The Plot Against Kennedy: The 292nd Evolutionary Lens with Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying
Today we discuss the dust-up at the CDC, in which RFK Jr. fires the new director, after which other CDC officials resign, and eight former directors of the CDC pen a letter to the New York Times (as does Bernie Sanders) arguing that Kennedy is a hazard to our health. This follows a reveal from months ago that industry was collaborating to get rid of Kennedy. Also: What does Trump now think of Operation Warp Speed? How has industrialization affected our health? How are the words “vaccine” and ...
Hey folks, welcome to the Dark Horse Podcast live stream number 292.
I'm Dr. Brett Weinstein.
You are Dr. Heather Hyang.
It has been a crazy week, even just trying to keep track of all of the developments has been uh has been tough, but we're gonna try to sort through some of what has taken place and what it might mean.
Um in the meantime, we have uh rent to pay.
We're gonna do a QA after the show today.
So join us there.
We've got locals watch party going on now, and we're gonna have the QA as always on our locals uh only.
Uh check check us out there.
Uh but yeah, let's start start by paying the rent with our three awesome sponsors this week.
Our first sponsor this week is Armra Colostrum, an ancient bioactive whole food.
The original mammalian colostrum is the first food that every mammal eats.
It is produced in the first two or three days of an infant's life and is nutritionally different from the milk that comes in afterwards.
Colostrum serves many vital functions, including that of protecting and strengthening the mucosal barriers of infants before their own system is mature.
Modern living breaks down many of our mucosal and immune barriers.
In contrast, Armor Colostrum balances and strengthens, helping to create a seal that guards against inflammation and everyday toxins, pollutants, and threats.
Armor colostrum is a bioactive whole food with over 400 functional nutrients, including but not limited to immunoglobulins, antioxidants, minerals, and prebiotics.
Bovine colostrum has been used to treat cancer, heart disease, and rheumatoid arthritis, among many other ailments.
It is a general anti-inflammatory and its use in adults, has been clinically shown to increase lean muscle mass, improve athletic performance and recovery time, support healthy digestion, and reduce allergy symptoms.
Armor colostrum starts with sustainably source colostrum from grass-fed cows from their co-op of dairy farms in the United States.
And they source only the surplus colostrum after calves are fully fed.
Unlike most colostrums on the market, which use heat pasteurization that depletes nutrient potency, armor colostrum uses an innovative process that purifies and preserves the integrity of hundreds of bioactive nutrients while removing cassium and fat to guarantee the highest potency and bioavailability.
The quality control is far above industry standards, including being certified to be glyphosate free.
People who have used Armour's Colostrum have reported clearer skin, faster and thicker hair growth, and better mental concentration.
In addition, people using Armour's colostrum have noticed a decrease in muscle soreness after exercise, better sleep, and fewer sugar cravings.
You don't want to put it in hot liquids, but it does great in anything cool.
It goes great in anything cool, like in smoothies.
Try it with loads of fresh mint, raw milk, fantastic honey, and cacao and nibs, or just with raw milk, frozen strawberries, and honey.
It's amazing.
Armor Colostrum is the real deal.
Armor has a special offer for the Dark Horse audience.
Receive 15% off your first order.
Go to TryArmor.com slash Darkhorse or enter Darkhorse to get 15% off your first order.
That's T R Y A R M R A.com slash Darkhorse.
Hell yeah.
And I will add to that read um that I was in Portland this last week and um and this has been true of a few of our other sponsors as well.
Uh I'm now seeing Armra on some of the shelves uh and in stores.
I don't remember if it was New Seasons or Zupans or Zupons.
I don't even know how to pronounce it, but you know, these sort of bougie fancy grocery stores that Portland is full of that are are really quite a pleasure to shop in if uh you're not too concerned about how much you're spending, but um armra is showing up uh at least one place and you know maybe uh co- um co-ops too, there are a number of co-ops in Portland.
Uh but it's really nice to see uh it's catching on.
Yeah, that I'm catching on.
Our second sponsor this week is Helix, which makes truly fantastic mattresses.
We've had our Helix mattress for about four years now, and it continues to provide amazing sleep, just as much as it did when we first got it.
It's firm, which we like, but if you want a soft mattress, they make those too.
It's cooling, it's quiet, and just lovely in every regard.
Everyone has had bad sleep.
Sometimes that's attributable to modernity.
The light shining in your window, the noises of humanity that you can't shut out, the churning of your brain, your physiology that has been mangled by fake food and pharmaceuticals.
All of that contributes to bad sleep, but so does a bad mattress.
Helix makes excellent mattresses, every one of which combines individually wrapped steel coils in the base with premium foam layers on top, providing excellent support for your spine.
Take the Helix Sleep quiz online, and in less than two minutes it'll be directed to which of their mini 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, even though logs don't sleep?
Do you prefer a firmer or softer mattresses?
They do nothing but sleep.
They don't sleep.
It's not sleep.
Just because you're in rest doesn't mean you're sleeping.
Doesn't inherently logs aren't sleeping.
They're not alive.
All right.
We will we will have this out later.
If you're a log, Helix mattresses may be right for you, but if you're a person, I think Helix mattresses are definitely right for you.
For you, for AU, any of you use.
Once you found your perfect mattress at Helix Sleep, you have a hundred nights to try it out without any penalty in the unlikely event that you don't love it.
Helix mattresses are made in America at their own manufacturing facility, and unlike many mattresses now in the market, all of Helix's mattresses are 100% fiberglass free.
Helix mattresses are built for human bodies and built to last.
Helix also supports military first responders, teachers, and students by giving them a special discount.
Everyone we know who has slept on a Helix mattress raves about it.
Seriously.
Some family members just slept in our Helix mattress for a few nights and they went home and immediately ordered one for themselves.
Not even kidding.
It's absolutely what happened.
And Zach's about to get one in his apartment at college as well.
We have heard about people having or directly experienced ourselves better sleep, less sleep apnea, less back pain, fewer temperature problems.
So go to Helix Sleep.com slash Darkhorse for 20% offsite wide.
That's Helix Sleep.com slash Darkhorse for 20% off site wide.
Make sure you enter our show name after checkout so they know we sent you.
Once again, that's Helixleep.com slash Darkhorse for a seriously comfortable mattress.
All right.
We are going to take it over a few notches for our final sponsor this week.
Lateral.
Well, I didn't want to say take it up a few notches because that would be disrespectful to our other sponsors or take it down.
That would be disrespectful to this sponsor.
So anyway, we're gonna move horizontally a few notches over because our final sponsor this week is new to us this summer.
We're thrilled to have them.
It is Sundry's Farm.
Absolutely thrilled that Sundry's Farm grows the most amazing garlic.
You won't want to miss it.
Eat garlic because it is delicious and exceptionally good for you.
Numerous studies attest to the health benefits of garlic on heart and immune health as an antioxidant and an anti-inflammatory.
Garlic is a staple in many culinary traditions for good reason.
Eat Sundry's Farm Garlic because it is a family farm of amazing people who care deeply about the land and their product, who know garlic in all of its intricacies, and who produce a diversity of garlic that is, in our experience, unparalleled.
They grow eleven varieties of garlic, each one notably different, some mild and some hot, some ideal for baking, others great to eat raw.
Some have huge cloves, others store for a very long time.
Like grapes, garlic take on the terroir of their environment and become unique according to where it is propagated.
Sundry's Farm in Idaho's rich volganic soils is ideal for growing perfect garlic.
73% of the world's garlic is produced by China, and 80% of the garlic consumed in the US is grown in China.
Imported garlic is always fumigated with methyl bromide and often bleached.
Methylbromide is so toxic that it is phased out of use in the US.
It was phased out of use in the US back in 2005, except for critical uses and as with all imported garlic application to agricultural products before they are shipped to the US.
In comparison, the amazing garlic from Sundry's Farm is naturally grown on four on a four-year rotation with cover crops to suppress weeds and build soil.
And Sundry's Farm does everything by hand.
Every head is touched at least eight times.
Cloves are separated by hand for planting, hand planted, hand weeded.
Uh scapes picked up by hand, hand harvested, hand hung out to dry, hand trimmed, hand sorted, and hand packaged.
This year their two-year-old is helping them with the weeding.
And members of the crew who aren't immediate family are all local to the area and paid a fair wage.
We have used a head of music garlic in potato salad.
That's one of their varietals.
Music garlic and potato salad and on black cod.
We've used their Chesnook red garlic in our Venezuelan green sauce.
So that does clash, except that it becomes green in the sauce.
The red clashes with the green, except during Christmas season, which we haven't done that yet.
We've used it in a marinade on grilled chicken.
It is all so delicious.
And it is delightful to unwrap the different varieties of garlic and discover their secrets.
Sundry's Farms offers hard neck and soft neck varieties, selling a year's supply of gourmet garlic for your kitchen and also offering seed and gardening packages.
Go to WWW.
Sundriesfarms.com.
That farm.
Sundry's Farm, you're right.
WWW dot S-U-N-D-R-I-E-S-F-A-R-M dot com to place your 2025 garlic order and enter code Darkhorse for ten percent off.
That's Sundries Farm.com, code Darkhorse.
Check them out, read their origin story, check out their farming practices and look into the amazing varieties of garlic that they sell and get yourself some absolutely amazing garlic.
That's Sundries Farm.com.
Go there today.
Yeah, the garlic is amazing.
Um the family uh who started and uh owns and does everything with Sundry's Farm is amazing, and uh I just I'm so thrilled to have these guys sponsored.
Everything but help you charge your cell phone.
I'm sure there are things it doesn't also do.
Well, that's probably true.
Doesn't help you paint your walls.
No, I saw somebody forwarded a demonstration in which somebody fraudulently appeared to charge their cell phone with two cloves of garlic and a charger.
And anyway, it was not Sundry's farm.
Were the cloves of garlic touching?
No, they were connected.
They were connected by a coin, and undoubtedly there was a wire that you could not see through the uh through the back of the the coin and the garlic.
But sure.
Anyway, can't use it for that, but uh it's great for cooking.
Excellent.
Yep.
Yep.
All right.
Um yeah, so you you you've got a lot of stuff this week.
I have been uh gosh, I have been just neck deep in thinking about glyphosate.
And I don't we're not gonna we're not gonna go there because it is what a morass.
What a deep swillish morass.
And uh seeing how the the big egg chuds are trying to respond to the just like accelerating evidence against this horrifying product that is almost everywhere now is is remarkable in and of itself.
Uh, but that fits with some of what you want to talk about this week with regard to you know the uh the rise the rise in chronic disease in this country, which uh seems to have happened both overnight and and therefore all and but so completely that it seems like it's been with us the entire time, uh, is undeniable, honestly.
And yet when Kennedy starts talking about needing to focus there, and money and time both being zero sum, therefore taking some resources from reductionist acute infectious disease research over onto what could be causing the frankly much more ubiquitously affecting health problems of the chronic disease epidemic that we are suffering from,
he gets attacked from all corners.
And you more than I, because I wasn't paying attention to this part of the news cycle this week, saw a lot of evidence of what looks to be like a concerted effort to take him down.
Yeah, I mean it not only looks like there is clear evidence that there is such an effort, which is of course no surprise.
I did want to just highlight one thing that you mentioned.
One of the um Was it the big ag chuds?
No, I think you covered that.
Um the we're getting an education.
Um I would rather we didn't need about the gap between what actually is and the official story of what is with respect to health, public health, and all those related matters.
One of the lessons that I keep learning, at least, I think uh you would say the same, is how many conditions that one simply assumes have been with us forever are actually fairly new.
Yes.
You know, things like Alzheimer's.
It sounds like something that was finely described by Dr. Alzheimer's, and the point is, no, no, actually, this is a a new phenomenon, and it's now widespread, and we should never assume with any of these things, including stuff like allergies, right?
Have allergies been with us forever, undoubtedly, but have they been widespread forever?
That's the question.
And there, I mean, there's a there's a psychological thing involved here, I think, which makes it easier for those who would want to convince us that these have been with us all along, and it's modern science and medicine that's helping us as opposed to causing the problems, which is that if chronic, it must have always been there because chronic seems like a all the time kind of situation, and therefore you start thinking back, or like, well, what do you mean chronic and recently emerged?
Like those two things don't seem to go together in our minds.
So we we our default assumption, I think, is if chronic, sure, maybe something about modernity is making it more common, but if chronic, then chronic.
Chronic means forever, right?
And so it sort of feels like we'll never get rid of it going forward.
That's not true inherently, and it must have been with us all the time going backwards and you know, back into history.
Also not true.
And so exactly as you say, like the emerging diseases that emerge specifically as the industrial revolution hit.
You know, and as we started being able to synthesize compounds in the lab and spread them throughout our landscapes, uh, are many, and many of the things that many of us, if not the vast majority closing in on 100% of us now suffer from as chronic conditions that just seem to be part of life or downstream of emerging conditions that came out of labs a hundred or so, you know, a hundred or less years ago.
And it, you know, is really one analytical error reproduced every time across the landscape.
It is a failure to appreciate that you are intervening in a complex system in a way that is almost certain to have consequences you don't anticipate, and they are almost certain to be negative.
And if you assume, well, until we can point to a harm and describe a mechanism that we should assume there isn't one, this is insane.
Right.
This is where, you know, Chesterton Spence doesn't help us here.
The precautionary principle does, which are, you know, they're not they're not opposite sides of the same coin exactly, but they they apply in different circumstances.
If you find something that's functional, don't take it out until you know what it's doing, is Chesterton Spence and precautionary principles is don't mess with the complex systems until you know more than you almost certainly do when you first find them.
Right.
And this becomes particularly bad when the engine that drives innovation is capitalistic in nature, because what it does is it creates an incentive to um you don't know that there are harms at the beginning because you've come up with something new, and so you couldn't possibly know.
And then there's a question of as evidence of harm accumulates, how do you drive it out so that the good thing you've got going economically uh doesn't stop?
And I'm of course a huge fan of capitalism and what it produces, but this is a health consequence we should be aware of, which is effectively a self-blinding to harm in order to continue to make some profit that got underway before you knew what the harm was.
Yes.
But all right, let's um step over into the many interesting developments that are going on surrounding public health, Kennedy, yes, vaccines and other such things, because it's been it's been a wild ride.
Let's um let's start with actually uh Donald Trump's tweet.
I think it was on truth social, not X, but his tweet um regarding Operation Warp Speed.
He says it is very important that the drug companies justify the success of their various COVID drugs.
Many people think they are a miracle that saved millions of lives.
Others disagree, exclamation mark.
With CDC being ripped apart over this question, I want the answer and I want it now in capital letters.
I have been shown information from Pfizer and others that is extraordinary, but they never seem to show those results to the public.
Why not with three question marks?
They go off to the next hunt and let everyone rip themselves apart, including Bobby Kennedy Jr. and the CDC trying to figure out the success or failure of the drug company's COVID work.
They show me great numbers in capital letters and results, but they don't seem to be showing them to many others.
I want them to show them now in capital letters.
The CDC and the public.
Uh no, I want them to show them to many others.
I want them To show them now to the CDC and the public and clear up this mess in Capital Letters.
One way or the other.
Three exclamation marks.
I hope Operation Warp Speed was a brilliant.
Was as brilliant in Capital Letters as many say it was.
If not, we all want to know about it and why with three question marks.
Thank you for your attention to this very important matter, President Donald J. Trump.
Okay.
Now there was a lot of back and forth about the president and what he meant by this.
Many of us saw hope in this in the sense that this is the first time we recognize he has expressed significant doubt about Operation Warp Speed and a willingness to hear evidence that the vaccines that were produced have done a tremendous amount of harm.
Others saw in this a deep-seated belief on the president's part that Operation Warp Speed was fantastic and that for some reason the drug companies are hiding the evidence of this, which seems spectacularly unlikely.
But nonetheless, a willingness on the president's part to consider the possibility that Operation Warp Speed was not in the end the success that he thought it was monumental.
And frankly, I think it's essentially all we need in order to get the message through.
If he's willing to hear for the first time the evidence that suggests that this is a disaster, then um maybe these shots will be pulled off the market uh sooner rather than later.
Okay.
Second piece of the puzzle involves a not terribly surprising plot to get rid of Bobby Kennedy.
Um this plot was discussed by James Lyons Wheeler in a guest essay on Robert Malone's podcast, at not podcast, his substack.
Um, and basically it outlines so here we have it, uh it outlines a memo that was leaked from a trade group in which they say in no uncertain terms, um,
that uh Bobby Kennedy is a severe threat to the vaccine business, that it is time to go to Capitol Hill to lobby and to get him out of office.
Um they also outline uh that there is a budget for this operation.
Um I find the number, the budget is two million dollars to campaign to get rid of Kennedy, given the obviously hundreds of billions of dollars a year, likely trillions of dollars in the long run, um, that is actually at stake.
I'm surprised the budget is as low as it is.
Um, but nonetheless, here we have a trade group describing a uh effectively a plot to get rid of Kennedy, which one can easily understand.
But how this plays out in public is just to be clear though, that the the leaked uh minutes here are from a meeting on April 3rd.
Yep.
Uh so this is this is many months ago.
Many months ago, and I believe uh Malone talked about it when it first uh occurred, but nonetheless, what appears to be happening is that the plot is unfolding and the tension in Washington is now creating fireworks.
We are able now to see in public what was being discussed uh in private before.
So we have developments, for example, um, at the end of August, we had Bernie Sanders penning a uh an op-ed in the New York Times.
I think we have that uh op-ed here.
Um, describing Kennedy, so Bernie Sanders Kennedy must resign is the title of the guest essay.
Maybe we should read a few paragraphs here.
Um you want to do that?
Sure.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the Secretary.
Shall I begin again?
Yeah, yeah.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
The Secretary of Health and Human Services is endangering the health of the American people now and into the future.
He must resign.
Mr. Kennedy and the rest of the Trump Administration tell us over and over that they want to make America healthy again.
That's a great slogan.
I agree with it.
The problem is that since coming into office, President Trump and Mr. Kennedy have done exactly the opposite.
This week, Mr. Kennedy pushed out the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention after less than one month on a job because she refused to act as a rubber stamp for his dangerous policies.
Four leading officials at CDC resigned the same week.
One of those officials said Mr. Kennedy's team asked him to, quote, change studies that have been settled in the past, end quote, apparently to fit Mr. Kennedy's anti-vaccine views.
This is not making America healthy again.
Despite the overwhelming opposition of the medical community, Secretary Kennedy has continued his long-standing crusade against vaccines and his advocacy of conspiracy theories that have been rejected repeatedly by scientific experts.
It is absurd to have to say this in 2025, but vaccines are safe and effective.
That of course is not just my view.
Bernie Sanders.
Yeah, so this is Bernie Sanders, and you know, this idea that uh in 2025 you can simply say in the New York Times that vaccines are safe and effective is it's beyond insane.
And uh I would just simply say, as I tweeted earlier this week, that any discussion of any dose of a vaccine that does not begin with a cost-benefit analysis in which it is understood that the cost and risk of any vaccination is going to be greater than zero.
You cannot just simply assert that there is no cost, and therefore, why would you deny people these beneficial things, even if the benefits are real, and that is debatable in each case.
The costs are real, and therefore you have to ask the question about whether or not this dose is justified in this person's case.
And you know, we're not there.
We're we're discussing platitude, safe and effective is a is a uh slogan, a propaganda slogan.
It is not an analysis.
And there's also, I don't know if it's a category error in this case, but it's kind of a bait and switch.
Um that's not a bait and switch either, but just the use of the term vaccines without specifying what it is that he's referring to, given that we saw a redefinition of the very word during uh the COVID shot fiasco suggests that um that all you have to do to convince Bernie Sanders and presumably uh most of the people who um who are like him supposed to be uh helping run our country uh that something is safe and effective is to slap the word vaccine
on it.
And because we have already concluded, if we are um of this of this mindset, that vaccines are safe and effective.
All you have to do to know that something is safe and effective is say, well, is it a vaccine?
Well, if it is, then it's safe and effective.
Ipso facto.
It's you know, it's it's it's got logical errors embedded in it to such a degree that it feels like, you know, we know that Bernie Sanders isn't a stupid guy.
This this argument that he is making in the New York Times is not he has not gone back to anything close to first principles here.
He has started with the assumption that anything called a vaccine is safe and effective.
And uh that that cannot be true.
Not all simply cannot be true under any circumstances in any world, even if even if most of them were.
Right.
And the fact is, again, this is designed for the public.
So what's what's happening is the public health folks have decided that they are entitled to lie to us in order to take something or to get us to take something that they believe, presumably, is in our interest, right?
They're not entitled to lie to us.
But the point is if you ask, you know, what is the rate of anaphylactic shock for, you know, the hepatitis vaccine.
There is an answer to that question that means that shot is not perfectly safe, right?
The fact that we acknowledge that some number of people will react to something and it means it is not safe.
So what is Bernie Sanders doing here in the New York Times saying they are safe and effective?
That is an extreme conclusion that is at odds even with the evidence as it is acknowledged by pharma and by the public health apparatus.
But the second thing is when they play this game, and it you know, it took us a long time to learn why they were playing word games over things like vaccines, right?
Took me a long time in particular to figure out whether this was An important issue or a distraction.
Turns out it's important, not only because there's a blind spot in the public mind surrounding anything called a vaccine, a blind spot that basically tells us, oh, then it's safe and effective.
Right.
Right.
But there is also legal implications that the point is you are, you know, the vaccine, the childhood vaccine schedule carries with it an immunity to liability, even when those same shots are delivered to adults, not as a result of the schedule.
Once a vaccine is on the schedule, it carries this protection from legal liability.
So as with the word terrorism, when we watched, you know, oh, you know, malinformation is a kind of terrorism.
Telling true things that cause you to distrust the government is a form of terrorism.
Not only is that a ridiculous assertion, but it is an assertion with consequences.
Once the executive branch declares you a terrorist, your constitutional rights fall away.
In this case, once something is declared a vaccine, all sorts of stuff you know nothing about kicks into gear.
And so you have to be aware of these magic words that have these consequences that you don't know, but the people who are embedded in the game know very, very well.
That's why they're redefining the stuff.
Okay.
So in the case of what you were just describing, though, it has to be it has to be called a vaccine, and uh that may require some redefining of a vaccine is.
But then the magic trick is affected um by getting that thing onto the childhood vaccine schedule.
And then, and then the world opens up to the manufacturer.
Right.
Um, so uh it's almost like the shenanigans over the definition and the blind spot mask a must much more pernicious consequence of these redefinitions.
You know, during the pandemic, if they had said, oh, the solution to this, the way we get out of this is gene therapy, a lot of people would have said, run that by me again.
Gene therapies has ever been tried in people.
What's the consequence?
You know, how safe is it?
Do we know what the long-term consequences are?
No.
So by calling it a vaccine, people assumed that it had the same level of safety they had gotten used to imagining existed for vaccines, which is in and of itself a cover story for uh a preposterous claim.
I mean, in some ways it is it is quite literally Orwellian, because this is this is one of the things that he predicted extremely accurately with regard to uh the ways that language will be used to control, to fabricate, to lie.
And uh I don't I don't know how.
I don't know that the story has been well told.
Um vaccine became a concept and a word that just lives happily in almost everyone's heads, right?
And we do know that gene therapy is a new enough thing that gene therapy doesn't yet have anything like that kind of cachet in anyone's heads, right?
Even though they are effectively, in some cases for some products, like the MRNA COVID shots, interchangeable given how vaccine has now been redefined to include things that include gene therapies such as the mRNA shots.
So gene therapy hopefully never does have the same kind of you know happy uplifting sense in most people's heads that vaccine does.
But our position here is any time you've got a concept, any time you've got a concept that all it takes is invoking it to make you sort of feel like, oh, that just makes me really happy, doesn't it?
Um, then you know, question how it's going to be used against you.
And I feel like like over in trans space, this is what happened to rainbows, right?
Like, you know, and this, you know, the actual like the abuse of like rainbows and unicorns is trivial compared to uh what has been done to the word vaccine, but it's the same thing.
You know, there are a lot of us now like I can't believe they got rainbows.
Like how do they end up with rainbows?
Yeah, you you you you don't get to have something as important as a rainbow.
I mean, rainbow, not only is it an important aesthetic experience, but it's an important indication of the underlying physics of the universe.
Right, exactly.
Like you need unicorns fine, it's a fictional, like whatever.
Right.
At least it's fictional.
But you don't get you don't get, you know, prisms.
That's that's that's not yours.
Right.
Um, but I wanted to uh extend your point here about Orwell, because there is something, you know, as I've said many times.
I thought Orwell was exaggerating.
I thought it was sort of a weakness in Orwell.
His point about the inversion of language was a little too strong.
It's it was going to be more subtle than that.
And then it turns out if you're living in an Orwellian era, oh, it's not any more subtle than that.
It's exactly like that.
Yeah.
What it does is it reverses the burden of proof, right?
So the point is your skepticism about gene therapy would be automatic.
Right.
Your lack of skepticism about a vaccine is equally automatic.
Well, and your skepticism about a vaccine is an indication that you're a crazy person.
Right.
They have successfully won this battle, not on the basis of analytics, right?
Right.
That's the painful lesson for those of us who were believers in these things.
But actually, I want to connect it back to something we were talking about at the beginning.
We have industrialization.
It results in the production of a whole bunch of new stuff that has the potential to interact with human physiology.
And because we can.
Right.
So, hey, we're going to put a bunch of this stuff there, and it has this good consequence.
And we don't think so much about, well, what is the downside of that that we will know in 50 years, right?
Well, each one of these shots, right?
When we say vaccine, we are talking about the central element of the vaccine, which is the thing that warns your immune system.
But it's a cocktail of a bunch of different things, right?
So the point is each one of those things gets its own analysis.
What are the chances that this, you know, adjuvant or excipient is going to have a negative consequence on the body?
How about the next one on the list?
So, okay, how many things are in that shot?
Oh, there are 25 things in that shot, you know, things that are left over from the manufacturing process, things that were put in there to amp up the immune system.
Each one of those things is likely to have a negative consequence.
And the the net is the only thing you care about.
You don't care that what it says in the textbook would be good for you if it were delivered in isolation from all of the other stuff.
You care about the net impact on your health, and if it's negative, you don't want to be anywhere near it.
Yep.
And you know, and and the combinatorics are worse than that, even, because you're never taking a product in isolation from all of the other things that you're exposed to in life.
And so I saw like we're not going to go there really today, but in my looking into some of the glyphosate literature, I found a PhD dissertation from 2024 on the combined effects of glyphosate with a uh well-known fungicide that I've um that I've forgotten the name of.
And this this newly minted PhD finds uh that sure enough, glyphosate alone uh has cytotoxicity, and this fungicide alone has cytotoxicity, but she finds when you combine them, they have greater cytotoxicity, and both of them are widely applied on crops worldwide.
So uh, you know, you can you this is going to be true also for vaccines, and what else are you taking or even just eating or breathing or drinking?
It's even worse than that.
Of course, it's right because let's take the example of a vaccine where the central element is grown in eggs.
Yeah.
Okay.
So you grow the central element in eggs, proteins from those eggs are left over in the shot, and then you're giving it with an adjuvant.
So that's like rolling the dice on an egg allergy.
Yep.
Right.
So which is one of one of the perfect foods.
Right.
So anyway, you know, if you think about these things from first principles, then you don't get the presumption on any injection that it's safe.
You come to the opposite conclusion, which is there's actually a high bar, right?
I need to know that the disease is sufficiently dangerous and that the shot is sufficiently well understood in all of its consequences by people who don't have a conflict of interest, that it is actually net beneficial as far as we can tell, including all of the things we don't know.
If the shot is 20 years old, that means we don't know what the consequences are 40 years down the line.
So there's a, you know, there has to be a category left for unknowns.
But okay, um, so just to close that Out.
Vaccine was redefined in order to uh to place the mRNA shots in our blind spot and to alter their legal status.
Pandemic was also redefined.
Why did they do that?
Well, because the original definition of pandemic involved two things, both the contagiousness of a pathogen, but also the seriousness of the pathogen.
And the seriousness was actually removed from the definition, which opens up the possibility that if the if if cynical forces wish to use the public health apparatus to trigger draconian uh alterations to society or to inflict shots on people, you know, you can now have a pandemic cold, right?
Oh, it's highly contagious.
Yeah, but is it serious, right?
Yeah, highly contagious.
Uh we had a word for that.
That's virulent.
Right.
And virulence sounds serious.
Like if you it it sounds like a very serious thing, but it actually it's kind of like designation.
No, no, virulent is is harm.
Right.
But but it it specifically refers to the rate at which.
Uh so you know, the the rate at which you are being harmed.
Yep.
And um it is it is not about the seriousness of harm, it is about it is a rate question.
And um, similarly, you know, decimate.
People use decimate, I mean like you know, destroyed it.
It's like deaths.
It's 10%, right?
And so some of these words feel like they're much more serious than they are.
Right.
Uh, but you know, we we did have a word for what how people are now using.
Well, I mean, and that and that is so much the what we're seeing in the New York Times here is that serious people understand that there are actually terms of art that allow you to precisely describe these things.
Now, whether the work was done correctly so that your assessment of virulence, for example, is accurate is a question.
But the point is this isn't that hard, it's just technical.
And something's being uh put over on you in the New York Times because there's an assumption, largely correct, that you won't know the terms of art or how to think about these things, and you will easily suffer a conflation between you know, contagiousness and seriousness of a disease.
Okay, so back to the larger story.
So we have the president expressing apparently some doubt about Project Warp Speed.
We have a predictable campaign to get Bobby Kennedy out of his position because it's bad for business.
Yep.
And then we have fireworks at the CDC, which then spill over into multiple other venues.
So um there was another guest essay or op-ed penned in the New York Times.
This one by multiple former CDC heads.
Can we show that?
Okay, this one is titled We Ran the CDC.
Kennedy is endangering every American's health boo.
Um you added the boo.
I did add the book.
But um, but it was implied.
I'm fairly sure of that.
Okay, do you want to uh read?
Yeah, if you would.
Uh this is from let's see, it was it's uh eight eight former uh CDC directors or acting directors.
We have each had the honor and privilege of serving as director of the centers for disease control and prevention, either in a permanent or an acting capacity, dating back to 1977.
Collectively, we spent more than a hundred years working at the CDC, the world's preeminent public health agency.
We served under multiple Republican and Democratic administrations, every president from Jimmy Carter to Donald Trump, alongside thousands of dedicated staff members who shared our commitment to saving lives and improving health.
What the Health and Human Services Secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has done to the CDC.
I can I just pause for a second.
This is the second one.
I this must just be a style guide thing for the New York Times, but the CDC gets capitalized.
Um, but health and human services is not capitalized.
That's interesting.
Uh and that was it was true in uh the Bernie Sanders op-ed as well.
Uh at least I don't know if his thing had the CDC, but Health and Human Services.
Uh I mean it just it feels like uh a little bit of demotion for Kennedy because we got to take him out everywhere.
I actually wonder what the justification would be for capitalizing the one and not the other.
Yeah, I I can't think of it.
I can't think of it either.
Yeah.
Um what the Health and Human Services Secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has done to the CDC and to our nation's public health system over the past several months, culminating in his decision to fire Susan Minar as a CDC director days ago is unlike anything we had ever seen at the agency and unlike anything our country had ever experienced.
I'll go with them that far.
Mr. Kennedy has fired thousands of federal health workers in severely weakened programs designed to protect Americans from cancer, heart attacks, strokes, lead poisoning, injury, violence, and more.
Amid the largest measles outbreak in the United States in a generation, he's focused on unproven treatments while downplaying vaccines.
He canceled investments in promising medical research that will leave us ill-prepared for future health emergencies.
He replaced experts on federal health advisory committees with unqualified individuals who share his dangerous and unscientific views.
He announced the end of U.S. support for global vaccination programs that protect millions of children and keep Americans safe, citing flawed research and making inaccurate statements.
And he championed federal legislation that will cause millions of people with health insurance to Medicaid to lose their coverage.
Firing Dr. Menares, which led to the resignations of top CDC officials, adds considerable fuel to this raging fire.
Keep going.
Uh yeah.
We are worried about the wide ranging impact that all these decisions will have on America's health security.
Residents of rural communities and people with disabil disabilities will have even more limited access to health care.
Families with low incomes who rely most heavily on community health clinics and support from state and local health departments will have fewer resources available to them.
Children lo children risk losing access to life-saving vaccines because of the cost.
This is unacceptable and it should alarm every American regardless of political leanings.
The C the CDC is an agency under the Department of Health and Human Services and there it's capitalized which tells you that the style style people at New York Times who are usually extremely careful about consistency are doing something maybe.
The first sent the first sentence was the health and human services secretary and here it is the Department of Health and Human Services.
The Secretary of Health and Human Services Department I know they they can make that argument but but they're lying to themselves and to us then during our CDC tenures we did not always agree with our leaders but they never gave us reason to doubt that they would rely on data driven insights for our protection or that they would support public health workers.
We need only look to Operation Warp speed during the first Trump administration which produced highly effective and safe vaccines that saved millions of lives during the COVID 19 pandemic as a shiny example of what health and human services can accomplish when health and science are at the forefront of its mission.
Okay, so that's where I wanted to get to again this is a um propaganda document clearly the idea and it subtly traffics in the same sort of Orwellian nonsense that we were discussing before.
There is a certain strata of society for whom the CDC and what it says and the New York Times and what it says carries the presumption of truth.
And so it is very hard when the New York Times and here you have is it eight or nine former CDC directors saying oh my God, Kennedy is a terrible threat to human health he's doing all of these things, he's making misstatements, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
That carries this gravitas.
And then you get to a paragraph like the one you just read in which those of us who know this evidence in detail know that the claim that these vaccines save millions of lives is nonsense, that it is both predicated on an analysis of lives saved that ignores lives lost.
So it's not a net calculation, and B, it is based on modeling which is itself ridiculous and laughable.
And I would suggest people look at Brett Swanson's analysis of those models.
It's absolutely devastating.
But nonetheless, the point is that paragraph in the New York Times will be read by lots of people who don't know anything about the underlying battle to both uh address the connection between these so-called vaccines and a massive wave of uh innumerable different pathologies, right?
One of the things about these so-called vaccines Is that because at least one of the primary mechanisms of harm is that they circulate around the body, they invade cells, those cells produce a foreign protein, and then your immune system attacks them.
Basically, you've got no limit to the kind of pathologies you could get because basically any kind of failure in any organ that's perfused with blood and or lymph is on the table, right?
So you've got a lot of pathologies at some level, and the combined amount is absolutely uh huge.
Yep.
But okay, so what I wanted to highlight, and I'm having a little bit, I'm having difficulty phrasing it.
There's something about all of those CDC directors, those former CDC directors, lining up together in the New York Times, claiming a knowably false picture about an event that has now been thoroughly um investigated independently, right?
Operation Warp Speed was a disaster.
You had a technology that was unproven, deployed at scale in humans, huge number of pathologies emerged.
There is no way you could support the claim that these things were safe.
And there is no way that you could support the claim that for most people it was in their interest to get them in light of the uh nature of the disease.
Healthy young people did not need any vaccine to deal uh with COVID, and they didn't, there was no reason for them to take the risk of all of these adverse events.
So you have the New York Times broadcasting a knowably false picture with at least eight former CDC heads signing on, penning jointly with Rochelle Walinsky among them, who many of us remember was basically a preposterous apparatchic who was, you know, parroting the party line, brought no insight.
So for them to be signing on with her in the New York Times saying things that are knowably false, is this is a test.
Can you wrap your mind around the idea that Kennedy and the ragtag band uh the ragtag fugitive fleet that have taken over the public health apparatus are actually right, right?
And that these other people with all of their austere institutions and degrees are actually saying things that they if they do not know that they are false, they should know that they are false.
Yep.
Um I just wanted to add, I I just looked through some past notes and back on episode 132 of our podcast in June of 2022, we talked about this uh reveal, which you can show my screen here, if you can show my screen.
Um let's try.
Now this is from Children's Health Defense, which was uh an organization uh headed up by Kennedy.
Uh and so, you know, he has a long history of uh of being clear and pointed in his critique of what he sees as anti-scientific and bad for public health approaches.
Uh and uh here we have uh again, June 2022, which we covered back then, CDC admits it never monitored VARES for COVID vaccine safety signals.
In response to a freedom of information request submitted by children's health defense, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention last week admitted it never analyzed the vaccine adverse event reporting system for safety signals for COVID-19 vaccines.
That's more than two years after they were widely um being taken up by people, or no, that's that's more than one year after they were widely being taken up by people.
And this is when Walensky was the CDC director.
Walensky also famously in some interview uh indicated that she had learned something about the status of what was going on from CNN.
Yep.
So, you know, this that person doesn't have any qualifications by which to judge anyone else's uh assessment of scientific or medical reality, because she apparently gets her news from CNN, even when she is supposedly heading up what they say in this op-ed is the world's preeminent public health organization.
And it it is exactly what you would expect from capture.
Yes.
That effectively, if something like Pharma captures something like the CDC, then the point is, well, you don't expect them to disband it.
What they will do is they will staff it with people who are going to do what they are told.
And Wolinski was so obviously that there's no denying it.
So to have these other people sign on raises the question about how far back this capture actually goes.
Um I would also point out that that Freedom of Information Act request that revealed that they weren't monitoring VARES calls into stark question how it is that anybody makes the claim that these things are safe.
Well that's I mean, that's why I was pulling it up.
It's like they don't they're making this claim, and one of the directors whose name is signed to that letter knows very well that they have no justification for making that claim because they admitted themselves that they weren't doing the looking into the data that they claimed they had been doing.
Not only that, but the this system, theirs, uh is built so as to be extremely uh conservative is unfortunately a generous term.
It is extremely conservative in registering harms.
It is known to collect something between one and ten percent of actual vaccine adverse events.
It is also the only system that we've got to monitor the impact of a vaccine after it has been brought to market.
So it is inexcusable that you would not be mentioning or that you would not be monitoring it, and therefore would not know that the COVID vaccines had an adverse event signal that was more than the combined adverse event signal of all of the other vaccines combined over the course of the 30 years that the system has existed.
So there was a massive signal, they weren't monitoring the system in which that signal accumulated.
They didn't have an alternative, and at the same time, they were telling you that these things were safe.
So the point is, you know, they weren't looking at the evidence that would have allowed them to say anything on the subject, and they were telling you as if they were scrutinizing and couldn't find any evidence of harm.
One clarification.
Yep.
There were alternatives.
They just didn't like them.
You know, there there were alternatives like hydroxychloroquine and hypermect vitamin D. Uh, but those those weren't accepted by the CDC.
Right.
Absolutely.
They were they were in fact um sabotaged so that they were considered uh either non-functional or dangerous.
Um by vitamin D I mean scent exposure.
Right, exactly.
Okay, so all right, you've got fireworks at the C C D C. Well I I guess yeah, fired and then a bunch of previous directors uh write into the New York Times.
Right.
So yeah, you've got current director fired, you've got a bunch of directors writing in the New York Times, painting a picture, a false picture, therefore effectively co-signing the madness, right?
The you know, if if I was a former director of the CDC, the idea that I would be penning anything with Rochelle Walinsky uh is a preposterous notion, but somehow they willingly did it.
And my point is it's very hard to wrap your mind around the idea that um actually the rebels, unwashed as they may be, are right about all of these hazards.
And this body, which is designed to protect the public's health, is doing the exact inverse of what it is supposed to be doing, hence the fireworks, that the New York Times would sign on to a stark false picture of what's going on, tells you, you know, basically what you've got is there are only two versions of what might be going on.
Either the New York Times has it right, and Bobby Kennedy and all of his friends are actually cranks who don't understand health and are, you know, at best incompetent and more likely malevolent, or that's not what's going on at all.
And they are actually trying to protect people, and the New York Times is doubling down with all of these former CDC directors on protecting the captured entity, which is the CDC from being liberated.
Okay.
And why?
Right?
Like what the the utter lack of health and vigor that most Americans have now.
And as you've pointed out, all it takes is look standing in an airport and watching people walk by, but really any city.
Yep.
Is apparent to everyone.
Even the young, I think, know that this is not how humanity used to look.
Some of us have been convinced that it is a necessary side effect of modern living.
But most people don't even believe that.
And like some of the pieces people do believe, like, you know, we used to believe, for instance, that you know, the the widespread use support the Doncha is just, oh, that's just what I don't know.
We just didn't even question it, right?
Uh I always believed that there was an unanswered question because it shouldn't be true that teeth come in.
But I didn't know I didn't know why that was happening.
Yeah, and you know, the fact is that Weston Price's work has been around for a long time.
And uh all it it just it's not that hard to arrive at, wait a minute, how did humans get to the industrial revolution if we were this broken and in so much need of so much high-tech intervention all the time for the six million years preceding this?
It couldn't be possible, right?
But how is it that apparently the people running the New York Times are really interested in us remaining this sick?
Well, I don't think that's how it works.
Yeah, I don't think so either.
I'm framing the question so as to maybe try to shame a few of them into speaking up, you know.
Well because I I don't think that is how it works.
And I don't think it is how it works in some places, you know.
I I'm sure that most of the people who work in pharma think that they're on a team that's improving health.
Yeah.
But the people who are steering the ship, I think have a kind of sophisticated understanding that health is bad for business.
And however it is that they phrase that to themselves the top people are somehow comfortable, you know, as you would find in many industries, you know, weapons makers or whatever.
Do we know that there's such a thing as a war profiteer, right?
Somebody who might like war because they get to sell their stuff.
Yeah, they exist.
So, you know, sickness profiteers exist too.
Right.
Most of the people involved in these industries, presumably are not aware of what they are party to.
They should, they should be, they should become more curious.
The New York Times is staffed by people who are inhabiting a legacy architecture that is in danger of collapse.
Right?
If the institutional world is revealed for its failures, what is it that the people who work at the New York Times are going to do the next day?
Yeah.
Right?
They don't have any skills, they don't understand the world as it is, they've been responsive to a fiction.
So they are effectively just doubling down on the idea that those other people gotta be wrong, right?
Because that's the only reason that what we are makes sense.
So it's this self-fulfilling um sort of uh world view, and I don't know what I expect them to do.
I guess I just expect them to keep doing the insane thing they're doing, and I expect us to beat them because they are um because we need to.
They're more foolish and incompetent by the hour.
Um which brings me to the next phase of this crazy story, which I admit um it gets a little seedy and weird, but I think we have to go here because uh well anyway, you'll see why I think we have to go here in a second.
So among the things that happened were there were some prominent uh resignations at the CDC.
One of them was from a guy I had not heard of before, Dr. Dimitri uh Daskalakis, I think is how he pronounces his name.
Um anyway, he had a lot of colorful things to say about um the horrors of what Kennedy and Kennedy's team are doing to the CDC and how it was just not tenable for him to stick around uh, you know, under uh the direction of rest of Levy and and others.
He'd been there a while, as far as we know.
Yes.
Um anyway, so what unfolded is, you know, okay, it's not surprising that you would find just as you find people at the New York Times willing to defend the indefensible.
It's not surprising.
I'm sure there are lots of people in the CDC who would defend the indefensible, and some number of them are going to realize, oh, actually, we're not going to win this.
Maybe I'll get out while the getting's good.
Yep.
But this guy was so public about what he had to say that it brought to the fore who he was and what he's been up to.
And it's a very strange picture.
So let's I want to just show you a couple of interviews that he did after his exit from the CDC.
Okay.
Talk about the content of them, and then let's talk about who he is and uh what he might be about.
So you want to go with the Jen Pisaki.
I I apologize for the uh quality of this.
Somebody obviously used their phone to record an interview on a television, but it's I think it's good enough.
Would agree with you, but from uh from your perspective, tell us more about what you mean by that.
Yeah, I mean, I think that the whole um rhetoric behind the movement that uh Secretary Secretary Kennedy thinks that he's launched is really that only the strong survive.
So whether it's cutting social programs that are so that are important uh to children, whether it's cutting access to food so we have making America healthy um means um good food.
So um, you know, cutting things like food um benefits for children seems like um it's not a really good idea to be able to achieve that end.
Um I think that, and you know, he he clearly has a belief um, you know, if he actually does believe in viruses and bacteria, which I don't know if he actually does, um, and in the fact that they exist, but you know, he has this belief that sometimes infection is better than vaccine, um, because you know, it creates, I think, um, you know, the people who survive um are the people who should continue to propagate the species.
Um, I'm never gonna forget there was uh interview that he did at um a restaurant talking about um the importance of using beef tallow um in in French fries, um, and in that interview, he was talking about his desire to have an avian flu burn through um chickens, uh and the chickens have survived, they're the ones that should be bred.
Um, and um that is that's those are the words that he said.
They're available to watch.
Uh, and he said because those chickens have the superior genetics, and then one minute later he said um that the president also has superior genetics.
So I mean, from my perspective, as someone um who you know has sort of the cultural background of uh of you know, a grandfather who is killed fighting um fascism in Greece, um, that's sort of like embedded in my brain, and I heard that, and I'm like, so that's what this is all about.
So, you know, if there are um kids who um who uh get infected and do well, that's great.
Um we shouldn't be giving them vaccines, I guess, um, so that um we can really propagate the strongest of the species.
Uh, I feel like what he said about chickens is what he believes about people.
Um, and that's scary.
And America.
All right.
Wow.
It is hard for me to express how insane the claims that he makes there are.
Before you I so I hadn't seen that before.
Yeah.
That reminds me of the cartoon version of evolutionary biology that many social scientists have in their heads about why all people who think evolution is real are actually eugenicists.
Yeah.
That is exactly what it sounds like.
It's it's it's this insane kindergarten level analysis that I mean, he he's I don't even I don't even know what to say.
That that was an insane little diatribe, and to have Pisaki sitting there looking disgusted by what she's learning about Kennedy is just frosting on that rancid cupcake.
Well, if you think about it, there's an attack that gets made against all of us heterodox folks.
Uh I I find it particularly galling Because it um it's has a strategic consequence that is powerful, which is to create a false impression of ickiness around somebody so that people who don't know anything about that somebody, if they get near them and they hear something that sounds right, they pull back so that they don't get sucked in, you know.
If RFK is a eugenicist, then the last thing you want to do is hear him say something reasonable about wanting placebo controls for vaccines.
You're gonna get eugenesis cooties.
Right.
You're gonna you're gonna get sucked into his eugenesis worldview.
Now, here's the here's the point though.
There are several things in here that because we know Kennedy and because we've been embedded in this movement, I know what he's referring to, and the leaps that he is making are I mean, they're beyond ridiculous, right?
So um, for one thing, he makes a strange attack.
He says, if Kennedy even believes in viruses and bacteria, where did that come from?
Well, yeah, he's just throwing he's throwing it all in.
Right.
But the most important stuff is dyes.
He is he is proceeding from a very accurate and insightful critique of the culling of birds in response to bird flu positive tests.
He is extrapolating in multiple different ways.
Kennedy is not Kennedy's effectively saying if you call all the birds in a flock because some bird in the flock has tested positive for this virus, then what you're doing is you are erasing any herd immunity and you are forcing us to address this technologically.
Whereas if you have an infection that is not decimating this flock of birds, and you allow birds that are uh capable of addressing it to propagate as they naturally would, then what you end up with is a poultry industry that doesn't have a bird flu problem.
So that is more robust, but oops, less reliant on pharmaceutical intervention.
Absolutely.
Natural immunity will always be better than technological immunity when it is available.
And you know what?
It doesn't come with all of the stuff that you were otherwise injecting into birds that people are then going to eat.
Right.
So the point is it has multiple advantages.
But whatever you think of this point about whether or not natural immunity has an important role to play in making a robust food supply, the idea that Kennedy is in favor of allowing selection to function in a bird colony because secretly he is uh hoping that eugenics and the you know superior genes of children who you know are able to weather some uh infection uh you
know will be propagated.
The whole thing is a ridiculous cartoon, as you say, of reality based on nothing, right?
It's it's it's based on a negative, right?
Like it's it's reprehensible that anyone who has presumably this what's his name?
Dasilakus has interacted with Kennedy directly, that anyone who has interacted with that man thinks that he is interested in children dying.
Right.
This is the opposite of what Kennedy is interested in.
He truly is interested in making America healthy again and in making the world healthy again, and in encouraging behaviors and policies that actually help us get healthy.
And will he make mistakes?
Has he been wrong about some things?
No doubt, as as is true for all of us.
But the idea that his hidden agenda is to uh to kill off and sterilize the weak.
I'm making up sterilized here, but like you know, it is it's just the opposite.
And you know, it it feels like, as is often the case, like the the they have borrowed an accusation against someone on their team and just applied it to someone on in this case it is teams, but like what he was talking about, what his his arguments against Kennedy, which hold no water with Kennedy, have been applied to Bill Gates.
Yeah.
And you know, that it makes it make it holds a lot more water against Bill Gates than it does against someone who is obviously an eminently fundamentally a humanitarian who is interested in the health and well being of as many human beings as possible.
Not only that, but you know, if you know Kennedy's story, how he did end up where he ends up with respect to uh concern over vaccine harms.
He didn't want to do this.
He was a very successful and very popular environmental lawyer who was having a very positive effect in the world.
He couldn't ignore the evidence that was presented to him about harm to children, right?
This is somebody who was motivated to frankly wreck his reputation in polite society in order to protect children because he felt morally obligated to do it.
So this is just the most vile slander based on a analytical argument in chickens, which you could counter, but to to make this into some sort of personal demonic failing is an amazing leap of logic.
But I mean, also, so there I mean, there's again this um like some conflation of individual versus population level thinking.
Where if you take an individual and you say, okay, you're healthy and you're robust and you're well fed, you're well nourished and you're well hydrated, and you've got a history of resisting disease.
We could do something that might prevent future disease, but will render your immune system naive to all future things that come, therefore making you reliant on our interventions from here going forward.
Or we could say you want to give your body a shot at this first and see if you can do it.
And I'm not saying that that's the right move in all diseases.
There are going there are likely to be situations and hopefully interventions that can deal with those situations where you know what, I don't want to take that chance.
But there are a whole lot of situations where you're actually going to be a lot better off if your body can deal with it now and can therefore generate the natural immunity and can therefore not be a reliant on the interventions of the pharmachuds going forward.
Yeah.
Well, so the idea that, oh, what you just what you just said was a eugenicist argument.
It's like, no, let's scale it back from the population level and talk about individuals.
Is it or is it not better for an individual to have to have used the immune system that they were born with and have developed into to make them healthier as opposed to an intervention which inherently comes with costs and will require that person to be a lifelong patient.
Of course it's better to do the former.
Of course, and not only that, but we know what happens if we surrender to their interventionist approach, which is that they will then declare victory, right?
Irrespective of the harm done by their approach or its ineffectiveness, they will tell us, look at the data.
You know, we saved how many this, that, and the other.
And the point is, well, there's no winning here, right?
The the only winning is to um to wean ourselves from the whole addiction to pharma.
Um, but okay, so I thought that interview was one of the most stunning things I've ever witnessed, right?
The claims that Kennedy is a eugenicist based on an argument about how best to protect chickens from bird flu is just simply amazing.
But this next one I found uh equally stunning.
Do you want to play that other um clip here?
We're seeing the tip of the iceberg.
Um, so right now I think probably the most prominent um demonstration of that um is um what uh Secretary Kennedy did with changing the uh childhood schedule for COVID-19.
Um, in that we were directed that only children with underlying conditions would be the ones that should qualify for vaccination.
That's not what the data shows.
Six-month-old to two-year-old, their underlying condition is youth.
Fifty-three percent of those children hospitalized last season had no underlying conditions.
The data say that in that age range, you should be vaccinating your child.
I understand that not everybody does it, but they have limited access by narrowing that recommendation.
Insurance may not cover it.
Okay.
Now this one is slightly subtle, but one of the problems with the COVID-19 madness.
So sorry, I that was out of context.
Was he talking about the C the COVID vaccines in particular or all vaccines?
Well, it's unclear actually.
He starts out talking about COVID vaccines, but then he seems to be seems to conflate a bunch of different things.
But anyway, his basic point, all right?
If you know the COVID phenomenology, you know that healthy young people actually did not suffer serious cases of COVID, didn't need any intervention at all because they were really well built for it for whatever reason, for reasons that we don't necessarily know.
And his point is okay, he's gonna go after Kennedy, who is backing the recommendations off for children because they don't need it unless they have some other condition.
Even then they don't need it because it's not beneficial.
But nonetheless, for healthy for healthy young kids, they don't need it.
And so why would you take the risk of any inoculation when A, it gets in the way of natural immunity, and B, it carries all of the risks that come with this new technology that we don't even know the full consequences of.
And not for very young kids, but for young people, the risks of the disease are the least, and the risks of the vaccine, so-called, are the highest.
Are the highest.
So there's just no justification for it.
So some somebody somewhere in the bowels of pharma came up with a brilliant talking point to counter that, which is it doesn't matter whether the kids have have uh any comorbidities because their risk factor is youth itself, which there are diseases where being young makes you vulnerable.
Well, in fact, this was we we talked about this a lot early in COVID.
Like this is so unusual.
Because usually infectious diseases do attack the very young and the very old and the infirm, which is to say people with comorbidities that are put them at particular risk of this particular thing.
We talked a lot about comorbidities, and we talked a lot about age as a comorbidity, but youth was explicitly not a comorbidity for COVID ever.
Like no one ever claimed it until this idiot.
Yeah.
Right here.
Well, okay.
So it's an amazing talking point.
Like, you know, whoever came up with it is clearly a horrible person, but clever, you know, it's a good one.
Um, I mean, except that it's like patently false and easily fact-checkable.
Oh, I know, but the point is, let's put it this way.
They're young.
You love your children.
There are there are grades of sophistry.
Yeah.
That's grade A. Um, it's good stuff.
Okay, but so all of this now raises a question.
You those of who are watching rather than listening will have seen that in the upper corner of that interview, the person who had posted that interview as a tweet had a picture of somebody in a bizarre costume.
And that person is uh, of course, this very same doctor.
Yeah, whose public profile contains a bulk is it Daskalakis?
I think that's a misspelling, right?
Okay.
Uh spelling is not my strong suit.
So you didn't you didn't type that.
No, I didn't type that.
Yeah.
So in any case, here we have some pictures of this doctor uh in fetish gear.
These are not pictures that somebody grabbed from some private circumstance.
These are things that he uh has put into the world.
He's clearly proud of this stuff.
Um and I would also point out, could you go back to that first one, Jen?
Um if you look carefully at the tattoos that he has, the one on his upper right chest is actually a pentagram.
And a pentagram is actually a symbol that he seems to be quite fond of.
So we can now go through a couple more of these.
We're getting into the creepy part of the story now.
Yeah, this is the creepy part.
So here he's got a bunch of uh pentagram stuff.
Um it's clearly tied up with his sexuality.
Uh okay, you want to go here.
He is, uh, it's a little hard to see because of the darkness of the photo, but here he is uh naked from the waist up, standing next to a person who is wearing one of these uh dog face leather dog face masks that we discovered um are part of some sort of pup handler culture is the term.
Uh so is a term you're using loosely there.
Well, no, culture can be of cultured bacteria, yeah.
All sorts of things that have culture.
Um, but in any case, look, I I want to do this carefully.
I am not inclined to go after this guy on the basis of his perverse sexuality.
I am not of the mindset.
I never have been of the mindset that what goes on between consult consent and consenting adults behind closed doors is necessarily just their business.
I would say we should lean that direction.
But there's obviously public health implications about what people do.
There's normalization of violence and all of this stuff.
So, you know, anyway.
But in this case, we don't even have to ask that question because these are things he's choosing to put into the world, right?
These are things that he is broadcasting.
This is not private behavior.
This is in fact a public persona that he is cultivating.
So here's what I'm stuck with.
You've got a guy, apparently he went to medical school, did well enough that he finds himself uh well positioned uh in the public health apparatus who storms off in response to Kennedy.
He then goes on several news programs and uh distributes amazing falsehoods designed to damage the reputation of uh of Kennedy, and at the same time he's wearing these symbols that he has chosen to display that suggest a flirtation with or an embrace of evil.
So we could get down in the weeds about whether or not evil is an important category.
I think evil for evolutionary reasons is bound to be pretty darn rare if we uh define evil as the desire to do harm.
That's not a very good strategy, so we shouldn't imagine that we will see it evolve very frequently.
Amorality is a much bigger problem.
Nonetheless, we do seem to see a certain group of people who has embraced the inversion of any morality that most of us would recognize.
And is this confined to his sex life?
Or does the fact that he is saying things that are tantamount to uh pernicious lies about Kennedy in public on uh these news programs, are we is it fair to draw some connection between his flirtation with or embrace of symbols of evil and what he's doing that seems to be designed to do harm to a good man who is actually acting in the defense
uh of children, whether he's right or not, he's attempting to act in the interests of children, and this guy is going after him while uh wanting us to know that um in his own mind he embraces demonic stuff.
I I find it hard to separate those things.
Yeah, uh, I was just incidentally, it is Daskalakis.
Um, and I was just looking at the letter that he wrote, his resignation letter to the CDC, which he posted on Twitter on X. Um, and you know, it's all it's all the same stuff.
You know, he's it's the same talking points as as you showed in the in the interview with Psaky.
Um's plays prominently in the rhetoric being generated and is derivative of a legacy that good medicine and science should continue to shun.
Uh he's just making claims that are baseless, are absolutely untethered to reality.
And um, you know, if the CDC can be saved, good riddance to this guy.
Yes.
Um it strikes me, straw man doesn't even quite cover.
No, it's not.
It's like the straw isn't even real strong.
It's the opposite.
It's really it's really the opposite.
But the I think what I'm left with over the entire affair is that for whatever reason this issue is causing teams to become evidence.
And while ordinarily, I would argue, I will argue in some future episode at length, um, that reality is not a team sport, nonetheless, the issue of policy creates teams.
And in this case, what you've got is a team that is willing to lie to you about things that are in your interest.
It's willing to tell you that a shot that it couldn't possibly know is safe, and in fact now should know very well is not safe.
It's willing to tell you that it's safe with no nuance, no asterisk, no caveat of any kind, right?
In 2025, it's willing to say that.
So they're telling you that what they're broadcasting is not about an analysis.
It's not about facts, it's about a posture that they're striking, and they are effectively daring you to consider the other side enough to overcome the idea that, well, those are eugenics, you know.
You can go listen to them.
Right.
So I don't know.
In this circumstance, how can anybody continue to I know that most of us don't, but lots of people still do take the New York Times seriously.
In this case, it's effectively double dog daring you to investigate anything about what it's up to because it's made its posture very clear.
It's not about an analysis, it is about um presumably about uh keeping the profits of pharma high at expense to the public.
Yeah, and continuing to use fear to do so, as it did um during during COVID, where uh neither of those op-eds um by Bernie Sanders or the eight former directors and acting directors of the CDC are hysterical in tone uh as some of what the mainstream media did sound like uh during COVID when it was uh trying to bring down mandates and you know enforced lockdowns and and all of this.
Uh but I think I think this this feels the tone there, especially from the CDC directors, former directors, um, sounded Fauci-esque.
It's this it's it's very much the like you could I'm I'm gonna show up in my garb that indicates that I know what I'm doing, that I'm a professional, that you can trust me.
You can't trust yourself to make these decisions because you don't know, but I do.
I do.
So trust me to do what's right for you.
And you know, Fauci is if not the certainly top five criminals during COVID.
Uh, you know, he he is actually responsible for the death and suffering of countless human beings.
And he could probably, if he if he decided that he had something to say right now, he'd get an op-ed in the New York Times in a second.
Oh yeah.
Right?
He's still considered a hero because he knows how to sound like he knows how to sound, and he has the appropriate credentials, and he's done the right stuff in front of the cameras and the stuff that benefits him and his cronies behind the cameras.
And he knows how to show up in his lab coat and look concerned when people say things he doesn't like.
Yeah, and it earned him a pardon.
Um he's uh done service for something creating not only or having a hand in creating not only the virus that was the basis of the pandemic, um, but these uh ill-begotten shots, which brings me to,
yeah, yeah, I think that we should close this out with the a recent publication of a review article on the full consequences of the COVID-19 uh injections and also it analyzes the uh some of the evidence for the virus itself having leaked from the Wuhan lab.
So let's just show um Yeah.
So this uh this article just published in I've forgotten in uh the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons uh co-written by eleven uh 11 COVID dissidents, many of whom we know.
Uh COVID-19 Including Peter McCullough, Paul Merrick, Charles Rixie, Aaron Kariotti, Aaron Carriotti, and and many others.
Yep.
Um And I'm not saying the first author's name just because I don't know how to pronounce it.
Pronounce it ZYWIEC.
COVID-19 injections.
I'm not going to try it.
COVID-19 injections, harms and damages and non-exhaustive, a non-exhaustive conclusion.
So I have um highlighted a few the the the entire piece is worth reading for sure, but I've highlighted a few things.
Let's start with the abstract and then just read a few of the highlights here.
Compelling evidence shows that SARS-CoV-2 and SARS-CoV-2 modified mRNA biologics slash vaccines are products of gain of function research with genomic features and vaccine outcomes that suggest deliberate engineering rather than natural evolution.
Far from benign these vaccines have unleashed profound harm, disrupting nearly every system of the human body and contributing to unprecedented levels of morbidity and mortality.
From autoimmune diseases and cardiovascular catastrophes to pregnancy complications and aggressive cancers, the pattern of systemic toxicity cannot be dismissed as coincidental.
Urgent scrutiny and accountability are needed so apropos what I was just saying about Fauci we have suppression of information and early vaccine development early in this article.
The rapid development of a vaccine prototype by Fauci's Vaccine Research Center, VRC, and Moderna, by January 13th, 2020, before human-to-human transmission was officially confirmed, exposed an early understanding of the virus's high potential for large-scale spreading.
Yet this awareness was withheld from doctors and nurses treating early coronavirus disease 2019 COVID-19 patients.
A teleconference on February 1st 2020 convened by Fauci and Jeremy Ferrar aimed to suppress concerns about HIV-like inserts and the FCS.
The widely cited proximal origin paper was coordinated by the attendees of that teleconference to discredit lab origin theories.
Scientists who authored or supported this paper were previously involved in similar narrative control during controversies over HIV origin, Gulf War Syndrome, and the 2014 Ebola outbreak.
In addition, Kelvin Drogemeyer of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy collaborated with Fauci to withhold information from the Trump administration regarding gain of function research ties to the WIV, the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
Okay, lots of important stuff here but just a few more highlights.
Analyses conducted and verified by Lieutenant Edward Macy USN through April 2025 using the 2016 to 2020 baseline showed persistent elevations.
So just to be clear um you know what the these percentages I'm about to read are um elevations above baselines established before COVID existed or before actually no sorry before the vaccines existed.
Myocarditis 153.8% up in 2023 infective myocarditis 168.5% in 2021 122 122% in 2022 14% in 2023.
Digestive organ cancer, 15, 30, 46, and 43% in 21 through 24.
Brain cancer, 27% in 2021, 39% in 2022, 40% in 2023.
Coagulation defects, 25% in 21, 58% in 22, 31, 32% in 2023.
Other conditions potentially vaccine-related, included overweight and obesity, 27% in 21, 69% in 22, 162% in 23, 262% in 24.
Suicidal-homicidal ideation, 46% in 24.
21 67% in 22 80% in 23% 86% in 24% and slip trip fall injuries 410% in 21 867% in 22.
That's um those are military numbers.
That's from DMED yeah uh and then one more I think I have one more yeah one more highlight here abarant protein production the incorporation of N1 methyl pseudoine which I'm just going to refer to as pseudouridine from here on out into modified mRNA biologics and vaccines such as those developed by Pfizer Bioentech and Moderna aims to reduce immunogenicity and enhance mRNA stability.
However, pseudouridine significantly impacts translation dynamics potentially leading to unintended protein synthesis with profound biological consequences.
Structurally similar to uridine pseudoridine alters base pairing dynamics during mRNA to tRNA interactions, which may reduce codon recognition efficiency and increase the likelihood of tRNA mispairing.
This can result in amino acid misincorporation akin to the glutamic, akin to the glucapic acid to valine substitution and sickle cell anemia, which drastically alters protein structure and function.
Moreover, pseudouridine may disrupt ribosomal movement, causing pausing, stalling, or slippage, particularly at slippery sequences, leading to plus one or minus one frame shifts that shift the reading frame and produce aberrant proteins.
In the I don't remember if that's the Moderna or the Pfizer vaccine.
I think that's the Moderna vaccine, but I'm not sure.
728 uridines are replaced with pseudouridines, and a similar replacement occurs in Moderna's vaccine.
So in the Pfizer vaccine, 728 uridines are replaced with pseudo uridines.
Moderna has a similar number.
Theoretically, each pseudouridine site could independently cause a frame shift, yielding three possible outcomes per site.
No change, plus one or a negative one frame shift.
This results in a potential three thousand seven hundred and twenty-eight, approximately 2.67 times 10 to the 346 unique protein sequences, vastly exceeding the number of atoms in the universe.
While cellular mechanisms like nonsense mediated decay and ribosome-associated quality control mitigate this diversity, the potential for significant protein variation persists.
So that's a lot of technical stuff there.
But and we've talked about the pseudo-uridine um stable stabilization before a lot.
But this felt to me like an excellent synopsis of what the known uh what the known risks are and could be and how vast they are.
Yeah.
And that is what got granted the Nobel prize in medicine or physiology.
That is the pseudo-uridine uh the enrichment uh replacement of uh for uh for uracil.
Yeah.
So let me uh just put it in slightly less technical language.
What they're saying is that pseudouridine has a shape that is like uracil, but not exactly like it.
And what it is known to do is cause the ribosome, which is what translates the mRNA transcript into protein to hiccup and stall and that the number of effectively random protein products that you can get, where you get the thing is reading correctly and then it hiccups here, and everything after that is uh actually the wrong uh amino acid placed into this protein sequence.
It's astronomical, the number of combinations, literally, it's beyond astronomical.
Right.
Um, and so anyway, the point is the level of recklessness to introduce something into your body that can produce proteins that no one has ever seen before, thought about before, couldn't have imagined.
There's no way you could catalog them all.
This is preposterous.
The idea that you would ever do it for somebody who didn't have a profound risk for the disease in question never made any sense whatsoever.
Um anyway, this is a very good review article.
It covers the uh vast array of pathologies and makes an attempt to quantify how much we have seen so far.
The upshot is this though.
You have all of these pathologies, which independently are a reason for almost everybody who got the shot not to have gotten it.
The risk of any one of these things is too great unless you were very seriously threatened by COVID, and then it would need to be effective, which is not demonstrated, or at least not well demonstrated.
But but the point is, okay, what do you do with the fact that you've got a a treatment that causes all of these pathologies to jump, right?
The risk of any one of them is unacceptable, but the combined risk is uh terrifyingly large.
And at some level, it this is just a shell game that we're playing.
You know, we talk so much about myocarditis, which is of course very important.
It it is a life-shortening condition.
But it is the sum total of all of the damage done, and the very nature of these things is to damage tissue haphazardly across the body.
Why we would ever have deployed such a thing is beyond me.
All right.
Um one more thing before we stop for sure for for today.
Um and actually we're going to be back um we're doing a QA after this and we're going to be back on Saturday and next Wednesday as well.
So maybe I'll just um point out that this happened and then we'll talk about it on Saturday, which is that uh writer Graham Linehan uh was arrested on arrival at Gatwick uh in in London uh because he said some mean things online and uh we have talked before about the constitutional freedoms that we have and that uh they do not have in great Britain but this has put that into stark relief even in a week
when uh we have um apparently the public health apparatus and the mainstream media in cahoots to uh advise us that we are in dire straits if we're trying to make ourselves healthy again.
Yeah it it is amazing what's going on in Britain.
Um I have multiple friends who have reached out and describe a situation this is not like oh it looks important from abroad this is like people on the ground are very very concerned about the rate at which their basic civil liberties are being eroded.
