#133 Corruption, Efficacy, and the Rise of the Trad-Vaxxers (Bret Weinstein & Heather Heying DarkHorse Livestream)
In this 133rd in a series of live discussions with Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying (both PhDs in Biology), we discuss the state of the world through an evolutionary lens. This week, we discuss the surge of Covid cases during the northern Summer. We talk about a new paper which finds that the mRNA vaccines against Covid do more harm than good, and the fact that both Canada, and the state of Washington, are implementing new vaccine mandates now, despite ever growing evidence that the Cov...
*music* Hey folks, welcome to the Dark Horse Podcast livestream where anything can happen, including lint on your shirt, which is not podcast certified and therefore may collect more lint than would be ideal.
Indeed.
It is Dark Horse Livestream 133.
Indeed, indeed.
Which, though it seems prime, is not on account of 19 and 7 having been invented.
Am I right about that?
Invented?
Had they not been.
19 and 7 were invented in the same way that sex is assigned at birth.
Uh, so by an obstetrician?
That was pretty good.
Yeah, it's not bad.
Yeah, all right.
Which is to say, neither invented nor assigned.
Discovered?
All right, do we know who discovered them?
We don't need to.
I just, if we do, I want to be complete about it.
Ah, do you?
Yes.
No, we do not.
We do not.
Okay, then it is not Well done, yes.
You can establish that pretty much.
We don't know that you're telling the truth, but we know that you, at least in principle, might know that you don't know, and that's how we got here.
Welcome to the rest of you, and I am Dr. Brett Weinstein.
This is Dr. Heather Hying, Rhymes With Flying.
It still does.
Yes.
Yes, always.
Always.
All right, we have stuff to do.
It's Wednesday.
It is Wednesday.
We are here in the middle of the week because neither last Saturday nor next Saturday are we able to be right here in these seats.
So we will be coming to you next in, what would that be, 10 days.
10 days from now we'll be back with Livestream 134, but right now we're here.
We won't be doing a Q&A today, but we will be talking to you a little bit about Jordan Peterson and Twitter.
We'll be talking about a new preprint about the efficacy and safety of the vaccines, the mRNA vaccines.
What efficacy and safety?
Well, that is in part the point.
We will be talking about trends, trends that we are seeing anecdotally but seeing no reporting on more generally in COVID cases.
And I also wanted to talk just a little bit about some observations I made this week following a line from a book that I am reading that is Quite remarkable, on which more later.
So, first though, logistics.
Logistics and sponsors and gratitude and all of that.
We are, as ever, grateful to all of you who are here for your sharing, for your engaging, for your remarkable
Communications to us, and we are sorry that we can respond to so few of them, but we run into people and hear from people so very often that we are having conversations that people tune into in part because it is one of the few places that they can actually hear people talking with honesty and integrity in ways that sound like how they would like to be able to be talking with their own family and friends.
And so that is what we're trying to do here.
Yes, there are a huge number of you out there, and you don't all agree, which is evident in our conversations, but you all agree on something higher than the particulars.
You agree on the desirability of figuring out what is going on and being open about it and courageous and all that.
That's right.
There are certainly a number of liberals in our audience, like us, who don't abide by the new woke so-called progressivism, and a number of conservatives, some of whom we disagree with on the sort of, you know, traditional basis of disagreement with, you know, conservatives versus liberals, some of which we don't.
Some of whom we don't, and there's all sorts of lines being crossed, being destroyed, being unimportant anymore in light of the revealed, but has always been important, nature of actually conversation and coming together over our shared humanity, and frankly our shared fate on this planet.
Tiny little planet.
Tiny, little, gorgeous, somewhat fragile, feistier than you might imagine, but boy do we have some tools, us humanity, with which we might destroy a lot that we should not be destroying if we're not careful.
Yeah, I thought you were going to invoke the other tools, the tools with which we might rescue ourselves by bootstrapping a new way.
No, I was thinking about things like fracking.
No, no, I hear you.
I hear you.
Although, as many will point out, fracking is a double-edged sword.
You've got to talk about the cost of it, which is very substantial and real, and the cost of not doing it because you don't have access to that energy source.
So anyway, it's a net calculation.
Of course, everything is, but we are doing great damage in places where we do have choices, and where incentives have been aligned so as to make it seem like we have fewer choices than we actually do.
Yes, constraining us to make choices that somebody else wants us to make, even though it's not in our interest.
Indeed.
So, we have, of course, still and always, our book that we encourage you to go find and read, A Hunter-Gatherer's Guide to the 21st Century, which is now out in Spanish and French as well, and will soon be out in a number of other languages.
We have the chat going on right now if you're watching live at Odyssey, and of course, if you are watching later, you can watch on Spotify.
You can listen on any place where podcasts are available.
We have, as of like this morning, a new store, and it is still in progress.
It is still very much a work in progress, but Zach, if you want to share just the home screen of the new store, that would be delightful.
Still there, Zach?
It's a new store and I should say in the parlance of the late 80s, early 90s, it's a much more business store.
Is it?
I believe it is.
I believe it has many desirable characteristics.
Upgraded merch.
Greater diversity.
It's an awesome store.
And higher quality, too.
We're not going to show you around here, but we encourage you to do so.
And like we said, it's still very much in beta, if you will.
But we have here, for instance, the Tour de France shirt, which we rolled out on Teespring a couple weeks ago, and then the Teespring store promptly went down.
For, you know, presumably unrelated reasons, but here it is.
Better print quality, better, you know, more choices in terms of where you might want to put it.
It reads, what is the line on the shirt?
The Tour de France, it's like bike racing on steroids.
Yeah.
I have wanted to put that on a shirt for many, many years and suddenly, what do you know, we have the ability to put things on shirts.
Suddenly you have the option.
And there's also a couple of shirts here.
Comes with great art too.
I did not have the art in mind, but we have a marvelous artist.
Yes, he's fabulous.
Also, we have the YouTube shirt that was, that Teespring took down, but because it is, is it that it's irony?
Is that why we're allowed to?
Oh no, I don't think irony would do it, but satire protects you.
It is clearly satire, though I don't think YouTube will take it that way.
No, of course not.
And what does it say?
It says YouTube Community Guidelines because you can't handle the truth.
Indeed, and then the final piece of merch up there.
We've got, you know, these backpacks.
There's all sorts of good stuff up there now.
There's now embroidered caps.
The final one that we actually maybe never even released or we thought about, but now it's up, is the... Oh, you're going to want one of these, especially after this week's show.
Can we show it, Zach?
Are you able to access it?
Yeah, if you can.
Yeah, you probably do.
Yeah, so we'll just sort of... Yeah, okay.
If you can show it, that's awesome.
So this is a shirt.
Wow, that's a tote bag.
Inspired by the above and beyond performance of Pfizer.
Pfizer.
The breakthroughs never stop.
Yep, we said it.
Yep, we did.
Right.
We did.
And, you know, maybe actually my favorite thing on the new store, which is not dangerous, is the Epictabby tote bag.
Oh, it's dangerous, but at a very much smaller scale.
At the point that we have one of them, we will show you the Epictabby tote bag with an Epictabby in it.
The very Epictabby on which the art was designed.
And hey, I mean... For which he modeled.
Here's the thing, we are, as always, working without a net.
You and I are both trained ethologists.
That's animal behaviorists, yes.
As trained animal behaviorists who know an awful lot about this individual animal, you and I have both separately predicted that he is going to like being in the tote bag.
Absolutely.
Even though many cats would not.
No.
So we'll see if we've got that one right, if we've understood the mind of the creature in question.
I think he will like it in all of the orientations.
I think he will like it if we leave it open on its side, as most cats would.
I think he will leap into it if we leave it sitting open and upright, as some cats would.
I think he will even like to be carried around in it, as most cats would not.
I think he will enjoy being swung gently, and then released, and then he will return for more.
That's my prediction.
And that is part of what makes him so epic.
Yes.
Indeed.
Okay, so do go check out the store.
We're very excited about it and thrilled to be working with the people at Squid Print who made the store and are doing all the work behind the scenes.
I love that name, too, because you have to you have to make the connection.
But once you do, I mean, of course, squid print.
Obviously.
Yeah.
Make it up.
OK.
Go check out my natural selections, my sub stack.
This week, I talked a little bit about just a little vignette from a flower shop that I had in which a woman invited me into her decision making about which bouquet to buy and acknowledged when I asked her directly if the house guests who were coming for whom she was buying the bouquet were dear to her.
You had a flower shop?
What did I say?
You dangled a modifier and it sounded like you had a flower shop that I didn't know about.
Sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt your story, but I'm pretty sure you didn't mean that.
I'm not sure what I didn't mean now.
That you have a flower shop that I'm unaware of.
Vignette.
Right, a vignette.
I believe I said vignette.
You did.
Okay, moving on.
Never mind then.
So we are supported by our audience.
We are, as I already said, we appreciate you subscribing and liking and sharing and we've got the clips channels and the main channels and YouTube has demonetized us, as we've said, so we appreciate any and all support that you can send our way.
One of those is through our Patreons, where we have an active Discord community that is just terrific, apparently.
We don't actually spend time there, but we're thinking of starting to.
It is a concordant Discord community, as they all should be, but ours definitely is.
And what does that mean?
It means that they are communal and they look out for each other and Discord suggests a battle and all.
It does, that's true.
Yes, it does.
Can we go back?
Can we get the vignette?
Is it possible I could apologize to you for stepping on your story?
No, it's in the sub stack.
If you're interested, you should go there.
Okay.
All right.
So, yeah.
The little point that I was making there, which I'm not going to go back.
So, as the Discord people told us, you can engage in honest conversations about difficult topics, join a book club, even unwind with virtual happy hours and karaoke.
Young or old, left or right, there's a spot for you around the campfire at the Discord, which you can access by joining either of our Patreons.
And of course we have sponsors, to whom we are quite grateful, and we actually really do, you know, we are very choosy about who we let into sponsoring Dark Horse.
So without further ado, here we go.
Three of them this week.
As usual.
All right.
Our first sponsor today is new to us.
It's Element.
That's L-M-N-T.
Element.
Element is an electrolyte drink mix that has everything you need and nothing you don't.
It's got a lot of salts.
1,000 milligrams sodium, 200 milligrams potassium, 600 milligrams of magnesium.
But it has no sugar, no coloring, no artificial ingredients, no gluten, and no fillers.
Electrolytes, as many of you will know, facilitate hundreds of functions in the body, including the connection of nerve impulses, hormonal regulation, and nutrient absorption.
Element can help prevent and eliminate headaches, muscle cramps, and sleeplessness.
I have now heard from several friends, independently of one another, about how much they like Element, for themselves, or in some cases, for the physically hard-working men in their lives.
They drink it every day and feel better doing so.
When you sweat, the primary electrolyte loss is sodium.
Athletes can lose up to seven grams per day.
Element is formulated to help anyone with their electrolyte needs and is perfectly suited to folks following a keto or low-carb or paleo diet as well.
It's not just for athletes, though.
Element is useful for anyone being active.
Even drinking a few glasses of wine can leave you depleted, and Element can help.
Right now, Element is offering our listeners a free sample pack with any purchase, and they've got a tremendous number of very interesting flavors.
That's eight single-serving packets free with any Element order.
This is a great way to try all eight flavors or share Element with a salty friend.
Get yours at www.drinkelement.com.
This deal is only available through our link.
You must go to www.drinklement.com.
Element offers no questions asked refunds.
See how that reads?
Try it totally risk-free.
If you don't like it, share it with a salty friend and they will give you your money back no questions asked.
You have nothing to lose.
All right.
Our second sponsor today is Public Goods.
Public Goods was one of our very first sponsors in 2021, and we are as pleased with them now as when we first tried their products.
Public Goods can simplify your life.
They're a one-stop shop for everyday essentials.
Their ingredients are carefully sourced, high quality, and affordable.
Public Goods has coffee and tea, grains and oils like olive and avocado.
They've got Castile soap and trash bags and laundry detergent.
They have spices and extracts like vanilla and almond, vinegars and pastas, dishware and glassware.
There is so much at Public Goods to make a meal, including the materials to serve it on.
Public Goods searches the globe to find clean, healthy, eco-friendly, and innovative products.
They care about health and sustainability.
Public Goods products are largely free of harmful ingredients and additives, and the ingredients are ethically sourced.
So rather than buying from a bunch of single product brands, Public Goods members can buy all their premium essentials in one place with one beautiful, simple, streamlined aesthetic.
Their subscription service is efficient and easy to use.
Public Goods members can buy all of their premium essentials in one place, so it can become your everything store.
For Dark Horse listeners, we have the following offer.
Receive $15 off your first Public Goods order with no minimum purchase.
They are so confident that you will absolutely love their products and come back again and again that they are giving you $15 to spend on your first purchase.
Go to publicgoods.com slash darkhorse or use code darkhorse at checkout.
That is p-u-b-l-i-c-g-o-o-d-s dot com slash darkhorse to receive $15 off your first order.
Alright, our final sponsor this week is H-Sleep.
Good sleep is a game changer.
As we discuss in the Sleep Chapter of the Hunter-Gatherer's Guide, intelligent life that found its way to Earth might be surprised by a lot of what it found on our planet, but likely not by the fact of sleep or dreams.
Sleep is necessary.
Without good sleep, we are destined to be unhealthy and unproductive.
Yet more than 30% of Americans struggle with sleep, and temperature is one of the main reasons.
It's well known that individuals and couples who sleep together often have different optimal sleep temperatures.
Or do we?
You can say that again.
H-Sleep allows fine-tuned temperature regulation for both people.
Having a cool room and a warm bed is a luxury that H-Sleep makes easy to obtain.
Or you could have a cool room and a cool bed, as some people like.
I was gonna ad-lib that in there, but I thought I might trip over it.
But you're right.
The Pod Pro Cover by H-Sleep is the most advanced solution on the market for thermoregulation.
You can add the cover to any mattress and start sleeping as cool as 55 degrees Fahrenheit, brr, or as hot as 110.
Yikes!
We don't recommend either extreme, but your mileage may vary.
The temperature of the cover will adjust each side of the bed based on your sleep stages, biometrics, and bedroom temperature, reacting dynamically to create the optimal sleep environment.
And I will point out, if you have a bedroom that faces east and It warms up in the summer before you're ready to get up.
You can turn it to cool that thing down.
Eight sleep users fall asleep 32% faster, reduce sleep interruptions by 40% and get more restful sleep overall and with 30% more deep sleep on average.
That restorative sleep will likely help you with physical recovery, hormone regulation, and mental clarity.
Finally, the alarm feature, which can wake you with temperature change and or slight chest level vibrations, is so much gentler than any standard alarm.
We were both a little skeptical, and now we are totally sold.
We are surprised at how much we appreciate this bed.
Go to 8sleep.com slash Dark Horse to check out the Pod Pro cover and save $150 at checkout.
8sleep ships to the USA, Canada, and the UK.
8sleep.com slash Dark Horse.
Excellent.
All right.
Now then.
You wanted to start by talking a little bit about what we are seeing.
Anecdotally, lacking any systematic data on account of no one appears to be collecting it or if they are reporting on it with regard to COVID.
Waves of COVID, yes.
So it does seem that somehow the The public mind is not capable of juggling as many objects at once as it might need to deal with modernity.
And one of the things that seems to have slipped off the radar is the fact that somehow this pandemic continues to ebb and flow and we have moved on to Ukraine and inflation and all sorts of other questions.
As you point out, you and I in our social circle have seen an obvious wave of COVID.
Now, obviously, one social circle could be way off, but the number of people that we've had report COVID in the last several weeks, I would say, is alarming in light of how rare it was a month and a half ago, let's say.
So, anecdotally speaking, there seems to be a wave.
There also seems to be a change in the way COVID is behaving.
Several things are evident, both from anecdote and a certain amount of exploration, scientifically speaking.
So one thing that we are seeing is the possibility that COVID is moving lower in the lungs.
And one thing that you and I have seen in our anecdotal pool is that little kids are getting hit.
And they're not getting hit with something very, very minor.
They're getting hit with something that is not life threatening, but is definitely debilitating for days.
What is the evidence that it's going lower and lower in the lungs?
Zach actually... He's getting me water.
Oh, he's getting ice.
Well, okay.
It is referenced in an article from... It's important that one of the hosts stay hydrated.
Yeah, it is important.
Hydration is important.
I didn't end up with any water, so... Oh boy, I see.
No worries.
In any case...
There is evidence that it's moving lower in the lung.
Of course, all of these things are difficult to ascertain because of the noise in the data, right?
In other words, we have different variants.
There's a question of which variants get a name, whether or not the, you know, if you're seeing an anecdotal wave of a particular variant and you're seeing disease lower in the lung, if the two things are the same, that requires an awful lot of work of sequencing to figure out whether a particular variant is causing that.
Right, but that all presumes that there's data at all.
I just haven't seen anything suggesting lower in the lungs.
There is some.
What I will say is the reason I wanted to call attention to this is that the possibility that the disease is moving lower in the lungs, the apparent pattern of it moving in the direction of young healthy children, has an ominous ring to it because these are predictions of So let's just be precise.
And he has predicted other things which we have yet to see, but should they unfold?
So let's just be precise.
Gert predicted increased virulence in the wake of mass vaccinating with a leaky vaccine during a pandemic.
And the lower in the lungs is what you were taking as evidence of mass virulence?
Or did he specifically suggest that we were going to start to see it infecting lower in He has specifically suggested that possibility.
Lower in the lungs?
Yes.
And more severe disease.
So both more infectiousness and more virulence.
And the lower in the lungs is a matter of greater virulence.
I don't know whether we're seeing Thank you an increased death toll obviously or death toll per case but The fact that we are seeing multiple predictions from a model tells us something about what we're supposed to do right any Any model that successfully predicts that which other models cannot should be taken seriously, right?
Now it's possible to get one or maybe even two predictions right by luck, right?
But the more of these predictions that manifest themselves The greater the likelihood that the model that generated those predictions overlaps reality in some important way.
And I would also point out that there is an added more subtle implication here, which is because we are at the beginning of the summer and seeing these patterns, This virus, which A, was thought likely to be seasonal.
I must say, I doubted the seasonality of it at first because of its likely laboratory origin.
But it is likely to be seasonal, even if the virus itself is not, is indifferent to season.
Our behavior as human beings is not indifferent to season.
Our exposure to vitamin D, our likelihood to be found outside, these are all important facts.
And so the fact that we are seeing a major wave while the weather is good here in the Northern Hemisphere says one very ominous thing, which is that were the weather bad and we corralled indoors and not being exposed to vitamin D, this might be much, much worse, and therefore the disease itself may be that much more virulent and is partially being kept at bay by the weather.
What does that mean for what's coming in the winter?
That's more complex, because we are seeing this wave, and it is possible that it will generate enough natural immunity that by the time the weather corrals us and starts limiting people's production of vitamin D, we will have gotten a substantial fraction of the way to herd immunity, at least to these variants.
And so, one does not want to predict, well, winter's going to be worse, because if it's sufficiently aggressive now at transmission, That will reduce transmission down the road and so it's possible that it's summer transmission, although it means something ominous about the underlying viral evolution, is a lucky break because now is when you would prefer to have it circulate so that people are better prepared and less likely to transmit it.
And when they do have lower viral concentration.
Lower viral concentration.
When they get it, they will have gotten it with a lower exposure and be less sick.
No.
Yes.
Because they're more likely to be outside.
Yeah, all of... yeah, I lost my train of thought with regard to what I was going to say in response to you.
That all seems quite possible.
I don't know what's going on in the Southern Hemisphere.
Yeah, I don't either.
And part of the problem with having a completely unreliable news environment, a journalistic environment that doesn't work, is that it's the A, we're not seeing it properly reported in the Northern Hemisphere.
And so nobody is inspired to say, well, what is going on in the Global South?
And what does it imply?
And so, you know, we're forced to, you know, to read something closer to tea leaves, you know, and to work from anecdote, which is unfortunate.
It's not how it's supposed to work.
Yeah.
I guess, you know, we don't have certainty around what makes some illnesses seasonal, although the hypothesis that has been put forward that seems to have the most support for things like flu and cold The length of the day is, and the warmth of the day is.
The two obvious contributing factors to health being the more likely you are to be outside in the warmth.
means that you will be generating more vitamin D, and also the melatonin that we talked about many weeks ago, and also that you are just more likely to be outside in spaces where it's going to be harder to get infected because you're in, as you just said, smaller volume spaces in the winter, larger volume spaces, which is usually the outside in the summer.
This is a very hard thing to talk about because we don't have data.
We only have anecdote, and it does seem like in the last two weeks we're seeing this increase.
You know, at the astronomical level, we're exactly at the beginning of the summer, because we now call summer between the summer solstice and the fall equinox.
But that isn't always how people have understood what summer is, of course.
You know, like a midsummer's night dream from Shakespeare.
um has mid-summer as the longest uh the longest day of the year the shortest night of the year which of course is the solstice and that is also consistent with while it is it will tend to be warmer in july and august in many places than may the days are longest in you know june and the first half of july so you know this you might expect regional differences to the degree that this virus is in fact
...has been seasonal and is moving aseasonal, that here in the Pacific Northwest, for instance, really our summer is just getting started.
And it's once again very cool and drippy here, but boy are Augusts perfect, and really September's are as well, whereas for many people in many parts of at least the United States, by middle of May it feels like full summer.
Everything is growing, everything is verdant.
When we lived in Michigan, certainly that was the case.
You know, The universities ended by end of April because historically, you know, the growing season was such that you just needed to be, if this was your work, you need to be on the farm for, you know, beginning, you know, really before April, but certainly for, you know, full time May, June, July, August.
And the substantial differences in heat profile, in seasonality, and what's growing when, and in therefore when people are most likely to be outside, should be expected to affect therefore when the seasonal viruses, and whether or not this one still is is the question, will be most rampant.
All right, several points.
One, there are two factors in seasonality potentially.
One is the virus evolving to take advantage of opportunities, right?
So there can be things inscribed in the genome of a virus that might predispose it to play games that work better in one season or another.
For instance, just to work better at a particular temperature.
Like, be more transmissible outside a body at a particular temperature, perhaps?
Yeah, or more tolerant of existing on a surface that you might not be likely to encounter outdoors.
Anyway, there are lots of ways it could evolve that would provide a bias, and then there are ways in which a virus that was completely indifferent to the information about what season it was would still appear to behave seasonally because of our shift in behavior, which is radical.
So those are worth separating.
Yeah.
Second thing I wanted to say, I think I forgot to mention that in our anecdotal sample, I will say there is a strong but not absolute bias towards people who are at least somewhat vaccinated with the COVID-19 vaccines.
That's true.
We have seen some people who are not vaccinated, but the number of people who have been hit with substantial disease who are vaccinated is Conspicuous.
Yeah.
Which, you know, raises questions which I guess we'll get to later in the podcast about efficacy of the vaccines and also possible downsides.
Right, which were never properly accounted for in the fairy tale that we were given about how these things were supposed to function.
The risk that they would be counterproductive was never described.
It wasn't.
Maybe that's a good place to segue here, but one thing that is always worth saying is that specifically the mRNA vaccines, but I guess also the adenovirus-vectored vaccines,
The effects of them on the body are likely to be very similar to the effects of the virus itself, because of course, you know, to the degree that the disease that COVID, as produced by SARS-CoV-2, is largely about the spike protein, what the mRNA vaccines are doing is getting your body to produce the spike protein over and over and over and over again.
So, it can be hard to tell the difference, and is there a chance that having been exposed to the spike via a vaccine, upon being exposed to the actual complete virus, you are more likely to have a response at this point?
Of course it's possible.
I want to add two things here.
A couple of things.
One is I think the better way to do this is not to say that the two things are very similar.
It's to say that there is a subset of the effects of the virus and the vaccines.
There is a subset of the effects of these things that overlaps.
Yes.
It turns out spike protein is a problem in and of itself.
To the extent that both the virus and the vaccines produce spike protein, there will be an overlap in whatever counterproductive physiology follows from that.
Then there are a lot of things that are not overlapping, right?
For example, you would expect that which is caused by lipid nanoparticles to accompany the mRNA vaccines, but not COVID or the DNA-based adenovectored vaccines, etc.
So, there are lots of subsets, you know, some big Venn diagram of But the other thing, and I must tell you, I found Jonathan Cooey's recent podcast with... I'm stumbling to find his Twitter handle.
Anyway, I'll come back to it in a second.
But Jonathan Cooey's recent podcast explored at a level of technical detail that was very hard to follow.
I think even he had trouble following elements of it.
But explored some of the massive differences between the likely differences that are downstream of the way these vaccines induce the production of spike that suggests that what is circulating in vaccinated people is not entirely spike protein based on the viral
Right, that basically, essentially the pseudouridines that were introduced, so pseudouridine is something that does occur naturally.
Nature uses this mechanism, but it uses it very, very sparingly, and we have almost no understanding of what it does and why it shows up where it is.
The manufacturers that basically turned your cells into a vaccine factory, They used it universally.
They replaced all the uracils, right?
And what I learned from this podcast that I did not know is that the ribosomes are not indifferent to it.
That actually neither the ribosomes nor the tRNAs deal with this as a uracil.
what happens is effectively an unpredictable phenomenon where there are lots of errors introduced every time.
Because the ribosome is built around hitting a uracil and reading the information this way, a pseudouridine has a very different effect.
And so...
So I have not seen this podcast with JJ Coey, but it sounds like in your Venn diagram of the ways that the vaccines could cause health problems and the ways that COVID cause health problems.
There's this Venn diagram, as you said, and and the spike protein effects.
The effects from the spike protein are not entirely overlapping, in part because there's additional spike protein with pseudouridine, spike protein created by pseudouridine mRNA effects, that will not be found in the original COVID, which is itself of course a frankenvirus, but we've now got like a franken vaccine for a frankenvirus, and therefore not even the spike protein is exactly the same.
Right.
And what's more, again, this is not my area of expertise, but our vaccinologist friends and others with more of a molecular focus will correct me if I'm wrong here, but this also makes an argument in favor of the DNA-based vaccines, because the DNA vaccines will not have pseudouridine in the RNA that results in the encoding of the spike proteins.
Right.
Because there's no uracil in DNA.
Right.
So the point is, at the point you get to RNA, it's a normal RNA because the mechanism is different.
So if I've got that wrong, somebody will tell me, but I certainly can't see how it would be wrong.
Oh, I wanted to add one more thing.
One of the questions you and I used to pose to students was, why isn't The solstice, the center of the summer from a weather perspective.
In other words, why is there this lag in the warm temperatures?
Why, as things seem like they're getting wonderfully warm and beautiful to spend time outside, at least in some parts of the country, it really doesn't begin until like early mid-July, are the days already shortening?
Right.
And so anyway, I just wanted to put a little bit of an answer here, which has to do with the way You know, were it all about incident energy, yes, that is what you would have.
But because it is about the accumulation of the heat in the ground and the water and the plants.
You've got thermal mass in the water and the ground.
Which causes a lag.
And, you know, you can see the same thing in the day, right?
And you feel it.
So, you know, probably almost everyone watching or listening has been in a home that has been heated with air, like central heat or blowing air.
And some people may have been in homes that have been heated by radiant heat, wherein the mass of the object is actually heated, usually floors or radiators, and it is that rather than the air itself, which is heated.
And you can really feel a difference.
When you're a thermostat, if you're in a forced air heated house, or a house that is heated by blowing air, by heating the air as opposed to the stuff, The thermostat can say 68, and you can either feel very, very warm or very, very cold.
And of course, there are a lot of reasons for that, but one of the reasons will be, is the structure itself warm or cold?
And if you are coming off of a summer, probably your whole structure is pretty warm, and 68 may actually feel a little warm for you.
And if you're coming off the winter, 68 may feel, depending on what all of your proclivities are, a little cool because although the air temperature may be 68, if all the surfaces you're touching are cooler than that, and if they're basically sucking heat into them as opposed to emanating heat, it's going to feel cooler to you.
I agree with that, except I would adjust the model a little bit.
It's one thing when your floor is warm, right, you are warming a thermal mass and depending upon what your floor is made of that will have various implications, but the point is you never really get very much heat to the ceiling and to the high parts of the walls, right, so it'll be a very stratified Heat, whereas if you heat with air, it's inefficient, but you do end up heating all of those surfaces, including the ceiling and things.
But the hot air rises.
Right.
More quickly than the, you know, that dissipates so that you end up with less of what you need because more of the heating is above the level of your head.
Well, it's of course complex because it heats the floor above and so, you know.
If you're in a two-story home.
Yep.
Anyway, there's a lot going on, but it's the interplay between these things.
A home in which the surfaces are not heated cools down very quickly, for example.
It varies a lot by building and how you construct it.
Sure, but also my point is by seasonality.
And that is part of why you start spending more time outside after everything around you, the earth, the water, the houses, the structures have started heating up because there's just been so much accumulated Sun that the length of the days is long enough at the solstice and for the month either side of the solstice that the night intervening is not sufficient to fully cool things down.
So you get an accumulation of heat in the masses of things.
And similarly, you get a disaccumulation, an accumulation of cold, which isn't really a thing, but in the winter, right?
It's just harder and harder with each passing day, as the nights get longer and longer and the days get shorter and shorter, to recoup any of the energy that you lose during the long, ever-colder nights.
All right, so speaking of COVID, there is another, yet another paper, this one published in a mainstream place, it's still in preprint, it's not published, it hasn't been peer reviewed, but by a reputable mainstream academic suggesting that, oh, hold on, I want to go here, suggesting that the COVID vaccines are doing more harm than good.
So you can show my screen here, Zach.
This is Serious Adverse Events It is.
It is, though.
So, as soon as possible, my screen is going to be shown here.
It's called, Serious Adverse Events of Special Interest Following mRNA Vaccination and Randomized Trials.
The communicating author is Peter Doshi, who, boy, I think is editor, I've forgotten now, I don't have it in my notes that are on screen right now, at, I want to say the British Medical Journal, although I'm not positive about that.
Are we live yet, Zach?
Nope.
Nope.
Okay, um, so don't go live on me yet, okay?
I need to go back and look at something.
I don't have it here.
Well, I'm just going to- abstract, and hopefully this comes up on the screen soon.
So the results of this paper- read.
The results in the abstract, which is the summary written by the authors of- of the paper, of the research they have done.
Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccines were associated with an increased risk of serious adverse events of special interest, with an absolute risk increase of 10.1 and 15.1 per 10,000 vaccinated over placebo baselines of 17.6 and 42.2. 95% confidence interval, etc. vaccinated over placebo baselines of 17.6 and 42.2. 95% confidence interval, etc.
Combined, the mRNA vaccines were associated with an absolute risk increase of serious adverse effects of special interest of 12.5 per 10,000.
95% confidence interval of 2.1 to 22.9.
The excess risk of serious adverse events of special interest surpassed the risk reduction for COVID-19 hospitalization relative to the placebo group in both Pfizer and Moderna trials, 2.3 and 6.4 per 10,000 participants, respectively.
So, in plain English, what they found by going and looking at the data that Pfizer and Moderna finally released is that the risks from these vaccines, the risks of serious adverse events, and they describe how those are defined, and they're defined pretty carefully and very much the same between Pfizer and Moderna, the incidence of serious adverse events
is higher than the benefits from the vaccines as measured by reduced hospitalizations.
That is consistent with all sorts of things we're seeing, of course.
This is a paper that is due to be published in a major journal by a lot of, you know, a lot of big names who are, you know, have not been, have not been deplatformed, have not been cancelled for saying such things.
And what this... I guess I'm thrown a little bit, because can you take the screen off of me directly, Brett Isaac?
Oh my goodness.
Okay, do you want to show my screen then?
Okay, let's just quickly show the paper if you can.
Okay, so this is the paper.
You can see they've put in big grey print across the back, you know, pre-print, not peer-reviewed.
But as we've talked about before, you've A. got, what, seven authors on here who are effectively each other's peers who are peer-reviewing it, and lots of other people who know what they're doing who have peer-reviewed this effectively.
But because most people who aren't scientists hear peer-review as the sine qua non of what The fact that it's not peer-reviewed is going to be used to... Dismiss it.
Dismiss it, and the fact is... All right.
All right.
We are back.
Sorry about that.
Apologies.
Tech problems all over the place.
So, this paper is a new take on somewhat old data.
It says much the same thing that many people have been saying in a slightly different form.
There has been, as far as I've seen, not a peep in the mainstream media about it.
I saw it, I don't remember how originally, but then I also saw it covered in Phil Harper's sub stack.
Robert Malone as well.
Okay, Robert Malone also talked about it.
And it's the same as the usual suspects, including us, talking about these things over and over and over again.
One has to wonder why.
What is going on?
So, sort of simultaneous with this being out recently, we have... Zach, if you would show the first... I'm going to ask you to show the three things that I sent to you.
We've got first, in Washington state, Wait, wait, can we go back and say a thing or two about this paper if we're going to move on?
Well, this is all connected, but sure.
One thing I want to say is that inherent to what this paper presents is a conservatism about the conclusion.
Right, really the conclusion is already the cost of those vaccinations exceeds the benefit.
The likelihood, so because they define serious adverse events, the likelihood that there is subclinical stuff that has been caused by these vaccinations, but that has not unfolded in a serious event yet, things that could be, that could remove decades from people's lives, right?
Those things are very likely to make the picture much, much worse the longer the time period over which you evaluate them.
And so effectively this paper is saying, within a year we have already reached a level of adverse events that exceeds any benefit we've seen.
The chances that the benefit… Well, actually I think it was Pfizer who only tracked it for a month after.
One of them.
I don't remember which one it was.
I think it was Pfizer that actually didn't even track for the whole year.
They just tracked for a month after the second dose of the vaccination, I think.
Right.
In any case, the point is over a short period of time, the amount of harm done by the vaccines is already exceeding the benefit done.
But because we know the benefit declines and the harm, we don't know what it does long term, but the chances that it does serious harm and then none is very, very low.
So the point is, the picture is likely to be much worse than they present.
Absolutely.
So your point, I didn't understand what you meant at first by conservative here.
It is important for scientists to convey a conservative interpretation of their own results, so that even if they think they're seeing something extremely strong, they stay within the conservative bounds of what it might mean, which increases the chances that what they're saying is true, although it may well undersell, under-describe what is actually true.
And so there are at least, I guess you've described maybe three ways that these results here are likely to be conservative.
That the benefits of the vaccines decline over time, the costs of the vaccines will increase over time, and therefore a short time period of measurement will appear to make the benefits be higher than they actually are and also appear to underweigh the costs.
And then you also have what was the third one?
I can't remember at the moment what the third way that it was conservative.
Well, it's conservative in multiple ways.
I think one we didn't mention was that were you to do an all-cause mortality over a very long period of time, you would catch lots of little harms that don't show up in particular adverse events.
Yeah, and actually that's related to the one I had in my head, which I think you did allude to before, which is that they have specified In order to be very careful, in order to make it maximally quantitative, serious adverse events, and that means that anything that is not designated as serious or anything that is subclinical in any way, or indeed, again, this is related to the first points, anything that has a delayed effect, is unlikely to be captured here.
Right.
And I will also point out that those of us in the heterodox scientific and medical community are very concerned about the degree to which the aggressiveness of this campaign and the focus on vaccinating everybody, irrespective of whether or not their particular jeopardy suggested it might be of value to them,
Has the collateral effect of making it very hard to figure out how much harm was done by the vaccines because it makes the control group that much Smaller and harder to identify right and that's and that's related to where I was about to go.
Okay, so in Washington State Zach if you want to show that first link Governor Inslee is mandating, that's really tiny, mandating vaccines for state employees.
And this is a story on the Washington state governor's site.
July 1st, Governor Jay Inslee has directed his cabinet agencies to implement policies to require their employees to be vaccinated against COVID-19.
The Office of Financial Management will begin the process of rulemaking and engage in bargaining with labor.
New mandates in July of 2022, when the evidence is abundant and ever-growing that these vaccines are not what was promised and are indeed, as the preprint that we were just discussing, suggests, are doing more harm than good.
Okay, next link I sent you, Zach.
So, wait, wait, wait.
Can I pause and suggest something here?
In terms of practicality, right, we are getting a number of different signals on a number of different channels that suggest something that you and I intuited up front at the beginning of all of this vaccine stuff before there was any evidence, which was that the DNA-based vaccines were likely to be much safer for various reasons.
And so the fact is, if you are in a position where you are being forced to take one of these vaccines, Right?
You may have a very difficult choice to make.
But!
If you were to go with one of the DNA-based vaccines, the Ben article that we discussed several weeks back suggested that the DNA-based vaccines actually, at least so far, show some benefit, not all of which comes from COVID, so there's a mystery about why they might have a positive effect, and that could certainly reverse... Did you say Ben?
Christine Ben, who's the author.
But we have that piece of evidence.
We have what I believe is going to turn out to be correct, which is that the pseudouridine problem will not afflict the mRNAs that result in spike protein.
And so anyway a person and you have just a simple fact that each of the vaccination Incidents seems to carry some separate risk.
And so a vaccine that requires one dose rather than two has a benefit there as well.
So We are not giving medical advice, but were we faced with a difficult choice and we understand that many people were But choosing between vaccines, so far we've seen several independent reasons to think that probably what risks exist are reduced in the case of those.
And in Canada, Zachary, we are told two doses are no longer enough.
This is in Toronto Sun on July 4th.
Canadians now required to get COVID shot every nine months.
That sounds like quite a vaccine we got going there.
Health Minister Jean-Yves Duclos told reporters.
So the Toronto Sun says, if you thought you were fully vaccinated, think again.
Oh, you guys are not seeing the screen anymore.
No, we can we can move on.
And so, and then finally in this little, you know, this little trio of, okay, Governor Inslee in Washington state says actually all state employees with some limitations need to be vaccinated.
Canada is saying actually you got to get boosters every nine months.
And Elmo.
Elmo is on it as well.
So, Zach, if you want to show Elmo from Sesame Street talking about his vaccination status, let's do this.
Yes, we do.
It's the video that we want to show.
All right.
Well, background information on Elmo.
He's red.
I was going to ask you, because although he seems red to me, I wasn't.
Well, and you can see from that little screenshot that Zach just showed us, his dad is also red, suggesting higher certainty of paternity than you might have otherwise thought.
We don't actually know the range of colors within whatever subspecies of Muppet Elmo might be.
Oh, you think all the Muppets can't interbreed?
I don't... I mean, I guess if Kermit and Miss Piggy... Right, I mean, maybe it was just a tryst.
I don't know.
Maybe they... we didn't see any little frog pig babies.
Right.
Yeah, tadpigs.
Yeah, and then there's of course Haldane's Rule, the possibility that the... were they to have produced hybrid Muppet babies, that the one that was heterogametic would have been born still, would have been infertile or short-lived.
Oh boy, it's tough too with Kermit being a frog and all, and the incredibly high rate of polyploidy in frogs, and just how is that going to work with your genetic sex determination over here with mammals, and then you've got a lot of crazy genetics going on.
This is worse than being star-crossed.
It's being, I don't know, felt-crossed or something.
Felt-crossed.
Felt-crossed lovers.
Yeah, okay.
Well, I think that was a fine little Muppet meeting, Jax.
We successfully avoided dead air.
Goodness.
You have the video to show our audience now, Zach?
Excellent.
Now Daddy has super-duper bandages, just like Elmo!
You were super-duper today, getting your COVID vaccine, Elmo.
Yeah, there was a little pinch, but it was okay.
Elmo was really glad to have Daddy and Baby David there with him.
Baby David, where are you?
I had a lot of questions about Elmo getting the COVID vaccine.
Was it safe?
Was it the right decision?
I talked to our pediatrician so I could make the right choice.
I learned that Elmo getting vaccinated is the best way to keep himself, our friends, neighbors, and everyone else healthy and enjoying the things they love.
Daddy, Elmo and baby David have a question.
Can we have a hug?
Oh, come here, son.
Elmo loves you, Daddy.
I love you, too.
It's okay to have questions about COVID vaccines for your kids.
Get the latest facts by... Van Dyke?
Is that what those are called?
Those little goatee things?
Uh, no, that's a goatee.
That's just a goatee.
That's just a goatee.
That's just a goatee, yeah.
Yeah, he's looking pretty hip.
He's trying to get to the hip dads with their cute red kids and, uh...
And just explain to the kids, this is going to keep you safe.
It's going to keep your family and friends safe.
It's going to keep your community safe.
If you just get one of these shots, which, oh, don't pay any attention to the data behind the curtain and the papers and the researchers who are actually finding that no, no, this is not, this doesn't stop transmission and it doesn't stop infection.
And although lots of people like to respond once they're sick by saying, well, I'm sure glad I got the Like, this seems to be the new, like, fly in the Ukraine colors in your Twitter bio.
Like, once you get COVID, you're expected to say, or a lot of high-profile people say, At least I got boosted, at least I got vaccinated, else I'd sure as shit be sicker with COVID right now.
How do you know that?
It's not true.
It has been said by people who wear nice lab coats and look to be authoritative on the matter, but they've never shown us any evidence of this being true.
We've got a lot of people proclaiming it to be true, which by the way is not how science works.
No, and it is particularly disturbing to hear this done via Elmo, and to hear the particular nonsense about this is the best way to keep you, Elmo, safe, and your community, etc, etc.
Because there was never any implication from evidence that this made children who were healthy safer.
And so the idea is this was always about protecting people who were vulnerable by vaccinating children at unknown risk, right?
Which was never acceptable.
What sane, rational, decent society does such a thing?
But we've done it without explaining that that's what we're doing.
Now we've put this into a cute muppet And the whole point, the way the thing is structured, the whole idea is that the child watching their, you know, the cutest Muppet of all, declaring how proud he is and that his father did have questions, but they were all answered.
It's okay to have questions.
As long as you come to the same answer we have told you to come to.
Ask all the questions you want, but come to the right answer.
Right.
If you come to a different answer, then you're right wing, right?
And those questions were always wrong.
Right.
So the point is really using, manipulating, I mean this is just like the ice cream stuff and all of the various tactics that were used to manipulate.
What's the ice cream stuff?
Well they offered ice cream to kids who were getting vaccinated and things like that.
The point is manipulating children who are of course in need of protection from adults who wish to manipulate them for so many reasons.
This is adults who are wrong.
Manipulating children so as to override the legitimate questions that their thinking parents might have and the point is Oh, well, it all ends up with the parent deciding to vaccinate the child who doesn't need it because he's a healthy young Muppet, you know?
Yeah, I guarantee you Elmo didn't need it.
Elmo didn't need it.
Yeah.
No.
He's a Muppet.
He's a Muppet.
Yeah, the only basis on which Elmo could arguably be... On the other hand, Elmo wasn't harmed by it either, on account of... He's a Muppet.
Well, there's that, but I'm also thinking Elmo has gotta be 30 or 40.
He's a pedomorphic Muppet.
Right, he is a pedomorphic.
No, he's a Muppet stuck in time as they all are.
He's a Muppet stuck in time.
Okay, so anyway, the whole point is that how diabolical is this?
That even at this point at which any rational person should be able to look at this and say, look, overall, safe?
No.
Effective?
How crippled do you have to make that term before it applies to these most appallingly ineffective vaccines, right?
You have to really bend that term.
They have to be, well, it's effective at something, so go get it.
What is that something?
It's not controlling the pandemic, right?
It's not keeping you from giving it to your family or getting it from them.
You know, at best, it's to keep vulnerable people out of the hospital, and they're giving it to people who aren't vulnerable.
Right.
It's insane.
So in light of all of this, I wanted to share a conversation that I had this week.
I'm going to change enough details so as to fully anonymize the people, but it's two women who I've met before, and they will know that I'm talking about them, but they will also see that I have changed enough details that they will remain anonymous.
But your identity remains in the open in this conversation.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
So I'm walking one of the days that it was beautiful out this week, actually on the 4th of July, and I was going to see the parade, one of the parades that was happening here, and ran into these two lovely women.
I think, I actually don't know your guys' ages, but I think you're maybe a couple decades older than us, because you've got kids just, you know, a little younger than us.
These women are wide awake, they're liberal, and they are not buying the mainstream media nonsense.
They are both vaccinated against COVID, both with J&J, and they have no intention of getting any boosters.
Although in one of their cases, their son said the reason that they got injected the first time was that their son said, actually, Ma, you can't see your grandkids unless you get a vaccine.
And so she very reluctantly went and got the one that she perceived to be the safest one, the J&J.
And she wished she hadn't had to.
And so the conversation I then had, you know, when she's telling me this, is she says, I'm kind of an anti-vaxxer from way back.
And I raised my eyebrows at her.
I'm like, really?
Why?
She says, Well, I never took the flu vaccine, for instance.
I said, Well, okay, but you know, the flu vaccine isn't really a vaccine.
If you think about it, you know, if we're defining vaccine really liberally, and these COVID vaccines are vaccines, the flu vaccine is vaccine, okay.
But actually, they're kind of cheating when they're calling these things vaccines.
And, you know, anything with really rapidly fading efficacy, such that you need shots within a year, you know, Canada's saying nine months.
Actually, J.J.
Cooey's insistence, and I think he's right, on calling them transfections rather than vaccines, right?
I have not heard him say that about flu.
No, about the COVID vaccine.
Oh, certainly.
Yes.
Yes.
Not about flu.
So I said, okay, so, you know, a lot of people have been skeptical about getting the flu vaccine.
So I don't, I don't think that makes you an anti-vaxxer.
And she said, okay.
So I was like, but you haven't gotten any vaccines?
And she says, Oh, I'm up to date on my tetanus shot.
And she said, I got MMR.
And when I travel, I always get the recommended vaccines like yellow fever.
And I said, well, you're hardly an anti-vaxxer then.
What you are is a tradvaxer.
A tradvaxer.
And I'm also a tradvaxer.
I think you're also a tradvaxer.
And Trad here obviously has implications over in, like, Trad Wife space.
Trad Wife?
Hell no.
Neither of these women would abide by that name.
I certainly don't.
Hell no.
Trad Vax?
Referring to what vaccines originally were, the mechanism by which they work, the reason that they are effective in getting your immune system to become aware of something in a small way such that if they become infected, if the body becomes exposed to the actual virus or whatever the pathogen is in a larger form, it has a head start on it?
Yeah.
Absolutely.
As we say in our book, vaccines, along with antibiotics and surgery, are three, are the three things in Western medicine that Western medicine has the most to be proud of.
But that doesn't mean that anything you slap the label on, vaccine, is necessarily a vaccine.
And so these, Tradvaxer, that's, that's what she, she's not anti-vaxxer, she's a Tradvaxer.
Yeah, I love the term Tradvaxer.
I'm a little concerned that we're stuck In that it's not exact.
The line that one might draw if one had access to really good information on which vaccines are net valuable.
I'm not sure that the line is and I'm not sure how far back it has to be traditional.
Oh and actually I mean this is something that I wrote out but I'm not gonna Go into here, but exactly right, that there is no line, there is no timeline before which and after which everything was pure or not.
We began to move away from By virtue of a new platform, new mechanisms of action, what the early vaccinologists were doing very quickly.
And that doesn't mean that some of those advances weren't promising, but many of them were dangerous in ways that because they were incremental or because the public never was aware of them, we just accepted.
So I just want to introduce some of the necessary nuance here.
One, just because something works by the traditional mechanism doesn't mean it's worth the risk, right?
True.
So you can have a... Cholera.
Right.
I believe... You already covered this one in a past week.
Yeah, but I have not looked at it.
I believe that cholera is a fairly traditional vaccine that is not worth taking if you are a Westerner traveling into a place that has cholera, both because the efficacy of the cholera vaccine is known to be very low Yeah.
as a westerner traveling even in very remote places you are very likely to have access to clean water which is your best way to stay clear of cholera or to clear it from your system yeah yeah but increasingly I am alarmed by anything that uses killed virus or fractions of a killed virus because of the need for
So although the killed virus in principle might be in one way safer than an attenuated virus because the killed virus can't evolve, it is... Killed virus vaccines are less likely to infect you with the thing you're trying to get inoculated against.
But the point is the body doesn't necessarily react to them the way it needs to in order to scale up the immunity because it doesn't read them as a real infection.
So it is more likely to garbage collect them than to react to them in a way that creates adaptive immunity.
So, to beat that, they've introduced these things that annoy the immune system and make it seem sick so that it reacts as if it's infected, right?
They create the artificial impression of something being wrong and they introduce this antigen and the two of those things come together and they generate a reaction, but who knows what else they generate a reaction to.
Who knows how much autoimmunity, who knows how much food allergy or environmental allergy might be caused by that.
So for my money, I'd say attenuated vaccines are, despite the scary possibility, I mean, they do actually infect us.
That's how they work.
There's obviously a risk.
There's a risk with every single thing you put in your body.
Well, there's a risk, and there's also probably a cost.
And I am not convinced that we know How big those costs are that we measure them well.
In fact, the more we learn about how work is done to see whether something is worth the hazard, the more I'm convinced that we don't have a system capable of even giving us good information.
In this case, what is the distinction you're making between risk and cost for the live attenuated vaccines?
The risk is something that might happen to you, right?
Like some pathology that might emerge.
The cost might be, if you're going to have an attenuated virus vaccine, it's going to infect a certain number of cells.
Presumably those cells are ultimately destroyed by the immune system.
The immune system learns the formula in the process of destroying and discovering the antigens You've lost some cells.
Hopefully they're cells you can afford to lose, right?
If they're in a tissue that you're not going to die of the failure of that tissue, then it could very well be worth it.
If the disease itself isn't very serious, maybe it's not worth it.
So 100% of the time there is some cost.
Right.
And the vast majority of the time with effective, successful live attenuated vaccines, that cost is relatively minor and the benefit far outweighs the cost.
Right, it would be hoped.
The problem is because the people doing the testing are obviously the people with a perverse incentive over discovering that wouldn't you know it these things are safe and hey they're terrifically effective, or no, terrifically efficacious, and we should actually get back to that distinction.
But in any case, The initial vaccine, right?
Jenner's discovery of the vaccine is effectively live attenuated, right?
Because what he used was, or what he found was that cowpox had cross-reactivity with smallpox.
Yeah.
No, it's actually perfect.
So live attenuated to me sounds like something's been done to it to make it a little bit less virulent, but it's the same human pathogen.
But if you've got a sister pathogen whose host is heterospecific, that is to say a different species than humans, that also has cross-infectivity.
That's perfect.
Right.
And in fact, you know, basically what he noticed was that the milkmaids weren't getting smallpox because they were all Downstream of cowpox, right?
And so it was attenuated by nature and that led to the discovery and all of that and it's a very elegant mechanism.
What to do with all the, you know, I do have a concern.
To J.J.
Cooey's point, and I'm increasingly convinced that although I dismissed the linguistic distinction before, I think this is an error that I made.
The transfection question is a serious one, right?
To call this a vaccine smuggles it in in a category that feels safer than it is actually, but it's way safer than some untested technology that um does involve instead of producing the vaccine in a factory turning you into a vaccine factory right that's what it does and um well and so the linguistic smuggling yeah uh it almost seems like
Even if we weren't actively set up, we were effectively actively set up for many, many years by understanding, you know, everyone in polite society is like, oh, we know that the anti-vaxxers is just a different group, right?
And so what that creates is an understanding that for I believe the vast majority of us before COVID would have said, yes, pro-vaccine, but would I accept anything called a vaccine if what it actually was was an experimental medical treatment that didn't have the data behind it that we were being told and whose creators had perverse financial incentives that went deeper than we can ever imagine?
Most people would have said, well, just because you put that label on it doesn't mean that I'm going to take it.
Right.
And so this one word, and there are a few of these, but the word vaccine has such cachet, has such cachet for people, that it has been that, you know, even now, we've got the state of Washington, the governor of the state of Washington, the prime minister of Canada saying, actually, no, all y'alls need to be vaccinated and boosted and all of this, even in the face of increasingly overwhelming evidence that these are not the vaccines you were told they were.
Right.
These aren't vaccines at all.
They're transfections.
I don't know, but I don't see any reason why the flu vaccine isn't a vaccine.
I think it's just a lousy one.
So maybe there's something I don't know about it, but I think it is a vaccine by the mechanistic definition.
It's just not effective enough to be worthwhile and has costs that we don't acknowledge.
I have one other point.
It had to do with the DNA transfection mechanism but I can't remember what it was.
Anyway, nonetheless there is something to the idea that were you to say, you know, oh James is anti-pharmaceutical, he's anti-pill, right?
That wouldn't make any sense because presumably James, whatever his conditions might be, should be anti just about every pill and only accept those for which there's evidence that it would be more beneficial to him than costly, right?
And in fact, we recognize in the case of every single pharmaceutical pill That there is toxicity to it, and so built into the model is there's a cost and it needs to exceed that cost in your particular case.
Well, you know, anti-pharmaceutical could be perhaps more accurately for most of us described as the default position is no thank you.
I need to be convinced that this is going to be valuable for me, that the net benefit outweighs the costs.
That there is net benefit, rather.
And that, somehow, that position, which is an extraordinarily reasonable and middle-of-the-road position, has been denounced as anti-scientific, as right-wing, as bad for public health, as therefore anti-community-spirited, and it is none of these things, Elmo and his father notwithstanding.
Right.
Now this reminds me of what I was going to say.
There is a hallmark, in fact I think there are several hallmarks of corruption.
How much of what we think is true about x, y, or z vaccine or transfection agent is the result of a corrupt system?
One of the hallmarks of it is going to be the gap between Efficaciousness and effectiveness.
Right?
Now the distinction between these things, as you know, is that efficacy is under scientific conditions.
It's basically in the lab, right?
Or during the trials.
Right.
And effectiveness is empirically in the world.
How well does it work?
After the trials have ended, if it's been stamped by the FDA or whomever, And now it's just out being used by the general population, then we're talking effectiveness.
Right.
So, there are reasons for these two numbers not to be the same, right?
For example, if a protocol is very effective against a disease, but it's very difficult for a person to follow, you may find people not following it very well, and so the effectiveness will be lower.
On the other hand, That doesn't apply to something like these transfection agents.
Nope.
Right?
The point is it gets administered under the eyes of an expert by an expert and it has its effect or it doesn't and that's not Well, I mean, there is actually one thing that we know of.
Aspiration.
Right.
Wherein, presumably, although who knows, but in the trials you had people giving the shots who actually had been trained for the five minutes they needed to be trained in how to actually give a shot, which included aspiration.
Well, that'd be fascinating if they had been trained to do it.
And then we, there is now ample anecdotal evidence that some number of people who seem to have, who now be downstream of vaccine injuries, COVID vaccine injuries, had people delivering the shots who did not know to, what is it, aspirate the needle?
I'm not actually sure the grammatical way to say it.
Aspirate the syringe.
Yeah.
So the reason that this matters is because In general if you put the needle in an arbitrary distance you don't hit a blood vessel and so whatever you're injecting goes into the the lymph space essentially and therefore it has time to infect you know if it's a if it's a vaccine it has time to infect the cells right there so it doesn't just float around the body and infect cells randomly and Frankly, making your arms sick is better than making your lungs sick, for example.
So it matters a lot.
So if they trained people in the trials to do this correctly, so the idea is if you happen to hit a blood vessel and you inject the thing, so the thing is circulating now in your blood rather than in the interstitial space.
That's a hazard because it's not by design.
You want this to be localized.
Right, so if they trained people, if they understood that this needed to be done correctly in the trial in order to reduce the number of adverse events.
In order for it to actually be an effective treatment, right?
Efficacious treatment.
Well, I mean, let's put it this way.
There's another The weird phenomenon here is that you're talking about a respiratory virus, and you're talking about the injection in the arm, and so there's a question about whether that made sense in the first place.
But nonetheless... A spritz up the nose might have been a more effective vaccine.
Yeah.
We didn't have that vaccine.
But in any case, if you've hit a blood vessel and you inject it, that's bad.
Teaching people to figure out whether they've hit a blood vessel before they inject the stuff is not difficult.
And the fact that it was not done, and is apparently still not being done, is insane.
So that was a very important potential difference here, but in any case what I wanted to get at is If pharma games its own trials to make things look much more efficacious than they are and much less hazardous than they are, then what that will look like is a giant gap between what was reported from the trials and what we see out in the wild.
And of course, getting rid of the control group more generally by vaccinating everybody is one way to prevent that from happening but what we are seeing I mean if you unblinding the unblinding the trial so the actual control group ceases to be and then trying to vaccinate everybody irrespective of whether or not an age stratification makes any argument whatsoever for vaccinating some of them is another good way and so what what is all this?
Well, one hallmark of it being about corruption is, oh, they told me this thing was 90 plus percent efficacious and its effectiveness is garbage.
Now they're telling me I need one every nine months, right?
They're telling me I need one every nine months and it doesn't prevent transmission or contraction of the virus.
So what is that gap between, oh, these things are stellar and yeah, it's garbage.
You're going to need one all the time.
Right?
That's a measure of corruption, as is the double standard between the various metrics that these new agents are exposed to versus existing agents that are repurposed.
And we should come back to that another day.
Double standard is one hallmark of corruption and a vast gap between efficaciousness and effectiveness, right?
These two technically different things is going to be another one.
Indeed.
All right, I think we're done with that for today.
Yes.
You wanted to say a little bit about Jordan Peterson and the actress, actor, Ellen, I think, Elliot Page.
Yes.
And how Jordan Peterson got kicked off Twitter.
Right.
So I will say we're catching up to this story probably much later than most people in our audience.
You and I were in transit and I only, I think, yesterday finally saw the video that Jordan had put out where he responds to apparently being suspended from Twitter, but suspended with the agreement that he would have to delete his tweet but suspended with the agreement that he would have to delete his tweet about Ellen slash Elliot Page in order to And Jordan said something for which he was mocked by many people, which is that he'd rather die than delete the tweet.
Now, I don't think anybody Who has been less predictive than Jordan Peterson about the catastrophe of these linguistic games and their implication for a wider kind of failure is in any position to criticize him for saying that because I know what he's saying.
He's not saying, I'd rather die than delete a tweet.
What he's saying is, I know what that implies, right?
This is somebody.
This is a hell I've long seen.
Most of you could not see this hell.
Mocked me years ago when I was on this hell.
Right.
And I mean, this is metaphorically, this is the hell that I'll die on, is what he's saying.
Well, and he's saying it having correctly, you know, he was mocked before for saying, hey, Bill C-19 is compelled speech, right?
I won't do it.
You know, I asked him personally the first time I met him.
I said, you know, look, I got, I got a lot of trans students.
I, you know, I call them what they asked me to call them, which by the way was never they, right?
It was it was never sir.
It was always he or she, right?
And he said, oh, I'll call what they asked me to as so long as they are making an attempt to present that way, right?
He's not an unreasonable guy.
He's just saying you can't Nor is he mean.
You can't force me to say stuff, right?
And forcing me to say stuff is actually one step down the road, down an authoritarian path that is actually well understood.
And so anyway, what he's saying is, look, I, Jordan Peterson, am not going to participate in that because I know what it is.
As trivial as the example may seem, I know what it is and I'm not going to be part of that thing, which I have to say I respect and admire.
Even if I might make a different choice in his shoes, right?
Because the reason he didn't want to delete it, according to the video, Uh is um that the way Twitter does not explain what it is that he's done that violates the rules and he goes through a taxonomy of what it might be all of it is absurd but you know there are various things um but he what he says is in Twitter says you will delete the tweet and by doing so acknowledge that you violated the rule against
harassment or threatening or whatever it might have been when in fact what he has done is speak he is effectively dead named which is you might notice not illegal right it's
It's not even obvious that it is in and of itself a it's it's a made-up crime Right, and I would point out you and I have actually covered this very issue on this podcast I don't remember exactly when it was maybe we can figure it out, but we talked about the fact that Bradley Manning is now reported by his Wikipedia page, and I checked before the podcast, it's still true.
Bradley Manning has been transmuted into Chelsea Manning, and that has been imposed on the piece of history in which he conveyed classified documents to WikiLeaks.
And the point is, it says Chelsea Manning did it.
Which is absurd, but it's even more obviously absurd when you take Bruce slash Caitlyn Jenner.
Right.
Caitlyn Jenner was not an Olympic award-winning athlete in whatever that was.
A decathlon winner in the men's division.
Was not.
Right.
It's not that sport is the most important thing that we are fighting for.
It is that sport is so obvious.
It is so obvious in sport that men who transition to calling themselves women and presenting as women will never be, cannot be, women.
And if they went through puberty as men, as boys into men, They will always have male characteristics that do not change no matter what their circulating androgen levels change to.
No matter what.
So, Caitlyn Jenner is not an Olympic award-winning athlete.
Bruce Jenner is.
Those two personas exist in the same body.
Right?
When Caitlyn Jenner dies, Bruce Jenner dies.
And the idea that by saying, Bruce Jenner, you are deadnaming.
Really?
Bruce Jenner is dead?
There's one human being and they have changed persona and they have changed the way they present to the world, but it is one human being.
Yeah.
And so a couple of things.
One, This is clearly true.
In both of the cases that you and I are talking about, not only are we talking about a matter of public record, we are talking about the ability to describe historical facts.
Right.
You cannot get in the road of people describing.
It's not disrespectful to say Bradley Manning conveyed classified documents to WikiLeaks, was incarcerated, right, and then transitioned Under incarceration, right?
There's nothing disrespectful about that.
It's just a simple description of facts.
And the idea that deadnaming is part of it, a simple description of facts, no, this is beyond Orwellian, right?
Maybe it's not, it's hard to get beyond Orwell, but it's pretty solidly Orwellian to tell people, oh, no, you can't describe things that are just simply true and matters of record.
And I would point out, Wikipedia reports this wrongly.
The New York Times reported it wrongly in the Bradley Manning case.
Rolling Stone does the same thing.
The point is we are accepting this change in the rules that obviously is incompatible with a functional society without ever having discussed what the costs and benefits of that change are.
And that is alarming.
Now, I tweeted something right before our stream.
I just simply described Bradley Manning's conviction, incarceration, etc.
I just described it factually.
Now my guess is Twitter's not going to do anything about it, right?
Did I deadname Chelsea Manning by mentioning that Bradley Manning existed and was a he?
No, and I doubt Chelsea Manning would say so.
But the point is, all of this.
Jordan makes this point in his video very clearly.
The whole point of this is the arbitrary application of the rules.
It's not about the rules.
The point is we want the right to get rid of those that we deem trouble, right?
And so the point is the arbitrary application is the point.
And maybe they'll come after me.
It's like a low-posted speed limit in a town.
That's exactly it.
Yeah, where most people who drive above the speed limit never get stopped, but almost anyone is at risk of getting stopped because almost everyone is going what the speed limit should be.
And, therefore, when you do get pulled over, if you happen to be, you know, black or Arab or, you know, whatever it is in that town or that place.
Jewish, a hippie, gay, whatever it is.
Right.
The police have cover.
And, you know, this is maybe a somewhat dated example at this point, but low posted speed limit rules are used to selectively, used so that you can, so that the authorities can selectively apply them.
And in this case, the authorities is the woke mob.
Right.
Exactly.
This doesn't show up, right?
The beauty of selective enforcement from the point of view of authoritarians who aspire to being petty dictators is that they are left with discretion.
The vagueness of the rules is part of that.
the fact that you aren't told what it is what you know Jordan you know it's a tweet it's not very long but there are three potential places in there that they might have flagged him and they don't say which it is so he doesn't say which of them he's acknowledging if he deletes the thing right so it's vague to begin with
Um, you're not given information and there's no venue where you could go and say, you know, uh, you know, our friend Dr. Rollergator is still suspended from Twitter for, uh, facetiously invoking the idea of a slap with a glove, which is in itself symbolic as we talked about in our last stream.
So that, you know, The point is some people are going to be exposed to this, others will not.
That's a feature, not a bug.
That's the point of the system, is to be able to arbitrarily wield power where you want and to immunize those that you don't want to do this to, which is a mechanism of control.
And it's very serious that it gets in our our venue for discussing important issues, unfortunately, which is, of course, what Elon Musk was was animated by in his pursuit of Twitter to liberate it.
You speak in the past tense.
Well, as far as I know, it's on hold.
I I hope he revives it, and I hope that the episode with Jordan Peterson functions like the Leah Thomas episode in Swimming did, where it's so obviously insane that the point is scales will fall from many eyes over it.
The last thing I wanted to say, though, is Jordan, in his Beautifully Lit video... Beautifully Lit?
Yes, it's marvelously lit.
Literally?
Yes, very well done.
Production values are... Okay, we're not talking metaphorically lit.
Oh, it's on fire, but it's also beautifully lit.
Anyway, he ends up in the trap that we also have talked about here, where he is forced To explain why something that's obviously nonsense and dangerous is nonsense, right?
And so he finds himself at length in this chair trying to make it clear enough that everyone will understand exactly what absurd thing has taken place.
And I still believe, and I do not know the mechanism, but I still believe those of us who see this for what it is have to figure out how to free ourselves from the obligation Of answering the sophists.
Right?
The fact is, history happens.
It's messy.
People may harbor mean intent that you cannot prove.
You cannot go around prosecuting because you think you can detect somebody's mean intent in a particular tweet.
That's not how it works, right?
And so, anyway, somehow we have to free ourselves from the obligation to respond.
And Jordan's case, I don't think he had a choice.
But it is interesting.
You can see if you just Watch the thing and you listen to him working hard to explain in, you know, in a way that it's clear enough and that he doesn't trip over any of the tripwires that have been arrayed around the place.
You know, it's pretty clear what's taking place.
Nice.
All right, the last thing that I wanted to talk about briefly here before we sign off for the week was prompted by I am much of the way through but not yet done with listening to a novel that I'm finding quite extraordinary.
It's called The Only Woman in the Room by Marie Benedict.
That's a pen name.
And it's a fictionalized history.
It's historical fiction about Hedy Lamarr, who was an extraordinary woman.
And let's just go to this example first by way of introducing the idea that sort of expanded from this.
In it, in the book, and I assume that this is more or less accurate.
I have not gone and sort of checked it against biographies of Hedy Lamarr.
She's got this awful husband.
She's got this Austrian munitions dealer whom she is married to as a young gorgeous actress, but she can't be an actress anymore when she's married to him because he says no.
And her Jewish parents, who find her interested in this guy, not completely reviled by him at first, say it might be protective.
Given how much he wants you, it might be protective for you to marry him because Hitler's right over the border.
And he, this munitions dealer who becomes her husband, is interested in independent Austria, in keeping Austria independent of Germany.
Well, we all know how that ends up, and the husband, of course, becomes more and more controlling, as men of a certain personality type, and as men, powerful men, historically often have been, of the women in their lives.
And so she's got, you know, she's incredibly wealthy and she's stunningly gorgeous and also incredibly brilliant.
But she's got, you know, gowns and jewelry and all the best food and she has, you know, all of the amenities.
But she's not allowed to go out by herself, and she's not allowed to pursue the science that actually her father has taught her and that she's very interested in, or her acting, which is what she had begun to do and was excellent at.
And so she says, this Lamar character in the book, the only woman in the room, she says, I wanted for nothing but liberty and purpose.
And that struck me as exactly right.
That many people's ideas of what they would give to people in their care is a life of leisure.
You know, some of the ideas of heaven are ones in which There's nothing to be done but sit around idly and eat bonbons that are brought to you.
And in fact, it's telling, I think, that in most of those cases, the people who themselves are imagining that they are trying to create a life like that for others do not want it for themselves.
They know that.
So this is often seen with, you know, powerful men enacting control over women.
It's seen with many kinds of parents, especially modern helicopter parents enacting, you know, control which, you know, looks like love and protection.
over their children.
But in fact, children also, not babies.
There's obviously a gradient from complete helplessness to complete unhelplessness, but you don't learn how to be helpful and useful and do work in the world and find value from your own You know, productivity, or service, or creativity, or discovery, or whatever it is.
Whatever it is that you are going to do to make meaning in the world, you won't discover if you are simply protected from all things that are useful.
And many parents are doing that now with their children.
And also, and this is a little farther afield, but many people who Think of themselves as communists or communist-adjacent.
Imagine a utopia in which, yes, everyone has to do some kind of work, but the work you do kind of doesn't even necessarily have to match to what you're interested in or what you're best at.
There's a certain amount of low-level work that needs to get done, and that will free us all to... to what?
To, like, this leisure that what people aren't recognizing is leisure, when earned, is fantastic.
And we can all look forward to it, and it is exactly what we can use as a reward as we're working through the parts of our work that isn't that rewarding.
But if it's just leisure all the time, it quickly becomes its own kind of prison.
And I think the thing that is missing, either intentionally or not, from all of these examples of people who want to protect others from work is that meaning is found in work.
For much of us, the meaning of life is actually found in You know, struggling through figuring out what problems need to be solved, through discovery, through exploration, through creativity, through healing, through service to others, through protecting others, through a number of teaching.
Like, there are all sorts of leadership.
There are all sorts of verbs that you can invoke here by which you might actually find meaning, but they all involve work.
And being protected from any of that is actually going to produce quite the opposite.
And then you will enrage those people who have effectively captured you, because they will say you're being ungrateful.
How dare you not appreciate all I've done to protect you from ever having to work?
Well, no, actually, there is value in work.
This is an error that I think comes from the path dependency of evolution having been discovered late in the history of people.
That's interesting.
You have cost, the amount of energy you have to spend to do something, the amount of time that you have to spend to do it, the amount of suffering that is involved in doing it, and you have reward, which is internally generated, right?
Which is, ah, I have that sense of accomplishment, or I've earned this time off and I'm going to savor it, whatever it is, right?
And so if you are only paying attention somatically, And you notice, oh, the glorious thing is what comes after the suffering and all of the investment.
And wouldn't it be glorious if, I mean, first of all, we do try to minimize, as we should, the amount of suffering and investment to get to a given level of reward, right?
I used to tell our students, that work was a necessary evil.
I did not mean that it is in any way desirable to not work hard, but the basic point is if you have two people who have to work a different amount to reach the same level of productivity, you want the one who worked less to produce the same amount of value.
Not because that makes you, you know, not because we're trying to get to a leisurely state where no work is involved, but because it means that you actually have room to do something else that generates more value.
And hopefully, you know, this is why I rant and rave to, I think, nobody's delight about the problem of the idea of recreation, right?
That fun is something you are supposed to have In the process of accomplishing something, right?
And that when you start thinking that fun is the whole point, rather than fun is the reward to get you to be active and do something, you invert the system.
And what we find out is exactly what you're pointing out, which is that people who have a life that looks like this often are not, you know, wonderful people.
They're spoiled brats.
Or satisfied with their own lives.
Right, it doesn't satisfy you.
Actually, it leaves you rudderless.
And so I don't know how we Cure people of their understandable but very wrong instinct about what they think they want.
Right?
But it's important that we do because you know, I mean we thought we've also talked about the fact that what happened to us that tossed us out of a Set of careers in which we knew what we were supposed to do every day right
That that was a you know that was a violent upheaval but it did fill life with purpose and it's not that the life that we had before hadn't any purpose it had a ton of it but the point is figuring out how to navigate in the world did create many interesting puzzles and obviously the ability to have an impact you know as people were paying attention to what we thought about various things it created a lot of meaning and I think
You know, if you pursued meaning that was substantial to you, then you would find that all the things that you think you want without having to work for them are downstream of it.
They would have to be because for them to be valuable to you, you already have the circuit that will release those rewards at the point that you accomplish whatever it is.
Yeah, no, that's right.
That's very well said.
I think people who are pursuing that thing, you know, retire before 30, become a millionaire before 30 or whatever the current number should be to make that make sense economically.
It's begging for a kind of infantilized life and for being unmoored and, you know, some number of people will be able to having effectively, and I don't like this language because I don't like the idea that our time doesn't belong to us and we have to buy it back, but that's very, very backwards and it sort of emerges with the Industrial Revolution.
That whole concept that our labor is not ours to begin with, and our time is not ours to begin with.
But certainly in the modern economy, having a certain amount of money allows you to have access to your time, which should have been yours to begin with.
But of course, many people get their time back not by doing that, but by making different choices around what kinds of things they are going to be willing to never have access to.
You know, not participate in the market economy in quite the same way, but have a tremendous amount of freedom in terms of who they are beholden to and how they can move around the world and how they're able to spend their time.
Yeah, there's a strange kind of communism in the idea that your time doesn't belong to you and you're going to have to buy it back, right?
Because the idea is, well, no, you're working for the collective, you're working for the economy, right?
And it's nonsense.
I did used to tell students don't be shy about earning money and buying back your time.
Now, of course, my point to them was not so that you can squander it on video games.
My point was you want as much of your time as possible so you can do with it something you value, right?
There's something dehumanizing About doing labor the product of which you care nothing about, right?
You're filing somebody else's papers if you're flipping burgers that you didn't you know, it's not that you've got a recipe for burgers you're Stuck in some job the consequence of which is not important to you that's in its own way a mini tragedy and the extent that you can recover your time and and
Go do carpentry or art or, you know, think deep thoughts and convey them or whatever it is that you find value in, you should do that.
Because as you know, as you started with, the purpose in life is what actually derives the sort of deep sense of satisfaction.
And if you look And what's happened to virtually everything.
We talk in the book about the junkification of everything, right?
Junk relationships, junk sex, junk food, junk media, all that stuff.
The point is it's really about a very superficial thing that just gives you a little charge every now and again.
Rather than something, you know, deeply investing in something and accomplishing it after a couple of years and feeling that, you know, months of joy at finally having produced whatever it was.
Yeah.
So anyway, it's out there, but it requires it requires freeing yourselves from what the economy will do to you enough to be able to do what you want to do.
And anyway, if I could wish something for everybody is that they would have enough, whatever it is, I hate to focus on money, but enough resource and flexibility to generate that room to do something and then that you would do it.
Yeah, that's right.
All right, well, I think we've arrived.
I believe so.
I believe we've arrived.
Still Wednesday.
It is still Wednesday.
It is going to be Wednesday for a little while longer here on the west coast of the United States.
We are not going to do a Q&A this week, but when we return to you in a week and a half on Saturday the 16th, I believe, we will have a Q&A then.
In the meantime, we encourage you to go visit our new store, darkhorsestore.org.
Pick up some Pfizer merch, some YouTube merch, Tour de France, other things.
Other things there.
And, you know, check out all the things.
Subscribe to the stations.
The channels.
Like the video if you, in fact, liked it.
Share it.
Comment, I guess.
That helps the algorithm, I hear.
Like the video, and then like the video.
We want them to like the video.
Yes.
And then if they like the video, in the modern sense of that term, that would be great too.
Yes, yes it would be.
And share it.
And we thank you for all of the support that we hear from you, and hope that your, if you're in the Northern Hemisphere, your summer days are going beautifully.
So, be good to the ones you love, eat good food, and get outside.
