#185: Why Would They Lie About That? (Bret Weinstein & Heather Heying DarkHorse Livestream)
In this 185th 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 this episode we discuss new research that finds that 1 in 35 people getting a Moderna booster suffered heart damage, and ask whether it is only the spike protein, or also the mRNA platform more generally, that is at fault. We discuss the eradication of selective pressure in mRNA “vaccines” that do not include the a...
Hey folks, welcome to the Dark Horse Podcast live stream number 185.
I am Dr. Brett Weinstein.
I am sitting with Dr. Heather Hying.
Who is clearly in need of a shirt change.
A shirt change.
So apparently we clash, which I don't acknowledge is a thing.
I think a person can clash within what they're wearing, but two people shouldn't be clashing.
But I am color deficient.
Not only do we clash, but I clash with the set.
Oh no!
You're double!
I'm out of sorts.
Well, maybe we'll just lean into it.
It's the punk version of Dark Horse.
Alright.
Right?
If they don't like it, that's on them.
Now in magenta.
Now we've got a little slice of dog behind us.
By the way, if you're just listening to the audio version, we don't clash.
We're in fact perfectly color-coordinated and well-adjusted to the chromatism of the set.
Here we are.
It is August.
It is August 2023 and we are going to talk some about COVID today because it persists in our world and in the way that the world dealt with it and how those repercussions continue to persist.
Yes, it's true.
We are going to make a slight departure from our usual mode.
We are going to discuss COVID in our usual mode, but I am also going to try out a new mode of making points that is somewhat more, shall we say, narrative.
We might even say it's... no.
What were you going to say?
No, I think I think I should say after you do your thing.
Okay, that's very good.
Yeah.
All right.
Well, let's let's not forget.
Yeah.
And we may we may talk a little bit about music as well.
All right.
At the end here.
Okay, so We're not going to do a Q&A today, so it's just this, and we're going to tell you all about the other ways to find us at the end, but as usual, we do start out the top of the hour with our three ads, sponsors whom we have carefully chosen and vetted, and who we actually truly vouch for.
This week it's Seed, Biome, and Paleo Valley.
Without further ado, Brett, you are up first!
I am up first, so I don't even have a model to go on, but I'm just going to read what's on the page.
I'm going to give you a script.
The reading part is not as easy for some of us.
Okay, here we go.
Our first sponsor this week is Seed, a probiotic that really works.
If you've tried probiotics before and gotten nothing out of it, try Seed.
It's designed differently from other probiotics.
It's designed better.
It actually works.
Hey, this is going alright.
Yeah, it is.
Your gut and your immune system work together, coordinating your body's response.
To the world both around and within you.
Seed helps improve the health of your gut microbiome.
That's the way that sentence reads.
Which means that it supports you becoming healthier overall.
Our resident gut microbes directly impact the development and function of the immune system.
Even before we're born, microbes inform your immune system, teaching our body how to distinguish between benign substances and pathogenic antigens.
That is, substances that our body doesn't recognize as its own.
You can support your gut immune axis in a variety of ways, including by prioritizing sleep.
New research suggests that the gut microbiome has its own circadian clock and that changes your normal rhythms.
And that changes to your normal rhythms, that's what this sentence says, can disrupt your microbes and the important functions they perform.
Prioritizing regular sleep can thus help keep your gut immune axis healthy.
The axis of awesome.
You can also support your gut immune axis by taking Seed's DS-01 Daily Synbiotic.
Seed is a plant-based prebiotic and probiotic with 24 strains that have been clinically or scientifically studied for their benefits.
16 of those 24 strains are specifically geared towards digestive health, as you would expect from a probiotic, and 4 of the 24 probiotic strains are known to promote healthy skin.
Your skin, like your gut, has its own microbiome.
Seed supports both gut and skin health.
Seed is free from 14 major classes of antigens, including but not limited to sugar, animal products, soy, gluten, peanuts, glyphosate, dairy, shellfish, and corn.
And seed is basically double-hulled with its capsule-in-capsule design.
It is engineered to maintain viability through your digestive tract until it reaches your colon, where you want it.
And the same design makes it resistant to oxygen, moisture, And heat, meaning that no refrigeration is necessary.
Seed's Daily Synbiotic supports gut, skin, and heart health and micronutrient synthesis.
We have heard from several people who have used Seed and report improvements to their digestive function in 24 to 48 hours.
So, start a new healthy habit today.
Visit Seed.com slash Dark Horse and use the code Dark Horse to redeem 25% off your first month of Seed's DS01 Daily Synbiotic.
That's Seed.com slash Dark Horse and use the code Dark Horse at checkout.
Our second sponsor this week is Biome, maker of Nobs and OBS.
Nobs is a new kind of dentifrice, dentifrice being anything you use to clean your teeth, toothpaste, or powders, or Nobs.
Nobs are fantastic.
Biome, that's B-I-O-M without the E on the end, is focused on transparency, safety, and efficacy, and Nobs is a truly fantastic product.
Let's talk fluoride.
Fluoride is the anti-cavity ingredient in most toothpastes that you already know about, but as we discuss in our book, The Fluoride in Drinking Water and Toothpaste, It's not in a molecular form that is found in nature, or that has ever been part of our diet.
And ever more research is pointing to neurotoxicity from fluoride exposure, especially in children.
NOBS from Biome does not contain fluoride, but unlike competitor products, NOBS does include a different, and far better, remineralizing agent.
That's hydroxyapatite.
Hydroxyapatite is the main component of the enamel in your teeth, and it is in your bones as well.
It is as effective as fluoride in remineralizing teeth, without the toxicity.
Hydroxyapatite doesn't merely stop cavities from forming, it can even arrest tooth decay once it's underway.
NOBS also has no abrasives, like charcoal or baking soda, and no sulfates, parabens, phthalates, or microplastics.
No BS, it's right there in the name.
Furthermore, NOBS comes in the form of dehydrated tablets, which allows them to be shelf-stable without any preservatives.
Take a tablet, chew it a few times, and brush as normal.
Your teeth are going to feel fantastically clean, because they are.
Also, unlike with toothpaste, TSA has no interest in knobs because they're tablets, so if you're flying with knobs, you don't risk losing your dentifrice in security.
So check out knobs at www.betterbiome.com.
That's biome without the e. Once again, that's b-e-t-t-e-r-b-i-o-m.com.
Listeners can enjoy 15% off their first one-a-month supply of knobs, So go to betterbiome.com slash darkhorse now to discover a great new way to clean your teeth.
Good stuff.
It's really good stuff.
I really, I really, the more I use it, the more I feel like it is the right way to be doing this.
And all of those years of, uh, paste that falls off your toothbrush and every other dignity is just, it's... You know, you mentioned this before and I love the knobs, but the, uh, I don't know, maybe it's a sex thing, but I could count on the fingers of one hand that I've had toothpaste fall off my toothbrush.
That's because you're doing it wrong.
This is just a problem that you invoke every now and again.
Like, really?
I mean, it may be that it doesn't happen as often as I think it does.
But it's traumatic every time?
It's so maddening because... Do you drop it, like, on the dog or something?
Toothpaste is more expensive than you would think, right?
It's just...
I know, exactly.
There are fewer in a tube, and it's more expensive, and so you lose... But you like the dosage, the dosing of the knobs as well.
Well, the dosing of the knobs is good, but the point is when you lose a whole toothbrush worth of toothpaste into the sink, then what do you do?
because only the very bottom part is sullied, but you really wouldn't want to, I mean, it just, let's put it this way, chewing up the tablet and then brushing your teeth makes so much more sense.
I have had my toothpaste fall off a million times, but I'm not concerned what happens.
All right, but still, knobs is great, and if this is a problem for you, that is toothpaste falling off your toothbrush, knobs solves that problem.
Just, you know, chew the Nob's with your mouth closed.
Mmm, good point.
In general, chewing with your mouth closed is advisable.
Okay, our third sponsor, our final sponsor this week, is Paleo Valley.
Paleo Valley makes a huge range of products.
We talked about their beefsteaks last week, and everything we've tried from them has been terrific.
Today, I want to tell you about their superfood, golden milk.
Golden milk is also known as turmeric milk.
It's delicious, nutritious, hot drink rich in turmeric, usually made in a base of either milk or coconut milk, your choice.
Turmeric is a flowering plant in the ginger family and grows across much of tropical Asia.
Just as with ginger, the rhizome of turmeric has been used culinarily and medicinally across cultures for a very long time.
Modern research backs up ancient traditions.
Isn't that great when that happens?
And it often is.
And we now know that turmeric is an antioxidant and anti-inflammatory among many other beneficial mechanisms of action.
And a particularly delicious way to get turmeric in your diet is through golden milk.
If you cook, you know that you can use turmeric as a spice that you add to your food, but you don't end up adding that much.
It's a little much, whereas in golden milk you can get a pretty high dose and it's delicious.
Enter Paleo Valley's Superfood Golden Milk.
Paleo Valley's delicious product has turmeric, of course, but also ginger.
Again, a close relative.
Cinnamon, black pepper, coconut milk powder, a little bit of monk fruit to add sweetness, and several species of mushrooms as well.
Not standard in golden milk.
Lion's mane, reishi, shiitake, and cordyceps.
It's gluten-free, grain-free, soy-free, non-GMO, and it's delicious.
Paleo Valley doesn't cut corners.
They source only the highest quality ingredients, and they use whole ingredients, unlike many competitor products.
Their superfood golden milk, for instance, has whole turmeric, not just curcumin, which is a component of turmeric, which is often the supplement that you would buy, and also whole certified organic mushrooms, not just the mycelia.
Golden milk is understood to help reduce inflammation, enhance cognitive function, support immune function, improve digestion, and increase endurance, among other things.
Paleo Valley is passionate not only about human health, but environmental restoration and animal welfare as well, and they're a family-owned company.
Try Paleo Valley's superfood golden milk today.
You will be so glad that you did.
Head over to paleovalley.com slash darkhorse for 15% off your first order.
Yeah, the golden milk is very nice before bed.
If you're looking for a little something, sometimes tea isn't the right thing.
I apologize to our British listeners, but sometimes tea isn't the right thing, and the golden milk is super nice.
I'm going to go a step further.
I find that usually tea is not the right thing.
Oh my god, are you trying to drive off our British listeners?
That's right.
Is that it?
Yeah, tea just, you know, I mean, we're our own country for a reason, guys.
Trying to revive the Boston Tea Party on it?
Alright, well.
Yeah, but I rarely reach for tea.
And the golden milk, I have really enjoyed and I hadn't made it at home before.
I've ordered it in a few places where I've seen it on the menu and loved it.
But Paleo Valley's Superfood Golden Milk is a terrific product.
Yeah, it really is.
And you can, as delicious in actual milk or coconut milk or some other milk alternative if dairy doesn't suit you, which it doesn't suit a lot of people.
Indeed.
All right.
All right.
Here we are.
Whoa!
Here we are.
A confluence.
A confluence.
A confluence born of influence.
I'm not sure who influenced whom, but... No, I don't either.
You've got a bunch of things that you want to talk about today, and they're all kind of related.
It wasn't clear to me what order they might most beneficially go in, so I'm going to let you take the lead here.
Sure.
Okay, let's start with John Campbell.
Nice, I see another confluence.
John Campbell, who reported on a new study.
Zach, do you want to show the study?
I also have it here.
You can show my screen because I've actually got the full article.
Okay, so sex-specific differences in myocardial injury incidents after COVID-19 mRNA-1273 booster vaccination.
Now, the interesting thing about this study is instead of looking at people who showed up in a medical setting complaining of issues that then turned out to be Myocarditis or pericarditis.
What they did is they simply censused the blood of people who took a booster for troponins, which are a marker of cellular damage in the heart.
So in other words, this is a test in some sense of what we've talked about previously on the podcast, which is if you're seeing all of these cases of myocarditis, how many cases are you not seeing because they didn't reach a point where the person sought medical help for them, right?
They had some pain, they Misunderstood what it was.
They never showed up in a doctor's office, which is still potentially life-reducing, right?
Myocarditis is a serious condition, and it is profoundly associated with shortened lifespan.
So, it is good to know how many of these subclinical cases there are, and in this study, as reported by... Do you want to read what you got there?
Yeah, this is just from the abstract, and I'll skip the statistical specificity.
But among 777 participants, median age 37 years, 69.5% of women.
Among 777 participants, median age 37, 69.5% women.
That's just a sample.
Right, sorry.
40 participants had elevated HSCT and T concentration on day three, and mRNA-1273 vaccine-associated myocardial injury was adjudicated in 22 participants.
And one of the interesting things to come out of this is not just the remarkably high rate of heart injury associated with the boosters, about 1 in 35, but that as they say here in the abstract, 20 cases occurred in women, 3.7%, and 2 in men, 0.8%.
And these are, you know, mild and only temporary.
So they are referring to these as transient, which is why presumably they haven't been caught previously.
But that it's a much higher rate in women than in men, which is of course the opposite direction of the less transient injury that we've been hearing about more.
And of course, part of what is raised here is, what does it mean that it is transient?
That the indicator is transient is true, but that doesn't mean that there aren't lasting effects.
Right.
As I have pointed out again and again, the heart is a very special tissue in which damage is... it produces a scar rather than a proper repair.
Even in tissues where you have a proper repair, there's a limit in almost all tissues.
There are a couple of exceptions, but in almost all tissues there's a limit to how much repair You can do in a lifetime.
So even if you have a repair in which a loss of function is not detectable, what these things do is they advance the aging of those tissues so that you can, you know, you get a certain number of those repairs in life.
And if you keep breaking the same thing, you exhaust them early, right?
Or, you know, in my case I lost teeth because an orthodontist moved my teeth too rapidly and he burned up my lifetime capacity for repair in jaw tissue.
And so anyway, jaw tissue has a higher capacity for repair than your heart does vastly, vastly higher.
And it has a built in system for dealing with minor motions of teeth because your skull shape changes over a lifetime.
But put that aside, the heart is one of a small number of tissues that has essentially no capacity for proper repair.
That is to say, cells do not get replaced in kind.
What they get replaced with is scar tissue that allows the heart to continue to function, but you don't regain the capacity of the fully functional heart that you damaged.
So, the expectation is these troponins are a useful marker.
You ever wonder how, if you have something that seems to be a heart attack and you recover within a couple of days, they can test you and see whether you did have a heart attack?
It's markers like this that they use.
So anyway, the fact that these markers show up suggests damage to the heart.
The idea that the markers are transient, as you point out, doesn't mean that the damage is transient.
And all of it is pretty scary, because myocarditis is demonstrated to be a life-shortening condition.
So anyway, one does have the sense that the paper was written to emphasize the transientness.
You know, here's an interesting finding, but maybe it...
You know, I didn't actually get that.
I've skimmed the paper, and I did not get the sense that they were trying to emphasize the transientness, but trying to be very careful about saying, as you say, the markers that we used were transient.
Right.
But in any case, the idea that if you test people who got this shot without them having to show up reporting a complaint, and you find a 1 in 35 rate, and you know, it's not a huge sample size, but nonetheless, 1 in 35 is a huge number of people to have a heart injury from
A vaccine that was given where almost all of the people it was given to would have recovered from COVID on its own didn't need a shot to protect them, and what's more, the shot didn't protect them.
The shot did not prevent transmission or contraction, and it even now seems to make contraction of the disease more likely if you get enough of these things.
So, the whole thing is an incredible debacle.
It raises questions for me, of course, about what this research would look like in people after getting their first vaccine, because this is, of course, in people already vaccinated, hospital workers already vaccinated, going in for their boosters.
You know, is this a higher rate than we would see after a first or second vaccine?
My guess is yes, that there is cumulative damage associated, that these markers may persist for longer or come on in more people the more of these shots people get, but I haven't seen that research so I don't know.
Well, it depends radically... Sorry, I should say I haven't seen that research piece.
I don't think it's been done.
It depends radically on the mechanism of action of the damage.
And this is... we're going to get a little deeper into this in the next little section.
But, you know, depending...
Mark Girardot, I think is his last name, advanced what I think is a high-quality theory, Mark, or high-quality hypothesis.
Mark believes it is the reason for the damage.
I believe it is a contributor.
But his point was, he calls it bolus theory, and the idea is that a bolus dose that gets into your bloodstream by virtue of the needle not having been aspirated and occasionally hitting a vein results in a large amount of this mRNA coated in lipid nanoparticle flooding tissues of the body and when a big dose of it hits the heart you get the equivalent of an internal burn right because those cells are taken up they're then Killed by the immune system.
This is the thing I've been arguing that this thing properly transfect cells it wasn't supposed to transfect.
Those cells get destroyed by the immune system and if that's in your heart it's a disaster.
That does not require it to be a bolus dose.
That can be any dose.
Any cell that gets transfected in your heart will then be attacked by your immune system.
But in any case, if it's the bolus dose issue, so that each time you get one of these shots
and the needle is not aspirated you're running the risk of a bolus dose then the basic point is it's a lottery each time and so you wouldn't necessarily expect a big difference between the first shot the second shot the third shot it's just that each time the chances that the needle lands in a vein would predispose you to an injury and the point is oh god that's really scary if it's 1 in 35 each time then three shots in you're 3 in 35
So it's a distinction between cumulative versus everyone is an independent crapshoot, rather like the risk from, say, some of the radioactive particles that may be in fish from Fukushima.
Yeah, exactly, exactly.
So, in any case, the large background rate of a... this is not a minor issue, and you would have damage even if the thing worked correctly, but the damage would be in a tissue where you could afford it if the thing worked according to its design.
The point at which it escapes your deltoid and is circulating in the body is a crapshoot in that regard too, and the fact is Again, we're dealing with 1 in 35, which is an unacceptably large rate, but now imagine that, you know, they're not looking at markers for damage to your kidneys.
Right, but the, you know, the flip side, the hopeful side of the bolus hypothesis is that if you weren't affected, then you're scot-free, right?
Like if that is the, excuse me, the mechanism of damage, the mechanism of action for damage, And there is actually no reason to expect that there's only one.
But if that were the only or the by far primary mechanism of action for damage, and you didn't get the damage after a shot, then you should, you know, we hear from people less now because there's, you know, people are less focused on the vaccines and there are fewer mandates and all of this now.
But I've heard from people who are living in fear because they've been vaccinated and are quite worried.
And I think the, you know, the Bolus Hypothesis, if it is true, should be promoted to people as evidence that, you know what, nothing that you have done should prompt you to now live in fear of something that you cannot change.
And if you, you know, if you did it and you seem to have gotten away with it, good for you.
Well, I slightly differ with this because the degree to which people were injured, A, they have a right to know for many reasons.
The fact that there is obvious fraud... Of course they have a right to know.
So the question is... I would never suggest they'd have a right to know.
Okay.
The idea that you weren't harmed because it was a bolus dose that does the harm will cause people who maybe were harmed not to pursue levels of damage that may be less than they would have gotten in the case of a bolus dose.
So there are legal reasons that they need to continue to be vigilant about this.
There was fraud, which means that the immunity... I'm talking about individuals living in fear that at any moment they're going to kill over.
You were talking about a very different level, and I believe that you're making it sound like I think that people should just move forward and not look back and not think about the incredibly diabolical things that were done to all of us as a society and many individuals.
No, you know that's not true.
So don't strawman my argument here.
I was speaking to individuals, and maybe you just haven't seen these messages, but individuals who are scared and having a hard time sort of moving around in their own world because they've become, you know, just as many people.
And I think, you know, the other side of that was many people were so scared of COVID and so convinced by the journalistic malpractice and public health malpractice that assured them if they just got these vaccines and if everyone around them did, then they would be safe.
They lived in fear of those of us who didn't get them.
Now, that was ridiculous.
That was absurd.
And there was no truth in that whatsoever.
But there are some number of people who are scared walking around because they did get vaccinated and fear that they're basically a ticking time bomb.
And I don't think that's helpful.
Well, I don't know what the right answer is.
The fact is, even, I don't, you know, I don't know what, every time I get on my bike and, you know, struggle up a hill or something, I'm grateful that I don't have to worry about whether I'm gonna push my heart to some limit that I used to be able to reach that is now beyond my capacity because of one of these injuries.
So, you know, there's that.
On the other hand, if you more or less seem to have gotten away with it, with the shot, you don't have anything that you detected, should you proceed as if nothing happened?
Or should you be aware that you may actually have had some damage that was subclinical, that has important ramifications?
Maybe it has a five-year time horizon.
Maybe You know, by the time you've gone five years and not detected anything in terms of reduced heart capacity, at that point it would be justified to assume that nothing happened.
But I don't know what the right answer is.
On the one hand, I feel terrible for people who are walking around under this cloud.
On the other hand, there are If it were me, and I was walking around under that cloud, I would want to think very carefully through what it should alter about how I behave and what I expect.
Because as terrible as it would be to think about that regularly, not doing it carries its own risks.
But anyway, 1 in 35 detectable heart damage for a single, the third dose of a particular shot.
If that number is either cumulative or in some other way compounding, then we need to understand what that pattern is.
Further, if we're not checking for markers to damage to other tissues, as you point out in the Fukushima fish example, you don't find what you're not looking for.
So now we have to be very precise here.
A good vaccine, let's say an attenuated virus-based vaccine, will cause some damage to tissues because the immune system will target the cells that have been infected by this attenuated virus.
However, it will not be the body-wide crapshoot that the mRNA vaccines are because whatever virus was attenuated had a particular ecology where it was focused on invading cells that were useful to it and not focused on any cell it encounters.
So there will be a limit to the amount of damage and That was simply absent from the design of the mRNA shots.
There is no targeting whatsoever.
The targeting was entirely about where it was injected and the fact that we knew that it escaped from the deltoid means the body is all open to being transfected with this stuff.
And so therefore, what can we say?
Unlike a normal vaccine, there will be damage across many tissues.
That damage could be widely distributed and in many tissues that will be unimportant, right?
You'll not be able to measure a difference.
Doesn't mean no damage.
We shouldn't think of it as no damage, but we should say undetectable in any concentrated way.
As even compelling traditional vaccines would cause, which is net beneficial because Well, let's put it this way.
If you take an attenuated virus vaccine, it has almost no reason to attack a cell in your heart, because the heart is not a good place from which to spread to other people.
So the heart would be isolated from that damage by virtue of the evolutionary ecology of the virus that was attenuated.
Because no such thing exists with the mRNA platform, what we have to say is, look, this is going to transfect some heart cells.
It's going to result in the immune system attacking those heart cells.
There are people for whom that's just simply not a risk worth taking.
Lots of them.
An mRNA vaccine, in quotes, is inherently indiscriminate because you've abandoned the selective pressure of the original organism, virus.
And of course, with SARS-CoV-2, we have that two times because you've already abandoned the original selective pressure of the original virus by creating a frankenvirus in a lab based on an original virus.
So you've got some selective environment that still the public health authorities and the researchers aren't being honest about with regard to how this thing was created in the first place.
And then you've got a vaccine that is only providing instructions to make the spike protein.
And that will go anywhere as opposed to an attenuated virus vaccine Uh, which is still driven by its, you know, unconscious, all of this, but its evolutionary, its original evolutionary pressure to get to tissues where it can then spread to other individuals, potential hosts.
Yep.
Uh, so for, for two big reasons, we've got these, uh, these mRNA so-called vaccines, uh, that are more likely to do damage than, uh, a traditional attenuated virus vaccine.
Yes, and I would point out that the logic of the attenuated virus vaccine is somewhat sketchier with the adeno vector DNA-based COVID vaccine, but it's a lot closer because they did borrow an existing virus, right?
It's not an attenuated virus.
So it's sketchier than what?
The logic that says an attenuated virus is limited by the ancestral ecology of the virus that was attenuated.
This is, you know, the DNA-based vaccine.
They borrowed a wholly different virus, right?
It's not SARS-CoV-2.
So it is effectively an attenuated virus, but because there's new technology here, it is less... It hasn't been fully stripped of its evolutionary background.
Right.
And so the evolutionary background will have it targeted on whatever cells that ancestral virus that they've borrowed.
No, I don't know what, you know, what the evolutionary ecology of that... Of the adenovirus.
I don't know.
But let's just say... But it existed in nature and it did something.
And we know... And that something wasn't spreading from host to host by targeting heart cells.
Right, exactly.
The point is a virus has an interest in leaving you intact in tissues where it is not getting an advantage by replicating because You spread it more if you're still up on your feet, right?
It's not like a mosquito-borne pathogen where knocking you flat on your back actually serves the pathogen.
The virus wants you on your feet enough to spread it, and so that will apply to the adenovirus that the DNA vaccines are based on.
It does not apply to the pseudovirus that is effectively what the mRNA vaccines are based on.
Okay, so we've got some huge rate, if we look only at the heart, we've got a huge rate of subclinical injuries from a particular inoculation of a shot that people got many inoculations of, and we don't yet know the story of how those inoculations compound.
So that is a frightening and important picture.
As John Campbell says, if regulators don't take notice of this, what the hell is going on, right?
How can they miss this?
But anyway, that's where that story stands and it's worth thinking about.
Which then brings us to the next piece of the puzzle, which a conversation caught my attention.
I haven't seen the full conversation, but it is Paul Offit talking to Gad Saad.
And Gad Saad, so Paul Offit is a
I think a vaccine evangelist is the only term that, you know, he's like a Hotez-like character where he is such a passionate advocate for this set of technologies that he appears to miss the obvious signs that there are dangers and that caution needs to be exerted, cost-benefit analysis needs to be done very carefully and by people who don't have a conflict of interest.
And recently, Bobby Kennedy Jr.
has taken Paul Offit to task.
Apparently he had personal interactions with him in which he brought things to Offit's attention that should have raised Offit's eyebrows about vaccine safety and, I believe, the lack of placebo controls, and Offit disappeared and wouldn't respond.
So anyway, people can look into what Bobby Kennedy has said.
This conversation with Gadsad and Paul Offit had an interesting exchange, which I will show you.
We have a tweet that contains it.
Do you want me to show the video?
Yeah.
Is there a problematic link between the COVID vaccine and heart inflammation?
There certainly is a causal link between vaccination and myocarditis and pericarditis.
No doubt about it.
It's unclear why.
I mean, it may be, as was actually noticed in 2020, that SARS-CoV-2 virus, the spike protein, mimics one of the proteins on heart muscle cells, specifically the heavy chain of actin.
So if that's true, then while you're making an immune response to the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, you're also inadvertently making an immune response to your own heart muscle.
All right.
So the attribution was cut off on the screenshot there.
That was from a tweet by, I believe, Chief Nerd, which has been an excellent account, basically an aggregator that brings together all kinds of interesting information surrounding COVID policy and treatments.
It's Nick Hudson.
I believe he has taken the clip from Chief Nerd, but anyway, Nick Hudson tweeted it.
But in any case, what Offit says here is interesting, because Offit, who is a vaccine evangelist, acknowledges, in fact, he says there's no doubt that there is a causal link between myocarditis and pericarditis and the COVID vaccines.
But then he goes on to explain what he believes the mechanism is.
And he says that it is likely because the spike protein, and mind you, Dark Horse got fact-checked over the claim that the spike protein was cytotoxic, and that was claimed to be misinformation, though it is clearly not misinformation.
Offit here blames the spike protein, and what he says is that it is likely that because the spike protein mimics the heavy chain of the actin protein in the heart cells, when you create an immunity to the spike protein, you are also creating an immunity that will target your own cells.
Now, on the one hand, That is a major admission.
Yep, sure is.
Some of us tried to warn about autoimmunities, about heart damage, about many different components, and we were ridiculed, we were... We had our... Censored, demonetized, the whole thing based on truth facts.
Yes, and notice, let's say that his story is right, that that's what's going on here.
Well, guess what?
Those of us who said you don't know the long-term effects of these shots, they couldn't possibly be safe.
We couldn't possibly have been righter.
Right?
What this says is there was no way to shortcut this safety process and get the benefit of it because what you needed to see was what pathologies developed down the road and you haven't had enough time to see those pathologies.
So that is a complete vindication of the idea that they had no right to tell us that these things were safe because long-term harms were unknowable at the time to anyone.
Okay, but why is a vaccine advocate, whose conflicts of interest have been raised by many, why is he making this acknowledgment?
All right, it seems like a big acknowledgment, but I would argue that this is actually the medical equivalent of a limited hangout.
Meaning?
Define limited hangout.
Limited hangout is a term in security state and espionage circles for a presentation that minimizes a particular set of facts, does report something true, but minimizes the significance of it so that it will sort of satisfy the desire to know that something bad happened.
You know, it throws somebody under the bus or some process under the bus while rescuing some core element.
And it allows those who have been suspicious of the clams to say, see, they acknowledge the thing.
They're not the bad guys.
Right.
No.
Okay.
And this is going to be a big theme for today's podcast.
But the issue here, I believe, Why did all of the skullduggery that unfolded around these vaccines happen?
Everything from the false demonization of repurposed drugs to the claim that things were safe and effective that couldn't possibly be to the statistical skullduggery that we will get to soon.
Why did all of this happen?
Well, this is a hypothesis, and I've said it before, but the hypothesis is that pharma, which is a very difficult business, it is hard to find things that actually improve human health and that actually fight disease.
It can take decades to get it done from the point that you have something promising to the point that you have something that has been demonstrated to work and to be worth the harm that it does, and all drugs do some harm.
So that can be decades out.
So that's a very hard profile.
And it cannot work.
You can invest hundreds of millions of dollars, billions of dollars in something and then get nothing back.
It's risky.
So, okay.
That's the situation.
Pharma had something that was potentially radically changing of what is medically possible.
It had the solution to a problem that was very difficult to solve.
And the problem that was very difficult to solve was Many places, you want a cell to produce something it's capable of producing, but the genome doesn't support it, either because there's a broken gene in the genome that isn't producing the right product, or because the genome doesn't contain the code at all.
And so you want the cells to do something.
In principle, you could edit it in, but how the hell do you get enough cells edited to make a difference, right?
If you can't produce insulin, how do you get enough cells to take up the gene that would allow them to produce insulin to solve your own problem internally?
And the mRNA platform is brilliant, right?
It bypasses the nuclear genome and it inserts the mRNA message into the cytoplasm where the cells do what they're told and they transcribe it and they make any protein you want.
That is a brilliant mechanism for solving this problem, but it has a giant gaping flaw in it, which is Any cell of yours that produces a foreign protein, which is what inherently will happen when an mRNA message is introduced into your cell, will be targeted by your own immune system and destroyed.
You will create an autoimmune disorder.
That's what it will do when it works.
How the hell are you going to bring such a thing to market?
Well, you would need a solution to the following problem.
How do you get it to only those cells where that's a cost worth paying?
How do you keep it out of your heart, for example?
Well, you can't do it by coating it in a lipid nanoparticle.
It's just simply a fat attracted to other fats, because all of your cells are covered in fat.
It's completely indiscriminate, right?
And nobody can afford to have this happen in their heart.
And it's not the only tissue where that's true, but it's the most obvious of them.
So, they had a platform that solved a huge problem.
And they had no way to deliver it safely to market because they didn't have a targeting mechanism.
What a shame.
Well, I thought it was Rahm Emanuel who said, don't let any good crisis go to waste.
I was recently told that it was Henry Kissinger who first said that.
I don't care which one it is.
I'd love to know if Kissinger said it first, but nonetheless, it sounds like something he might have thought.
In any case, okay, so they had a pandemic, they had a technology they couldn't bring safely to market, and the emergency allowed them to do it, right?
The emergency allowed them to go through emergency use authorization, to get people on board with taking it because people were so scared of COVID.
It allowed them to basically push aside all of the safeguards that should have prevented a prototype technology like this from reaching the market without demonstrating safety.
You had something to say?
Well, this might be, it's going to be a big, long diversion, but this might be the place to share some from Clayton Fox's newest piece, because he talks some about the creation of the EUA in the wake of, excuse me, in the wake of the mandatory anthrax vaccines in the military.
Well, let me come back to it.
I'll just complete what I think is the office story here.
So, okay, Pharma accomplished the impossible.
It took a technology that it owned that was, in my opinion, at least three decades out from being usefully and safely deployable, if at all.
There's no telling whether you could have rescued it, but if they had a way to target it, It might have taken three decades for them to figure out what that way was, to figure out how to bring it about, and then to show that it was safe.
And they didn't want to wait.
And so this crisis gave them the opportunity not to wait.
Now here's the point.
Now, you've got a huge fraction of the globe that has already accepted mRNA vaccine technology.
And how.
How are you going to rescue it from a 1 in 35 chance of damaging your heart?
Right?
How are you going to overcome the dawning awareness that this stuff is lethally dangerous and to tissues you cannot afford to have damaged?
Blame the spike protein!
Right.
If the problem is inherent to the spike protein, then okay, we admit it, we picked the wrong protein, but all you got to do is swap in a protein that doesn't have some flaw like this, and the mRNA platform is right back on track.
On the other hand, if we are right in what we have been saying... If it's both things!
If it's both things.
Spike protein is a bad choice, and It doesn't matter what protein.
Any foreign protein transcribed by your cells is going to cause your own immune system to go after your own heart cells if that's where this thing ends up transfecting.
Yes.
And it is both.
100% is both.
Well, let's just say Well, okay.
Logically speaking.
That was a figure of speech.
I should not say 100% in a scientific context, but is the spike protein cytotoxic?
Yes.
Now we even have Paul Offit, what did you call him?
A vaccine evangelist?
A vaccine evangelist, yeah.
Acknowledging that.
And is the mRNA platform itself going to indiscriminately because it has shaved away all of the evolutionary Context of the organism that it is supposedly vaccinating you against indiscriminately attack things like your heart cells?
Yes.
Do I know that 100%?
No.
But it seems extraordinarily likely that both things are true and we have evidence in both cases.
And yes, much evidence of many kinds has emerged since we first deployed that hypothesis.
Right?
There is evidence of immune cells attacking the heart where we have these cases of myocarditis.
It's not simple inflammation.
It is tissue destruction that is downstream of transfection of these cells and, even worse, This platform involves hyper-stabilized mRNAs that, when the cells that contain these transfection elements are destroyed, spill out and are liable to transfect new cells.
They may transfect immune cells, in fact, cells that are dedicated to cleaning up the destruction of cells that the body assumed were virally infected.
Either we have a, well that was an unfortunate protein to have chosen, we should have picked something else, you know, but mistakes happen, which is what Paul Offit's claim is, or this platform is still fatally flawed and that's why it never should have been sped through all of the processes that would have been necessary to demonstrate you had a vaccine that was worth the cost of injecting it in people.
So that's where we are and I believe what Paul Offit is doing is a limited hangout designed
to rescue the mRNA platform from the natural consequences of what we have now discovered at the cost of who knows how many lives globally, who knows how many years people lost, who knows how much the cost of this destruction has been, and yes, the spike protein was not a good choice, as we have said many times.
But it is far from the worst problem here, and the worst problems do indict this platform until proven otherwise.
Awesome.
I mean, completely diabolically terrible.
Yes.
Awesome.
So, shall we talk a little bit about, or read some excerpts from the tablet piece that Clayton Fox just published?
Sure.
Let me just take some notes here for a second.
Spike protein.
Okay, so Clayton Fox, whom we are now friends with and we have talked, we've read some of his work here before, is publishing regularly in Tablet, and Tablet has become just an amazing Maybe it always was.
I have come to understand it to be an amazing publication, not just because of what it is publishing of Clay's, but here's a piece that came out on yesterday called Thinning the Ranks.
Using vaccines as a political weapon, U.S.
military leaders have wrecked the forces' combat readiness and morale, current and former soldiers tell Tablet.
And so here's the pretty great I have some excerpts highlighted.
It's a long piece.
I highly recommend it.
We'll link to it in the show notes.
I highly recommend the whole thing, but sorry, I'm making people dizzy.
Here's the first excerpt.
From the military standpoint, the mandate was not just a matter of life and death, but also of national security.
So I should say, they're talking specifically about military vaccine mandates, which you also had a conversation, and actually he cites your conversation on Dark Horse in, was it like October or November of last year?
October 22.
I had two conversations.
Your conversations with a total of six or seven former... I think it was five and then an attorney associated with their claim.
People, active members of the military.
Yep.
So, from the military standpoint, the mandate was not just a matter of life and death, but also of national security.
If infections swept through the ranks due to troops refusing to take available vaccines, not only would that destroy morale and discipline, but it could also leave the country unable to respond to an attack or emergency.
The problem with this argument is twofold.
First, COVID-19 never posed a significant acute risk to healthy young people, the very demographic that overwhelmingly makes up the military, which means the vaccination drive was, at best, unnecessary.
Secondly, according to several sources, the military's approach to the vaccines, rather than emphasizing combat readiness, was used as a disciplinary tool to enforce political conformity and punish independent thought and ideological dissent.
That's an important sentence right there.
I've seen everything from Don't Ask, Don't Tell repeal to gay marriage legalized to people are allowed to put gay pride flags in their offices now, said a member of an elite infantry unit with over a decade of service.
The jarring thing, he explained, was that the same military that boasts about its tolerance became rigidly intolerant on the question of bodily autonomy and vaccines.
Quote, you can get exemptions for religious beards if you're Muslim.
You can get exemption to wear headgear instead of your issued hat.
That's fine.
I'm all for it.
If you can do the job, you should be allowed to do it.
But then, for a vaccine that's violating the Nuremberg Code, and all of a sudden we're the problem, that's what's bizarre to me.
Many of those who refused the vaccines did so on the grounds that the Band-Aid violated the Nuremberg Code of Ethics for permissible medical experiments.
The first line of the code reads, quote, "The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential." Those citing the code point out that these COVID vaccines had not even finished their clinical trials at the time troops were being pressured and/or mandated to take them, and were therefore being asked to sacrifice their Nuremberg-derived rights.
Health authorities in the U.S. dismissed that claim on the grounds that the vaccines had received emergency authorizations and were therefore not strictly experimental.
I don't know if you want to add something there, or I should go to the next excerpt.
Yeah, I do want to add something.
It's a general comment about, you know, obviously, since I had covered this story, some of this wasn't new to me.
On the other hand, there was, the story is quite exhaustive, and What it revealed to me was that what we saw informally play out in the wider world, right, the bullying that took place over people's justifiable skepticism of new so-called vaccine technologies, that that played out in the military in a very different way because of the formalized
A hierarchy, right?
The military requires a formalized hierarchy, which means that essentially everybody except the lowest rank was in a position to boss somebody else around.
And so to the extent that you were formally empowered to do this, people took on a kind of, you know, cinema drill sergeant approach to getting the people below them in line.
Yeah.
This is so diabolical in a case where people had just a normal right to feel caution about a technology that was brand new, that they were being told that they needed for a disease that was not killing people in their circles.
You know, it's not killing healthy young people.
And that right vanished.
And then the other thing is, and I wish the piece hit this note harder, the fact that by purging people, by driving them out, making their lives a living hell, and then formally purging them from the ranks if they refused at the point that the mandates became viable, we have created a force that is now compliant.
Right?
A military force that will now accept immoral orders, including violations of a code that was produced at no small cost in U.S.
military lives.
Yes.
Fully aside from the medical implications and autonomy implications and personal health implications, the mandates were a selective force that has created a compliant military.
And we need Because of what the military is, because of the need for hierarchy, there needs to be compliance within reason, which is to say there needs to be compliance and reason.
Every single soldier needs to do what they are told in times of duress and also needs to be keeping their brain alive and thinking, you know what?
Not that order.
No, sir.
Not that order.
We need a force that can and does and will stand up to unethical orders when they come, and what we have had here is a selective force, a selective pressure to create a compliant force that will not.
Now, the piece does say, and I have a few more excerpts including one extended excerpt here to read, does say that many people In some units, the estimation is a majority of people who ended up vaccinated were resistant, feel that they were duped, felt that they had no choice because they need to support their families, and were never pleased about it.
So, you know, that provides hope, right?
That it's not that people did the thing and went like, oh, wow, being compliant feels great.
I feel terrific.
I'm going to go about my day now.
Like, no.
I think in some ways, actually, you may have people who now have more reticence to unethical orders than they did before, but who are still in the military, I hope.
Well.
But I think it's at least a possibility.
Yeah, I agree that that's a possibility.
I think people are wide awake in a way that these maniacs who built this policy did not anticipate, and I think in large measure that happened because a small number of channels that they did not control, including this one, were able to reveal that their narrative was garbage.
But, so what we can say is, what were they trying to do?
I don't know if they were trying to create a compliant force, but it's certainly interesting that they deployed a policy that would have that as a natural consequence.
Right.
So, you know, from the point of view of what William Binney called the turnkey totalitarian state, you know, you can't have a turnkey totalitarian state if the military is fighting for the freedom of Americans, including their rights under Nuremberg.
Right?
You have to do something to make the force deaf to Nuremberg, and this would be something you would do.
The fact that it didn't work doesn't indicate anything about the policy being less diabolical than it was, because it was quite diabolical.
Yeah.
But it, you know, yes, it did not work as well as they might have liked.
A little bit more from Fox and tablet this week.
The COVID-19 mandate forms part of a pattern of vaccination controversies in the U.S.
military.
In the first Gulf War, over 150,000 U.S.
troops were vaccinated against the anthrax bacterium, which military brass feared might be used by Saddam Hussein and American troops.
Parenthetically.
Notably, the United States also sold Saddam's spores and technology that might have allowed Iraq to produce weaponized anthrax.
One problem with the anthrax vaccine was that any expected weaponization of anthrax would come through an inhaled exposure, and the vaccine the military mandated had only been tested in humans against exposure through the skin.
In spite of the fact that the anthrax vaccine wasn't licensed for prevention of disease via inhalation, in 1998 the DoD pushed forward with a military-wide mandate.
Subsequently, a small group of soldiers refused to take it, with at least 500 eventually being thrown out of the military.
Along the way, many replaced a military prison for their refusals.
Prior to the mandates, in 1997, a new section was added to Title X of the U.S.
Code, the Consolidation and Codification of the General and Permanent Laws of the United States, requiring the Department of Defense to inform soldiers any time they are being asked to take an investigational drug, the reasons why, and any possible side effects that might arise, as well as garner consent for administration.
The only way for informed consent to be waived is by a written waiver from the President, and only if it's deemed necessary for national security.
This was reaffirmed in an executive order signed by President Clinton in 1999.
But the DoD didn't consider the anthrax vaccine investigational, in spite of it being used in an unauthorized manner, and so they didn't feel the need to get a waiver.
In 2001, then Attorney General of Connecticut Richard Blumenthal advocated for the mandates to be thrown out due to the lack of a presidential waiver and concerns about quality control issues and FDA violations in its manufacturing.
He wrote a letter to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, arguing that, quote, in effect, the military is forcing its personnel to serve as human guinea pigs for an unlicensed drug that has not been proven to be safe or effective, end quote.
Blumenthal, now a Democratic Senator, has taken a very different view of the COVID vaccine.
In January 2021, Blumenthal told reporters, quote, we need these vaccines to go in the arms of our veterans and into the arms of all Americans, end quote.
Tablet has reached out to Senator Blumenthal's office for comment on why the unlicensed COVID vaccines were different from the unlicensed anthrax vaccines.
We have received no reply.
The anthrax vaccine mandate was thrown out after six years, with the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia issuing a permanent injunction in Doe v. Rumsfeld.
But the legal backlash spurred the creation of an entirely new designation within the FDA, the Emergency Use Authorization.
Codified in the 2004 Project BioShield Act, Congress created a pathway for the FDA to authorize unapproved biologics for emergency use in an imagined bioterror attack.
Wasting no time, the FDA granted the anthrax vaccines an EUA in January 2005, which then allowed the military to resume anthrax vaccinations, though only on a voluntary basis.
By year's end, the FDA had given the anthrax vaccine full licensure for use against inhalational anthrax and the military mandates were back in force for troops headed to regions with a higher risk of biological warfare.
Looking back, Dale Saran, a former marine aviator and JAG who represented anthrax vaccine refusers and who is now a civil attorney, told Tablet that he believes, quote, anthrax was the trial run.
Saran thinks that at least some of what drove the push for COVID-19 vaccines inside the military is simply profit.
Quote, the biggest government contractors have always been the Raytheons.
All of a sudden, with the biodefense thing, Pfizer is like the third largest defense contractor.
The biotech pharmaceutical industry saw that they could wedge their way in and get a chunk of that fat Department of Defense pipeline.
So a couple of things that should be added here.
One, there is substantial evidence that the anthrax vaccination campaign is actually the explanation for what was called Gulf War Syndrome.
Right.
Right.
So this was potentially a trial run here where the initial case, and I think the first EUA that was granted, was granted for the anthrax vaccine in this case.
So anyway, rather like If you read The Real Anthony Fauci by Robert Kennedy Jr., you see that actually there is a precursor case surrounding AIDS in which a lot of the tropes were deployed for the first time.
And, you know, it's basically a rerun.
The COVID version is a rerun of many things that we had already seen with AIDS.
In many ways, in the military, the anthrax vaccine campaign is a notable precursor of the same pattern that surrounded COVID.
So, yeah, completely shocking how this unfolded in the military context, especially in light of what the military is needed to do.
I mean, they deployed a vaccine whose safety they didn't know anything about, or very little, on a force that is necessary to protect the Republic.
That's right.
So one last thing.
I'm going to skip a few of these, but one last thing.
This is from a member of the military.
There's been an agenda, again in the Fox piece in Tablet, there's been an agenda at play that does seem to be pushing a focus on things that don't matter and what should be a militarily focused organization, such as paying for the surgeries of transgender members, said Larson.
At the same time that the military is restricting, isolating, saying you're undeployable to unvaccinated soldiers because you're medically unsafe, because you're not receiving experimental gene therapy that hasn't even been fully tested, that same organization is saying they will pay for you to receive the surgery and be stuck on these hormonal therapies that do literally limit your ability to be in isolated situations in many ways, he said.
Referring to an army policy issued in June 2021, a few months before the vaccine mandate, that the service would pay for transgender soldiers to receive home-run therapy, mental health care, and surgeries where deemed necessary.
The fact that those two things occurred at the same time to me is just evidence of an agenda at play.
They are Exactly the opposite of one another in terms of the kinds of arguments they are making about what is necessary and what is important for both health and bodily autonomy and also for military readiness because and you know this is You know, this is, we're mostly talking about COVID vaccine mandates here.
But to have the service member tie together, which I didn't, I didn't know they were so close in time, that the military had said, actually, we're going to, we're going to allow, we are going to provide the quote, unquote, health care for transgender members that includes mental health care, okay, but also hormones and surgeries, which
Put aside for the moment whether or not anyone should ever have those things done to them, but what they clearly do is render you a person who is a medical patient for life.
If you do not maintain, depending on what the surgery was and depending on what the hormonal interventions are, maintain Continuous medical activation of the fallout from those medical interventions in order to reveal yourself as the transhuman that you think you are, the transgendered human that you think you are, things go very bad very quickly.
And so the military is simultaneously saying that they will support and fund such interventions, which make a force inherently less ready because you can't have such people in places where they will not have constant access to health care, and forcing interventions on people, which we know now, and there was lots of evidence before, have bad health effects.
And, you know, Fox does finish this piece by saying that none of the people that they interviewed for this piece, that he interviewed for this piece, have any adverse events from the vaccines that they know.
But that doesn't mean that they don't exist.
1 in 35 we're hearing.
Yeah, this is, and I tried to raise this point too, which is, if you want a country in which individual freedom is prioritized in the way that it has traditionally been in the US, You need a strong, and that means masculine, military.
The idea that the military would voluntarily play games.
The military can just simply say, look, if you are in some form of medical transition, you can't be in the military because it's inconsistent, right?
It's simply incompatible with the mission.
Rather than coddling these beliefs and confusing the role, the mission of the entity.
So, I think that's true, but that's even, that's more in the weeds than my objection here.
It's not reasonable to be having healthy breasts be chopped off because you feel like they offend your sense of self.
No.
It's not a good idea.
But presumably, a few months later, the ramifications of that are not such that you are going to be needing health care to maintain that condition.
But the hormonal interventions and the so-called bottom surgeries.
aren't stable.
They aren't stable.
We need a military full of people who can be sent out with not much, but a lot of training and their own ingenuity, and can be self-sufficient, and can create self-sufficiency for not just themselves, but for a bunch of self-sufficient people, that the whole group can be self-sufficient, and they can find what they need and do what they need to do,
And not fall apart if they don't have the intervention of some, you know, hyper-modern technological thing that has suddenly come on the market and is everyone, you know, too many people's favorite pastime.
It has zero place in the military.
It's like saying, okay, I really, I've always had this dream of subbitting Everest, but I'm going to start on, you know, cross-sex hormones and have a really invasive surgery a little bit before, and I'm going to expect everyone else in my team to make sure that I'm okay.
Well, you know what?
No.
You and your selfishness, and that's the shallow end of the pool, don't have any place on that mission.
So I was going to say, the feminizing of the military, the confusing of gender is the shallow end here.
The medical compromising that you're talking about is the next phase.
the demoralizing of the force over threatening people's careers if they refuse to take these shots.
And it's not even that.
It's not even that you have to leave the military and go to a new career.
These people did not get honorable discharges.
They were threatened.
They got general discharges, which means that anybody who's looking to hire them is going to wonder what it is that they did wrong.
And so my point is all of that is obviously going to destroy morale in this force where morale is a central piece of the weaponry.
And what I tried to raise many months ago, um, Robert Wright took me to task and we had a little back and forth on Dark Horse about it.
But my point was, we have enemies.
We have a corruption problem in which people can buy policy changes that serve their interests at the expense of the interests of the American public.
Why on earth do we think that so many policy decisions that compromise the morale, the readiness, the ability to recruit of this force, why do we think that that was actually just error upon error?
Why is it not obvious that we should be asking the question at least?
Hey, all of these things make us less capable of defending the Republic.
Some people don't want us to be able to defend the Republic.
Have we checked to see whether or not there was influence exerted that caused us to do so many stupid things to this essential function?
I'm reminded of our piece I wrote and we talked about here and that actually we put on some some Dark Horse merchandise.
Do not affirm, do not comply.
Right?
Both the language of affirmation of your child's preferred gender and less so compliance because compliance does have a negative connotation but affirmation is certainly the word used because it's this very positive affirmation.
But that message needs to be heard by everyone for sure, but it's going to be harder to hear and therefore even more important for women to hear.
Because on average A well-known, well-replicated psychological conclusion is that women are more agreeable, which is a term of art in psychology, right?
That agreeableness, as one of the big five personality traits, is higher in women than in men.
And that means less likely to argue, less likely to disagree, more likely to go along, to get along.
Right?
And there are places for agreeableness and there are places for disagreeableness.
And like many of the differences in sex between humans, the differences point to the fact that both have their place and that both are valuable.
But as we move towards valorizing female typical ways of being over male typical ways of being across Across domains, we are putting ourselves at risk because the male typical ways of being also have their place.
And at the point, like this is the most obvious place, at the point that we're doing that to our military, This should be extraordinarily obvious, right?
The military is historically, traditionally, an entirely male place.
Now, many militaries have some female members, but it is never going to be, the military is never going to be a female phenomenon, nor should it be.
Right?
This is ridiculous, right?
So your point about compliance, about increasing compliance in the military, is actually another kind of feminization because compliance is itself a form of agreeableness.
You're right.
And so this is yet another way that we are effectively feminizing our military and we can talk all day long about what kinds of demands we would like to see quote-unquote masculinized or feminized and in general I don't use those terms, but if we start with the conclusion Again, well replicated from psychology that agreeableness is more common in women than in men, and that all of us have some agreeable moments and all of us have some disagreeable moments.
Just, you know, it's not necessary to go there.
But if we start with that well-understood conclusion that agreeableness is more common in women than men, And we also understand that the military historically requires a hierarchy and for everyone beneath everyone else to actually follow orders, but not when they are unethical.
What we don't have is an agreeable military, historically.
We have one that recognizes hierarchy and keeps its brain alive.
Whereas compliance, agreeableness, just for the sake of agreeableness, just for the sake of not causing trouble, is not what we need in the military.
It's quite the opposite.
Actually, it raises another point that you have made.
You have objected when people have said that men are more competitive, and you've pointed out that men are differently competitive.
I have written peer-reviewed articles on this topic, yes.
And so your point has been that female competition tends to be more cryptic.
Yes.
And the issue of a military force in which men are empowered to push each other around a bit, to compete with each other, that that's part of the thing that makes the force work, is now shifting into a mode in which people are cryptically bullying each other and using powers in ways that they were not designed
in order to force others to demonstrate compliance to a normal order, that that does sound more like the female mode of competition and not the male one.
You don't want whisper campaigns driving what is done in the military.
Right.
That is completely dangerous.
You also want the altercations that men will get into in the military to be exposed to everyone.
You want them to be out in the open so that also, I mean, just at the most basic level, if you do end up deployed, if you do end up seeing combat, you know who's got what skills and who's willing to go up against what and when.
You absolutely can't have this being cryptic.
You can't have cryptic competition in a military environment.
This makes no sense at all, and that's what we're doing.
No, I can speak to the male side of this.
Males pushing each other around, exposing each other's flaws, those kinds of stuff that men do when they are gathered together, those things are character building.
And it doesn't mean that they're all nice.
Right, but the point is, in the end, when you are, you know, in some sort of a firefight, you know who you're in battle with, and you know what they're made of, and what they're made of is better than what they walked through the door with, because... You leveled them up.
You leveled them up, exactly.
Yes.
Yeah.
We are just, we are making a mess of things.
Yes, yes we are.
Yes we are.
Okay, did you want to talk, I know you're getting somewhere ultimately, but did you want to talk a little bit about this cheap trick?
Oh yes, we must talk about The Cheap Trick.
Okay.
So, before we get to... Why do we call it The Cheap Trick?
So, there's an article called The Very Best of Cheap Trick, based on the album Cheap trick!
The, I don't know, 1980s band?
Something like that.
But this is about the statistical trick of excluding partially vaccinated people from the assessment of vaccine efficacy so as to juke the stats.
Which guarantees a conclusion of efficacy.
We talked about this back in Livestream 179 on June 21st of this year in our episode, Science Strong and Fragile.
And it's an analysis that we talked about then done by these two guys, Martin Neal, a professor of computer science and statistics, and Norman Fenton, whom you have had on Dark Horse, a professor of risk information management.
Both of them are in the School of Electronic and Electrical Engineering and Computer Science at Queen Mary University of London.
And they have one of their, actually you've got that on the screen there, Zach, an early paragraph in this piece.
You can scroll down if you want, but I'm just looking at it on my screen.
The cheap trick is simple.
Categorize those who are vaccinated as unvaccinated up until some arbitrarily defined time period after vaccination takes place.
The time period might be 7, 14, or 21 days.
The supposed justification for this practice being that the benefits of the vaccine do not accrue until it has had time to kick in.
And before it becomes effective on day 7, 14, or whatever, the recipe is considered to be unvaccinated.
So these authors, Neal and Fenton, have put together what Zach is showing on the screen, this fantastic new compendium, which apparently you asked them, as we see on screen here, recently the Dark Horse podcast covered the issue and shortly after Brett Weinstein asked me if there was a comprehensive list of studies that had deliberately committed this cheap trick.
So they've put together this article, which is fantastic, They say, our first attempt to provide such a list.
It contains a mix of observational and other studies that have employed the cheap trick when assessing vaccine effectiveness for either infection, hospitalization, or death.
Note that as well as numerous and varying time periods that the trick might be employed, there are four ways in which this kind of selection bias might take place.
Miscategorized.
The vaccinated are categorized as unvaccinated or twice vaccinated, categorized as single vaccinated, etc.
Unverified.
Those who are vaccinated but cannot be verified as such are categorized as unvaccinated.
Excluded.
Those who are vaccinated but are infected before 14 days or whatever are allocated to neither the unvaccinated nor vaccinated categories but are instead simply removed from the analysis.
And undefined.
The definitions of vaccinated and unvaccinated are left intentionally undefined.
And that exclusion version of what they're calling the cheat trick has tended to be overlooked.
uh so you we're not going to go through all of these but it's um it's a remarkable list and if you want to just scroll um scroll quickly through these we've got a New England Journal of Medicine uh British BMC is British uh I don't know.
I don't remember what BMC is.
Infection Diseases, JAMA, Lancet, Open Forum Infections, the Journal of Vaccine, again Lancet.
And for each of these they specify, hold on just a second, so there's BMJ, British Medical Journal, and Nature.
And here we have Neal and Fenton saying with regard to each of these what it is that the cheap trick that was clearly deployed in the study was.
New England Journal of Medicine.
Nature.
Lancet.
Vaccines.
And on and on and on and on and on.
We've got the CDC's official definition.
We've got an official report from various public health authorities.
More with JAMA.
New England Journal of Medicine.
Nature.
Lancet.
Wow!
Those are some, and those are major journals.
These are major.
And of course they're major journals, because it is those papers and the fact that there's more than one of them, and in fact many of them, that have been the basis for the argument that these vaccines are not just safe and effective, but it is your moral obligation to take them, because they are just that freaking good.
And look at all the corn artistry.
Look at it!
So, a reminder for people who maybe didn't see our initial analysis.
The degree to which this simple misfiling of people, or ushering them out of the data set entirely when they show up in an inconvenient place, can create an impression of overwhelming efficiency.
I think if the delay was two weeks, you get an impression of efficacy at 85% or was 83%, something like that.
It's an impressive capability, and it can do this for something that has no effect whatsoever, right?
If we decided that tapping your nose three times was the treatment, and then we decided it took two weeks to take a full effect, and then we ran this study, you would find 80-whatever percent effectiveness based on simply this categorization scheme.
So here's what I want people to get from this.
When somebody speaks about peer review as if peer review guarantees a certain level of quality, what in the earthly fuck are they talking about?
If it didn't catch this list of people making a simple error that creates a statistical artifact that leads you to believe an ineffective drug is highly effective, if they didn't catch that, what did they catch?
You just couldn't COVID.
Ultimately they caught COVID, we know that, but for God's sake, this is, it's not one study that made an error.
No.
Right?
It is a loop.
Well, I mean, and it, it reveals almost certainly that it's not an error.
Right.
That's it.
But the point is, you would imagine, so at what level does your system have to be broken that these things are repeatedly submitted?
The journal goes through some Very serious process called peer review sending it out to people who are Expert and who scrutinize it because that is their scientific duty who didn't fucking catch this like There is no peer review, right?
The point is peer review is exactly like the rating agencies that stamped the garbage financial instruments that contained all of the bad mortgages during the subprime crisis as AAA, right?
It's exactly that bullshit.
It is.
It's exactly that.
So anyway, like seriously, every time you hear the word peer review, think about this list of papers in which this insane error that creates a totally fictional impression of efficacy just passed through peer review and nobody noticed.
Right?
There is no peer review.
That it's an incredibly long and diverse list of all of the top publications.
That's not, it's not like... Yeah, and I think not every single one of those is peer-reviewed, but the list that have been... Right, there's some agencies like the CDC's definitions and such.
And there's a pre-print in there.
But here's the question, okay, Let's say that Martin Neil and Norman Fenton are just that good in this mathematical trick, which is obvious in retrospect at the very least.
But it was utterly invisible to everyone until these awesome risk analysts and professors realized the problem.
Yes.
So here's what we're going to do.
We're going to start a clock today.
I think they've just published this list in the last week.
We'll start it at their publication and we'll see how long it takes for all of the papers that made this mistake to be retracted or corrected.
Okay?
Yeah.
Yeah.
Don't hold your breath.
I'm betting the earth ends first.
That's what I'm betting.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Okay.
So that clock is now going.
Yep.
Yep.
All right.
All right.
Doomsday clock.
The doomsday clock.
Okay.
All of which was in some service of a story you wanted to tell.
Yes, I am going to try to switch gears and see if there's some other way to make points other than just simply saying what's in those points and describing why those points are true and things like that.
So I'm going to try my hand at a parable.
We'll see how this goes.
We'll see how it goes.
All right, so the parable is about a frontier town, the town of Marksville.
The town of Marksville is in the Idaho Panhandle.
Is it?
Yeah.
It's a town so small it has one horse and no bank.
Until one day, a stagecoach pulls into Marksville, and from the stagecoach emerges a Mr. Fousey.
Fousey?
Mr. Fousey.
I see.
Mr. Fousey is an impressive man, despite being only four foot three.
And he certainly speaks with a set of affectations that are characteristic of a well-educated man from the Northeast.
He sort of sounds like this.
He sounds like a senator.
With all due respect, you do not know what you are talking about.
That's how he sounds, so it's sort of like John F. Kennedy, but without the authenticity, it's that.
Okay, so Mr. Fauci gets off the stagecoach and he announces his intention to set up a bank.
Burst Pharma, in fact, is the name of the bank.
Burst Pharma is setting up a bank in Marksville, and he describes the need for a team, a team of men, to build the bank.
He needs men who are willing to work hard, long hours.
He will pay them $3 a day, which is a lot, and they will be paid in full once the bank is set up and has the cash on hand.
Of course, with that amount of money at stake, lots of men show up ready to do the work.
He goes to the lumberyard and he opens a line of credit and he begins to source all the materials.
The men work long into the night.
A week later, the bank has been erected and another stagecoach arrives.
And from that stagecoach, all of the necessary equipment and supplies for a fully functional bank is brought into the building and the bank is open for business.
And Mr. Fauci announced that because he's in a town where, you know, Marksville is, you know, it's not full of fools.
These people are suspicious of people coming from the outside.
Outsiders, drifters, and all that.
So anyway, they look at Mr. Fauci with a certain skepticism.
And he says that what he's going to do is for anyone in the town who puts their savings into the bank, Not only will their savings be secure in his institution, much more so than it would be in their mattress or buried in the backyard, but he is also going to give, with every new account, a free toaster.
Not just any toaster, though.
Toaster?
Yeah, a toaster.
A bank.
It's a bank.
They're giving you a toaster for opening it.
It's what banks do.
But it's not just any toaster, right?
Certainly not.
It's an Ivermectron, which is the dark horse of kitchen appliances.
The Ivermectron toaster.
And this actually persuades a few people who Upon hearing that they're going to get a toaster, if they will just simply put their money in the bank and leave it there for a month, they will get their toaster.
So a few people at first start depositing their money, and as others watch the folks who have been persuaded by this offer deposit their money, they think, actually, that'd be a pretty good idea.
I don't want to be the last person out here to have my money in my mattress, and I do want one of those Ivermectron toasters.
And so the townspeople begin to deposit their money and business picks up.
Three straight days, from open in the morning to close at night, nothing but deposits until every last person in Marksville has deposited their savings into the bank.
They all feel a great deal of relief.
Until the next morning.
The next morning they awake to a rather unpleasant discovery.
The bank isn't open.
There's no sign of life.
It is shuttered.
A quick check around the back reveals the door wide open.
Samuel Harrisburg is the first townsperson to enter the bank and to discover it has been completely stripped of everything.
There is none of the equipment necessary for banking.
There is no evidence of Mr. Fauci.
And Samuel Harrisburg walks through the bank and he opens the front door where the townspeople have gathered and they stream into the bank to start wrapping their minds around what has happened.
And Alexei Karenson, upon seeing the bank stripped, leaps onto the teller's counter and he says, It was a scam!
They've taken all our money!
They lied about everything!
And at that moment, Lenny Brassad burst through the saloon doors.
I don't know why the bank had saloon doors.
In retrospect, the people in the town should have taken that as a sign something wasn't right, but the bank definitely had saloon doors.
And Lenny Brassad burst through the saloon doors into the bank.
And he comes in with the dog on the leash.
I think I am now borrowing from Norm Macdonald.
It's OK.
He's gone.
Apologies to Norm Macdonald if you're up there.
I'm sorry, unless you're digging this, in which case I'm less sorry.
But in any case, Lenny Brassad strolls in with the dog on the leash wearing the medical scrubs.
Sure.
And The dog stands on the hind legs, and he summons all of the wisdom he has gained through the training, and he says, But are we still getting our posters?
At which point, Alexander Scott, the pastor of the local Rationalist Church, says, Oh, don't be stupid.
Of course we're getting our toasters.
Why would they lie about that?
At which point, all of the people in Marksville nod their heads affirmatively.
End of parable.
My God.
Yes.
I will say, before you get to your comment, I realize that I have left hanging the question of whether or not the townspeople got their toasters.
I will perhaps revisit the question next week.
So until then, I'm sorry, it's just a classic cliffhanger.
Maybe they get their toasters, or maybe they don't.
Why would they lie about that?
Yeah.
Why would they lie about that?
Yeah.
No, I mean, parable taken.
Point taken.
I'm not totally sure what Samuel Harrisburg's role in the town or the parable is, but... Well, you notice he doesn't have a speaking part.
No, he doesn't invite everyone over.
He just opens the main doors exposing the saloon doors inside of the bank.
All right, well.
I'm sorry, I don't, I, you know, often after I've seen a performance and, you know, people are like, hey, what do you think?
Like, you'd have to give me some time.
I'd rather not talk about it right away.
I just, I'd like to have it percolate and I don't want to just, I don't know what I think yet, Brett.
Well, you don't know if they're getting their toasters, that's why.
I do actually know if they're getting their toasters, that much I know.
Do you?
Yeah.
Alright.
Well, yeah.
I don't.
I haven't written that part yet.
But I will.
Soon.
Yeah.
Maybe that's it?
Yeah.
I've apparently stunned you.
Yeah, no, you have.
I guess I think I will, maybe I'll talk about music next time, and maybe that is it.
All right.
Maybe that's it.
That was awesome.
Yeah, that was awesome.
I don't know what to say.
We will have another Great Guest episode coming up on Saturday.
Yes.
Right?
And make sure to tune into that.
We forgot to say at the top of this hour, which is a mistake, that you can now join a watch party anytime we do live streams at our locals, which you can get to by on Rumble.
I think it's a join now button, something like that, and we encourage you to go there.
We're also going to, as of August, be doing our private monthly Q&A through local, so please consider joining us there.
Check out Natural Selections, where I write almost weekly.
I did not post anything this week, in part because I'm working on a I'm working on something else, which I will talk a little bit about next week as well.
Hey, check out our store at darkhorsestore.org, where we have lots of cool merchandise printed and manned, and will manned, by a lovely couple right here in the United States, including that Do Not Affirm, Do Not Comply merch, which I think, well, unfortunately it's never going to go out of style, because it's never going to get less relevant.
Do not affirm, Brett.
Do not comply.
I'm not affirming or complying.
Yeah, now I know.
And nor have you been, ever.
We, of course, have our book, Hunter Gatherer's Guide to the 21st Century, available everywhere, including signed copies right here on the islands where we live, on Orcus, at Darville's, which you can also find online.
And we have our Patreons.
We're moving people as much as possible, encouraging people to go to locals, but we still have our Patreons open, and there are some things that happen there that don't happen anywhere else.
So you can join us there.
The Discord server is available on our Patreons and is soon going to be available on Locals.
And there you can join karaoke, happy hour, book clubs, lots of great stuff, lots of great people.
And of course, again, check out our wonderful sponsors this week, which were, I've forgotten already what you read, Seed.
And Biome, which makes a non-toothpaste-y dentifrice, which protects you from the scourge that is dropping your toothpaste in your sink.
Brett.
And also Paleo Valley with fantastic products like their Golden Milk.
And I've now lost where I was.
There we go.
We are supported by you.
Please consider subscribing to our Rumble channel, joining Locals, also subscribing to YouTube, Clip's channel, all of that.
Sharing anything that you find interesting, relevant, surprising, shocking, all of that.
We benefit from that and we appreciate your support.
Until we see you next time, be good to the ones you love, eat good food, and get outside.
