In this 175th 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.In the last three years we have witnessed mass violations of the Hippocratic Oath, and of the Nuremberg Code. Which of the 10 principles of the Code have been breached during Covid—or indeed, have any notbeen? Why is the WHO simultaneously crowing about pushing Covid vaccines on Africans, and launching a fear campaign again...
- Hey folks, welcome to the Dark Horse Podcast live stream number 175.
I'm Dr. Brett Weinstein.
This is Dr. Heather Hine.
We are streaming today on Rumble, about which you and I are both very excited in an era- That mean you?
No, no.
You and also I.
Are excited because in an era when free speech is back on its heels, Rumble is an exceptional platform that is delivering on our, what should be our collective commitment to the free exchange of ideas.
So anyway, we are very pleased to be here.
We are here.
It's about time.
We're thrilled to be here.
We encourage you to subscribe to the Rumble channel.
We'll continue to stream also or to post to YouTube, as long as they let us, and be putting content out on Spotify and Apple Podcasts and all those other places.
But the Q&A, which we do most weeks after these live streams, will only be live streamed on Rumble.
And then we'll post that on Spotify as well.
But Only on Rumble, no longer on YouTube.
So right now, if you're watching on YouTube, consider switching to Rumble now, and then you'll also get access to the Q&A, which we will follow up with.
And the last one out of YouTube, please turn off the lights.
Or don't.
No, I mean, for ecological reasons, I just... We don't want to leave the beam.
Do we?
Yeah.
I mean, it'll attract insects.
It might be better with insects.
I suppose.
Yeah, a good fly to buzz around their head while they were wondering where everyone went.
All right, so we will, as I just said, be doing a Q&A today.
And if you're just joining us for the first time, now that we're on Rumble, we do this for an hour, hour and a half, two hours, take a 10-15 minute break, and then we come back with a Q&A.
You can ask questions for the Q&A at some site that has disappeared from my notes.
Darkhorsesubmissions.com.
God knows where that went from the notes that have always been there.
Darkhorsesubmissions.com open now for you to ask your questions, and then we get through as many of them as we can.
And we start each week with a question from our Discord channel, which you can access for now at either of our Patreons, which we also encourage you to visit.
But soon, not yet, but soon, we'll be making all of that available at our locals as well.
So tomorrow also, as happens once a month, we're going to do a private Q&A just for people who are supporting us on Patreon.
Again, soon that'll be for people on Locals as well, but we are sticking with what we've been doing, tried and true, tomorrow.
So you'll get access to a private live stream right here on Rumble by joining me at my Patreon.
We should probably give them a trigger warning.
It is ridiculously fun because it is small, and we get to interact with the chat.
So anyway, it's a different ballgame, and anyway, very much worth it.
I think people who have been doing it really, really love it and look forward to it.
Yeah, it's a great group of people.
A lot of regulars, always some new people every time, and it's a lot of fun.
I also encourage you to find my writing weekly or almost weekly at naturalselections.substack.com, where I write about Anything and everything evolutionary, kind of like as we talk about anything and everything evolutionary, including sometimes things that are not like weather and rocks.
But I mostly stick to those things that are evolutionary, which includes like zebras and sex and sports cars.
For example, to take three examples that give you a sense for the breadth of the territory.
Yeah, exactly.
This week I wrote about males defending real estate in Malagasy poison frogs and also white-shouldered sparrows.
I think it's the common name of the species that there was all this ridiculousness recently in which the editor-in-chief of Scientific American decided that because they have There are two distinct chromosomal morphs that manifest differently in the two sexes that therefore must have four sexes, but no, that's bad logic and untrue, and I explored that a bit in Natural Selections this week.
You're not a good science follower, are you?
No, I'm not a very good follower of science, because I insist on actually thinking scientifically, yeah, and that's really the problem that we have had with so many of the platforms.
Well, all the Goliaths, basically.
Because instead of following the science TM, we actually insist on doing the science, and that's not what they want people to be doing.
And we'll be talking a lot about that today.
No, I would say that actually the platforms lack platform souls.
They are soulless platforms.
All right.
Somebody out there is going to get a laugh over platform souls.
I know it.
I don't know who it is.
They're probably awkward and keep to themselves mostly, but I'm sure they're going to get a little bit of joy. - So, okay, I'll just skip the next part.
We also have darkhorsestore.org where you can get things like Pfizer, where the breakthroughs never stop, run by, operated by a lovely couple in Kentucky.
Yeah, Louisville.
And they will never censor us, unlike the outfit where we used to sell stuff.
So go to darkhorsestore.org to find stuff there.
And we are, as we have mentioned, supported by you.
So we'll be increasing our presence on local soon, but for now we're at Patreon, where there's a vibrant Discord community, and we encourage you to go there, but especially now, we encourage you to subscribe to this Rumble channel, where we will begin uploading some of our previous content, and also now, and hopefully forever, Doing live streams from here and increasingly making exclusive content just on Rumble here.
We also have sponsors.
We choose our sponsors very, very carefully.
We reject more than we accept of those who come to us and we start each of these live streams with three ads.
And here we go!
All right, our sponsors this week are Helix, House of Macadamias, and Un-Cruise.
Our first sponsor is Helix.
Helix makes truly fantastic mattresses that are supremely sleep-enhancing.
There are few things worse than traveling to a new place, climbing into bed, and discovering that the mattress isn't comfortable.
And we all know the feeling of relief we get... Did you change this?
Maybe very slightly.
Did I change it badly?
Well, it just moves back and forth between you and we, so I'm just, I'm gonna, I'm gonna back up.
You're gonna back up?
Yeah, yeah, I'm gonna, I'm gonna just kind of ad-lib a little bit.
So, a great mattress is a really important, uh, is really important if you are accustomed to sleeping on mattresses, and I would say it's, um, you know, if you're climbing into a tent, you don't expect a good mattress.
You might get a really nice, uh, thin mattress, but If you're traveling and you've rented a hotel room or an Airbnb or something and you get onto a lumpy mattress or one that's too soft for you... I guess some people complain about too hard, although frankly that's probably better for you.
But if you get a mattress that has you tossing and turning all night and your sleep is therefore disrupted, the rest of your day is disrupted and frankly all of your all of your week is disrupted.
When you discover a great mattress that allows you to sleep well throughout the night, such that you actually slept well, you didn't just have the sense that you slept well, you have found the mattress for you.
And Helix makes so many different kinds of mattresses that are accustomed to what it is that you need and how you sleep, that Helix is that mattress.
It's amazing what a difference it makes.
It's a premium mattress brand, Helix is, that offers 20 different mattresses based on your unique sleep preferences.
Take the Helix Sleep Quiz online.
In less than two minutes, you'll be directed to which of their menu mattresses is best for you.
Do you sleep on your back, your stomach, or your side?
Do you toss and turn or sleep like a log?
You know, logs don't sleep.
No.
No.
And I stumbled on that before.
I wrote that in there.
Clams aren't happy.
Clams, oh, they might be satisfied.
Yeah.
All right, but I mean they should say that.
Yeah, so think about getting a Helix mattress and be as satisfied as a clam and as sleep-deprived as a log.
No, not, not, doesn't work.
Good thought.
Yeah, not really.
No, it wasn't a good thought at all.
Do you prefer a firmer or softer mattress?
So basically this sleep quiz allows you to tell them how it is that your body actually sleeps, you know, side, back, stomach, but also asks you things about how you behave during your sleep.
And all of that is taken into consideration when it then recommends a number of mattresses for you and also makes special mattresses for big and tall adults and one for kids as well.
Once you've found your perfect mattress from among the choices that it has selected among its...
Retinue?
I don't know.
It ships straight to your door, free of charge, and then you have 100 nights to try it out, free of charge.
Well, you pay for it and then there's no penalty.
If you want to send it back within those 100 nights, you get your money back and everything comes, all their mattresses come with 10 to 15 year warranties.
So, Helix has models with memory foam layers to provide optimal pressure relief if you sleep on your side, and models with a more responsive foam, which provides optimal support for stomach and back sleepers.
And every Helix mattress combines individually wrapped steel coils in the base with premium foam layers on top, providing excellent support for your spine and comfort for all of you.
Helix has been awarded the rank of number one mattress by both GQ and Wired Magazine.
The mattresses are made in America at their very own manufacturing facility.
That's very cool.
They are built for human bodies and built to last.
Helix also supports military, first responders, teachers, and students by giving them a special discount.
We look forward to our Helix mattress providing us with years of excellent sleep.
You should look forward to yours doing so as well.
Helix is offering 20% off all mattress orders and two free pillows for our listeners.
This is their best offer yet, and it won't last long.
With Helix, better sleep starts now.
I also now know what I will be doing after the Q&A, which is looking up the term retinue.
Yeah, I'm not sure it was the right word at all.
Yeah, I just don't, I don't know what it means.
I'm not even 100% sure I've heard it.
Anyway, we'll find out.
I'll report back.
Our second sponsor this week is House of Macadamias!
Trees are not edible, but tree nuts are delicious and nutritious.
They are generally high in fat and low in carbohydrates.
Unlike what various food pyramids and government agencies might have led you to believe, high-fat, low-carb foods are increasingly understood to be both satiating and good for you.
That's what you learn if you don't follow the science but actually think scientifically and consider what it is that we should be eating.
Each piece of nuts is different, of course, requiring a special mindset and appropriate footwear.
For fuck's sake, man!
Look, legal liability demands that we alert people to various hazards, and I thought that they should just be made aware.
I'm just going to step outside of the ad for a moment and say this.
I usually take the talking points that we get from the sponsors that we love, that we have accepted, and turn them into scripts that sound like us.
I was deep in accounting and bookkeeping hell late into last night.
had not done the scripts for this week yet, and Brett offered, you offered.
Yes, I did.
And I said, okay, I'm going to send you the latest scripts, and for one of these there's some new stuff to incorporate, and for the others you can just leave them as they are, you can change them, you go for it!
And here I am reading along, finding sentences like, but each species of nut is different, requiring a special mindset and appropriate footwear.
Consider it an Easter egg.
Thank you.
For many of us, macadamias are the best nut there is.
Except for this one.
Thank you, I think.
House of Macadamias, that's the sponsor we're talking about and they really are fabulous.
Macadamia nuts take a very long time to grow, and because they are both rare and highly sought after, they have the dubious distinction of being the world's most expensive nut.
Between the taste and the health benefits, though, they're worth it.
They have even fewer carbohydrates than most other nuts, for instance, half of what cashews or pistachios have and two-thirds of what almonds have, which makes them the perfect snack for breaking a daily fast and controlling blood glucose.
They're also uniquely rich in omega-7s, including especially palmitoleic acid, an unsaturated fat that has been linked to natural collagen production, fat loss, and heart health.
Thank you for not messing with that sentence.
You're welcome.
At House of Macadamias is intent on making this amazing food accessible to everyone.
They've partnered with more than 90 farmers in Africa and now make one-of-a-kind vegan, keto, and paleo snacks.
These include their dark chocolate-dipped macadamias and a delicious assortment of bars made with 45% macadamia nuts, and flavors included salted caramel and chocolate coconut.
But our favorite product of theirs are the simply salted macadamias made with Namibian sea salt.
They are amazing, we love them, and think that you will too.
House of Macadamias also makes a delicious macadamia nut oil, which is 100% cold pressed, rich in monounsaturated fatty acids, and has a higher smoke point than olive oil, so is well suited to high heat cooking and baking.
And we just received, we have not tried these yet, although our producer here, sitting in the corner, has tried the macadamia nut butter chocolate flavor.
You can imagine what that is an allusion to, and there's also macadamia nut butter with sea salt that's just got macadamia nuts and sea salt plus one little stabilizer, still an excellent simple ingredient.
We're not vouching for these yet, but so far everything we've tried from these guys is great.
They're growing their product line carefully, and they're not growing fast, but when they do add new stuff, so far everything has been excellent.
That's where the mindset comes in.
The mindset?
The special macadamia nut mindset.
And the appropriate footwear?
I would imagine the farmers have to have appropriate footwear to do the growing.
Do you think so?
Yes.
I bet they could do it barefoot.
But slower.
Ah, I see.
Maybe that's... never mind.
Our House of Academias highly recommends House of Macadamias for all of your macadamic needs.
Go to www.houseofmacadamias.com and use code DarkHorse for a 20% discount on every order plus DarkHorse listeners will receive a complimentary 4oz bag of macadamias when they order 3 or more boxes of any macadamia product.
Once again, that's www.houseofmacadamias.com.
Use code Dark Horse for 20% off every order.
You won't be sorry.
And that is a blank page.
Yes.
Which must mean... I don't know what it means, but it's your turn.
All right, our final sponsor this week is UnCruise Small Ship Adventures.
Oh man!
Yeah, we may even, at the end of this ad read, turn off the indicator of it being an ad and just talk a little bit about our recent experience, but nonetheless... Are you looking at the screen?
Yes, I am looking at the screen, and for those of you who are not just listening and are looking at the screen, What we have here is just one iPhone photo from the many thousands of photos that I literally took on our recent Un-Cruise trip.
This was us entering the Tongass National Forest in Southeast Alaska.
One of many things we did.
But anyway, let me get to the read and then... I think maybe we should take that off.
I don't know if we have rights to show people.
UnCruise explores by sea and by land.
They have boats that hold orders of magnitude fewer people than most cruise boats, and they take their passengers to some of the world's most magnificent places.
Magnificent places.
Panama and Costa Rica, Galapagos, the Sea of Cortez in Mexico, Alaska, and even our own backyard, the San Juan Islands.
The small boats UnCruise uses allow passengers to get real deep experience.
Their largest boat can accommodate a mere 86 guests.
Their smallest boat holds only 22.
These trips aren't about dress codes or glitz.
People crammed cheek by jowl, unable to experience anything about where they are.
When we talked with CEO Dan Blanchard, we were thoroughly impressed by his background, his story, and his ethos.
His boats take small groups of people to places that larger boats can't go, and the excursions are designed to bring people into deep nature without destroying it.
We talked about the values of wild, roadless nature, about the environmental destruction that much of the cruise industry causes, and about exploration and observation.
Our travel standards are very high, in part because we have created and led trips to many of the places that UnCruise goes, and we've seen firsthand that most tours do not match the hype.
Our hopes were extremely high for UnCruise, though, and UnCruise did not disappoint.
They took us along on a recent week-long trip through the inland waters of southeast Alaska, from Glacier Bay through the Tongass National Forest and down into Tracy Arm.
We were blown away by what we saw and what we were able to do.
We saw sea otters with pups, mountain goats, eagles in their nests, brown and black bears, puffins, orcas, humpbacks, arctic terns, too many species to list, really, and mile after mile of the most breathtaking scenery.
It was definitely not a trip for people who want to just look at the view from the deck of a boat, though.
Each day we got out into the environment, hiking, kayaking, skiff touring, and yes, even a cold plunge at the foot of a glacier for those so inclined, and yes, we were inclined.
We were also stunned by how well we were taken care of.
The crew and naturalist guides were, to a person, kind, knowledgeable, and enthusiastic.
The food was surprisingly good, and food preferences and sensitivities were handled perfectly.
That's a big issue to me as somebody with a serious wheat allergy.
UnCruise understands that the boat is just a tool.
Their small ship cruises take guests through communities and locales on the ground so they can have actual experiences and every sailing with UnCruise is all-inclusive.
Transportation, drinks, farm-to-table cuisine, daily excursions, everything is included.
UnCruise is giving Dark Horse listeners a fantastic deal.
$500 off their current cruises.
An offer that you can combine with other savings, including the last-minute Spring in Alaska trips, which are already discounted.
So start planning your next trip with UnCruise today and take advantage of this great offer.
Go now to uncruise.com slash pages slash Dark Horse.
Remember to save $500 on your trip.
Go now to uncruise.com slash pages slash Dark Horse.
Again, uncruise.com slash pages slash Dark Horse.
And it was really an extraordinary trip, and I do at some point want to show some pictures of the things we saw.
You know, there was a way in which the trip, even brilliant as it was in its execution, might have been less impressive to us because a lot of the creatures and Things are not so far from our daily experience here.
It's a continuous ecosystem with where we live now in the Pacific Northwest, but so much farther north that of course it's not the same at all, whereas a lot of the other passengers on the boat, who are also amazing, So, you know, it attracts a clientele that you, as someone who's interested in biology and, you know, talking widely about a number of things, will actually be able to have conversations with just about everyone on the boat.
But whereas a lot of them were, you know, completely blown away at the sight of a bald eagle, we see bald eagles every day where we live, and it's wonderful, but it was less surprising, and so it seemed like it could have been Perhaps less marvelous.
It could have been underwhelming, but it was anything but.
I was actually completely stunned, as I know you were, by just the simple grandeur of what we were seeing.
And being able to go out in kayaks most days, I think we were out in kayaks, you know, four or five days, was amazing.
Yeah.
And this is, you know, this is something, you know, they call themselves an uncruise advisedly.
Because they're using a boat to get you places, but it is, as is in that ad read, just a tool to get you places, and then what you do is you explore.
If you want to, you know, some people, you know, aren't in a position where they feel like doing it, and so they get into skiffs, or they stay on board, and they still get the experience of being in a small, in a much smaller, you know, orders of magnitude fewer people than in one of those, you know, mega floating city things.
But if you're inclined, you can go hiking and you can go kayaking and it's amazing.
And the difference, I would say, between seeing a sea otter, for example, from a deck 30 or 40 feet off the water on one of those big cruises and seeing it at eye level from a kayak is dramatic, right?
It's a totally different experience.
Likewise, you know, kayaking at the foot of these gigantic glacial walls where they reach the water, absolutely stunning.
And the The willingness and interest of the crew in making sure that you see these things and, you know, anyway, it's a very different experience.
And UnCrews, the more I think about it, the more perfect a name that is.
Last thing I want to say is part of the reason that we're talking about this now without our ad banner up is that, yeah, They are now a sponsor of the podcast, which means that they are paying us to report what we've experienced.
But I also think that what we discovered... No, they're not paying us to report what we've experienced.
They allowed us to go on a cruise, and we were under no obligation to do anything after that.
We said, if it is what we hope it to be, then we will accept you as a sponsor.
And if it's not, we don't have any obligation.
And the ad read itself doesn't need to mention anything about our experience.
No, true, but the point I wanted to get at, yes, I agree, it's not a review, but in this case, what we discovered in talking to Dan and in experiencing the organization that he's built and the way he's staffed it and all of that,
It's obvious that it is very carefully done, that this is first and foremost a passion of his in order to get people into these places that he deeply loves so that they can see it in a way that they wouldn't be able to access it otherwise.
So that more of us can come to appreciate wild nature and its value and do what we can and perhaps innovate new ways to help protect it.
Yeah, and the fact is, having now seen this in Southeast Alaska, how else would you even do it, right?
Getting to these places, your choice is either floating city or somebody who's got a different idea of how to get in there and show it to you and let you off the boat with a kayak and all of that, and that's amazing.
I guess the final, final thing I would say is the fact the cold plunge where we got to swim in Glacier Bay I don't know if swim is the right description.
You have to swim back to the boat after you've lunged off.
One of our new friends there turned the wrong way after jumping in and did in fact swim around the boat apparently and that was cold.
Yes.
But in general it was a quick couple of strokes back to the boat.
A quick dip in Glacier Bay.
But the fact that it was the staff of the boat and the guests of the boat who elected to do this and were doing this together I think speaks very well of what the experience was.
It was really impressive.
Indeed.
All right.
Well, we will have more to say about that, I'm sure, in the future.
But here we are, streaming on Rumble for the first time.
Again, I encourage you, please, to subscribe to the Rumble channel, where we will begin doing some little bits and pieces, little short videos, I think, on occasion to encourage those who come here to stay here, because we'll do that and have it be nowhere else.
But for now, live stream number 175 of Dark Horse.
We have some things to talk about today, and you were going to start us off.
Yeah.
So I, as you know, was in Florida briefly for a Public Health Integrity Committee meeting with Joseph Latipo, and Joe Freeman, and Steve Templeton, and Tracy Hogue, and Christine Stable-Benn, etc.
Anyway, that committee was meeting to discuss Florida's response to COVID, and basically what I see happening is that Florida is trying to model what a correct response to COVID would have looked like, and my feeling is the correct analogy is California, when it created emission standards to solve its own problem, actually pushed the world forward by showing how you could do emission standards, and it cleaned up air nationally, right?
And Florida is sort of doing the same.
It's modeling this behavior, trying to bring good COVID policy and good policy for whatever other pandemics or public health emergencies we face to the world.
So I'm very much in favor.
Largely being led by Latipo, the Surgeon General, right?
State Surgeon General, who I learned more about this trip, but anyway, quite like Joseph Latipo, and I like what he is doing, and what Governor DeSantis is doing, who initiated this.
In our discussion this week, I found myself saying something that I've said on Dark Horse many times, but it got an interesting reaction.
I said, look, we're being too careful in some sense in our critique of what the federal government did in response to COVID, and the way you can tell that is because we are looking at clear violations of the Hippocratic Oath and the Nuremberg Code, right?
Specifically the Nuremberg Code.
Which codifies, brought into a code, the concept of informed consent.
Now my point is actually not only is the COVID policy that we saw a violation of informed consent, but it's a violation of informed consent twice over.
If you do not have a free exchange of information and ideas in which people with differing opinions about the wisdom of a given treatment are capable of discussing what the cost-benefit analysis might look like, if you don't have that discussion, you can't possibly be informed, even if you did consent.
You might consent to a treatment, but it wasn't an informed consent.
Right.
Yes, informed is doing necessary heavy lifting in that phrase.
It absolutely is.
In the case of what we faced, not only was it a violation of informed consent because we were not properly informed, because people like you and me were being shut down.
In the case of what we Americans, the world, Americans.
I mean, it's also true of the world, and I would point out that, I mean, I'll get to this in a second, but the very fact of this being codified by Nuremberg means that this holds a different status.
This is not a violation of the law that happened.
This is something much more important than a violation of the law.
So you have, we were not informed, the public was not informed about, let's say, the vaccines.
We were also not free to choose, many of us.
We may technically have been free, but we were, at the very least, strong-armed into taking these things.
Now, you and I didn't.
We resisted.
But there was obviously lots of punishment meted out to people who did anything other than consent to being... Again, vaccine is not the right term.
Now, if you are a normal person, Even if you were at the center of this controversy, I recommend that you look up Matt Orfalea's recent compilation of clips that starts out with many repetitions from many places of the idea that when it comes to COVID, no one is safe until everyone is safe.
So anyway, it is a tremendous reminder of what we went through only a couple of years ago.
And I strongly—if you think that people were simply free to choose, you need to look at how intense the effort was to force people into making the one and only choice that they had been delivered on the basis that that choice was not something that reasonable people could dissent from.
The idea was you were simply inherently an unreasonable person if you did elect not to take those treatments.
So I wanted to, in light of the fact that my colleagues on this committee were not themselves focused on this violation of the Nuremberg Code, I realized that Although Nuremberg is a feature of living memory, there are people alive today, many of them, who were around to see that trial and its aftermath.
It is somehow distant enough, it is 76 years ago that the trial of the doctors concluded, 1947, that people do not have the relationship with Nuremberg that they need to have.
And I wanted to both point out what the Nuremberg Code is, why it matters, why it is Above law why it has a status in our in our ethics paradigm that is above law and What that therefore means to see a multiple violation of Nuremberg in the present, right?
What what reaction should we be having to to that simple fact?
so Let's start with some basics.
There were two Nuremberg trials, and a historian may have a better view on this than I do.
I welcome any refinements or corrections, but there were two trials.
There was a general trial for Nazis who were captured, and there was a doctor's trial because the medical violations were a unique and profound fact of the Holocaust.
And there's no Gentle way to say this.
We literally hung seven doctors over violations of informed consent, which, as far as I understand it, was not formalized in advance of the Holocaust.
Right?
So the point is, this was understood to be a principle that any rational doctor should intuit.
Right?
And in fact, the Nuremberg trial of the doctors was an extension of the Hippocratic Oath.
Every doctor swears to the Hippocratic Oath.
If you have sworn to the Hippocratic Oath to first do no harm, then that has a direct extrapolation to medical experiments that the doctors who engaged in the behavior that the Nazi doctors engaged in We're understood to have violated implicitly to the point that they were Executed publicly right that is an amazing statement that that is not 500 years ago.
That's 76 years ago We literally hung seven doctors because they violated informed consent, which was not yet codified it became codified in 1947 as a result of Nuremberg, and it is now something that no doctor can, even though Nuremberg declared it not an excuse that you didn't know about this, you now can be held responsible for violating the Nuremberg Code because it has been spelled out and enumerated.
Yeah, there's even less reason to imagine that you can escape culpability now, post-Nuremberg.
Right.
And I will say, you know, my relationship to Nuremberg, you know, as a Jew, it's something that was... So your parents were children.
Our parents were children at the time, right?
They were barely old enough to be conscious of it, but it was something that was discussed in your family, no doubt.
My dad was old enough to get it as a child, to understand what was going on.
Yeah, he would have been a teenager.
Yeah.
But, you know, I certainly heard this from my grandparents.
And, you know, my grandfather lived long enough that, you know, I had a close relationship with him into adulthood.
And so Nuremberg was a, it wasn't a regular topic of conversation, but it was certainly discussed.
And its meaning was made apparent.
As I think I've said before, I knew from the discussions in the household that I grew up in that the elders all believed that it could happen again and that it could even happen to quote unquote here.
I know that I accepted that formally, but probably didn't think I was likely to see it.
In fact, I'm sure I didn't think I was likely to see it until COVID proved that actually these very circuits are alive and well.
Yeah.
I didn't grow up in a Jewish household, but many of my friends and family friends were where it was more of a topic of conversation.
But I remember thinking as a child that the phrase, never again,
Uh, was necessary and important, but also probably kind of irrelevant here in the United States because, um, I guess it didn't, my naive understanding was that, you know, we, we are relatively safe here having to do with, uh, the oceans that separate us from, uh, most of where the world wars happen and, um, to do with our constitution and our bill of rights, honestly.
I actually don't think that was naive.
I think something that requires analysis inverted the conclusion, but I think that was a reasonable conclusion based on the following analysis.
The thing that America most importantly did that was unique was it laid out a framework for people to collaborate irrespective of their degree of relatedness.
I won't go too deep here, but there are really two evolutionary justifications for collaboration.
One of them is shared genes.
You know, the reason that a parent will run into a burning building to save their child is well understood evolutionarily.
But there's a second reason, and that's reciprocity, specifically spelled out by Bob Trivers in a famous paper.
Bob Trivers was our good friend, is our good friend, and undergraduate mentor, right?
Great guy, one of the most important evolutionary biologists of the 20th century.
Anyway, he spelled out the principle of reciprocal altruism, reciprocity.
And the American experiment, just by its nature, was an experiment in stabilizing reciprocity as the principal reason for people to move forward as a nation.
I don't think the founders really even understood that that's what was so radical about what they were doing.
They were doing many radical things.
I think they would have recognized that.
But the, you know, obviously Darwin hadn't written yet.
So, you know, we were, we did not have the tools for the founders to really understand that they were playing around with an evolutionary fundamental.
Now the evolutionary fundamental turns out to be lightning in a bottle.
If you put aside degrees of relatedness and you collaborate based on reciprocity, that is to say, if I ignore your race and collaborate with you, we both come out ahead, so why wouldn't I?
If you do that, then you can create much faster than a society that is either limited to one population or has an uneasy peace between populations.
You will create wealth faster, wealth coming in the form not just of money, and in fact least often of money perhaps, but in terms of innovation and advances that allow everyone in that society to live more productive lives.
And if you think about the number of inventions that changed the world that were American in origin, it is a shocking list.
There is no reason that a population that was a small fraction of the globe should be responsible The light bulb, the telephone, the computer, the automobile, the train.
I guess the automobile is half and half.
But anyway, there's a... Where else is the automobile from?
I think it's Daimler and Ford somehow.
Oh, but airplane.
Airplane, absolutely right.
The list is just like all the huge things, right?
Why is that?
And in my opinion, it's because the experiment which never got where it was going.
It's not like racism disappeared But racism did become a minor fact and collaborating across racial divisions was the dominant theme and wow that did that work So anyway, I think you as a child were not being naive you were registering who in their right mind Would upend this Yeah, that's it, I guess.
We were children in the 70s and 80s, and we have heard from friends recently, independent people who don't know each other, who have chosen different but adjacent decades and said, man, people now don't understand How good we had it in the 90s.
And others who are slightly older are saying people today do not understand how good we had it in the 80s.
And how good we had it could sound crass and, you know, simply about acquiring stuff and, you know, getting more things.
And that's not it at all.
Like it really it really was an era of increasing openness and inquiry and creativity and therefore productivity and uh you know everyone was ever more welcome at any table that they wanted to come to if they offered something.
People were increasingly not denied access on the basis of immutable characteristics.
Well, that, you know, that mostly, right?
And, you know, we weren't there.
You'll never get to perfect fairness.
You'll never get to perfect equality, in part because there are differences in opportunity that happen even before you're born, right?
And differences in familial wealth, for instance.
And, you know, in this country, differences in outcomes based on the, you know, the randomness of the zip code into which you were born.
Which some will argue isn't random, but it is certainly predictive of outcomes.
And so, you know, the fact that zip codes are often segregated by skin color means that that is a persistent indicator of places where the American experiment had not gotten where it needed to go yet.
But we were moving in the right direction.
Well, that's the thing I wanted to say.
I don't want to get nostalgic over any decade.
It's interesting that I've heard that from a number of people lately.
Independently saying, God, people don't know how good we had it in the 90s.
That's the one I resonate with more because that's when we were in grad school and that's when I was sort of out in the world going like, Oh, man.
Yeah, like, there was like, I had a web page.
But you know, most people weren't spending, you know, no one, almost no one was spending all their time in the screens.
Right?
Well, I think the problem, the only reason I refrain from that is that I think it's like an instantaneous measure, where what people are really reacting to is that we were on the right track.
Yeah.
Right.
And it doesn't mean there wasn't a whole lot of carnage.
And it doesn't mean that there wasn't a long way to go.
Being on the right trajectory is, you know, it's what you want.
You're making progress in a direction that is productive.
And we are clearly on the wrong trajectory now.
Somewhere we got disrupted.
So many wrong tracks now.
And the point, though, is if reciprocal altruism is the goose that laid the golden eggs, right?
That's the thing that made America a country that does not represent a huge fraction of the world's population.
It's a large fraction, but it's, you know, it's tiny compared to India, China, lots of places.
If the thing that made that population so disproportionately successful in creating wealth in the form of inventions is one way you can measure it, then what happens when you go from being less and less concerned about race and population to being more and more concerned is that the collaboration that was so productive breaks down into something that isn't productive at all, right?
Trust dies first.
Trust dies and what you revert to is you revert to the teams where you're looking for indicators of who's related to whom.
Back your quarters, why are you looking at me like that?
Right.
And that is an insane thing to have flirted with or to be flirting with, which is what we're doing.
I guess in passing, I would also say, I know that you and I were both struck by the death of Tina Turner this week.
Yeah.
And I think there's, you know, I was listening to little Tina Turner on the way over and There's something very powerful and emblematic of where we were, right?
Tina Turner was a black woman... Born in 1939.
1939, who... everybody loved Tina Turner, right?
1939, who everybody loved Tina Turner, right?
This was-- - Except Ike Turner. - Well, but also that, right?
The fact that Ike and Tina were a phenomenon, Ike was a bad guy, and Tina Turner eclipsed Ike Turner.
Escaped from his abuse and became what she should have become and eclipsed him.
Right, and did so with tremendous poise.
This is a full-fledged woman who is not playing games with pretending that she is a girl, right?
Full-fledged woman, and the point is everybody got it, right?
So that was like an indication of what is possible in this space.
No pretense about race, no pretense about sex and gender, just the real article, right?
And just so much talent.
So much talent.
And soul.
So, back to Nuremberg.
The fact of Nuremberg is important.
The fact of a violation of Nuremberg is particularly so.
And in my mind, we are dealing, when we are dealing, and by the way, I did some reading on Nuremberg in preparation for today and discovered that, I would have guessed, but that Nuremberg was specifically predicated on the Hippocratic Oath.
You know this principle that goes back a couple thousand years in medicine that one should first do no harm which is of course easy to say and then in practice you know obviously a surgeon does harm so it means something like do not net harm or do not foreseeable net harm or something like that.
Yeah you can't take an instantaneous measure of like at no point uh inflict something that could be harmful like that's that that can't be what it means and so it does require The ability for doctors to make decisions.
Right.
And to take risks.
Which is also why it is an oath and not a rule.
Yeah.
Right?
Oath means you are going to agree to this principle, this value, and then you are going to figure out how it applies to what you are doing.
Right?
This is above law.
Right?
That's really important to me.
There is law, and then there are things that are above law.
It's a higher authority.
It is a higher authority, and it is putting you in a position of doing the interpretation in real time.
It may be an emergency, right?
You may be trying to figure out, you know, do I cut this person's leg off even though this person might survive if I left the leg intact, you know, juggling it is the key thing that a doctor is trained to do.
And the Nuremberg judges, there were three in the doctor's trial, the Nuremberg judges understood the oath to imply informed consent.
They then ruled that these seven doctors were guilty of such egregious violations of that principle that they were literally hung, which I find barbaric, frankly, the idea that we hung these people.
But my point is, this was an act that This was an extraordinary Tragedy that was dealt with by civilization with extraordinary responses because of the profundity of all of the principles involved.
And to find ourselves in the 2020s, casually facing violations of those very same principles.
And the deeper you dig, the more obvious it becomes how many violations there are.
I thought it was two.
Informed consent.
We didn't consent because we were mandated and we weren't informed because they shut down the free exchange of ideas.
That's two violations.
But then I looked at all the sub-provisions.
In the Nuremberg Code.
In the Nuremberg Code.
And it's stunning.
Yeah, you want to put that up?
And actually, I'm going to read the first paragraph, and then we can quickly just look at some of these.
And you'll spot immediately how COVID maps onto this thing.
It's incredible.
So the Nuremberg Code, Provision 1, What you're showing here is an article, a review, 50 years after the Nuremberg Code, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, in which a piece from the original code is published.
Yes, the original code is republished, and then there is historical context presented.
The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential, period.
This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent, should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion.
So if you think the mandates don't violate this because they didn't carry the force of law, they were certainly coercive.
It continues, and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision.
This latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject, there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment, the method and means by which it is to be conducted, all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected, and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from this participation in the experiment.
The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs, or engages in the experiment.
That is not the subjects.
It is the personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity.
And that last phrase is interesting.
It may not be delegated to someone who cannot be punished.
That's what that means, right?
Pfizer was immunized.
It cannot be punished.
It cannot be It cannot have delegated to it the responsibility for informed consent, which it then falls down on and is somehow immune to being prosecuted.
That is not acceptable according to the Nuremberg Code, which I find amazing.
This is so clear, right?
When mapped onto COVID, the mandates for these experimental treatments is absolutely unforgivable.
And when I say unforgivable, I'm talking about a code that preceded the hanging of seven doctors, so I mean unforgivable.
All right.
Provision 2.
The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random and unnecessary in nature.
Right?
The experiment has to be justified on the basis that harm done would be in the service of a greater good.
That's what that means.
So, and this second item in the Nuremberg Code, that the experiment should be unprocurable by other methods or means of study, maps very neatly on to the conditions for which you can get granted an EUA.
Absolutely.
An Emergency Use Authorization, which as we discussed in, gosh it's going to be early 2021, with regard to the suppression of the use of ivermectin in the treatment of COVID, It was necessary that there be no other treatment for COVID that was available else Pfizer and Moderna could not have gotten EUAs for these experimental treatments that they cleverly, sneakily, falsely called vaccines.
Which means that the suppression of information on hydroxychloroquine, on ivermectin, and on vitamin D is another violation of Nuremberg.
All right.
Three, the experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation and a knowledge of the natural history of the disease.
And other problem under study that the anticipated results will justify the performance of the experiment.
So, they obscured the natural history of the disease itself, and they could not possibly have appropriately used animals in the testing.
Well, it's interesting, actually, so this 3 here reminds me a little bit of our Constitution.
Nuremberg Code is obviously much younger than the American Constitution, but there are places, and we've talked about this a lot, there are places in the American Constitution that as amazing and forward-thinking and brilliant as our founding fathers of this country were, they could not have foreseen some of the technological advances that were to come hundreds of years in the future.
This phrase, that the experiment should include a knowledge of the natural history of the disease, belies the fact that they could not foresee that we might, at some point in the future, be creating frankenviruses.
Right?
And so, you know, fully aside from like, oh, they're obscuring, they're still claiming this is zoonotic origin, they're still looking for, you know, stuff in the animal market, all of this.
It's actually not going to be possible.
3 won't be possible in a world that has already allowed the kind of gain-of-function research that almost certainly produced SARS-CoV-2 in the first place.
Or at the very least... Which means that the research might be understood to be itself in violation of Nuremberg.
That's a good point.
And at the very least...
It is an absolute obligation not to obscure the origin because as we said here on Dark Horse, what I have heard nowhere else, that what was done, the protocols that were deployed that created the virus have implications for how you might expect it to evolve downstream and what you might want to do to treat it and prevent it.
So we had a right to that information and they obscured it, violating yet another provision of the Nuremberg Code.
Four, the experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.
Gee, the denial of natural immunity and the immunizing of people who were too young and healthy to be vulnerable to this disease cannot be justified, and some of them were harmed.
So, that was unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.
For sure it was, and there was also a lot of playing.
So much of what was accomplished was done through sleights of hand, sleights of language, in fact, right?
And so, call it a vaccine!
You're not an anti-vaxxer, are you?
Well, what if I say, among other things, that my objection to that is that that thing that you're calling a vaccine isn't a vaccine?
No, it's a vaccine!
We said it was!
And so, it was also experimental in nature.
It was brand new.
This mRNA technology, as we've talked about extensively, as many people have, was brand new.
And up until that point, there had not been any successful research in humans.
And there hadn't been for this product either, but we just kind of like, you know, threw the dice.
And it wasn't ever called to us, those who were told we must take this thing, an experiment.
And so the language of Nuremberg is an experiment.
What it has been recognized as is an experimental treatment, right?
And we will get later at the end of the hour to other sort of squidgy words that are used to obscure that fact, but you can call it everything, anything you want.
It doesn't change the fact that you were experimenting on humans with this treatment that was called a vaccine.
Not only that, but because of the way that this was accelerated and then deployed globally, You were dealing with, I think it is, phase four, right?
Phase four of what?
There are three of the safety trials.
So it was in... Clinical... Clinical trials, right.
That is to say, in release of the stuff into use in the public, there is then the intense monitoring of signals of adverse events, right?
That is understood formally as part of an experiment.
And in this case, what I've said before is this was an experiment in every way but one, which is that we did not seek to collect the data that would have made it a valid scientific experiment, immoral, but at least scientifically valid.
But if you're going to obscure the evidence of a harm, then you're deliberately not looking at the results of the experiment you're running.
And then, of course, unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.
What the hell?
The gaslighting of the injured is, to me, the most jaw-dropping fact of the whole thing, right?
That you would take people, especially people, you know, Maddie DeGuerre, who, a child who participated in your safety trial because she wanted to do her part to address COVID is gravely injured.
And then you pretend that she's not?
That she's faking?
What kind of diabolical monster would you have to be to do that?
Right?
And yet we saw it across the board.
They're still gaslighting the injured and that is unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.
As outlined in Provision 4 of the Nuremberg Code, which again we hung seven doctors over.
So I guess at some level I wonder... I do think I was naive as a child to think that Never Again was Was important and necessary, but it would never really happen here.
Because this was, Nuremberg was 1947, you said?
The doctor's trial.
The doctor's trial.
Concluded in 47.
Concluded in 47.
So I'm thinking about the Tuskegee syphilis experiments.
Yep.
Right?
They began, I just looked it up, in the early 30s.
But they continued well past 1947, and in fact, apparently it was in 1947 that, um, uh, where was it, um, syphilis, I think I found this, I can't say, oh yes, um, penicillin became the recommended treatment for syphilis in 1947.
Wow.
Same year as the doctor's trial, the Nuremberg Code became reified.
So Nuremberg happens and syphilis becomes the recommended treatment for syphilis the same year.
Penicillin.
Sorry, penicillin becomes the, what did I say?
No, it really doesn't.
Okay, so let's start over.
The Nuremberg Code becomes reified, and penicillin becomes the recommended, the understood to be an effective treatment against syphilis, both in 1947, 15 years into the diabolical Tuskegee experiments in which Southern black men are allowed to get sick and die from syphilis.
Deliberately not treated.
Deliberately not treated and not told.
It is such an obvious example of a lack of informed consent, that it is the thing that everyone has some recognition of.
Tuskegee brings up these experiments just the way Nuremberg brings up the code, even though Tuskegee and Nuremberg are places that presumably other people live in and would like to be recognized for their things.
So the Tuskegee experiments continued for decades, Into like the 70s, am I right?
Yeah, decades.
Early 70s, I believe.
After both the Nuremberg Code and there is a known, simple, powerful antibiotic that does treat the very thing.
So, given that, why are we in fact surprised that Nuremberg was violated, perhaps across every single tenant?
Right.
During COVID.
Here's why.
Okay.
I have never heard anyone defend Tuskegee.
Right.
Okay?
I've never heard it.
Okay, but so it ended, and I don't know exactly, like early 70s, so 50 years ago, right?
Yeah.
50 years from now... Well, that's my point.
50 years from now, if we haven't managed to disappear ourselves from the planet, 50 years from now, the prediction is No one will be defending what happened here.
That is exactly what I'm saying.
No one will be defending it, and the vast majority of people who were gleefully shaming those of us who were trying to speak up for science and for truth and for humanity, They will have either largely died or have pretended that that wasn't really their position.
They will talk about how honorable and upstanding they were in fighting the fight when they are absolutely lying.
No one will acknowledge 50 years from now, just as no one acknowledges now, 50 years after Tuskegee ends, that they were kind of involved and thought it was okay.
Right.
I would just point out in passing, Claire Lehman returned to Twitter after having stormed off months ago and said nothing of having been wrong or anything like that.
And so anyway, it will be interesting to see if she owns up.
But I think your point, my point, nobody defends Tuskegee.
Your point, which I think is exactly correct, in the end, nobody's going to be able to defend this either because it's equally obvious how diabolical it is.
But in the present, The moment people are gleefully still standing by their I don't even know what it is.
I was going to say some nasty things.
People are still interested in shaming and destroying the careers of people who said, no, I'm actually going to think about this scientifically.
And even if that's not who you were, if you just said, I'm an individual with bodily autonomy and agency and informed consent, remember that, I'm not doing it.
People lost jobs, people lost families, people lost We were demonized.
You're literally demonizing.
We are still, we are still being, I mean, our YouTube channel?
Still demonetized, right?
That's part of why we're here.
We clearly have thumbs on the scale in multiple platforms.
So this is still, this is the, this is taking place in the present.
It's not even the recent past.
Okay, I'll just continue these just so we've done them all.
Five, no experiment should be conducted where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will result, except perhaps in those experiments where the experimental physician also serve as subjects.
Now this one we don't know, but I will eat the hat of your choosing if Anthony Fauci took the mRNA vaccine, and I know he will claim that he did and he will claim that there is proof, but my sense is We know that he must have known how dangerous that was and how useless it was and therefore he would have been a fool to take it.
But I think, I believe that a sensu lato reading of number five here, that is to say a broad and generous reading of what the intent is, is that if you don't know that death or disabling injury could occur because you didn't bother to look for that evidence, that is also a non-starter.
That is also a breach of the Nuremberg Code.
And what we know from a piece of video released from somewhere in the European Union, I think, in late 2022, early 2023, is a Pfizer exec being asked by, I don't remember the specifics, maybe a Danish politician?
Yeah.
Who asked for what they had found about death and injury, and the Pfizer exec said, yeah, we didn't look.
We didn't.
This is where the phrase, uh, speed of science comes from, in that weird non-denial.
We were working at the speed of science, what could you do?
Right.
Um, so, you know, if, if you don't, if you don't look to see if the thing that you're then going to give to people, give to people, force on people, uh, has the potential for adverse events, and that, that shouldn't actually cover you with regard to saying, well, we didn't know Yes, but it was your obligation to know.
It was your obligation to ask the question, obviously.
I mean, this is so obvious.
And it is also, I will just put it here, for the future, because who knows what we may one day discover.
To the extent that anybody who was coercing the rest of us either chose to take a different shot, chose to take no shot and not say it, chose to take a special lot number, right?
Any of those things would indicate that this was not only a violation of what they should have understood, but a knowing violation, right?
So anyway, I think It is a question worth asking in light of the amount of fraud that we have seen.
All right, six.
The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment.
Right?
All cause mortality.
Right?
It took us a long time to get around to public discussions of all-cause mortality as the arbiter of whether or not this was a good idea or wasn't.
Right?
This was obscured.
I think I can steel man this one.
Okay.
Which is that, as we understand it, SARS-CoV-2 is a very nasty virus and likely has long-term effects on health and well-being that we have not yet begun to understand because how could we?
Whereas the fatality rate is relatively low, at least if you don't have three or more comorbidities for COVID, it likely has long-term effects on health.
We knew that, but because they hadn't actually done the right tests before launching this product, these experimental therapies, onto the global market, We were told that they thought that this would mitigate the effects of COVID.
I don't know if they ever thought that at all.
They certainly didn't have the data on which to base that thought.
But if we understand that COVID is not a nothing burger, as some people, particularly on the right, would have you believe, it's not.
Right?
It's a real problem, in large part because it is not zoonotic, you know, because it does bring with it just this, like, smorgasbord of frankenviral symptoms, some of which we probably don't know yet.
But with regard to this was six.
COVID appeared to be a problem across the world at the point that the vaccines were launched.
Now, what we know now is that some amount of the really, really immediate deaths and scourges that COVID was inflicting on various locations was likely iatrogenic.
That is to say, putting people on ventilators largely hastened their deaths rather than helped them.
So, I'm not saying that they weren't actually, that they did actually meet the standards here, but is it possible to argue that someone involved in this could have thought that they had?
Were there just six and six only?
I think maybe.
Maybe, but I don't really buy it because they cheated, right?
If it is the case that it is the long-term harms of COVID against which they were protecting you, then informed consent should have allowed you to make the decision whether or not you viewed the unknowns surrounding the treatments they were recommending, how you viewed that against the knowns or the emerging knowns.
I agree, but as I said, I'm talking about six and six only here.
Right, but the point is the humanitarian importance of the problem.
They cheated two ways, okay?
They claimed or they let us believe that we were actually having an epidemiological impact, they pretended that these things blocked transmission, and then they pretended that the real concern was the overwhelming of hospitals and that therefore you had no right to choose this for yourself because you were going to end up taking up a hospital bed.
Neither of which turned out to be right.
This is perhaps not important, but 6 is about the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved, not about the treatment, right?
So I'm just responding to this one little line here.
Right, but they knew that this didn't solve an epidemiological problem.
But that's... I don't read it that way.
The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment.
If we understand the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved as massive global pandemic, which is what we had been led to believe and what we think that most of the people who were claiming it was believed at the time.
Then that is an extraordinarily high bar that was likely not passed.
Yeah, but then they would need to have tested for transmission.
Yes, but again, not contained within the item 6.
Weird.
Let's move on to number 7.
Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability, or death.
That would seem to preclude gaslighting these people and running them around with respect to whether or not they have a known syndrome that is downstream of these experimental treatments.
Yeah.
Eight.
The experiment should be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons.
The highest degree of skill and care should be required through all stages of the experiment of those who conduct or engage in the experiment.
There you go.
Failure to aspirate and the offloading of this to stadiums full of who knows what and CVS and Walgreens and 9.
During the course of the experiment, the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end if he has reached the physical or mental state where continuation of the experiment seems to him to be impossible.
You had the right not to get another shot if you were injured and lots of people, I've heard this story multiple times, had some terrible impact from one of the inoculations and then were told that they needed to get more.
And you interviewed a woman in Australia who had a pre-existing condition, some number of pre-existing conditions, one of which included a life-threatening allergy to one of the ingredients in the shot.
To which she was literally told that the right remedy was to have an EpiPen available so that if she had an anaphylactic reaction, it could be arrested.
And finally, 10.
During the course of the experiment, the scientist in charge must be prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage if he has probable cause to believe in the exercise of good faith, superior skill, and careful judgment required of him that the continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death of the experimental subject.
We are still injecting people with these.
We are still injecting young, healthy people with these.
Yep.
So, that is Lausibly a violation of every single one of the provisions of the Nuremberg Code.
Maybe 6 is an exception.
Arguably.
Maybe.
It is a violation of the two central components, informed consent.
It was not consent and it couldn't have been informed.
And then, again, this is a principle that had not been spelled out in 1947, but doctors were held responsible for having violated it because it should have been obvious to them.
We literally hung seven of them.
Okay.
Now my point is, oaths, the Hippocratic Oath, the Nuremberg Code, these are things that exist at a higher level than law.
They are more important.
And when we are violating these things, and we are violating both of those things, The Hippocratic Oath and the Nuremberg Code are both being violated.
We are doing harm that does not need to be done, and we are violating people's right to informed consent.
When that is happening, that is the equivalent of hearing a Mayday call, right?
Mayday is not a normal call to say into the radio, right?
You say Mayday because there is an emergency that requires a very special mindset, right?
It is the equivalent of being in an airplane and hearing, pull up, pull up, right?
That is something telling you.
You are in an emergency situation.
This is not a moment for normal calculus cost-benefit analysis.
This is a moment for emergency action to save whatever entity it is.
That's where we are in history.
And I'm shocked at how remote this has been from our discussion.
Right?
It is 76 years ago, but it's only 76 years ago.
Yeah.
Right?
This is something that should have been on our minds front and center for quite some time.
It absolutely should.
And Well, perhaps this is hopeful news.
So, there were many perpetrators of what seems ever more like a massive scam on humanity.
Regional governments from, you know, municipal to state, provincial, federal, the CDC, the WHO, the NIH and its lackeys.
And The Who, in light of this, maybe they're learning.
They have come out with some new health guidance.
Oh.
Yeah.
That's good.
They've got some new health guidance.
They're organizing World Health.
I mean, this is bound to be good stuff.
Yeah, this is the World Health Organization.
As everyone knows at this point, they're very alarmed now about some things that we've been taking into our bodies.
Very, very alarmed.
Now this actually came out in March of this year, at the same time as another thing that I'm going to talk to you about, The Who, being produced this year.
But massive efforts, they say, are needed to deal with this thing that we're all taking into our bodies.
And I just have to find it here.
Here we go.
The World Health Organization in March of this year... Matt, you want to guess?
Can you see it already?
I can't.
I think I dare not.
Massive efforts needed to reduce salt intake and protect lives.
Wow.
Salt.
It's salt.
That's super, super retro.
Yeah.
So I'm going to read just a couple bits.
Okay.
A first of its kind World Health Organization global report on sodium intake reduction shows that the world is off track to achieve its global target of reducing sodium intake by 30% by 2025.
First of all, where did the global target for reducing sodium intake come from?
Sodium, an essential nutrient, increases the risk of heart disease, stroke, and premature death when eaten in excess.
The main source of sodium is table salt, sodium chloride, but it is also contained in other condiments such as sodium glutamate.
You can tell because it's got the word sodium in it.
The report shows that only 5% of WHO member states are protected by mandatory and comprehensive sodium reduction policies, and 73% of WHO member states lack full range of implementation of such policies.
So who wants us to have mandatory and comprehensive sodium reduction policies in place?
Okay, just a little...
This is amazing, right?
Like, this is so remarkable.
One more thing from this page.
Where did your recommendation come from, also?
Salt intake is estimated to be 10.8 grams per day, more than double the WHO recommendation of less than five grams of salt per day, one teaspoon.
Where did your recommendation come from?
Also, eating too much salt makes it the top risk factor for diet and nutrition related deaths.
I'm going to read that sentence again.
Eating too much salt makes it the top risk factor for diet and nutrition related deaths.
Top risk factor?
No, eating too much salt makes it.
Oh, that's not even English.
Well, it is English, but it's impossible to be true.
And more evidence is emerging documenting links between high sodium intake and increased risk of other health conditions such as gastric cancer, obesity, osteoporosis, and kidney disease.
Okay.
I got a lot of things to say about this, but one of them is, I swear to God, the WHO is radicalizing me.
Like, they just did what to us for the last two years?
Three years, really.
But with regard to these experimental treatments that everyone insists on calling vaccines, that's necessary?
And the thing that they've got their top people, I don't know, working on is salt?
Salt.
These are the same people, we just talked about this, who for our health, for our health, first suggested, then insisted, then tried to figure out how to mandate taking things into our bodies, which there is no record in human history of having been done safely.
Salt is not a living thing.
It's an inorganic molecule, and sodium being part of sodium chloride.
It is something that humans are required to eat.
It's an essential nutrient, as The Who even admits.
And we have been eating it, we have been taking it in, for our entire history.
Our entire history.
It's not new to us, right?
So is there too much salt in processed food?
Yeah.
Yeah, there's too much salt in processed food.
Is there too much sugar?
Yeah.
Is there too much, are there too many seed oils?
Mm-hmm, yeah.
How about all of those things that you can't even pronounce because they don't come from nature, they were synthesized in the lab in order to kind of feel like, taste to your body like something that is yummy?
Surfactants and emulsifiers to change the consistency.
Soaps, yeah.
How about In terms of the list of things in processed foods, which constitutes a huge proportion of at least American diets, we take all the ingredients in those processed foods and say, which of those things are we most concerned about?
And should there be perhaps mandates about not having in food?
I'm going to put everything that was synthesized in a lab that has no history in humans up top at that list, all of those things, which is a large number of things.
And then I'm going to put things like seed oils, and then I'm going to put sugars, and If we get that far, if salt isn't the only thing left on the list of ingredients in those processed foods, if there's also maybe potatoes, yeah, okay.
You can reduce the amount of salt a bit before reduce the amount of potatoes in a potato chip.
But...
Seriously, they're going after salt.
So, our producer, Zachary, has a question.
He's had his hand raised.
No, not a question.
It's a comment.
My sense is, and I try to eat almost no processed food, but to the extent that we're eating any processed food at all, these labels like low salt and low sugar, Terrify me because my sense is I absolutely if I'm gonna eat any of that stuff I want real sugar and real salt and not something that allows you to put that label on and makes it taste like that with something else because they're not gonna make it less sweet or less salty in taste.
Well, they're gonna replace it with other stuff that sounds...
That tastes similar enough and is far worse for you, presumably.
I don't want to conflate sugar and salt.
I think sugar is a very serious problem for reasons that we can analyze.
- Salt is a molecule that we have a many million year history of regulating, right?
So the point is too much-- - Our bodies can regulate it. - Too much-- - So if you do entirely home cooking, and you like food that other people might consider salty, you're still not gonna over salt yourself, right?
It's the processed foods that have so many things that are actually terrible for you that the salt and sugar and seed oils are in there to obscure the fact that the other stuff is in there.
So that's why processed foods is the source of too much salt to the degree that that's a problem.
I would just point out, we have been having discussions with other biologists over the absurdity of the fear of salt for 20 years.
Yep.
Literally 20 years.
Yes.
It has been obvious that the obsession with salt is at the very least overblown.
It has jumped the queue of dangers.
Somehow it is Looming very large in people's imagination and all sorts of obvious dangers Pesticide residues and things are at a much lower level of concern and these things are absolutely flipped.
Yeah, but I Want to argue that this is actually that the absurdity of the who which backed this obscene pseudo vaccine campaign becoming obsessed with the danger that salt poses to us that that is actually a A feature, not a bug.
And what it is, in my opinion, we have a captured system.
That captured system, in order to justify commandeering control, in order to force us to do things that are not in our interest but are in somebody's interest, has to pretend to be obsessed with our safety.
It is simultaneously obsessed with our safety over certain things, short-term harms that are easily observed, while it is absolutely Uninterested in longer-term or more subtle harms things that can't be proven in a court of law And so we have this system that if you just observe it casually you think well It is their job to watch out for our health and maybe they're a little overreactive but You know, what are you gonna do?
They're trying to do their job and maybe they're just a little more aggressive than they should be.
Nope!
They are simultaneously managing, micromanaging your health in places where probably there's no good that they can do and completely ignoring a blaring safety signal that should be telling them reverse course immediately and there's just no level that that that there's no decibel level that would cause them to even acknowledge it.
Well, and it's a simple – hold on a second – it's a simple metric that people can grab onto and feel like they're in control, and say, I'm reducing salt in my diet, and I'm watching out for my husband, who's definitely eating too much salt, so I'm going to watch out for his salt, too, and make sure that he enjoys his food less.
That's often the way that manifests, at least in relationships I've seen elsewhere.
And it gives people
the false sense of agency, and as if they're doing something, taking control of their health, when what they're then doing is, with all of the things that they really should not be injecting or eating at all, about which the Who has nothing to say, or is actively providing the wrong advice, these people who are thinking very carefully about their salt intake, like, well, I gotta trust them, I can't do all my own analysis, I'm gonna think about salt.
And not about all the things they should be thinking about.
And I've got a lot more to say here, but you want to...
Well, no, about what Dad was saying, um, they did the same thing with the Johnson & Johnson shots, where, remember, and I remember their term was, out of an abundance of caution, we're pulling these, at least as a recommendation, because of this very small number of blood clots they noticed, right?
And so that made it seem like, oh, we're monitoring these things so closely, and we really want the best for all of you, and these other vaccines are still really great, but these ones, and we could look at the numbers, and it was like a few in every million.
Anyway, it made it seem like we are so concerned with your health that we're going after all of the tiny minutia where we can improve your health a little bit.
And, of course, that's bullshit from the beginning.
It's double standards all the way down.
So, in the same month, that was March of this year, that the WHO started, not yet, not yet.
Um, in the same month that, uh, the WHO decided to get us all to think about salt, and I don't know actually that it worked because I don't, I didn't hear a lot of people talking about salt, but that was, um, that was their big announcement in March.
They also announced, and now you can share my screen, COVID-19 vaccination is rising in many vulnerable African communities thanks to EU-funded WHO-led project.
So Africa, for those of you who don't remember, was I think the least vaccinated continent.
And it also had very low excess deaths, very low COVID rates, and part of that is presumably attributable to to relatively high vitamin D levels, and some of it, I suspect, is some of the lack of excess deaths is attributable to the lack of vaccine uptake.
So now that it's 2023, and even the diehard covidians have largely stopped taking their boosters, what's a poor pharmaceutical company to do?
Well, what you do is you get in bed with the EU and the WHO, and so lucky for you that they'll have you, and you go into Africa.
Because we don't do nefarious things in Africa, do we?
No.
So here's a few of the things that the WHO has to say.
The same month that they're impressing upon the weird world that salt is the enemy, here's what they're doing in Africa.
March again, 2023.
At the start of 2022, COVID-19 vaccination coverage is on the rise in some of Africa's most fragile humanitarian settings as a two-year project funded by the European Union enters its last four months.
At the start of 2022, the COVID-19 vaccination rate was less than 5% on average in the 16 participating countries.
That rate is now closing in on 30%, the continent's average, among the 14 countries whose data was available in January.
The countries participating are Burundi, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Guinea, Liberia, Madagascar, not technically Africa, but I'll let that slide, Mali, Mozambique, Niger, Nigeria, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, and Tanzania.
To achieve those rising numbers, national health workers trained by WHO experts have been administering vaccines in urban hubs, remote villages, refugee and displacement camps, workplaces, public spaces, and elsewhere.
We don't wait for the people to come to the vaccination sites.
We go to the rural areas to allow these populations to be vaccinated without having to travel and abandon their work in the fields, which is very precious to them, said Dare Rabiou, Regional Director of Public Health, Population and Social Affairs in Maradi, Niger.
Rashida Ibrahim, a nurse at a health center in Corangaso, elaborated on that way of working.
"Every morning we vaccinated people against COVID-19.
When there's nobody left to vaccinate, we get on the motorbike and go to a village to vaccinate there also." A few more quotes from this WHO article.
Mozambique has been one of the project's success stories.
Nearly two-thirds of the country's population has been fully vaccinated.
Among that group is Julieta Jose, a resident of the Malika camp for internally displaced people.
Quote, I'm very happy about the visit from the team because some people here in the community were never vaccinated, she said.
It's the best way to prevent COVID-19.
I told everyone I know to come and get it.
Said another person who was trained to provide these vaccines, I know that if they all get vaccinated, my community will be free of this bad disease.
That's it.
So, uh, if I may have my screen back.
Um, there's a lot to say here, of course, but one of the things that jumps out at me is that there's this technique being done here, which we've seen throughout since, since COVID first entered our, our thinking in the public, uh, in which you take someone who doesn't know and has no way to know whether or not the thing that they have been told is true.
COVID will kill you.
You must stay inside.
These vaccines are the only thing that will protect you.
You must get vaccinated.
Right?
So authorities come, in this case, who trained authorities, and they come and say, this is what to think.
In this case, these vaccines are the only thing that you can do to protect yourself against a disease which will probably kill you.
I don't know if that's actually what they say, but it's something like that.
So the authorities come and they say, they tell you what to think and then they put a microphone in front of your face and they say, what do you think?
And then you say what you've been told to think to the people who told you to think it.
And having said that, your words are documented and it's produced in pieces like this.
But that's not data.
It's not even an anecdote.
What that is is propaganda.
What we are being What we are seeing, what we are hearing here is propaganda that is masquerading as true life stories, as what people believe, what people on the ground feel and know that their friends and their family members need to do this thing because they know it's true, but they don't know it's true.
They were told this by the propagandists, and the propagandists then got them to record themselves saying it, and then produced it to the rest of the world, who then help with the propagandists' campaign.
That's all this is.
There's no evidence here.
There's no new information here.
It's propaganda, pure and simple.
And it's propaganda, completely agree.
It's also marketing.
One has the sense that this is the marketing department masquerading as the medical department.
And what they're doing is creating Uh, pretexts all the way along.
It's a little bit like, um, incentivized reviews.
You ever run across a product that has great reviews and you think, okay, this is the one and you buy it.
And then you discover that there's a mechanism by which they induce people to leave great reviews.
And that's the explanation for why anybody liked the thing at all.
It's a lot like that.
And, you know, actually going back to the, the who.
Right.
And the, the salt story.
This is the who too.
Right, I know, but that story also has the marketing department all over it, right?
Because it gets me when they say, you know, the problem is sodium.
It's the intake of sodium, right?
No, no.
You're talking about a molecule, right?
It is sodium chloride.
It's not the only salt you could make with sodium.
But the salt that we take in is sodium chloride.
That matters.
Sodium on its own is explosive when combined with water, right?
And chloride on its own is highly toxic.
This salt is a an item that is very common in our environment that has its properties that we can engage with and we can even know how to conceptualize it based on the hydrogen bond that links these two things together.
And so when they say sodium it sounds sort of clever and sophisticated that they would refer to it in this chemical way.
Right, rather than, say, salt-sodium.
That sounds very sophisticated, but they've indicted they're fine.
Well, I mean, they do also mention about, like, monosodium glutamate, and, like, there are other things that we eat that have sodium in them.
I know, but my point is, scientifically speaking, it's not what they mean, and the marketing department, yes, it's trying to throw lots of stuff at you that sounds scientific, and the point is, the scientists weren't involved.
It's like a car commercial in which the people are driving the thing on the roads in a way that would violate the warranty and would result in the burning out of some component, but the engineers were never consulted.
Right?
This is, it's marketing pure and simple.
Well, it's even worse than that.
Oh, no.
Yeah.
I mean, and you know this.
I fear that the scientists were involved, but the scientists aren't scientists anymore.
Scientists are marketers.
The scientists are marketers or, you know, the kids who were excited about discovery and exploration and who went into science for that reason.
quickly came to understand that that's not the world of modern science.
And some of them jumped ship into other things.
And some of them stayed in and, you know, fought the man, as it were, and the who, and you know, all the rest.
And most of, unfortunately, I think it's most at this point.
of the people who are actively doing science in these realms right now have at some level accepted this as what science is.
Either that or they're living with such constant cognitive dissonance that I don't understand how they don't explode.
So I think that the answer is that they have forgotten or never knew what science actually is.
And have accepted this piss-poor replacement that has no chance of discovering truth or of making the world better as what science is.
And that's the science we're advised to follow, not the actual science.
Yeah, and it does raise questions, you know.
Who are they?
I really want to know, and I really want to know why they do not recognize that they are in violation of something this important, elevated, and universal.
This being the Nuremberg Code.
The Nuremberg Code.
Well, I mean, science and medicine are related but distinct, so... No, both things are called out in this document.
Okay.
Right?
So, um...
I wonder, of course, about what will happen now that there is a mass vaccination program that is going forward in Africa.
Not that we don't have a long history of messing with Africa and Africans, but my prediction is that we'll see a rise in excess deaths, excess mortality, and as as a result of this mass vaccination program and I have to wonder what they're going to blame it on.
There's a lot of things possible.
Maybe it'll be salt intake.
Hmm.
I would also just point out that this would also fit a long pattern of destroying the control group so that in the future we are not able to deduce what actually happened to us.
Yeah.
The idea that there was a continent with a low vaccination rate and then we might be able to look at all of the new pathologies and patterns that emerge and say, interesting that they also appear to be at a much lower frequency in Africa.
So, how diabolical would you have to be if this was consciously on anyone's mind, the idea that there are patterns of harm that would be detectable if Africa functioned as something of a control group or contained enough people to compile a retrospective control group, right, and you actually decided to harm them too so that that was impossible?
You'd have to be pretty darn diabolical.
Yes, you would.
So it feels like, segue here, it feels like Scientific American is vying to be the disseminator of the worst public health advice.
They're not going to make it.
Not with the CDC out there, and the WHO, and the NIH, and all of the governments.
But they make a strong showing.
But they're making a really strong showing these days.
And there's been a lot.
There's been a lot.
So here's just one more thing from Scientific American.
So they've got big shoes to fill.
I'm sorry, guys.
I don't think you're going to get to worst public health advice.
But here's a tweet, and then we'll show you the article afterwards.
A tweet about a Scientific American article.
The quote tweet is, Fed is best.
An excellent essay for Scientific American about the mental toll of pushing exclusive breastfeeding and what the evidence really says.
So, Fed is Best is a code, which I hadn't run into before, for, no, no, no, not Breast is Best, which is the phrase that has been pushed by things like the La Leche League and the American Association of Pediatrics and, you know, all normal human beings ever.
And, you know, instead of Breast is Best, now we got Fed is Best.
Uh, and boy, they're good!
That's the marketing department again, right?
That's the marketing department.
You don't want your baby to starve.
Are you telling me my baby should starve?
Okay, guys.
No.
However, what the article does, let's see, let's see if I can find it here.
Uh, here's some of what the article This week, published in Scientific American, so-called opinion piece on public health, it's okay not to breastfeed.
Exclusive breastfeeding is not imperative and the breast is best mantra can be harmful to babies and parents, wait for it, especially among marginalized people.
Goodness.
Of course they did.
Yes, of course they did.
Okay, let's just share a few things from this piece of work.
To reinforce that breast is best for babies and that formula feeding is inferior, in 2022 the American Academy of Pediatrics affirmed its decades-long stance in favor of exclusive breastfeeding, meaning nothing but breast milk, arguing for this in the first six months, and calling breastfeeding and human milk normative and a public health imperative.
They put breastfeeding being normative in quotes.
Normative means it's the norm.
The editor-in-chief of Scientific American has already demonstrated that she doesn't understand what sex is and therefore really anything about what mammals or vertebrates or evolution is, so maybe this is just in keeping, but what?
Well, I'm wondering.
Normative in this case, I think, means Morally required, which it would be.
Oh.
Okay, maybe.
I think, yeah, I mean, the problem is this is now a term with two meanings, right?
You've got normative... Okay, if it's got two meanings, whatever, there's plenty to argue with in this piece.
I thought it absurd that they put it in quotes.
Right.
But, okay.
At the same time, Adoptive and other parents who can't provide human milk, or choose not to, feel shamed.
There are cases where women who gestated their own babies actually can't produce milk.
And there are adoptive parents who can't produce milk.
And no, they shouldn't feel shamed for not being able to do something that they cannot do.
But built into the sentence is, who can't or choose not to.
They should feel shamed.
This is absolutely best for babies.
This is absolutely best.
And if you are making a choice because you don't feel like providing your child with the thing that... Gosh, how old are mammals?
180 million years?
Something like that?
180 million years of evolution.
For 180 million years, mammal mothers have been feeding their newborns breast milk.
Human cultures vary in terms of how long the period of exclusive breastfeeding lasts, Uh, and how long breastfeeding lasts at all.
And in some cultures, babies begin to be fed some of the adult diet pretty soon, pretty quickly.
But there is no single human culture out there that says, eh, maybe just don't do that at all.
No single human culture.
We've got, and I think that number's about right, something around 180 million years of mammal evolution in which one of the, I mean, in fact, you know, one of the key innovations that made mammals mammals and then became successful, there are a lot of them, we're endothermic, we have hair, you know, all these things, but we're like literally our eponymous trait, the trait for which we are named, is the mammary glands that allows for obligate Obligate maternal care.
And from that, you then get a positive feedback in which you get more and more parental care, and then you get bi-parental care, and you get all sorts of benefits of the long childhoods that result from parental care.
All of that is downstream of breastfeeding.
All of it.
And when I say breastfeeding this time, I'm talking about breastfeeding across all of mammals, across the entire 180 million year history.
And it's now over because Scientific American has decided Because Scientific American is being run by anti-scientific idiots.
That's it.
So, I want to jump in here.
Maybe you're not done.
I'm not, but go on.
The thing about this story is, let's say there's a harm shaming people who do not breastfeed.
Let's say that that's a real thing, okay?
It's pretty unlikely, right?
Anybody who can breastfeed and doesn't might be shamed, that makes sense.
Anybody who can't is not going to be shamed by anybody because they didn't have a choice.
I think the history here, and there's a bunch in this article that I'm not reading out loud, and I've run into these stories before, but there is a growing vocal contingent of women who say, and in fact this is – let me just finish reading the piece.
I think you're jumping in on something that you're not as informed about, but I don't think it means what they think it means.
So uh again from this article uh some studies show that everything from breast surgery to polycystic ovarian syndrome to diabetes to chronic stress and far more can disrupt lactation and together these conditions affect far more than one in ten birthing folks.
So first of all no women um but Breast surgery.
Okay, sometimes breast surgery will have been necessary to remove cancers, but usually women of childbearing age who have breast surgery, that's not a cancer surgery.
That's a surgery that they chose to get, either to make their breasts larger or smaller.
Polycystic ovarian syndrome, diabetes, chronic stress, and more.
All of these are diseases or situations of modernity.
These are all problems of the modern condition, many of which can be mitigated or disappeared by getting rid of some of the things like, oh, all the crap and processed food that isn't salt, right?
Like all the rest of the things that people are filling their bodies with that are making them sick and giving them things like diabetes and their days are filled with abhorrent tasks and so they have chronic stress.
And then, you know, women give birth and they live a life and they have to, you know, get back to work and maybe it is a little bit hard.
Maybe it's a lot hard.
But it's working, but it's hard, and it doesn't feel like the fairy tales told them it would feel.
And in a moment of what they perceive as weakness, they give their baby a little bit of formula, and it feels like that baby is a little bit better satiated.
And they start doing it more and more, and the more the baby is getting the formula, the less their breasts are producing, and it's positive feedback, and it ends pretty quickly, and then they don't have any choice anymore.
So that is something that I think a lot of women are experiencing.
And instead of us collectively saying, okay, how do we, and La Leche League and the American Association of Pediatrics have been on the right side of this, right?
Like, how do we help you?
Figure out how to successfully breastfeed your child.
Instead, there is this increasingly powerful movement, this pushback, that says, no, no, no, no, no, don't shame us.
We get to do what we want to do.
And if that doesn't include breastfeeding, well, that's not your, that's no, no business of yours.
Except, except it is.
And I'll say a little bit more about why, but just a few more quotes from this article here.
The reliance on breastfeeding can also lead to a violation of children's right to be satiated.
Oh, man.
Yeah, they're good.
That's the marketing department for you right there.
Wow, that is incredible.
Think about all of the species in which the offspring are suffering from the violation of this right.
Mm-hmm, yeah.
Now, I, at the moment, am thirsty, and I can't find the water glass sitting in front of me, and I have a right to be quenched, and I need you to get me a Diet Coke.
Right.
Because that's what I need to have my thirst quenched.
I've literally never drunk a Diet Coke, and I never will.
But if I say that, you, Mr. Producer Son, are violating my right to have my thirst quenched if you don't bring me the toxin of my choice.
It's a rights violation.
I mean, it's amazing.
EBF, again they've turned it into an acronym, Exclusive Breastfeeding, is not Mother Nature's design.
Well, excuse me?
Caregivers have fed infants substances in addition to or instead of their own birth parents milk and in many cultures for a slew of reasons, including milk supply taking a few days to come in and personal preference.
These alternatives included milk from human wet nurses and animal milk.
So this is this postmodern error where like, There have been a few exceptions in modern times, and all we have to do is point to those couple exceptions and say, see?
All bets are off.
There is no history.
We don't actually believe in evolution, because obviously the people who are manning the science TM store don't believe in evolution.
They're the people who claim to be on the side of science and who claim that it's the right-wingers, the conservatives, the religious folk who don't believe in evolution, and some of them don't.
But these people clearly don't either.
Clearly don't.
It's the tyranny of the edge case.
The Tyranny of the Edge case, I like that.
Yes, I like that very much.
Okay, I'm done with quotes from the article.
It's obviously insane.
I thought that I would, as a rejoinder, share – this is related.
Oh, it's related.
All right.
Yes, as a rejoinder, share a little bit from this book that I like.
It's The Hunter-Gatherer's Guide to the 21st Century.
It's our book from 2021.
And from Chapter 3, we, in Chapter 3, we talk about things like the Appendix and the Hygiene Hypothesis.
And here's just one page from Chapter 3 called Ancient Bodies, Modern World.
Thus, so this follows a long discussion of what appendicitis is.
Thus, appendicitis is a disorder of the weird world.
So too are many allergies and autoimmune disorders, for which there is solid and growing evidence to support the Hygiene Hypothesis.
The Hygiene Hypothesis posits that because we live in ever-cleaner surroundings, and are therefore exposed to ever-fewer microorganisms, our immune systems are inadequately prepared and so develop regulatory problems, such as allergies, autoimmune disorders, and perhaps even some cancers.
Our immune systems are not functioning as they evolved to do, suggests the Hygiene Hypothesis, because we have cleansed our environments too thoroughly.
Our appendix seems likely to have suffered the same fate as our immune systems.
Absent frequent bouts of diarrhea, which are the body's way of ridding itself of pathogenic gut bacteria, the appendix turns from being an important repository of good bacteria to being a liability.
There is an important parable to be invoked here, Chesterton's Fence, named for turn-of-the-20th-century philosopher and writer G.K.
Chesterton, the man who first described it.
Chesterton's fence urges caution in making changes to systems that are not fully understood.
It is thus a concept related to the precautionary principle.
Chesterton wrote this of a fence or gate erected across a road, quote, The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, I don't see the use of this.
Let us clear it away.
To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer, quote, If you don't see the use of it, I certainly won't let you clear it away.
Go away and think.
Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.
End quote.
Chesterton wrote this in the same era when some medical doctors had decided that the large intestine was a waste of space in the human body, another story we explore earlier in this chapter.
If Chesterton's fence suggests that a fence should not be removed until you have discovered something of its function, the appendix in large intestine might be called Chesterton's organs.
Keep an eye out for other things that are...
Sorry.
Keep an eye out for other things that we moderns might be trying to rid ourselves of without sufficiently understanding their function.
Not only Chesterton's organs, but his gods, and his breast milk, his cuisine, and his play.
And these are the sorts of things we talk about throughout this book.
Chesterton's religion, Chesterton's breast milk, Chesterton's play, Chesterton's foods.
So one more quote from this book at the very end of the Parenthood and Relationship chapter.
Many of these chapters we have what we call the corrective lens, so you know actionable things that you can do to help you escape from the hyper novelty of the modern world and understand your life through an up with an evolutionary lens.
And so this the last corrective lens item in the chapter Parenthood and Relationship is breastfeed your infants if you can.
Adults who were breastfed have better formed palates and better aligned teeth compared to those who were bottle fed.
And breast milk has in it all manner of nutrients and information that we do not understand.
It may for instance contain cues with which the infant entrains his sleep-wake cycle.
Thus, if you do breastfeed and also pump milk to feed the baby at other times, feeding your baby milk that was pumped at the same time of day as it currently is could be helpful in getting your baby to sleep when you want him to.
But another way, again, beware Chesterton's breast milk.
So there's all sorts of research to support All of the health benefits that we so far know with breast milk, but there's also this new thing that we put into there, which was a hypothesis put forward by a student of ours, Josie Jarvis, that there might be circadian cues in breast milk that would, as we write there, help entrain the baby to the same sleep-wake cycle as the mother.
There's no way formula is going to do that for you.
So everything from palate and oral cavity shape, to immune function, to lower allergies, to actually maybe having a sleep-wake cycle in your infant that is more like your own?
Rest is best.
Scientific American is wrong.
Again.
There's a lot of things that I want to add in here.
I don't know where to start, but this is a story that mirrors so many other stories that we've been hearing, right?
So, you know, is there a problem of Trans people being excluded.
Yes.
Well, we should include them.
Okay.
We should include them everywhere, including sports.
Okay, but now you've caused a new, much larger harm.
You may have addressed an actual problem of a small size, and you have created a huge problem, and you are refusing to look at it.
So in this case, You've got babies who have a right to have whatever is best from the point of view of their development, and that could be best from a hundred different perspectives.
No, no, they only have the right to be satiated.
This does go back to exactly what we say in the book, where because breast milk contains nutrition, we initially mistook it for food when it's actually food and many other things simultaneously.
It's immunological information.
It's circadian information, potentially.
So in any case, the baby has a right to whatever is best.
They cannot express that right.
Their parent is supposed to be the one who is working in the baby's best interest, and Scientific American is now actively misinforming that parent.
Right?
This is, again, a question of informed consent.
The parent has a right to know what it is that breast milk does for the baby in order that they can make a choice.
And by misinforming that parent, that parent may consent to something that is not in the child's interest, thinking that they are doing something that is in the child's interest.
That is an absurdity.
Yep.
I would also point out that there is an obvious hazard to offloading the production of nutrition to manufacturers, right?
Which is that the manufacturer's incentive is not to produce a baby who will live the longest or mature the healthiest or Be the most resistant to disease or any of those things.
The manufacturer gets a positive signal that they are doing what's right when the stuff moves off the shelves.
But also, and one of the things in this piece that I didn't share, is that anyone who's been a parent in the weird world, at least in America of late and hasn't completely eschewed the allopathic medical world, has had forced on them all the metrics.
Well, your baby was born at this weight and that's the 24th percentile.
Oh, at the next check-in.
Oh, your baby's the 28th percentile.
Oh, your baby's at the 57th percentile.
Yay!
We know that higher percentile numbers are better.
Well, but when they're adults, we don't want them at the highest percentile of weight, do we?
No, because we got this obesity epidemic.
But early on, you go in for all these checkups and they give you these graphs every time, like look at your child's progress compared to the mean.
And you are led to believe, even if you know you should not, that what you're looking for is a high rate of growth and to be above the average, because you definitely want your child to be above average, don't you?
And what A formula a producer can do to help you get your kid to a place where you can brag to your neighbors about him is put lots and lots of calories in there that cause fast growth and not much else.
Not only that, but they will automatically do this even if they don't know what they're doing.
The market will lead them to produce formula that causes increased demand for formula.
So what you're doing is you're taking a dynamic system between mother and infant, where both parties, they are not in perfect agreement about how much to dispense.
But they are in overwhelming agreement because they both do best if the baby lives a long time and in a healthy way, right?
So that system is built to self-regulate.
A system in which a manufacturer is successful is doing its fiduciary job with respect to its shareholders if the baby consumes more formula than it should, therefore creating a developmental pattern that may well predispose it to obesity later in life.
In fact, I wonder if anyone has just simply asked the question, what is the relationship between breastfeeding in childhood and obesity later in life?
And I'll bet it's a negative relation.
I believe that there is some research on this.
I don't remember how abundant it is, but indeed the pattern shows what you would expect.
Yeah.
That breastfeeding is mitigating against at least childhood obesity.
I think maybe the research doesn't go into adulthood.
But then, think about the absurdity.
I mean, it is absurd enough on its face that they would claim that the child has a right to be sated, right?
But the absurdity, if that right to be sated is actually is a cloak that covers the manufacturer's right to turn that into an obese adult, right?
Which is potentially there, right?
That is a... that is a diabolical inversion of reality.
It is.
And the... I mean, this is just so obvious.
And to have Scientific American broadcasting an obvious, on-its-head conclusion in an effort to protect Some people who may exist from shame that might be directed at them while... No, no, that does happen.
Well, no.
I don't think anybody is shaming a mother who can't produce milk for not feeding milk, right?
No, I suspect it is because, I suspect that is happening because, you know, this may actually be a bit analogous to the trans situation, right?
That there are very rare mothers who gestated their own children who find that they cannot produce milk for those children.
And I believe that the vast majority of people who are saying, this is horrifying, I don't want to have to breastfeed my child, I am not the milk machine, that's not what I have to do, are not in that category.
Right.
So many people who are breastfeeding advocates will look at this and see in everyone they run into who is not breastfeeding, those who are making a choice, whereas some people are not.
Well, I believe we agree.
It would be a very tiny number of women who have produced their own children who are incapable of breastfeeding, and then there are going to be some other people who... Absent other pathogenic concerns that might be more common now than they used to be because of the toxicity of our modern environment.
Sure.
And there are going to be lots of people who have adopted children who can't breastfeed them.
Of course.
Or, you know, gay couples, whatever it is.
And the point is, nobody on earth is arguing that in the case that you can't breastfeed, that you shouldn't feed the child something.
Literally nobody is arguing that, right?
Literally nobody.
Literally nobody.
Yeah.
They're good at the straw man, though.
Yeah, for that one, it's not even real straw.
Yeah.
Yeah.
No, that's turtle killing straw is what they've used there.
Oh, yeah.
Yeah.
But anyway, the point is, you've got some problem that amounts to some shame which may be misdirected in some cases.
And then you've got a bunch of people who are hungry for a rationalization because there's a convenience issue here.
And then you have a question of, don't you have an obligation to give the information to all parties, even if there's a little bit of shame that is misplaced here?
The point is, isn't the greater good Served by everybody having the exact right information.
Hey, guess what?
I can't breastfeed my baby.
That means I'm feeding them something else.
What problems does that open up?
Ah, could open up an obesity problem.
Maybe I ought to be extra vigilant and I ought to maybe look for a manufacturer that's sensitive to this and has Taken some sort of corrective action, right?
So the point is, by denying information, what you get is ill health and illogic spreading in an epidemic fashion.
Right.
And I'm sure the people who are now spearheading this Fed is Best campaign would argue that they are the ones countering the misinformation, as it were, and doing right by all of those babies who are otherwise going to go hungry.
Yeah.
Well, I think the editor-in-chief who we talked about a little bit last week... Yes, we did.
We should nominate her for Miss Information.
And I would love to see a scientific American cover with her on it, but the title changed in camel case to unscientific American.
I would love to see that produced.
Camel case.
Camel case, yeah.
Yeah, that's what I got.
Do you want to finish up?
Yeah, let's bookend this.
Nuremberg has haunted our entire discussion today, and I wanted to call attention to something interesting that happened in the Atlantic, which is increasingly taking over as the main source of nonsense for left-leaning elites.
Give the New York Times a run for its money.
The New York Times has kind of spent, you know, people have caught on to the fact that it doesn't make a whole heck of a lot of sense.
But yeah, no, we've talked about the Atlantic a lot during COVID and there are three writers that they've got in, um, doing, we're doing a lot of writing about COVID.
I don't, I'm not sure they got anything right.
No, no, they didn't.
I mean, you know, nobody's perfect, but they made a pretty good show.
Yeah, they had a perfectly wrong show.
A perfectly wrong showing.
And they are, you know, they are definitely heralded.
The whole magazine is in the sort of, you know, $25 a bottle and up cocktail party realm, you know.
You're talking about bottles of booze or bottles of wine?
Wine.
Yeah, okay.
Yeah, no, no, no.
The booze is way fancier than that.
Yeah.
But anyway, so I wanted to show... Yeah, no, but I will say before you do that, and I've said this before, but The Atlantic and Harper's are standbys.
We still subscribe, we still get the hard copies, and I have loved these magazines.
They have been sort of the shining the beacons on the hill of great writing and fantastic reporting and the Atlantic has fallen.
Yeah, that's one standby that I will not stand by and increasingly won't even stand for.
You know what I'm saying?
I do.
Yeah, it's broken and here we can show you.
Yeah, sure.
Let's show the original.
So the Atlantic said the quiet part out loud in the title to this article.
Now, of course, titles are not produced by the authors of the article generally, but nonetheless, the Atlantic proclaims in the title to this article from, I believe, yesterday, COVID shots are still one giant experiment.
Oops!
One giant experiment, huh?
I wonder if there are any, let's say, codes that would cover the application of an experiment to, oh, I don't know, let's say, humanity, right?
Gee, the Nuremberg Code might be one, and oh my god, if the Nuremberg Code applies to these shots, do you know what we were entitled to?
You're not going to believe this unless you remember the beginning of the episode where we talked about informed consent, right?
We would have been due informed consent in the event that we were exposed to an experiment, which we apparently clearly were as far as the people who titled that piece in The Atlantic is.
All right, let's say.
Maybe, maybe that was just one editor who was off their meds who titled the thing, and the rest does not reflect an experiment, right?
And so that would explain why the Atlantic then swapped out quickly, without saying anything, the title.
Yeah, within a day they swapped it out, so I got this from the Wayback Machine.
Now let's see, what is the article currently titled, Zach?
That's it.
Oh, balls covid shots may be different in one key way.
Well, that doesn't say experiment at all, huh?
It's got the same subtitle.
It's the same article.
It's the same article.
The article is, in fact, unchanged.
Now scroll down to the paragraph that.
It's a little small.
I mean, I can change that.
Yeah, scroll down.
Oh, I have access to it.
I believed I had sent you the access, but anyway, I know what it is that we're looking for.
There's a paragraph in there that says that it does not use the term experiment, but what it does is it in some very mealy-mouthed way says that the COVID shots are effectively a big beta test, which is a synonym for experiment, right?
That is a not ready for prime time.
Here we go.
You got it?
Yep.
So Zach, it's on my screen.
Can you make a beer?
At the same time, COVID vaccines are still a sort of beta at a sort of beta testing stage.
Interesting.
Are still in a sort of beta testing stage.
They don't even want to say it flat out.
But the point is, The original title of the article, that sentence, the history of what has gone on in the Atlantic makes it very clear that they know that they are dealing with an experiment and therefore ought to know that Nuremberg applies.
And even if they don't understand what Nuremberg is or where informed consent is, these are well-educated people.
These are people who went to fine schools and benefited from all that comes from that.
They ought to know.
And what I'm wondering, when a When a recognition like this circulates through the offices at the Atlantic, or whatever happens on their email lists, or however it is that these people gather, how is it that all of these people who presumably took these shots themselves Nobody in that community says, hey, wait a minute.
Nobody told me it was an experiment.
In fact, I remember very distinctly, they told me it was safe and effective.
They specifically put out animations that told me that although the process had been accelerated, every single step was done and that they knew these things to be safe and that if I took them, I would not get the disease and I would not suffer any ill effects from them.
They told me that.
And I wouldn't kill my neighbors.
Right.
Now, Nobody says that, right?
There's no acknowledgement.
You should have people by the thousand saying, wait a minute, experiment?
This was an experiment?
You lied to me.
You told me it was something other than an experiment, and now you're telling me?
After I can't undo it?
You told me the experiments had already been done.
Yeah.
And the clinical trials were, yes, accelerated, but complete.
Those were lies.
Those were lies and the point is they weren't, you know, we're not talking about civil liability or even criminal guilt.
We are talking about something above that.
We are talking about violations of the Nuremberg Code and of the Hippocratic Oath.
And we are also talking about violations of our free speech rights in order to obscure all of this, right?
This is a four alarm fire.
This is civilization violating all of its sacred principles simultaneously and doing so with human life and limb on the line, right?
It couldn't be more important and it is time that we sobered up and we looked at the violations of our most sacred principles that we are engaged in and said, who the hell is in charge here, right?
How are we going to undo this before it's too late?
We need to.
We need to.
Well, I think that brings us to the end of Livestream 175, but we'll be back for a Q&A for those of you who are watching on Rumble.
And if you are watching on YouTube or anywhere else, come to Rumble for the Q&A.
You can ask questions, if you're watching live, ask questions at darkhorsesubmissions.com.
In the meantime, there's lots of places to find us.
We've got that Nascent Locals channel that we're not doing anything at yet.
We've got a private Q&A tomorrow, which you can get access to through my Patreon.
And we've got this book, Undergather's Guide to the 21st Century, with lots of... that's not even on screen... lots of good stuff!
And we encourage you to, before we see you next time, and always, be good to the ones you love, eat good food, and get outside.
