops.
The website also, aside from saying they did approve it, mentions that...
The European Commission officially received the submissions of the fourth successful European Citizens Initiative by supporting the Stop Glyphosate European Citizens Initiative.
Over one million citizens from at least seven member states have called in the EU to propose member states ban, a ban on glyphosate, to reform the pesticide approval procedure and set EU-wide mandatory reduction targets for pesticide use.
I guess my question then is, it's interesting, when I pull up...
The Wiki.
Not like Wikipedia is the greatest source or anything like that.
It just says it's a – it kills weeds.
At some point, they decided instead of killing weeds that they were going to use it as a desiccant to prepare crops.
By the way, the ones that are not genetically modified, the entire purpose of genetically modified food is to design vegetables that don't die when you spray this deadly poison on it and everything else around it dies.
So you're getting glyphosate on the GMO crops.
The entire purpose of a GMO crop is one that is glyphosate resistant.
And then you take the ones that aren't GMO crops and you kill them, which is why when you see a loaf of bread and it says non-GMO, that's not a good thing.
People go, oh, it's like organic.
No, it's not.
Nothing like organic.
What it's saying is this was just regular wheat that we poured glyphosate all over before we ground it up and stuck it in this loaf of bread.
So people need to recognize that that non-GMO, sure, the crop wasn't designed to be Roundup resistant.
They didn't want it to be because they used it at the last minute to dry the entire crop out.
So you're getting it no matter what you do.
But I think to the point also, the farmers are terrified of Robert Kennedy Jr., people wanting to look at glyphosate and say it's going to infect their entire industry.
This is what they've gotten used to as modern farming, and now we've got to figure out how do we move them back into regenerative farming, organic farming, do they want to retrain?
All of those things, this is what they know is farming.
They have GMO seeds that are ready for the glyphosate to be poured all over them.
The entire, Monsanto has made the entire farming system.
Based around their product, and they've got all farmers, I would say, hooked on.
It's not their fault.
It's just what modern farming was going to be until now we're waking up and saying, wait a minute, it's killing us.
Real quick, I guess I would call it the mainstream statement or view on glyphosate.
Is that it is a misinformation campaign that glyphosate causes autism or cancers.
There's an article from Science Based Medicine saying that Stephanie Seneff, a computer scientist at MIT who thinks that gives her sufficient expertise in epidemiology due to studies in it, among her wider claims, that glyphosate, GMOs, and other modern lifestyle factors are responsible for the recent increase in concussions.
She's long been claiming glyphosate causes autism.
Perhaps my favorite claim of hers is that by 2025, half of all children will be autistic.
This is an op-ed.
I find it interesting, but it is really strange.
This is an opinion piece by David Gorski, but it is cited as a factual article by Wikipedia in the misinformation campaigns.
It says, Glyphosate has become a focus of campaigning and misinformation by anti-GMO activists because of its association with genetically modified glyphosate-resistant crops.
U.S. politician R.F. Kennedy Jr. has incorporated glyphosate into his anti-vaccination rhetoric, falsely claiming that both glyphosate and vaccines may be contributing to the American obesity epidemic.
I think I was going to say Stephanie Seneff also falsely claimed that it may have a role in autism.
I'd like to find a better source than a couple of op-eds, but that's the only thing Wikipedia has cited.
So, when we did our essay on glyphosate, we went to the primary literature.
And we cited that primary literature and summarized it for people.
So if you go under our substack, you'll find the actual journal articles, and you can bypass all of this op-ed opinion from Wiki and the utilization of these terms like misinformation, which is just more part of the propaganda.
Go to the basic science.
Go to the peer-reviewed literature on the use of glyphosate and the testing that is being done on various animal models, because you're not going to feed glyphosate to children.
Or to pregnant women intentionally.
You do that with laboratory models.
But then what's also been done is a series of studies looking at, for instance, pregnancy and urine, maternal urine and glyphosate contamination.
And the glyphosate contamination being found in...
The urine of pregnant women is aligned with the levels that are known to be causing these effects in animal models.
So that's how you do toxicology.
So all of that, you know, we've seen this again and again and again.
You have this narrative that's built up and supported.
And it persists long after the actual data are out there.
It's very difficult to break because they use these mechanisms to reinforce it.
But you've got to go back to the emerging science.
And what happens is when you have a time when science is not a thing, right?
That's scientism.
When you have change going on in the research data, often...
Corporate media is way behind the curve, typically years.
I want to make sure that people who are listening understand BMJ is not some random...
Because they actually do have a peer-reviewed publication, Prenatal and Infant Exposure to Ambient Pesticides and Autism Spectrum Disorder in Children, Population-Based Case Control Study with a conclusion, findings suggest that an offspring's risk of autism spectrum disorder increases following prenatal exposure to ambient pesticides within 2,000 meters, I'm assuming, of the mother's residence during pregnancy.
Compared with offspring of women from the same agricultural region without such exposure, infant exposure could further increase risk for autism spectrum disorder with comorbid intellectual disability.
They do include a correction citing that there was an oversight and a potential conflict of interest.
I want to make sure everybody understands that.
But this is what BMJ has as a published peer-reviewed journal on the issue.
And so I just find it interesting.
When you pull up glyphosate on Wikipedia, you want to talk about how the media operates.
Happens to be one of my biggest critiques.
My biggest focus is one of my – yeah, one of my focuses.
Misinformation campaigns in the glyphosate Wikipedia where it cites an opinion piece.
I was surprised to see that it linked to science-based medicine and it was an opinion piece.
I figured I'd click on it and it would give me a peer-reviewed journal, claiming that it's misinformation to make that connection.
Meanwhile, an actual peer-reviewed journal on bmj.com.
It states that they did find that there was an increased risk with autism spectrum disorder based on ambient pesticides.
Why is Wikipedia allowing its editors to place an opinion, an op-ed, not a scientific journal, as a citation to call it misinformation?
Meanwhile, BMJ actually has a study which says he actually found this.
Now, I have no problem saying if it's contentious and there's conflicting scientific studies, Why would Wikipedia put an op-ed as a scientific citation?
Wikipedia has some quirks, just like a lot of the AIs do.
A lot of the AIs and Wikipedia don't actually cite peer-reviewed literature.
They have a list of sources that you're allowed to use in building your edits to the Wikipedia page.
And most of those are aligned with the Trusted News Initiative.
They're basically the big news outlets.
And so they don't go into peer-reviewed literature.
That's actually disallowed, both by many of the AIs for training purposes as well as for Wikipedia.
And so you find the situation like, you know, just not to make it about myself, but I had all of these attacks that are recited again and again and again on Wikipedia, but no references to my actual 100-plus peer-reviewed papers.
That's not allowed.
It's a very strange ecosystem, information ecosystem associated with Wikipedia that's really biased towards supporting and enforcing corporate media.
I'd like to just pull up one other because I actually have many different studies.
This is – I hope everybody's – look, let me just give you the quick overview one more time before I show all of these different studies, which maybe they're wrong.
I have no idea.
I'm not a scientist, right?
At the very least, if there is a debate over the issue, and there are claims by people in science-based, or whatever that website is, claiming it's misinformation, it should be, here is a scientific study that found no correlation or inconclusive data, and here is a study that challenges, here is a study that supports.
The issue is widely debated, with some saying yes, some saying no.
I'm fine with that, if that was the case.
When they lead with, it's misinformation because this guy called the woman stupid and said so, and then I literally just Googled it, and I have a list of various peer-reviewed studies showing a link between either glyphosate, autism spectrum disorders, autism-related disorders, or pesticide in general.
This one from, and I think this is the stupidest name for a journal, but they went with it, PNAS. It's the proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
I mean, if you want to look, you should just look at the, you know, research that got presented in the courts because, you know, Byron Monsanto had to...
A company that settles usually settles because litigation is more expensive, and that's probably the majority of lawsuits.
unidentified
But typically, in order to have a precedent, there's like hundreds of – there's a lot of science in order to even have that precedent, and that's what kind of Bob is.
But I think you have to get to this point, is what we're all trying to say is, is there a signal or is there not a signal?
Does this deserve more research?
And we're living in a time where they keep telling us the science is settled.
There are laws right now that they're trying to pass.
All across this country to give the same liability protection to glyphosate that's sprayed on all of our crops so you will never be able to sue.
You'll never be able to go into courtroom again just like we have with vaccines.
So why would you need liability protection if the product is perfectly safe?
We know we have issues.
These are real signals.
And to your point, Wikipedia, our media, mainstream, is absolutely screaming misinformation.
They did it all throughout COVID. We have a congressional investigation, a 500-page document, that comes out and says social distancing, six feet, was made up.
Had no science behind it, even though Tony Fauci stood in front of cameras and said to us, if you question me, you're questioning the science.
Now he admits in front of the Congress there was no science in the six-foot distance rule.
There is no science that masks actually stop transmission.
The vaccine couldn't stop transmission, even though it's 95% effective.
Yet still, every one of those news organizations talk about those of us that called that out from the very beginning, that we're still the ones spreading misinformation.
When our government clearly caught, Rand Paul has pointed this out, clearly was the one distributing misinformation.
They continue.
Wikipedia is a misinformation vessel, and most of mainstream is.
But can we just talk really quickly?
because the science around this glyphosate in the gut and autism, first of all, I'd be the first to say, we don't have enough science on any of this.
It is so hard to get decent investigations because you're being blocked by the industry itself, which has been controlling your regulatory agencies, which is the light at the end of the tunnel with Robert Kennedy Jr.
You finally have someone that doesn't work for any of these industries going in and saying, we're going to do real peer-reviewed science and put it all on the table.
But what's very fascinating about glyphosate, whether it does or does not, autism, the heart of this, the whole MMR conversation with Andrew Wakefield, who's the big baddie, the first doctor to ever connect MMR and the potential of autism, but it was an intestinal study.
The guy was a gastroenterologist back in the late 1990s who all these parents said, my child has what looks like Crohn's disease, but they got it right after they had autism, and I'm wondering if there's a connection.
That's what his study started with.
It got sidetracked into being about a vaccine, but the question was, was this a neurological?
Or was it a gut disorder?
And what he started looking into is it appears to be directly connected with the gut.
Now they're doing studies where they do fecal transplant.
They take a healthy child's feces and put it in the intestine of an autistic child, and that child does better.
They've been doing it in rats.
It's amazing.
And they can do the opposite.
They can take autistic rats, take their feces, and put it into a healthy rat and make it start having autism qualities.
Very rarely, but they did that episode where everyone was trying to steal Tom Brady's feces because the health effects of the transplant.
You mentioned early on the free market was likely the problem.
With everything we're talking about in media, there was that viral video of this news program is brought to you by Pfizer, brought to you by Pfizer, over and over and over again.
And I don't know that it's necessarily a free market when you have monopolistic forces.
And I turn on Fox News every day.
And I got to tell you, you know what my absolute favorite commercial is?
Have you seen the Phenept Eperidone or whatever it's called?
It's like this anime woman opening her shop and smiling, and she sees an elderly couple laughing.
The whole time it's telling you about this medication that can kill you, cause stroke, prolongs the QT interval, which is associated with heart arrhythmia or sudden death, and how it's like, it lists all these insane side effects where it's like, that sounds scarier than whatever it is the person's, it's bipolar, one disorder, whatever.
But we have these commercials, to me, they're absolutely insane, and they're funding all of our news programs, even Fox News.
So the dynamic here is more complex than just that.
My understanding is that pharma is basically shoveling money at media as a way to co-opt media.
It's not just to advertise these things to the consumer.
All that money co-ops media kind of prospectively so that media has this bias that we won't run stories that are contrary to the interests of our big sponsors because we don't want to lose that nipple.
It's another kind of marketing that people need to be aware of.
There's the overt Coca-Cola buys a billboard saying buy our product.
And then there's the social repercussion of the advertising, which I talk about why we advertise.
And a few years ago, we bought a bunch of ads in Times Square.
We bought the whole North Tower on New Year's Eve was Timcast.
And that's not, the intention is not so that people see it and then come watch the show.
It's a cultural impact ad.
We want people to think certain things about what our company does, what it represents, not necessarily to know it exists, but we want industry leaders to think certain things.
So when we see the buys of these advertisements, to your point, Dr. Malone, they're not necessarily trying to make people call their doctor and say, I want to buy this.
They're trying to say, we own you to the journalists, to the editors and create this effective barrier.
While some marketing will sell a product for you, hey everybody, buy my soda, other marketing protects you from negative marketing.
Their power is in, we will pull our ads from you and stop paying you if you keep doing stories like that.
That is what they're buying, right?
Just like Tony Fauci, who distributed billions of dollars around the world to universities on a yearly basis to do studies, the power is in withdrawing that funding from a university.
So anytime a university wants to do a study on glyphosate or wants to do a study on anything...
Look at what we just saw with the EPA. Liesel, did you guys hear this story?
They found a $375 billion slush fund that was giving climate change grants.
One non-profit was formed a month before receiving $7 billion.
There apparently were two funds, and I'm not accusing anybody of any wrongdoing, but the New York Post referenced Climate Justice Fund and Justice Climate Fund.
One receiving a billion, one receiving $7 billion, I think were the numbers.
It's not a free market.
There's one story where a guy worked for a non-profit.
And then he got hired by the Biden administration.
Immediately then started awarding grants back to the nonprofit.
We see people who work for big pharmaceutical companies and big agricultural companies taking jobs at the FDA. It's not free market when the government is giving out billions and billions in direct cash subsidies and grants to make something happen.
It looks like the free market because those somethings then buy advertisements on TV. I will say this.
When I had read Ayn Rand early on in my 20s and Atlas Shrugged and, of course, sort of the godmother, I guess, of libertarian thought or certainly deep in it, it pissed me off because I was a liberal.
By the end of the book, I was like, wait a minute, this is pissing me off.
I thought I was with it.
Now you're pissing me off.
And it used to always bother me because I thought in the idea sort of like survival of the fittest, but she didn't sort of deal with monopolies, I felt like.
Ultimately, survival of the fittest.
If you get enough money in your family and you're passing on your money, eventually, you know, can the Koch brothers, you know, are their children going to be the smartest people running our country?
They have an advantage because they're financially strong.
And then when I started getting into the issues and investigations that got me into all the trouble that I'm in now, I went back because I was like, maybe I'm missing something.
And I remember I typed in Ayn Rand monopolies.
And it popped up.
It was an old Donahue.
I don't know.
It was way before your guys' time.
But this talk show called Donahue.
And she was on.
He asked my exact question.
He's like...
But it's a very interesting idea that survival of the fittest.
But what about monopolies?
Certainly, the train company in the center of Atlas Shrugged, this family makes enough money.
They don't have to be the smartest any longer.
They have power.
And she said, if you show me a monopoly that did not get government funding, then I will, if you show me one, I will never speak again.
She said, I want to be perfectly clear.
I'm against welfare for the poor and I'm against welfare for the rich.
And what we have is a welfare for the rich.
Our government gets involved.
It chooses the better products and it changes the entire natural course of all business.
When solar is a great idea, does it make sense to pour billions of dollars?
Then we throw it out.
Or electric cars.
At a certain point, a market takes over.
I mean, it's a good question.
How does it compete?
You look at like when Bobby Kennedy or anyone you want to get in, you can't – if you just said let's just take away all subsidies, like our nation, it's like it's all built on Band-Aids on Band-Aids.
If you tear them off, which is what Trump is doing right now, it's going to hurt.
So I agree largely with the talk about government funding and manipulation and how it controls markets.
But there still is a question around artificial dyes, for instance, in foods because like you were saying earlier, the brighter colors sell better.
10 years ago I was at a mall.
You ever see a balance bracelet?
You guys know what balance bracelets are?
Yeah, it's a lie is what it is.
And what these companies were doing were selling rubber bands, you know, silicon bracelets, and then using a magic trick known to every musician, known as the center of gravity illusion, where you ask a person to...
So they do this trick to...
It's largely patterned distraction.
To claim that an object is imbued with magic powers, which they're then going to make disappear or levitate or who knows what, you tell someone it's got magic powers, put it in your hand.
Or actually, you say, put your arms out, stand on one leg.
They will put their hand on your arm and pull slightly at a downward, rightward angle away from your center of gravity, causing you to fall over.
They will then hand you the magical object imbued with great chi.
And you'll hold it in your hand.
They then push down slightly towards the center of gravity.
To the average person, they don't recognize the slight shift, but when you're pushing towards the center of gravity, the person cannot fall.
So they're being pushed down, and they're like, why aren't I falling over?
A company figured out this thing and started selling rubber bands, telling everybody the rubber band will improve your performance.
They were in malls all across the country.
They made, I think, tens of millions of dollars before the FTC stepped in and said, stop tricking people and stealing their money, selling them $50 rubber bands.
There is the question of the nanny state.
We don't want to be like Mike Bloomberg who went on TV and said, tax the poor.
Don't let them buy large sodas because they're stupid and they hurt themselves.
But there is a line, right, where we're like, bro, you can't sell rubber bands for $50 and use a magic.
And the example I like to use is, you know, there's a strong case to be made that modern...
McDonald's diet causes obesity, and obesity is one of the major drivers of diabetes and a variety of health problems.
But do we want to have the state saying that you can't eat McDonald's hamburgers and drink sugary Coca-Colas?
I think most of us would agree that's not okay.
But then the converse is, if those McDonald's products are using, let's say, seed oils.
In their manufacturing that is associated with health risks that are above and beyond the call and they don't have to do those things, does the state have the right to say, no, we're not going to allow you to use seed oils?
Now, I'm not advocating that position right now, but I'm making the point.
While we're at it, I'm going to assume it's correct.
unidentified
It's toxic.
If you look into how they're produced, there's so many chemical derivatives just to get a seed to the seed oil and product.
They're extracting it with chemicals like hexane and then they're putting deodorizers in on it.
And then it's a polyunsaturated fat, so it oxidizes greater naturally.
And then it sits on the shelf in a clear plastic bottle.
and the only reason it's not you know obviously rancid is because they put all these deodorizers and coloring in it so it's really a toxic end-to-end product you could make a more natural seed oil if it was like cold press and all that and debate what you know health ramifications that has but typically from just end-to-end like a canola oil is just extremely toxic is that the canola is the seed Yes.
We planted sunflowers a couple years ago, and they're amazing.
And it's crazy when you take the head and you bash it, and the seeds go flying out.
And I was reading how indigenous natives, they would take all the seeds and they'd press it using like wood planks or something and they get the oil out of it.
And so I thought it was kind of strange and people said seed oils are bad.
And I'm like, but people have been eating sunflower seed oils.
So is it really the seed themselves or as you're saying, is it the process and the toxification after the fact?
unidentified
It's both because then imagine what quantity are you actually going to be able to do that at if you did it manually.
It's not a very scalable process to naturally extract and cold press.
So the fact that we're consuming this quantity of seed oils and then the oxidized linoleic acid and everything is the real problem.
It's comprising such a large portion of calories that our biology is not meant for that.
And it's really a mitochondrial toxin at the end of the day.
If you went to a restaurant and they had a meat – it said meat steak entree with an asterisk next to it, would you – like would you eat something described as generic meat product or like would you have questions about it?
What is the role of the USDA? And the structure is that actually FDA has oversight in terms of food safety over USDA. So what is the role for USDA and FDA under Maha to ensure that we have transparency in labeling?
I think that's one of the key issues of Maha is that consumers have the right to know.
And there's a lot of this, you know, it is misinformation.
I'm inventing words or substituting language that's being allowed by our regulatory authorities in order to avoid true transparency to the consumer so that they have informed the information they need to make an informed choice.
And that, I think, as we talk about these fine issues about nanny state, etc., I think one thing that we should all be able to agree on is that we have truth in labeling.
And there's so many ways that that's twisted.
For instance, one of the ones that I love, you seem to be pretty aware of the agriculture industry and beef and chicken, etc.
So did you know that increasingly our meat is coming from the rainforest?
It's coming from Brazil.
The biggest meatpacker in the world that's kind of sweeping over and controlling all of our meat processing is Brazilian.
And the rule is that they can import animal products.
You know, we call it food into the United States from offshore whatever source.
And by the way, those sources have different rules in terms of pesticides, vaccines, all kinds of things.
They can import it to the United States.
And all they have to do is basically put a knife on that meat, and then it can be labeled as made in the United States.
And you have no visibility in terms of what the chain is that brought that food to your table.
The only thing that you can do in the face of all this is try to seek out local farmers and buy, you know, here in Virginia, we love to buy local Virginia grass-fed beef.
And where you're buying it from the farmer, and typically it's a smaller farmer, this is kind of the, The whole Joel Salatin Is getting away from these huge factory farms that's producing major amounts of pork, chicken,
and imported beef, and back to more of a local, bottom-up, decentralized food supply for our meats, because basically the industry has figured out all these different ways to kind of cook the books.
I mean, I think what Bob is going to have to do is get back to actually, as taxpayers, we're going to have to decide that we want to fund.
Unbiased studies being done by our own science body that's hopefully selected by people like Robert Kennedy Jr. What I didn't realize before I started investigating the pharmaceutical industry is that the industries are doing all the safety trials.
They're doing their own studies.
They're cherry-picking their own study.
I mean, one of the things Robert Kinnon Jr. is going to do right away is he's saying, you know, when he says radical transparency, he's going to make every industry show every study they did, not just the ones that gave them the result they wanted so that we can say, wait a minute, because all we're seeing when you're at the FDA, if you're going to a VRBAC committee, which is the committee that decides whether a drug if you're going to a VRBAC committee, which is the committee that decides whether a drug gets onto the market or you go to the CDC's ACIP committees, they're only all you're seeing from the industry is the study that This product actually pulled this off.
You don't see the five that failed, the five trials that failed.
If we saw all of the trials that were going on, I think we might have a different perspective.
So as somebody who's an expert in regulatory affairs, what...
What the general rules are in pharma is you don't ever do any study that the FDA doesn't require you to do because you might get a bad outcome and screw up your product, okay?
So that's one of the reasons why they don't investigate these things that we're all perplexed about.
How come you didn't look into this?
Now, another thing that...
What Del's pointing to, this kind of suppression of information or failure to reveal key information, that is technically not allowed in terms of the FDA. And that's a case of not enforcing the regs that are on the books.
So the rules are that if you're...
You know, Corporation X and you're developing product Y and some academic somewhere does a study that relates to product Y. You're supposed to put that in your regulatory package and disclose it to the FDA. They're supposed to be talking about radical transparency.
The rules are that they're supposed to be radical transparency and they're not being enforced.
And that's that is, I think, one of the big things.
And that's where you get to the corruption of the FDA because of these revolving door relationships, et cetera, et cetera, is we've created a kind of a government culture where it's OK to only enforce the rules that you want to enforce and only enforce them for those companies that you, you know, aren't is we've created a kind of a government culture where it's OK So for big pharma, they get to slide on all kinds of stuff, whereas small biotech innovators have the rule book thrown at them.
And that whole dynamic has got to change.
It gets back to government creating monopolies, and one of the ways they do it is they give special allowance to the big boys that allows them to engage in these practices.
Even more, the most surprising thing to me in working with Bobby and starting to really, like, I was looking at the list of jobs he had to fill.
He's going to have 80,000 employees underneath him.
He got to add, like, 300 of his own and just looking at how this whole thing works.
But what you don't realize, what I didn't realize is that, you know, the big industries will act like, oh, my God, all the regulations have got our hands tied.
It's terrible dealing with the FDA. They're the ones that set the regulations.
This is another key thing, okay, is that regulations are the friend of the big boys, the big players, because they're the only ones that have the capital and the infrastructure in order to meet those regulatory requirements.
And so regulations serve to exclude the smaller to mid-sized innovator, which is what...
The big boys, whether it's Big Ag or Big Pharma or fill in the blank, they like to have that complex regulatory environment because it gives them a competitive advantage because their small innovator competitors can't comply with the federal requirements.
This is how crazy things have gotten in this country.
The story is from 10 years ago, just about 10 years ago.
Alex Jones came on Timcast IRL, and it's fascinating to listen to this guy because he says things, and you're sitting there thinking, this guy's out of his mind.
He's sitting here being, like, we're having a conversation, and he abruptly goes, well, now you've got all these people eating cloned beef.
They're eating animals.
They're cloning animals.
We're eating them.
And I'm like, Alex, stop.
No, we're not.
And he goes, wait, what?
Google it.
And I Googled it, and from fizz.org, are you eating cloned meat?
The answer is...
Probably.
The FDA cleared in 2008 cloned beef to be consumed.
We don't track for it.
And so there are a lot of producers that find desirable traits within cows.
Look at the popularity of Wagyu.
Do you want to go through the arduous process of certified Wagyu A7 Japanese?
Sure, if you're in Japan.
But what if you're doing Brazilian Wagyu or whatever?
You take a sample of the animal and you clone it a bunch of times, and now you've got meat to sell.
So this actually is, we don't know for sure how much cloned meat we're actually eating.
We probably are eating it without realizing it.
The things that have happened in, I remember what movie, what documentary it was, where it showed how they made common beef for fast food, and they take like 20% of the beef that's pulverized into a pulp, mix it with cleaners and like ammonia to sterilize it.
And then mix it back in as a filler to the existing beef.
Yeah, so that's another problem is, again, it gets back to truth in labeling.
And that's the combination of USDA and FDA kind of allowing these things to get through and giving allowance to the big producers.
I love the whole messaging of Kelly and Casey Means that pharma, I'm sorry, the tobacco industry, when it got its haircut, turned and moved a lot of their investments, we're talking about R.J. Reynolds, into big food.
And that the case is made by the means, and I think it's pretty persuasive, that the same business model applies, that we are being hooked on food by...
Processing foods so that it has these characteristics that are really addictive for us in terms of our palate and our brain response, like you were talking about the emulsifiers, fats, sugars.
These things just go into our little monkey brain and say, this is the stuff you want.
And they have made a business that is entirely parallel to the business model of tobacco, of getting you hooked on the product.
But they've turned it – they've transformed the whole large food industry into using that same business model.
I think most people would be surprised to find out that the artificial sweetener packet they like to put in their coffee was discovered when a – I believe it was a researcher was trying to make a pesticide by combining chlorine with sugar to kill insects and misunderstood his professor who said, test it.
And he thought he said, taste it.
So we did and said, tastes good.
And they were like, really?
The intention was pesticide.
I think it was bonding chlorine with sugar.
And now we have a widely available alternative sweetener, they call it, which is – it's always strange to me that clearly there's questions about whether that will be safe for human consumption.
I want to talk just because there's a very interesting conversation.
I think your audience is capable of understanding it, and it's something that was new to me.
And Whitney Webb actually went after a guy named Jim O'Neill, who I met.
I'm not going to, like, vouch for the guy, but I did have a very interesting conversation, and she was really upset with this perspective he has, which is getting rid of efficacy inside of the FDA. I think it's a very, very interesting conversation, though.
And when he explained it to me, and I'd be curious where you're at.
Dr. Malone.
But what he said is, do you know that the FDA's original mandate was just for safety and purity?
It was only designed to say, what's in this bottle is what's written on this label, and is it safe?
That's all it was there to do.
Years into it, the pharmaceutical industry said, we think that you should be involved in efficacy.
You have to determine what the thing does.
Can it do what it says it does?
And so they did.
Oh, it cures cancer.
It does this.
Only the pharmaceutical industry can afford it.
That's where vitamins can't make any claim.
Nobody else can make a claim.
And that's where the FDA took over the industry.
And if you think about it, if it's involved in efficacy, it immediately becomes a marketing arm for the product developer.
If it says this works, or this vaccine works, or this cancer drug works, now the FDA is actually advertising it to the public.
If this is the types of things that we should be looking at, what if we went back to the mandate all FDA is responsible for is, is it safe?
Prove your product is safe for human consumption or however it's being used and that what's in the bottle is what it says it is and let the market decide whether this thing works or not.
Whether it does what it says it does.
I'm going to go to the doctor that's having better results in cancer and he may be using ivermectin and you know, benvenin.
Fenbendazole or whatever it is, the FDA, does the FDA need to be involved in that process?
We get, as consumers, to decide whether we think something's efficacious.
If we went back there, now a vitamin can make the same claims that a drug is making, and you decide whether it's working for you or not.
The society starts to decide, or the doctors you're going to decide.
It would totally change the way our system works right now, and I think it's a very interesting conversation.
Real quick, just a citation, because I see a lot of people are contesting.
What I just said about sucralose, and I am correct.
You are wrong.
Some people are saying it's saccharin.
Tim's story is BS. Here you go.
I pulled it up.
Sucralose, often marketed as Splenda, is an artificial sweetener that tastes similar to sugar but with zero calories.
Its discovery is famously attributed to the researcher misinterpreting test as taste.
The story goes that during research on sucrose derivatives, scientists Shashikant Fubnes misheard the command to test a chlorinated sugar compound as taste it, leading to the accidental discovery of its sweetness.
So to Dell's thread about changing the structure, the underpinnings of the mission that FDA has, you're accurate in referring to kind of the history and the growth of FDA. But as happens with all these agencies, once you establish a federal mandate, it tends to get grown.
And that's what's happened is this kind of mission creep that occurs in agency after agency.
And I think there's a lot of merit to the idea of pulling FDA back.
I think there's another thing, too, that's important to understand.
People don't process.
How does FDA get its power?
Because for those of us that are constitutionalists...
The Constitution does not allocate the regulation of medicine or medical products or medical practice to the federal government.
Therefore, it vests to the states.
So how does the FDA justify its position?
It's all grounded on interstate commerce.
Because the Constitution vests the right to regulate interstate commerce to the federal government, that is the crack that has allowed the FDA to slip in.
And also USDA, which is why you have these situations like the Amish farmers, notably in Pennsylvania, that are producing raw milk or beef or whatever, and they can't transport it across state lines.
That's because of the Interstate Commerce Clause, and that's what allows the feds to come in.
I think we've got to really look at...
This kind of transformation that has occurred in a gradualistic way across all of these agencies, the CDC should not be telling physicians, let alone states, what they should practice, how they should practice, what they should do.
They don't have the right to do that.
CDC is not even chartered.
CDC is like the...
It's one of these agencies that was never authorized by Congress and it could be eliminated basically with a stroke of the pen by Donald Trump if he wanted to, just like USAID. Where's the red line in?
These artificial dyes are really bad for everybody, and parents don't realize that red 40, they don't realize, what is that, it comes from a little bug they mash up, it's got like an aluminum compound in it or something, or tartrazine, which Robert was talking about quite a bit, a coal tar derivative that turns things yellow.
We want the government to ban these things, right?
They go to the grocery store and they grab a box of processed grains and they've got a whole bunch of crazy preservatives in it.
That sicken society and then my concern is a developmentally stunted, diseased population will vote for its own destruction because it's not – it's a gangrenous function of the body politic essentially.
Well, just even outside of that, if you took 100 people and had them build a society and then one day introduced a food substance that they were all consuming with a rate of 7% genetic degradation per generation, eventually they are dysfunctional, decrepit.
I don't know if you've ever, you guys have probably heard the studies they've done on cats and the meat consumption, raw versus cooked and dairy.
They had three generations of cats, and there's numerous studies that have followed this.
One family of cats were given only raw meats, one was given only cooked meats, and one was given only dairy products.
The cooked meat family, within a few generations, started losing their hair, becoming sickly.
The raw meats flourished and had way too many babies, and the dairy was somewhere in the middle.
So you look at something as simple as obligate carnivores like cats.
Then apply that to the human population where we have poisons in our food that don't immediately kill you, but slowly over time do.
Cats losing their hair, coughing, gagging, and not reproducing is obvious, but what happens when the brain is damaged?
Even a small percentage over a long period of time, these individuals who continually eat these products thinking it's safe are going to get more and more damaged, meaning their ability to self-regulate will be harmed.
And then those of us who are actually like, hey guys, let's exercise, eat right, eat healthy, and make America healthy again, are going to be combating people who are otherwise diseased from environmental toxins, voting against the interests of those that are trying to save them.
I think that you're pointing out one of the biggest issues we have.
Not only are we sick, but we are reaching the point where no one remembers a time when we weren't sick, right?
We're about to lose the last generation.
I didn't mean to point at you.
You may still be too young to have had measles, to have been through the Brady Bunch time, right?
Where it was a joke and a laugh track to it.
Now we live in it's the end of the world, right?
but that same generation is the last generation that never had an asthma inhaler, had no peanut allergies, did not understand what autoimmune disease was until much later in their lives.
Every kid now that's a part of the voting body looks at what Robert Kennedy Jr. is saying and saying, there were no autistic people my age.
That doesn't make sense to them.
They're like, well, of course there were.
And the pharmaceutical industry has played on that.
The biggest argument they've had is autism's always been here.
We're just diagnosing it better.
I mean, that is literally the final spot that they've landed on, which is the most insane statement is Robert Kennedy Jr. is saying, then for Find me anyone my age with autism.
At 1 in 34, certainly at 1 in 18 to 20 boys, which is where we're at now, there should be old folks' homes filled with men standing in corners with repetitive motion disorders, everything.
It doesn't exist.
Yet the pharmaceutical industry is preying on a generation that sees autism all around them, sees it at 1 in 20, preys on a 60% autoimmune and neurological disease crisis.
1 in 4 kids is leaving elementary school on a drug they're going to be on.
The rest of their lives, and that's normal.
Girls in college, I'm hearing somewhere around 50% are on antidepressants.
Almost every boy is taking Ritalin in order to focus.
That is normal, and they are the ones going to be deciding who they're going to vote for to protect their health.
What do they know about health?
I mean, we are so far away from where we were healthy, so to your point, not only are we sick, it's also normalized because it's all that we see, and the rest is starting to sound like a dream.
And where we end up is, let's say 50 years from now, when entire urban populations, less so in the rural areas, have been on some kind of mind-altering drug.
And I don't mean like a recreational drug.
I mean like either for focus or for depression from the time they were children.
And then when the Make America Healthy Again movement 2.0 emerges.
These people are going to be like they're trying to kill us by taking away our life-saving medication.
What I always say is we have a generation now that hasn't had a sober day in their lives.
They haven't been sober.
They have been on drugs since now we're giving infants antidepressants.
It is so systemic and such a problem.
You're right.
And the pharmaceutical industry pushes the ads.
They have Democrats saying, you know, you're taking what you're making psychology a bad thing and you're against, you know, these people and the fact that we want to look at school shootings.
Can we at least put SSRIs on the table as a part of the conversation?
It's not allowed.
Now you're attacking people that have, you know, psychological issues and it's the whole thing.
The thing that I find stunning about all this is I live in rural Virginia, and a lot of these things that we're talking about is not an issue in my community.
I live around farmers and people that live close to the land, or we could make the case they are physicals.
And a lot of what we're talking about are problems of the urban society and of people that are living in the virtual world.
This kind of division that we're touching on here is pretty alien for a lot of, you know, the pejorative is the flyover states.
For folks that are out there doing stuff on a daily basis, whether it's HVAC or farming or whatever, they're not living in this world that we're describing in a general sense.
Limited physical activity relative to how humans used to live a long time ago through the Industrial Revolution and through office jobs and things like this.
Obviously, there are people who still do construction and do physical labor, but this means you are going to have – I mean, I wonder if this has been studied.
Have they tracked the average testosterone levels by region of the United States?
I know that they have been tracking testosterone levels and it's been plummeting.
So is sperm count and a lot of the other...
unidentified
I would recommend everyone see the documentary WALL-E. It's a good point, Tim, because I would say that cities have become toxic on every level because there's just a higher density of all these systemic inputs that are so alien to our body.
But a lot of what we're talking about here has to do, if we boil it down, with media and information and the biasing of information.
we're kind of talking about culture and information in media.
And the folks that are living in the bi-coastal urban areas are living in a reality in which their entire awareness is being manipulated on a daily basis.
Of course, anybody that's interacting with social media, whereas if it's the same case or even more so.
But if you're out there actually doing things on a daily basis and interacting with others, other human beings, then you're living in a very separate reality.
And I think this is one of the things that's really kind of creating a huge rift in the American body politic.
You know, when you look at the distribution of blue and red counties...
And that's because if you, you know, there's this whole discussion going on, can you reverse aging?
I'm seeing, and I think what in general is happening right now, is the rise of bioidentical hormone supplementation.
Because as those levels drop, you have to artificially support them if you want to maintain kind of the quality of life that you had before, sex drive and everything else.
And when you do that, you see people...
That seem to be growing younger.
It's a paradox.
And if they drop their weight and they get on bioidentical hormone supplementation, which by the way, the government doesn't subsidize.
They will pay for you to have synthetic hormones, but they won't pay for you to have bioidentical hormones.
You have to pay for it out of your own pocket.
So that's one of the reasons why you see the rich people showing these signs that they're not aging.
You know, you see these 80-year-olds, or Larry Ellison, right, the other day.
You know, he's 80 years old and he looks like he's a spring chicken.
You want to talk about health as we're, so the dynamic is the population is aging.
And as the population's aging, it's known that aging is associated with decline in a variety of endocrine functions, and that includes our sex hormones.
And so if you get in there and artificially supplement those, then you see people that have a new lease on life.
But this, the regenerative medicine, Is opening up whole new frontiers in terms of human longevity and the effects of age.
That is undeniable.
And unfortunately, because of a variety of policies, it is only really available to the wealthy or those that are willing to commit a large fraction of their income to maintaining their own personal health.
But this, you know, personally...
You made the case that the FDA should be drawn back, or certainly you recited the case, that the FDA should be drawn back to the position where it ensures purity and identity.
It basically allows the consumer to make their own judgment.
This is fundamentally a libertarian position, and it puts you in control, Tim, of your own health.
You are the one, and it requires a person who is willing to take personal responsibility.
And in our culture right now, this is one of the fundamental problems, we don't take personal responsibility for our own decisions in every which way, including our health decisions.
And so that's when we end up with this position.
Well, the state has the responsibility to ensure that everything is going to be hunky-dory for me if I do this, that, or the other.
He goes into the future, and in the future, humanity is split into two different races.
There's like primitive, stupid creatures, and then super intelligent humans.
Maybe I'm getting the story wrong.
But thinking about all this stuff and talking about the stem cell therapy and other popular trends in health, it really does feel like we are moving in a direction where humanity will exist as two different cultural sets.
Well, this is the transhumanism argument, is that there is a school of thought, a lot of it concentrated in the Silicon Valley bros, the tech bros, that the human species is obsolete.
We've mismanaged the environment, and we have to turn over management of the globe and the future to intelligent machines.
I mean, how many science fiction movies do we have to see about this, right?
Terminator being the notable one, and The Matrix being another.
But the theory is that humans are obsolete, that humans that refuse to...
Accept things like Neuralink that will allow them to directly connect as opposed to the indirect connections that we have with these, with this monster database artificial intelligence entity that's out there that is moving towards general autonomous artificial intelligence.
That's the Larry Ellison thing that he pitched to the president on the second day of his presidency.
If you don't buy into that, then you'll be left behind and you'll functionally become akin to a pet.
And this is where a lot of the logic of the useless eaters, you've heard that, right, Klaus Schwab and all that, that's coming from that same space, that there is this theory that we are going to move to a position where eventually...
It's only going to be the machines that are going to be the evolved species, and human beings are basically going to be akin to dogs.
And you recognize that, but there's nothing you can do about it.
When these people hook themselves into the machine, their mental capacity will – assuming we get read-write technologies in Neuralink, which I assume is absolutely possible.
I don't see why not.
And they can supplement their brain power with massive AI, maybe becoming some kind of creepy hive mind.
Who knows?
Let's just say a single individual, Silicon Tech Valley bro, pumps himself full of stem cells, chemicals, or otherwise, plugs his brain into a computer.
We can sit here and speculate and say, we recognize what's going on.
They will be so far beyond that, they'll say, you know, the world's smartest man is no bigger threat to me than its smartest termite, effectively.
Maha is going to be focused on building an ecosystem.
That's what I'm working on now is I'm the CEO of Maha Action, and we're also looking at building tools to build an ecosystem for the people that don't want to go down the pharma road, that actually there are so many practitioners, so many functional medicine doctors that are working with different types of energy, lasers, blue lights, red lights, all of these things.
Also, you know, biohackers that are before you get into the sick care system that we're in.
What if we developed a world where you can find people that actually make you healthier and stay healthier longer before you ever end up in a surgery or medical system?
There will be a future where there will be those that went down that road.
You're never going to end this pharmaceutical path.
You're not going to end those that are going to jump into AI or those that are going to be cyborgs, if you will.
And who knows who's the strongest that survives?
I just think you have to decide, you know, that you have to recognize that there's a difference now, that there's different paths that you can be taking and deciding what health means to you.
I remember once I was watching, because you talked about like getting a time capsule and saying, well, the advanced society was so much more advanced than this other group of, you know, that were like, you know, Neanderthals.
But I think we've got a question also, what does it mean to modernize and what is the advanced society?
I was once watching a documentary back when I was like 20 years old about some pygmy tribe in South America and they had never seen anybody until this documentary crew was there and they talked about how primitive they were.
But when they described the lifestyle, the men would go out and shoot a monkey out of the tree.
They'd grill it up and spend a whole week.
The tribe would eat off of the one monkey.
They were fine.
The women all sat around in the river doing laundry and hanging out.
And the guys smoked something nearby and swung in hammocks for like six days.
And they hunted one day a week.
And I just thought, we call that primitive.
I have a cell phone.
I have all this technology.
And I'm working.
18 hours a day, and I'm the advanced society.
It seems like the smart society would have figured out how to work less, and they've got that figured out.
That's a perfect lead-in to what I was hoping we could get into, is as humans.
Where are we going with this?
What is it that we want?
The thing that makes us human and that is being so badly damaged by this and that world, that tech world, is that one of the fundamentals of being human is your connectedness to other humans and an organic connectedness.
I look you in the eye where we shake hands, we're talking, we live with each other, we communicate within our communities.
I exist for the greater, be it—you know, those that find themselves aligned with Trump or Maha who are secular or agnostic or atheist still believe in the bigger picture, that we exist for a better society, a better community, a country or universe, whatever it may be.
And then the religious and the devout say, I exist for the will of God or for God's divine mandate, whatever it may be.
The tech bros are basically like, there is no God.
I think if you have a connection with God, you don't have a fear of death.
And you live for the moment and the day that you're in.
You realize that how long I'm on this planet.
It's how I live anyway.
And people are like, how do you do what you do?
Aren't you afraid?
Things like that.
No, not at all.
Because I live for the day I'm in.
I want my kids, no matter when I die or how.
How I die, I'm trying to represent to my kids, be passionate.
Do what you love.
Interact with human beings.
How long you're here is not defining the quality of your life.
You want to live every day.
I want to go to bed every day and say, you know what?
If I die tonight, it was a great day.
I truly interacted.
I had great relationships with people.
I did what I was passionate about.
I was good.
People were good to me.
It was an incredible moment.
And I don't care how long we're here.
And frankly, I go to a lot of these biohackings.
I'm in groups and I speak at them, but I don't want to live to be 100 years old.
I want to have the best life I can.
I want to be as healthy for as long as I can, but living forever to me is someone that's just afraid of dying and not accepting that this is just a temporary journey here.
unidentified
It's a return to what is real.
Right?
And how do you get that?
And it's real connection to people, to the environment.
And I'm sure you guys have seen like the Blue Zones and this documentary.
It's always analyzing how these centenarians live.
It's one of the things we're thinking about right now with Maha Action is, and this is an idea from Dr. Oz who I'm talking to and Bobby, like can we have an Alcoholics Anonymous but for health, but we're just about community, where we're going to try and set up on our website where we'll just give you like three interesting, a study or an article or a video, and anywhere you are in the country, start setting up groups to meet with each other, get together to have an experience together, to talk.
Talk about where your health is at.
Meet someone that says, hey, you know, I have been overeating.
I'm eating late at night.
Can I give you a call?
Maybe you can talk me off the ledge once in a while.
The first death in 20 years from a Brady Bunch episode illness that had a death rate of 1 in 10,000 before a vaccine ever came along, and that's amongst the infected.
The death rate in America was 1 out of every 500. Why is this happening?
I don't believe that generally it's mustache-twirling villains who are like, let's psychologically attack Americans with the story because we're seeing it from all different media outlets.
unidentified
What it is, largely, and there are certainly – You're assuming that there's diversity amongst those media outlets.
There certainly are because the UK outlets are not operating in the same space politically and regionally as the American – No, but they are all wrapped under the Trusted News initiative that's run by the BBC. So, a UK outlet with different politics to an American conservative outlet that are at odds with each other and on the different spectrum reporting the same things are not part of the same issue.
You haven't been following USAID. So the issue largely for these media companies is while we do know that there are powerful special interests that are deeply intertwined that want certain narratives to emerge, there are major pharmaceuticals that are running principal advertising and the bulk advertising for a lot of these companies, the smaller outlets that are doing this and the reason it's much more pervasive than just principal corporate news outlets is that they're all going out of business.
They're laying off their staffs left and right.
538 is now shutting down.
ABC's laying off staff.
CNN's laying off staff.
And they will latch on to anything that terrifies the public to make money.
That ecosystem that you're talking about, the kind of bleed, if it bleeds, it leads ecosystem, which we're talking about, that gets clicks, likes, and follows, and advertising revenue propagates all the way down to the smallest podcaster, frankly.
We are seeing a big change with podcasts in general because sponsorships have decentralized completely, and there are shows that built themselves off of particular audiences.
So I'll give you a great example of the limitations we face.
Are you familiar with the Halo app?
It's a Christian prayer meditation app.
I think it's awesome.
I think it's a really cool thing.
Mark Wahlberg advertises it.
It was Ash Wednesday this week.
Chris Pratt did a commercial.
It was very great.
I am not a Christian.
I do believe in God, but I'm not a Christian.
They sponsored TimCast IRL, and I said, it's not appropriate for me to read an ad for a Christian prayer app as not a Christian.
However, Mary Morgan, a recurring guest, one of our hosts here at TimCast, is a devout Catholic and does have the app and said, I will read that.
Advertisers come to us, and in a more decentralized way, I'm not going to run an ad because in the podcasting space, I as the host and the personality that represents certain moral values have things I can or cannot.
Offer up.
How could I do a show where I routinely talk about my spiritual views, not Christian, but not necessarily deist, and then all of a sudden be like, I'm going to promote this ad saying it's the best ad.
So now with the media space being decentralized largely, and instead of there being three channels, there's 300 top podcasts, you're not going to see Joe Rogan.
In all likelihood, run an ad for Pfizer and FanApps, Peridone, or whatever it's called, because he's going to be like, I routinely talk against big pharmaceutical manipulation of media.
How could I read this ad for any amount of money?
Whereas cable TV news has not attached any individual's worldview to the ads they do.
So it doesn't matter if a host says, I'm deeply concerned about big pharma, and then a commercial runs for big pharma.
Likely, the editorial department will say, Ease up on Big Pharma.
They're sponsoring the show.
Or famously, one of my favorite jokes from The Simpsons is when Krusty the Clown says something off-color, and then Bart says he's just going to blame it on his Percodan addiction.
And then Krusty says, it's not my fault.
It's my Percodan addiction.
Anyway, now a word from our new sponsor.
Percodan!
Oh, crap!
That's how it used to be.
Now it is decentralizing, and I think one of the reasons we're seeing Maha become – it's in the Trump administration.
I love it.
It is – RFK Jr. is the head of HHS. It's because of a decentralized media that is allowing people to see different perspectives, and it's breaking the advertising cartel that ran big networks.
This last election proved that you and Joe Rogan and those of us that have been podcasting or doing new media, we broke it.
We won.
Bigger than Donald Trump getting into office is the fact that the mainstream legacy media ran a 24-hour-a-day news cycle and the two biggest baddies in that news cycle were Donald Trump and Robert Kennedy Jr. I happen to be director of communications for Robert Kennedy Jr. The guy was polling 20% almost out of the gate as an independent candidate, the most successful independent candidate there was.
If, as your point, media was like, you know, if it bleeds, it reads.
You had a guy that was going to change this election in one way or another.
With 20% of the vote, he had power to affect this vote.
And in our entire run, for two straight years, he only appeared in interviews on legacy media twice.
He got two interviews that whole time.
They literally thought we could starve him out, we can only talk about him in negative terms, and he will never get anywhere.
The podcast election, I will say, when I was standing in the Oval Office, when Bobby put his hand on that Bible, and I was thinking, you know what, this is even sweeter than if he was being sworn in as President of the United States right now, for those of us that have known him, that have been in this medical freedom fight, because had he been President, which would have been amazing, you could have said, well, maybe it's his Ukraine view, or all the other brilliant things that he talks about, he's so well read, but I was sitting there on the plane home thinking...
His most controversial issue is his positions on health.
It is the most controversial space he's in.
It's where he's been tarred and feathered for over a decade now.
And we just put him not just in a health position.
He just took the most powerful position in health.
In the world, which is the most controversial space he lives in with a 24-hour-a-day news cycle funded by the pharmaceutical industry trying to stop him, the globalists trying to stop him.
Bro, we have taken the power.
Now we've got to say what we've got to watch out for is is it going to stay decentralized?
All the powers, all the money in the world is trying to figure out how to manipulate us, how to get a hold of YouTube, how to make sure that we can't move again.
It's a dream team of passionate people in their wheelhouse space.
We have never seen anything like this.
In fact, and I've said when we were coming into the end of the election to reporters, look at, like, well, what's Robert Kennedy Jr. really going to do?
I was like, I'll tell you what Donald Trump has done.
Whether you love him or you hate him, either way, our country is now involved in politics.
We're focused now.
I would say if I went on the street and stopped, you know, a thousand people and said, this is right before the election, who's our current HHS secretary?
How many people would be able to answer that?
They wouldn't know.
I said, now who's about to be HHS secretary?
They'd be like, oh, Robert Kennedy Jr. That's more than just celebrity.
That's the fact that we're engaged.
When have we ever watched a Trump with Elon Musk and Dr. Oz and Bobby Kennedy and Tulsi Gabbard?
You know, we know these people like they're superheroes.
We're mooring.
We're engaged now.
And to Trump's point, he's treating it almost like a reality show.
He's bringing in media people, people that are stars in the space that they're in.
So while we're engaged, we've got to make sure that the people don't just sit back and think that those five people are going to change the world.
They're not going to do shit without us.
It's the pressure that comes from our involvement.
This is a nation that only works if it's of, for, and by the people.
Not just by the five people that we've selected.
It means we've got...
We've got to stay engaged right now, which is a critical moment.
Do you think that the machine, the narrative machine, is simply going to be like, well, guess we lost?
Or are they going to take a look at, they've got $25 million in Rachel Maddow for her contract per year.
They're going to have a meeting and they're going to say, and I mean literally Comcast, MSNBC, big corporate heads, big Democrat donors, they're going to say, How many top global podcasts can we buy for $25 million in a year?
And I'm going to be honest.
You go to any of these prominent liberals, offer them $1 million, they will say yes.
In fact, many of them would sign with those networks for free of charge in exchange for marketing and being part of the network.
$25 million Rachel Maddow is flushed down the toilet when she gets no ratings.
Sure, she gets great ratings among 70-year-olds.
But with this being the podcast presidency, expect to see this year and next.
I'm talking hundreds of millions of dollars invested into liberal establishment.
And let's just say you're going to start seeing big podcasters brought to you by Pfizer.
I think what this encapsulates is the importance really is not just of Maha and the administration, but the continuation of the momentum on the consumer level of people.
And if that continues, then that stuff won't matter.
You're popular because of your voice, because enough people said, I've watched Tim get it right enough times that I am repeating my visit there.
This idea that social media somehow manipulates people and creates a bubble, we don't keep going back to a podcaster that we catch lying, getting it wrong.
This is their problem.
The pharmaceutical industry, yes, they are going to fund a podcaster to spew a bunch of bullcrap that doesn't stand up, that will support the next.
The next COVID virus that comes along or pandemic and the products behind it, but the population will – it won't matter that it was legacy media or podcast.
The strategies they use for narrative manipulation are more sophisticated than that, and the only reason they failed is because they largely ignored the space and couldn't get a grasp on it.
What they've been doing for some time, and I likely believe they will ramp up, this is the importance of Rumble, why Rumble must succeed.
People think, oh, Trump's in.
It's over.
We win.
No, it's not.
TikTok is a really great example.
Donald Trump is supporting TikTok.
It's a tremendous mistake.
We had the older millennial on last night.
He's been banned, he said, 61 times on a 60-second account.
TikTok, it's outside of our jurisdiction as the United States.
We can't take a look at their algorithm.
We can't take a look at their data capture.
We can't take a look at what narratives they're pushing, but we can generally see on the surface what they are.
Dylan Mulvaney with 13 million followers on TikTok, never banned, no issues.
What they do is they will operate a censorship pressure valve.
It's why we joined Rumble recently more heavily as part of a network, and it's why we've been posting on Rumble for a long time.
And it's a challenge because a lot of people – nobody wants to be the first to sacrifice to plant the tree whose shade they know they won't sit beneath.
What's going to happen is the big tech platforms are going to feign adherence to Donald Trump as they are.
They're going to donate to him.
They're going to set the censorship levels at 51% censored conservative, 49% censored Democrat.
They're going to create a – Yeah.
I'll give you a good example Gavin Newsom.
Why is Gavin Newsom sitting down with Charlie Kirk?
Yeah, it's because he's trying to recapture lost liberals and say What are the issues we can sacrifice on?
He talks to Charlie Kirk about transgender sports.
He talks to him about books and schools.
And he concedes largely those points, resulting in a massive leftist, far-leftist backlash.
He does not care.
Cenk Uygur and the Young Turks, same deal.
They want to recapture the middle.
And so they're saying, let's sacrifice these portions that have failed us.
Let's realign.
And in 10 or 15 years, we will have recaptured the modern American audience.
We, as independent producers, will not be able to compete with Comcast and Disney putting $1 billion behind podcasters.
And while we can say, as of now, people want authenticity, they will figure out how to make it work.
And if you don't believe me, ask Coca-Cola why they keep buying commercials, even though they're the most popular beverage in the world or whatever it may be.
Why are there Coke ads everywhere?
Because mass media works.
It sets narrative.
The reason why I think we largely won.
Is because they made mistakes in this space.
They made mistakes early on that they could not rectify soon enough.
If they had censored Joe Rogan in 2011 when he was on Ustream or whatever...
I mean, I was just saying, as far as our voices, if they get control of the levers and they censor us, which was the bullet, I hope.
I mean, we at least dodged some of it the moment Donald Trump dodged that bullet.
This nation dodged a bullet because, I mean, the ads that I was running, I left the campaign at the very end just to move Kennedy voters over to Trump, which was a crazy experience.
But we ran an ad that we called End Free Speech, and it was Kamala Harris promising censorship and John Kerry demanding censorship.
So we were on the verge of losing our First Amendment right, which is the only right that actually matters because nothing exists after.
I'll add one thing to this, which is breaking news as of last night, yesterday.
ActBlue is in chaos.
This is the Democrats' fundraising platform.
They lost, what, seven executives?
The speculation right now is the gutting of USAID funds and the EPA $375 billion slush fund.
Has pulled hundreds of billions of dollars out of the establishment bureaucratic states machine.
And so while we do fear mass investment into opposition media, or I shouldn't call it opposition.
It's opposition at this point because we won.
Maybe not.
Maybe this is why Donald Trump is in for one month and he's going so heavy with Doge and going after these agencies.
I call it Donald Trump's march to the sea on the deep state, scorched earth, destroying and raising the crops and the resources of the bureaucratic state so they cannot mount a defense.
So what we're learning, and you're correctly pointing out, is that globally, a lot of the Western media has been subsidized as an agent of foreign policy and state policy.
That's what USAID was doing.
Mike Benz talks about it as soft power, and he basically makes the case that as an empire, that we have to use soft power, and it's to some extent appropriate that we do so.
And one of our primary mechanisms, one of the most effective, cost-effective mechanisms is not armed combat, but it's information warfare.
And that we've used as an agent of a...
A product of State Department and foreign policy now for decades.
And it has been enormously effective.
We have engaged in regime change.
The color revolutions have all been sponsored through the mechanisms that are now being revealed with the USAID funding.
We've created our own news agencies, our own reporter training.
One of the things I love to cite, you ever heard of advocacy journalism?
Advocacy journalism is the norm now.
Well, who funded the transition of all of the major academic centers for teaching journalism to transition towards advocacy journalism?
The answer is Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
The forces that are underneath this, Soros was partnered with USAID across the world.
This is big money, and it has been central to this manipulation of narrative.
And it has been justified as necessary in order to enable U.S. foreign policy objectives and maintenance of the U.S. imperial state.
But that's where we're at.
And as you point out, suddenly the rug is pulled out.
Those NGOs that were dependent on government funding and so therefore were not truly non-governmental are collapsing.
But at some point, they're going to have to go for the land grab.
COVID was that moment.
But here's the tragic mistake they made.
Up until that point, most of us were too busy to pay attention.
We got used to a news cycle that was just sound bites and bumper stickers because it's all we had time for.
We're working two jobs.
I can barely survive.
I'm not taking a vacation anymore.
I'm too busy to worry about what's in my food.
I'm too busy to read the label.
I'm too busy to ask my doctor a question.
I'm just handing my kid over.
I'm just in.
Then all of a sudden, in their infinite wisdom, in their last power grab to grab control and take away our First Amendment rights and our Constitution rights, they said, let's lock them in their house so that they cannot.
And suddenly we sat there and said, huh, I got nothing to do.
Who's this Tim Pool guy?
Oh my God, a two-hour pie.
I don't normally watch anything for two hours, but I got nothing left to do.
And they kicked back and we got to them.
We finally had Robert Kenny Jr. could speak for hours, you know, and about all the truth.
And that's the biggest mistake they made.
The machine that locked us down should never have done that if they wanted to take over the world.
The problem is you can only push so far before you break the machine.
The pressure causes a political explosion.
So for shows like ours, Tim Guest IRL, for instance, we were enjoying during the peak of COVID, 80,000, 90,000 concurrent viewers per episode, getting a million plus per night.
People had nothing to do and nowhere to go, so they were watching nothing but us criticize not so much anything that broke the rules, authoritarianism.
So for a lot of shows that spoke about lab leak theory, vaccination, or alternative medications, whatever it may be, banned instantly.
For shows like ours, we were like, look, man, talk to a doctor.
I'm not a doctor.
Authoritarianism is wrong.
You should have the right to make choices for yourself.
One of the big points that I made...
During this, which I think was a good contribution was, I don't care if you guys get vaccinated.
I really don't.
If your doctor tells you you should get it, listen to your doctor.
If you don't trust your doctor, it's called the second opinion.
That's normal.
It's in modern society.
What was strange to me was celebrities advocating for driving their cars into parking lots of 7-Elevens and letting people they've never met inject them with anything.
And so there was one moment where Casey Neistat, he's a good dude, I got no beef, tweeted, go get vaccinated.
I responded to him saying, How about you go talk to your doctor about what's right for you?
And he responded with, that's strange.
I didn't go to a doctor.
I pulled up into a parking lot and got a vaccine from a site.
And I said, you let a strange guy on the street inject you with something without going?
And for that narrative right there, one, didn't break any rules.
I never told anybody not to get vaccinated.
I'm saying, no, no, no.
The rules were, you cannot give medical advice.
To people watching the show, that's what the big concern was.
I agree.
I do not want that liability on me.
So we had doctors out here.
I got prescribed monoclonal antibodies, right?
They told me I was told not to get the vaccine because I was too young.
They said, don't take it from someone who needs it.
And I said, okay, that's it.
Maybe your doctor will tell you something different.
Maybe they'll tell you get vaccinated.
But would you really walk into a 7-Eleven parking lot and let a stranger you never met give you an injection?
What if you have an allergy?
What if there's something in your medical history the doctor doesn't know about?
This was for a lot of people like, oh, that makes sense, and they couldn't ban us for it.
We didn't break any rules.
So for the people that were outright saying no, and for everybody else...
