We are waking up, but at a terrible price: The 294th Evolutionary Lens with Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying
Today we discuss MAHA, vaccines, Covid, autism, and ostriches. Senator Ron Johnson held a hearing on the corruption of science, at which Jake Scott (MD), Toby Rogers (PhD), and lawyer Aaron Siri testified about vaccine safety testing and the relationship between vaccines and autism. The new MAHA Strategy report attributes poor diet, aggregation of environmental chemicals, lack of physical activity, chronic stress, and overmedicalization to the decline in children’s health. Meanwhile, people w...
Hey folks, welcome to the Dark Horse Podcast live stream number 294 where it's all dung beetles all the time.
Um I wish.
I mean, that'd be a cool channel.
It'd be a little less shitty, I think.
Yeah, it'd be yeah, it'd be moving in that direction.
Yeah.
All right.
Um we got a lot that uh we gotta cover.
It's been uh just such an incredible few days even since our last podcast, and we're going to uh uh cover some highlights, but most importantly, let me say I think a new picture is emerging, and we're gonna do our best to synthesize some things from a number of different quadrants that um may be telling a single story.
So anyway, that uh that is roughly speaking what lies ahead.
All right, you are Brett Weinstein.
Oh, high.
Here we are, dark horse.
We did a QA last time.
We're not gonna do one today or last time, last week.
Uh go check them out on locals.
Uh, we're having a watch party there now, also, and you had some great conversations on Patreon this week.
And the other way that we pay our rent is through our sponsors, three of them right at the top of the hour, and none others uh that we bring to you throughout the episode.
And Brett, you are gonna start us out.
Holy cow, I did not see that coming.
And you got a prop.
You've alerted me.
Don't forget your prop.
The chips are down.
Um they are no longer down.
Um, all right.
You're hiding them behind the dung beetle.
That seems awkward and inappropriate.
I will put them over here.
Umsa chips.
Massa makes delicious healthy chips that aren't going to make you sick because they're made with real whole ingredients.
You know the way food used to be made.
These chips are fried in a hundred percent beef tallow, no seed oils ever.
You can taste the difference, and your body can feel the difference.
America's health is declining fast, chronic illnesses, obesity, autoimmune diseases have exploded.
It's a strange image.
Why?
I mean, it is, you'll grant me it.
It is a it is a strange image.
Yep.
Uh in large part because we have swapped real food for cheap industrial substitutes.
Like literal industrial lubricants.
All chips and fries used to be cooked in tallow, but in the 1990s, corporations switched to cheaper seed oils, which include soybean, canola, sunflower, safflower, and corn.
Seed oils are often labeled vegetable oils, as if that makes them healthy, while in fact seed oils are linked to metabolic health issues and inflammation.
And today, seed oils make up 20% of the average Americans' daily calories.
That is a stunning number.
Isn't that crazy?
That is a crazy number.
20%.
Like I said last time uh we had them as a as a sponsor.
It's not 20% of the average Americans' fat calories.
Right.
It's 20% of the average American total calories daily.
From seed oils.
From crops that are not foods that have been rendered food-like through industrial processes.
Absolutely stunning, as we've covered multiple times.
Back to the ad read.
Uh big food companies also use artificial dyes, stabilizers, and other toxins.
And I will just add that the funny things that end up in your seed oils in order to extract the oil and make it palatable are also unavoidable if you're eating those things.
But in contrast, Massa chips have just three simple ingredients.
Organic, nixtomalized corn, sea salt, and 100% grass-fed beef tallow.
Absolutely no soil, no soils, no seed oils, which cannot be contracted to soils.
No artificial dyes or additives ever.
Beef tallow is a nutrient-rich, rich.
You know, I'm gonna try English.
Just for one thing, I think most of the audience probably speaks it.
Yep.
Beef tallow is a nutrient-rich nourishing, is nutrient-rich, comma nourishing, comma, and makes food taste incredible.
Usually when we read, we don't actually pronounce the punctuation.
Yes, but if you dictate things while driving, you become accustomed to it.
But I don't seem to be driving.
Okay.
What am I driving at?
That's the question.
What I'm driving at is that MASA chips are crunchy and delicious, and after you eat them, you feel satisfied, satisfied, and energetic.
MASA also supports American farms and regenerative agriculture.
Choosing real food heals us and our environment, which in turn makes us even more healthy.
Try masa chips with salsa or goat cheese or spicy pepper jam, smother them in beans and cheese, or just eat them straight out of the bag.
They are delicious.
My favorites are their original and lime flavors.
Zach surprised himself when he realized that he really loved their curo flavor.
They've also got white corn, blue corn, and carbonero flavors.
We got blue corn here on screen.
Believe that is correct.
Delicious.
You can tell by the blue stripes.
Indeed, it cues you before you even open the bag.
Ready to give MASA a try, go to Massachips.com slash DarkHorse and use the code Darkhorse for 25% off your first order.
That's MASAChips.com slash Darkhorse and use code Darkhorse for 25% off your first order.
And if you don't feel like ordering online, starting in October, MASA will be available nationwide at Sprouts Supermarkets.
Stop by and pick up a bag before they're gone.
Awesome.
They're so good.
We're not going to eat them on screen because we'll never stop, and then all you'll hear is a bunch of crunching.
Crunching, yes, exactly.
Some people appreciate most people probably wouldn't.
The ASMR crowd, you never know what they're gonna like.
Yep, indeed.
Our second sponsor this week is Crowd Health.
Crowd Health isn't health insurance, it's better.
It's nearly open enrollment.
The season when health insurance companies hope that you will once again blindly sign up for overpriced premiums and confusing fine print.
We used to do that, but not anymore, not since finding crowd health.
Crowd Health is a community of people funding each other's medical bills directly.
No middlemen, no networks, no nonsense.
After we left our salary jobs as college professors, we spent years buying health insurance in the marketplace.
It was confusing, irritating, and very expensive.
As a family of four who had health insurance for emergencies only, we were paying more than $1,500 a month for a policy with a $17,000 annual deductible to a company that never answered their phones and had a website that didn't work.
Tens of thousands of dollars paid out for no benefit whatsoever.
I went looking for alternatives, and I found Crowd Health.
We have now had two sets of great experiences with Crowd Health.
When Toby broke his foot in the summer of 2024, when I slipped on wet concrete and split up on my scalp this summer, we went to the ER both times and got good but expensive treatment for the medical staff there.
In both cases, CrowdHealth paid our bills with no hassle.
Their app was simple and straightforward to use, and the real people who work at Crowd Health were easy to reach, clear, and communicative.
With CrowdHealth, you can get health care for under $100 a month.
You get access to a team of health bill negotiators, low-cost prescription and lab testing tools, and a database of low-cost, high-quality doctors vetted by Crowd Health.
With CrowdHealth, you pay for little stuff out of pocket, but for any events that cost more than $500, a diagnosis that requires ongoing treatment, a pregnancy, or an accident, you pay the first $500, and they pay the rest.
The system is betting you'll stay stuck in the same overpriced, overcomplicated mess.
And this year it's even more complicated because most of the ACA, the Affordable Care Act subsidies, expire, which means your prices are going to be even higher.
So far, Crowd Health members have saved over 40 million dollars in healthcare expenses because they refuse to overpay for health care.com.
That's join crowdhealth.com code Darkhorse.
One important reminder, Crowd Health is not insurance.
Opt out.
Take your power back.
This is how we win.
Join CrowdHealth.com.
Hell yeah.
Opt out.
That's exactly right.
Yep.
Our final 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 input'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 systems mature.
Modern living breaks down many of our barriers, however, mucosal and immune.
In contrast, ArmorColostrum balances and strengthens, helping to create a seal that guards against inflammation and everyday toxins, threats, and pollutants.
ArmorColostrum is a bioactive whole food with over 400 functional nutrients, including but not limited to antioxidants, minerals, immunoglobulins, and prebiotics.
Bovine colostrum has been used to treat cancer, heart disease, and rheumatoid arthritis, among many other ailments.
It's 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 U.S., 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, Armoclostrum uses an innovative process that purifies and preserves the integrity of hundreds of bioactive nutrients while removing casting 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 goes great in anything cool, like in smoothies.
Try it with loads of fresh mint, raw milk, fantastic honey, and cacao nibs, or just with raw milk, frozen strawberries, and honey.
It's amazing.
Armor Colostrum is the real deal.
Armour has a special offer for the Dark Horse audience.
Proceed 15% off your first order.
Go to TryArmor.com/slash dark horse or enter Darkhorse to get 15% off your first order.
That's T R Y A R M R A.com slash Darkhorse.
You know, the rumors of colostrum from our understanding of health and immunity and the fact that it's only kind of dawning on us uh as a as a culture late.
It really you could tell the whole story of the chronic health epidemic from from that perspective.
Just the idea that you have this profoundly important immunologically significant uh feature of lactation that a demonstrably different stage that is short-lived but critical.
Right, but almost seems, and I think was taken for uh kind of priming of the pump, you know.
That's the ratchet.
You gotta get the gunk out first or something.
Right, exactly.
And it's like, whoa, no, you missed an entire chapter of immunity.
And uh anyway, um, fascinating stuff.
It is indeed.
So we have uh a number of um number of things to report on, all of which are basically from Maha Land, all of which are emerging from uh the desire of many of us to indeed make America healthy again, and the seemingly perverse, obviously politically motivated in many cases, utterly confused desire on the part of many to I don't know, keep us sick.
Uh even on the part of citizens who should not be interested in being sick, but they are practically demanding that they remain sick uh rather than give you Kennedy in particular any of his due.
Yeah, almost more than demanding, as you will see in uh in the various segments that we have coming.
Yeah.
So should we start where should we start?
Your call.
All right.
Um maybe we should start with the hearing that took place yesterday in the Senate.
And I will say if you are on Twitter slash X, you may have seen many of these clips.
If you're a fan of Dark Horse, then you're probably recorded in the algorithm as somebody who would have been uh interested in in the hearing.
The hearing was held by Ron Johnson, who is the head of, I hope I don't butcher the title, but something like the permanent committee on investigations.
And he is the head of that committee as a result of the victory of Donald Trump in the last election.
He being a Republican has the committee chair position.
So he is capable of holding hearings, and he held an absolutely extraordinary one yesterday.
If you have seen clips, we are going to show some clips, but uh that does not mean that this is going to be redundant for you.
Our purpose here is going to be to contextualize some of what was seen uh yesterday in the Senate, because it's really hinting at a larger picture that I think couldn't possibly be more important.
Um we will not get um to the fact of DNA contamination in the MRNA shots, which was mentioned in the Senate yesterday during this hearing.
We just don't have time for all of the clips.
But anyway, if you're interested in that part of the story, I would I would uh suggest l looking into um the clips in the hearing that reveal that discussion.
But let's start with just a basic framework.
So Senator Johnson called this hearing, and the hearing, the primaries in the hearing are Senator Johnson, uh Jake Scott, Dr. Jake Scott, who is a uh vaccine specialist and an advocate, an academic vaccine specialist and advocate, um, with excellent credentials.
Toby Rogers, um, who is a Brownstone fellow, among other things.
That's where we know him from.
He's also been on Dark Horse.
Um, Aaron Seary, who is a lawyer who has been fighting the vaccine battle in court.
And in any case, we're gonna see some footage from each of these folks.
Let's start with the vaccine expert, Dr. Jake Scott, uh, who uh, as you'll see, knows his stuff.
My name is Jake Scott, and I'm an infectious diseases physician at Stanford.
I've spent my career treating patients and evaluating medical evidence with a focus on vaccine safety and efficacy.
I have no financial conflicts of interest.
My vaccine research is either self-funded or supported by Stanford University.
Since April, I've co-led an international team building what we believe is the most comprehensive database of vaccine trials ever assembled.
We set out to answer a fundamental question.
What does the complete trial record actually show about vaccine testing?
We've catalogued 1,088 randomized control trials from 1941 to 2025, involving over 10.5 million participants.
Every entry is publicly verifiable through PubMed links.
The entire database is openly accessible.
Anyone with internet access can verify our findings.
This is what transparency looks like.
Our findings directly refute false claims about vaccine testing.
We documented 661 trials using inert placebo controls, saline, sterile water, or other biologically inactive substances.
Of these, 50 three involved antigens that routine childhood vaccines are based on.
Most importantly, we confirmed that all 16 antigens routinely recommended for children have been studied in placebo control trials.
Every single one.
The claim that childhood vaccines haven't been tested against placebos is demonstrably false.
Now, that is a fascinating bit of tape.
As you will see, the picture that he paints is upside down and backwards.
I am not actually convinced.
I don't believe he knows he's lying.
And I am not sure that actually, if you were to parse that sentence by sentence, that you wouldn't find that there was some tortured defense of each claim.
But here you have a highly credentialed doctor who has set out to study the very question and has told us that something that you've heard here on Dark Horse multiple times, if you're a longtime listener, is simply not true.
That actually all of the vaccines on the childhood schedule have been tested against a placebo.
Um it might be worth at some point going back and actually looking at the sentences because as I listen to it, I can sort of see the way that you would make those sentences true, despite the fact that the overall picture is absolutely false.
The final um direct quote that I was writing down in the end.
The claim he said, the c Dr. Scott said, the claim that childhood vaccines haven't been tested against placebos is demonstrably false.
Right.
Now, I think what we would discover is that one of the top-level categories of the way pharma has pulled a fast one on civilization, is through the redefinition of everything.
And if you go back and you look at COVID, we see a couple of things redefined that, you know, years later we can now understand what happened to us and what the redefinitions actually meant.
One of the things that was redefined was vaccine.
Vaccine was redefined so that a gene therapy snuck in in our vaccine blind spot because we didn't understand the significance of the technological departure that this was from true Vaccines.
The other one, which is not as well known, is the redefinition of the word pandemic, which initially required a level of contagiousness and a level of severity.
The idea of a pandemic cold shouldn't make any sense.
The idea that you may have something that's very, very contagious, but a minor minor annoyance, that's not a pandemic.
That's not something worthy of rearranging policy over.
But because the public doesn't distinguish between contagiousness and severity very well, by redefining pandemics, so severity wasn't a necessary characteristic, they effectively gave carte blanche to the so-called public health authorities.
So in any case, I suspect that last sentence is defensible based on the idea that placebo doesn't mean inert placebo.
Now let's look at what Aaron Seary responds to this claim that there are 661 studies that uh demonstrate that all of the vaccines uh on the childhood schedule have been tested against uh a placebo.
Mr. Seary, I'd like you to go to your section and talk about the 661 studies that Dr. Scott is talking about in terms of these inert placebo controls.
Um just just describe that in detail.
I think it's interesting.
Sure.
I actually I think Dr. Scott has done a great service in terms of pointing out the lack of clinical trials supporting the safety of the routine injected childhood vaccines.
You see, he's saying there are 661 inert control trials to support the safety of the routine injected childhood vaccines.
But when you actually drill down into those 661 trials, let me give you the breakdown of them, okay.
567 of these trials were not a routine injected vaccine for a disease on the CDC childhood schedule.
They were for HIV vaccines or other vaccines.
So totally irrelevant to the safety of routine-injected childhood vaccines.
The remaining 94 studies, 70 of them did not involve healthy children.
For example, trials of HIV-positive adults.
Again, completely irrelevant to the safety of childhood vaccines.
Of the remaining 24, 21 did not involve a U.S. licensed vaccine, or were was a vaccine or were not a it was not a vaccine used as a control to license a currently used U.S. licensed vaccine.
For example, a Chinese flu shops, stuff like that.
That leaves us with three studies, three that were claimed to have a inert control that were relied upon to license a routine-injected childhood vaccine, out of this entire list of 661.
And these actually help really highlight the problem we have in terms of assessing safety before uh with regards to the licensure of childhood vaccines.
I want good clinical trial data.
I need it for my practice.
Okay, let me walk through those three.
One was a trial for the chickenpox vaccine, the Varicella vaccine.
Now, that trial had uh it was a few only a few hundred people, so it was underpowered anyway.
But Dr. Scott says it's got an inert control, but actually it was an injection of neomycin, an antibiotic.
That's not inert.
No.
And not enneomycin used topically can cause issues, let alone injected.
The second one was Gardasil-4 trial, which had thousands and thousands of girls and women in the control group, almost all of them got a luminum adjuvant uh injection.
And then there were a few hundred, only a few hundred that that were labeled as a uh uh inert control, but they weren't.
They got everything that's in the vial except for the antigens and the alum, which included Lhistidy, sorbidate, sodium borate, yeast protein, not inert.
And then the the third one was a Gardasyl-9 trial, which finally, by the way, did have a saline injection, just a few hundred.
There were thousands and thousands of girls, women in that trial.
They all got an injection of luminary, which I don't even know if it's ethical to inject somebody with something that's neuro and cytotoxic, but leaving that aside, the few hundred that got the placebo, but they only got it if they first got three doses of gardacyl four.
So again, not an actual inert control group.
All right.
Now, this is stunning.
So Aaron Seary is very good at what he does.
And he whittles away the 661 studies that Dr. Scott presents as evidence.
He says, this is what transparency looks like.
You can all check them out on the website.
You can evaluate them yourself.
Aaron Siri goes through and he shows that not a single one of those is a true inert control.
Well, actually, no, there is actually one study in the end that has an inert control.
Saline, exactly what we all want these things to be tested against.
But what does it have?
Well, the control group is polluted by having had the vaccine already.
So they're they're cheating the boundaries of the trial.
Because the requirement, presumably, uh that the people in the control, or maybe all of the people in the trial, I don't know, uh, was that they got the three shots of the Gardasil 4 in advance.
That's not technically part of the trial, and therefore they can claim, Dr. Scott, for instance, can claim that there was an inert placebo, which there was, but only if you confine your boundaries here instead of understanding the larger timeline.
Yeah.
So here's the overarching message of that section there, I think.
There is no conceivable way that you could get to 661 studies that appear to demonstrate safety via the testing against a placebo control, and not one of them stands up.
There is no honest way you could get there.
You have to be setting out not to study against a placebo control in order to end up with that level of consistency where if you zoom out, hey, we've got 661 studies that are placebo controlled.
You zoom in, the definition of placebo control doesn't stand up in a single case.
Who knows how many different laboratories?
Let's just be be as clear as as precise as possible.
Dr. Stott, Dr. Scott claimed said the claim that childhood vaccines haven't been tested against placebos is demonstrably false.
And one of the very surprising things that lawyer Aaron Seary then says is that of those 661 that Dr. Scott is presenting as in full transparency, this is what we do, this is how science is done.
567 of those trials were not about childhood vaccines at all.
So it's not that, and and because it's not relevant to the question, uh Aaron Seary doesn't then explain what's going on in those studies, and I haven't gone and looked.
Uh, but whether or not there's actually inert placebos being used is not the relevant objection there.
The irrelevant objection is the claim was that inert placebos are being used in testing childhood vaccines.
Those weren't childhood vaccines, therefore their inclusion in this conversation is in error.
It is irrelevant.
And I would point out that it's not only irrelevant in the sense that a bunch of other vaccines were tested against a placebo control.
Irrespective, the necessity of a placebo control in order to establish safety is, Is I don't know, 10x what it would be for an adult vaccine because layered on top of the hazards is development.
So you'll see why that matters again uh here in in a clip we're going to show.
But development is an incredibly sensitive process that we do not understand.
We understand elements of it.
There are things we can now say, but this is a largely mysterious process.
And any time you are exposing a child or a fetus to a novel compound or novel cocktail of compounds, you are running a risk of disrupting that process.
The only way you're not going to know that it's totally safe until you know people have lived their entire lives downstream as part of an experiment that tracked them for that entire period.
But there's no way you're going to know that it is tolerably safe until you test against a truly inert placebo, and you just simply say we injected this cocktail of stuff into this group of children.
This other group of children didn't get it.
And there is no distinction in their outcomes across any of the large number of things we measured, including all of these chronic diseases.
Now, I will point out another thing that was a bombshell presented here is uh not in the clip that you saw is a CDC study that was specifically vaxxed versus unvaxxed children conducted um by the uh Henry Ford Clinic,
which is a vaccine favorable entity and not published because it came out um indicative of a tremendous number of of chronic conditions that were uh clearly caused in the vaccine treated group and not in the the unvaccinated group.
So anyway, that's another thing um we will end up covering that story in another episode but for the moment.
Go ahead.
I mean, it's a little bit of an aside, but I was reminded of, you know, this has been a journey for us, right?
This is not where we expected to end up.
And I remember writing about childhood vaccines not being tested against placebo for natural selections, and I went and looked.
It's June 27, 2023, so a bit over two years ago.
And in it, I say things like, from early in COVID, oh, I'm not an anti-vaxxer, I'm a trad-vaxxer.
And, you know, I've walked that back now because I still believed many of the things that were being said about the traditional vaccines at that point.
But I talk in this piece, and you can show my screen here if you like, about a nation, the nation, the weekly, very left-wing, journalistic magazine, I guess, that's been published nonstop since the late 1800s, read a hit piece on a
Kennedy and this is again back in the summer of 2023 uh with an article um uh cites an article titled The Vaccine Study You'll Never See.
Uh in the piece, I'm just reading from what I wrote here, a Dr. Hayes imagines a world in which the safety testing that us crazies are asking for requires that there be a giant cohort of children who not only never receive any vaccinations, but also don't appear to be eligible for other medical interventions and are excluded from the standard of living that so many people attained in the 20th century.
Quote, it's going to be a germ fest because well that's just life, says the doctor and this is this is relevant here to a number of the things we're going to talk about here because in part in part they, the, you know, the they who are opposed apparently to getting to the bottom of why we are all so sick are trying to win through fear or trying to scare people into complying with their crazy shots and rules and mandates and everything else but
they are also they are also just like explicitly anti-evolutionary and anti-historical in other senses of of the word too because obviously evolution is an historical science.
But the idea that people previous to vaccines were simply dropping like flies all the time is an error.
That's just not true.
And I think it has been the way that history has been taught to some people, and I think it was to some degree the way that we were taught when we were in elementary school.
You know, think of the, you know, engravings of the bubonic plague from the Middle Ages, and people just, you know, dead in the streets.
And it's not to say that there haven't been some plagues, but the idea that throughout history, this is what humanity has been like all the time doesn't hold up to any kind of scrutiny and frankly all you have to do is look at the rest of the world, the non-human animal world and see how pandemics are not taking out everyone all the time.
Right.
And and to the extent that it has ever happened, you know, we do have uh one profound example in what happened with smallpox when it arrived in the new world.
Yes.
On the other hand, that comes from a world in which populations were not in contact.
And so you had a totally naive population encountering a population with a certain amount of smallpox circulating and yes it was absolutely devastating uh to the new world population but that has already happened.
And then before we had an understanding that different pathogens can travel through different routes that some are vectored by mosquitoes for instance some travel through water some travel through air and therefore tend to be um tend to be you you can get them by being coughed on before that understanding uh emerged we we were we're grasping at straws.
But it's not that people were always dying from all of the pathogens all the time.
What happened in the 20th century was cleaner air, better sanitation, and also better, better um better water.
And we are healthier and we've talked about this over and over and over again.
I don't have the the graph right in front of me here, but you know, what you see is lower rates of both disease and mortality from those diseases before the vaccines show up over and over and over again.
What you have instead is improved sanitation and water and air.
And uh on top of that, you know, if you look at plague and oddly Spanish flu, you actually have a good degree of confidence that you can get that these things would not repeat themselves on the basis that we have antibiotics.
Plague is directly responsive to antibiotics.
And although it seems very strange that flu, a virus would be responsive, most of the people who died of Spanish flu, it turns out, died of bacterial pneumonia or being poisoned with aspirin, which caused them to drown in their own fluids.
So if we look at that story, if we look at the polio story and I would advise people to go back to Forrest Moretti's uh Dark Horse episode in which he we talk about um polio or his first episode in which we talk about the true polio story in which yes there is a virus but no it should not be growing in your spine um what we see is that all of the scary stories that are made to spook us into this worldview in which well if you had a large control group of unvaccinated kids it would be a a germ fest.
Well would it?
What I think you've done is you've rejected science.
You've assumed your conclusion.
Yes.
And in fact, you know, that is the study that we need to have.
And what's more, that is the study that we've had and apparently wasn't published because of the doubt it casts on the health improving nature of the childhood vaccine schedule.
Anecdotally, I'm reminded of the first time that it occurred to me that some of these stories from history weren't what they appeared.
When we were traveling to.
to Madagascar for the first time I believe so this would have been in the earlier mid-90s and we understood before going uh that there was an outbreak of plague which seemed terrifying and like obviously you don't travel to a place with an outbreak of plague and what we were told uh by we had an excellent doctor at the University of Michigan so I remember I don't remember his name but he was actually quite excellent.
Yeah he was uh and he said uh well you're gonna be traveling with doxycycline you're gonna have antibiotics with you uh for you know in case of uh other problems that you will have and doxy's the treatment uh for plague so you've you've got your treatment you don't have to worry about plague now that's not to say that there won't be cases where it might not do the trick.
You know I'm not I'm not arguing that this is a hundred percent solution but it is close enough that thinking back going like, well obviously in the Middle Ages they didn't have doxycycline but we do now and we need to be careful with our antibiotics.
We need to be careful not to breed resistance by overusing the antibiotics, which of course is also happening, especially in agriculture.
But given that we have these incredible tools, which themselves are not perfectly safe, also true, but which do a fantastic job against some of the things which we have in our memories, in our understanding as these giant terrors from history, like, oh, well, we have the tool for that.
We have that in our arsenal already.
oh but you know you you people want to have you know to test vaccines against placebo don't you understand that all the children will die?
No they won't no they won't why why who wins by you trying to terrify parents into putting more toxins into their children who wins I would also point out that the an artificial standard has been set for those of us who are awake now to the concerns about un placebo control tested vaccines inflicted on children and things like that.
We are going to be held responsible for anybody who dies from an invective infectious disease for which there was a vaccine if they didn't get it.
That is not the right standard.
The fact is there is a question, and it is net.
Doc, is my kid net benefited by this shot if we include the risk of the infectious disease for which the shot might successfully protect them and all of the other diseases that they might have caused by the thing.
And that is the only thing we care about as patients.
We want to know, am I net better off for taking this?
If the answer is no, I don't care what story you've got for me about some infectious disease that I'm probably not going to encounter.
I only care about the net impact.
And that's the standard.
Well, I mean, I as as all as is so often the case, this this the media narrative wins in part by constantly fuzzing up the borders between the population level analysis and the individual level analysis.
That when you're talking about scourges from history, it's about populations.
Whole swathes of people died, and that too will happen here in the United States if we don't stay the course and keep doing what we've been doing.
But when they're trying to tug at your heart strings and get you to do the thing they want you to do, they tell a story about an individual, and they tell you that you're gonna make a decision, and whatever happens will be on you.
And this is an illegitimate form of argument, and it's also an illegitimate form of analysis.
Absolutely.
Now I will say um there are two vaccines which I hold out hope do and did actually successfully work.
I I'm you know, if I if no vaccine has ever worked, I'm open to that possibility, but I still believe the smallpox vaccine uh was effective, even if smallpox was mostly uh on the wane as a result of other things, and the rabies vaccine, I think clearly does save people even post-exposure.
Um so in any case, they uh there are positive examples, but what you want to know is for each injection, not even each vaccine type, for each injection, yes, does this one give me a net benefit?
And that those are questions that need to be studied.
Um but you ask the question, how is this done?
Yeah.
And I think that's really one of the key lessons of this hearing yesterday.
Um, one of the ways that this is done is in isolation from a robust critique.
The story of vaccines and the massive benefit that they have produced for humanity is pretty compelling.
Dr. Jake Scott is pretty compelling until he faces the pushback.
You've seen the pushback from Aaron Seary who says, let me talk to you about those 661 studies.
Now, let's look at what Ron Johnson uh, the interaction that he has with Dr. Scott.
Chart number six.
Again, I'm I'm just kind of laying out why people are outraged.
Because people have been held accountable, but this is a this is a history of autism.
This is a chart showing from again hard to say, but with CDC numbers starting in around 2000, from one in 150 to now one in 31.
According to your testimony back in 1970, it might have been one in 10,000, a little less certain than using CDC numbers, but this has been an explosion.
What are we doing about it?
Who who's asleep at the wheel?
Who who's trying to determine what caused this?
As Dr. Chris Palmer said, when it comes to chronic illness, and I'd throw autism in there, they don't want the root cause of discovery.
That's why people are outraged.
That's why people may put put on Twitter things that uh they may regret later.
Um, let's put up the next chart number three.
This is probably my most censored chart.
Um Dr. Scott, were you aware that uh worldwide on theirs, we've reported 38,742 deaths worldwide associated with the uh COVID vaccine.
Were you aware of that carnage?
I'm not aware of that figure in particular.
In in America, I believe the number 19,000, correct?
Um again, but but theirs does not prove causal.
Oh, I've heard that time and time again.
So let's let's take a look at the bottom figure down here.
Of those 38,000 deaths, 9,252, 23.9%, call it 24%, occurred on the day of vaccination or within one or two days.
I know that doesn't prove causation, but man, that's a correlation that we ought to look at.
Do you know to what extent Vayers is reported to understate adverse events?
Do you have any idea?
See any studies on that?
I'm sorry, what's the question?
To what extent does Vayers underreport adverse events?
Again, it's it's it's a pain to report something to Vayers.
Okay, doctors are busy, takes half hour 45 minutes, a lot of people don't know about it, so the vast majority of adverse events from a vaccine or a drug doesn't get reported to Fayers.
So do you again that they've actually done studies on this?
Do you know what percent actually get reported versus what doesn't get reported?
No.
Somewhere between one to ten percent, correct, Mr. Seary?
No, it's less than one percent according to an AHRQ funded study of Harvard researchers.
And so less, so if it's less than one percent, that let's just use US figures.
Okay, by the way, what is this 17,000 or 19,000?
U.S. deaths.
Yeah, it's close.
Okay, it's it's one of those 17 or 19,000 deaths reported in the U.S. based on Fayers.
Vayers.
If if we're only recording one out of a hundred, that would mean deaths from the vaccine is somewhere between like 170,000 in the U.S. 100 again, that's that's a at a at a that kind of reporting range.
This is why people are outraged.
And what people are denying they're not denying the potential effectiveness of vaccines.
I think most of us think, yeah, they probably work to a certain extent.
Okay?
What they're denying are the vaccine injuries, the injection injuries.
Mr. Scott, how much do you know about the mRNA technology?
Fair amount.
So is the MRNA that's encapsulating the lipid nanoparticles that true mRNA?
It's a true MRNA.
I mean, true true mRNA, your master RNA gets degrades very rapidly in the body.
Correct?
Correct.
So the mRNA in the injection is is it true mRNA?
Does it degrade rapidly in the body?
Do you not know?
I do know.
Yes, it it does, but it does it.
No, it does not.
It's modified, it's modified mRNA and it's designed not to degrade, and there are studies that show it sticks around the body.
We don't know how long.
The lipid nanoparticle, do you realize that it was designed to permeate difficult to permeate barriers?
Like the blood brain, like centauria.
Did you know that?
Did you believe when Fauci told us that the MRNA shot would stay in the arm?
Did you believe that?
Simple yes, no.
I mean, did you believe do you do you believe the the code injection stayed in everybody's arm?
Do you believe that's what happened?
Uh primarily.
You you think so, huh?
Were you aware of the Japanese FOIA of the study that was conducted of biodistribution where in rats it biodistributed all over the body, accumulated in the adrenal gr glands in the ovaries?
They they because the lipid nanoparticles designed to permeate difficult to permeate barriers, they knew the designers knew, and they did a study that would biodistribute all over the body, but our CDC, Anthony Fauci said it was gonna stick in the arm.
Okay.
Um there's a lot there.
Um the couple things to notice in that um exchange.
One, Dr. Scott is completely humiliated by Ron Johnson.
Ron Johnson is a manufacturing guy from Wisconsin.
He has been taught, as you and I have been taught by the COVID pandemic and everything it revealed, and then followed that thread through to, well, what's true of childhood vaccine schedule, et cetera.
He has been awakened to an absolutely shocking picture, and he now has a smart, honorable generalist whom we are lucky to have in the Senate.
Right.
And the fact is, all you gotta be is smart and willing to look at the evidence.
It's really unambiguous.
Now, I will say, while that clip was playing, Heather and I became aware that Charlie Kirk has been shot.
Now, before you leave the broadcast to go check that out, I would tell you that Charlie Kirk was extremely dedicated to the idea of getting President Trump to understand the horror of the MRNA COVID vaccines, which is exactly what we were hearing about here.
And in fact, he and I have partnered on uh that job.
He had me on his show to explain why it is that the COVID shots induce the immune system to attack your own tissues, causing myocarditis, yes, which is inflammation of the heart, but actual damage to your heart that your heart can't recover from because hearts don't repair in the normal way.
So um uh we I think we should all be thinking about Charlie.
He's a very good dedicated guy.
And um I I really hope uh that he ends up uh well and stronger after this.
But nonetheless, this was this was a primary concern of his was uh getting President Trump's attention on the the carnage caused by those shots.
I would also point out in that clip that Senator Johnson ends on this point where Dr. Scott is completely unaware, apparently, that the mRNA uh in the COVID vaccines or so-called vaccines circulates around the body and biodistributes to all of these remote tissues.
Now, interestingly, this is the exact thing in the podcast that I did with Steve Kirsch and Robert Malone that I believe got us um fact-checked and then uh demonetized on YouTube.
We were talking about this Japanese biodistribution study, which was at the time treated as m malinformation or misinformation.
I guess malinformation had been invented yet, but it was treated as misinformation when Dark Horse talked about it back in the early days.
Um and nonetheless, here you see it discussed finally in the U.S. Senate, which is uh a wonderful development.
It's important that we talk about this.
This is all knowable.
And yet the esteemed well-credentialed vaccine expert uh still apparently I mean, it's impossible to know for sure what's in his head, but still apparently doesn't know.
Doesn't know.
And uh earlier in that clip, where uh Senator Johnson has what he says is his most censored chart up, and he's talking about the huge number of deaths reported to VAIR, 17,000 deaths in the U.S. from the COVID shots.
And he asks uh Dr. Scott, do you know what fraction uh gets reported to VAIRS?
And interestingly, you and I know this because of course this was widely discussed in uh uh in the dissident COVID circles.
He Dr. Scott is apparently unaware that the number is certainly below 10% and may well be below 1% as Aaron Seary offers in this exchange.
Now uh Ron Johnson misspoke.
If it's the 1% number, then the number that we would extrapolate total number of deaths is up by a factor of 10 to 1.7 million.
So he's reporting the well, if it's 1% up by a factor of 100.
That's what I mean.
Uh it's up by 10 uh 10% from the what he said is uh 100 uh uh 100,000.
Um so anyway, he's he's down by a factor of 10 from the number that you would get if you uh multiplied by 100.
Well, I mean, that that whole exchange, and you know, apologies, we're we were hearing this terrible news about Charlie Kirk as we were listening, so we're a little bit um out of sorts now.
But um but yeah, Senator Johnson uh tells, apparently tells Dr. Scott, the vaccine expert, the Stanford uh credentialed, yeah, Stanford Stanford Academic Vaccine Expert, three necessary things with regard to what happened to us during COVID that Dr. Scott doesn't appear to know.
And you you just mentioned two of them, but just to just to repeat, um, he doesn't know to what degree, or maybe even that uh bears under reports, very uh Vares is underreporting uh injury and death.
Uh he doesn't know uh that uh Fauci was lying or wrong, it doesn't even matter.
Um it does matter, but not for this story.
Um that the shot stays in the arm.
And then the third thing, which was the second thing that that Senator Johnson said to Dr. Scott, was that uh he doesn't know that the modified mRNA uh is uh not decaying rapidly in the body.
In fact, that's the one to which Dr. Scott says, well, yeah, of course it does.
As as if he does not know that indeed the very thing for which uh the creators of the Moderna Shot got the Nobel Prize in medicine and physiology, which was the insertion of the pseudouridine into the mRNA precisely so that it would not decay.
Yep.
That is that is the point.
It is doing exactly what it is supposed to do when it fails to decay as normal mRNA would.
Decay, degrade.
Right.
So to go back to the point that we entered that clip with.
How is this done?
Well, the answer is if you're only allowed to hear the official version presented by official authorities, the story is very compelling.
It falls apart as soon as you're allowed to push back on it.
And the only reason that this pushback is happening at this level is that Donald Trump won the presidency, Ron Johnson is in charge of this committee, and you therefore have a hearing, which uh is revealing that you know, these are not just claims of the Maha movement or something, these are robust results that um you need to know about before you answer the question, do you want this shot?
So let us go to the last of the clips that we're gonna show.
The last of the clips, which I think is in some ways the most mind-blowing, is Toby Rogers, Dr. Toby Rogers, who has been a guest on Dark Horse.
He's uh a friend, he's also a Brownstone fellow, uh, which is where I met him.
And I will say the first time I saw Toby Rogers at a Brownstone event, he got up, I'd never heard of him, and he started talking about autism and vaccines.
And of course, my blood pressure went up.
And what am I about to hear?
Is it true?
Is he crazy?
And as I'm listening to him talk, I'm thinking, can this possibly be right?
Because he's as you'll see, he's very calm.
He is encyclopedic, he is extremely smart, and he lays out the case in a way that is, in my opinion, unassailable.
So, you know, how does the how is the magic trick accomplished?
Well, one way is that uh people like Toby Rogers don't show up where the public can see them, except for the loophole of Ron Johnson via Donald Trump.
And now here you're going to see um Toby Rogers present just the tip of the iceberg of that case that he presents so well in the Senate, which I think is uh it's a historic uh it's a historic moment, irrespective of what else we can say about this hearing.
Chairman Johnson, ranking member Blumenthal, and members of the permanent subcommittee.
On July 4th, 2015, my then partner's son was diagnosed as being on the autism spectrum.
I was in a PhD program in political economy at the University of Sydney, where I had access to almost all current scientific and medical journals.
I wanted to better understand what was happening.
So I went to the CDC's webpage on the causes of autism.
As a PhD student, I was trained to focus on primary source documents.
So I read all the references in their footnotes.
To my surprise, I quickly discovered the CDC's narrative did not add up.
Claims that autism is genetic don't make sense because autism prevalence was rising too fast.
There's no such thing as a genetic epidemic.
Then the CDC blamed valproic acid, a treatment for epilepsy that is contraindicated in pregnancy, and thalidomide, which was never approved for use in the United States.
Finally, the CDC pointed to advanced parental age, but the odds ratios were modest, and the increase in the proportion of older parents is insufficient to explain the surge in autism prevalence.
Furthermore, the cost of autism was already in the hundreds of billions of dollars a year in the U.S., and yet government was not responding with a sense of urgency.
I changed my doctoral thesis topic to the political economy of autism, and spent the next four years reading and analyzing nearly everything that's been written on autism prevalence, causation, and cost.
In 2019, my thesis passed rigorous external peer review.
It's now in the top 10 of the most downloaded doctoral research papers in the history of the University of Sydney.
Since then I've continued my research with children's health defense as an independent journalist and as a fellow at Brownstone Institute.
Here are the facts.
In 1970, the first autism prevalence study in the US found an autism rate of less than one in 10,000 children.
According to a study by the EPA, sometime around 1987, the autism rate in the U.S. began to skyrocket.
The most recent report from the CDC showed that one in 31 eight-year-old children in the U.S. in 2022 were on the autism spectrum.
That's a 32,000, 158% increase in the last 52 years.
Two massive studies from the best epidemiologists in California show that changes in diagnostic criteria only explain a small fraction of the rise in autism prevalence.
There are 22 studies that claim that vaccines don't cause autism.
None of these studies have a completely unvaccinated control group.
So unfortunately, if you want to understand what's causing the autism epidemic, these studies are of no use.
Then there are five large genetic research projects agree, SSC, ASC, Missing, and SPARC.
Together, they've produced 501 published papers.
The search for the gene for autism has consumed over 2.3 billion dollars, and researchers have almost nothing to show for it because genes don't suddenly create epidemics.
The human genome just doesn't change that fast.
Then there are four large epigenetic research projects, so genes in the environment.
Charge, marbles, seed, and early.
Combined, they've produced 437 publications that look at the effects of air pollution, pesticides, fluorinated substances, PCBs, nutritional factors, flame retardants, maternal metabolic conditions, and volatile organic compounds.
None of these studies control for vaccines as a possible covariate or confounder, so it's impossible to know the true impact of these variables.
The critical missing piece in autism research is vaccinated versus unvaccinated studies.
Thankfully, there are now six good studies that we can rely on.
Unfortunately, these studies have been systematically suppressed and ignored by the mainstream media and the medical establishment.
Two studies by Gallagher and Goodman show that the birth dose of the hepatitis B vaccine significantly increases autism risk.
Three studies by Anthony Mawson confirmed that vaccination increases the odds of developing autism by at least 4.2 fold.
Preterm birth coupled with vaccination increases the odds of neural developmental disability by more than 12 fold compared to preterm birth without vaccination.
And finally, a study by Hooker and Miller published in 2021 found that vaccination increases autism risk fivefold.
Vaccination in the absence of breastfeeding increases autism risk 12.5 fold.
Vaccination in addition to C section birth increases autism risk 18.7fold.
After conducting the systematic review of a thousand studies, my belief is that the autism and chronic disease epidemics are primarily caused by toxicants, mostly from vaccines and about a dozen additional toxicants.
If we stop exposing children to these hazards in the first place, that would stop the epidemics of chronic illness in children.
Now we must summon the political will to act.
Thank you.
All right.
Well, uh very proud of my friend Toby Rogers.
Um again, that is the tip of the iceberg.
Um I'm still thrown a little bit by uh the news about Charlie Kirk.
Uh I really hope he's doing all right.
But um it may be in that clip or it may be elsewhere where Toby Rogers discusses the prevalence of regression with it's not there.
So he in another clip uh which um is worth watching, he discusses the fact that a large fraction, I think it's something like 80% are above uh of these cases include developmental regression.
And his excellent point is that rules out something like a genetic cause, right?
Because the point is the child has already gone through a developmental process.
They've generated circuits that do the right things in the mind, and then something is disrupting those.
That implies a toxicant, as he calls them.
Um so anyway, this is mind-blowing that that testimony is showing up in the Senate.
And it is um hopefully this is something where uh the powers that wish us not to be able to discuss these things are unable to cause a regression in the public mind.
We need to remember that these things were said that when you compare the two camps head to head, right?
You have a very credible defender of vaccines present there, and he's completely ended up.
He upended by Aaron Seary, by Ron Johnson, by Toby Rogers.
All of them understand this way better than he does.
And, you know, Aaron Seary's uh lawyer.
Uh Toby Rogers is uh PhD in uh political economy, and Ron Johnson is a manufacturing guy who is now a senator.
But the point is all you gotta be is smart and willing to look, and then the picture becomes very clear.
If you're not willing to look because you you're told that only bad people look, and that you know, you can you can trust people like Jake Scott.
I don't know why you can't.
He seems like a decent guy, and frankly, kudos to him for showing up at that hearing, right?
The hearing would be much less significant if they didn't have a credible defender there, if they had had a you know a joke like Peter Hotez or something, then it would mean nothing.
But here you've got apparently an earnest guy who really does believe, and he can answer basic questions.
That's right.
Um I think part of what we want to do with the rest of our time is talk about how you know the the politicization of this, like how how it is that people what people are being fed with regard to what they're supposed to think.
Uh but first, the timing of this hearing, uh spearheaded chaired by Senator Ron Johnson yesterday, was it?
Yeah.
Uh uh is coincident with uh the release of this Maha report.
And you can show my screen here uh that came out this week.
Or, you know, you you could show my screen if the technology were working.
Um so we have uh the Maha report, I think it's the second of the two Maha reports that has come out.
Uh Make Our Children Healthy Again assessment.
Uh is it still not not working?
Let's stick.
Um I don't want to slide past this until until you can see my screen.
He's got it.
Yeah.
All right.
Uh so this came out uh just this week as well.
It's incredibly long.
And I just want to share basically the the four top items uh that they that they are discussing here.
Uh first off, uh it references executive order 14212 from February 13th, 2025, which was establishing the president's Make America Healthy Again Commission, which we talked about uh here on Dark Horse when it came out.
And it says it includes um within 100 days of the date of this order, the commission shall submit to the president through the chair and the executive director, the make our children healthy again assessment, and within 180 days of the day of this order, uh there shall be a Make Our Children Healthy Again strategy based on the findings from the assessment.
So this is the strategy document.
And it is impressive.
It includes, for instance, um Badacharya, um, now the head of the NIH as one of the contributors.
Uh but here's here it is in a nutshell.
To make our children healthy again, we must begin with a shared understanding of the magnitude of the crisis and subsequently what's likely driving it.
This assessment provides that foundation, grounding future efforts in a common scientific basis that identifies four potential drivers behind the rise in childhood chronic disease that present the clearest opportunities for progress.
One, poor diet.
The American diet has shifted dramatically toward ultra-processed foods, leading to nutrient depletion, increased caloric intake, and exposure to harmful additives.
Nearly 70% of children's calories now come from UPFs, ultra-processed foods, contributing to obesity, diabetes, and other chronic conditions.
Two, aggregation of environmental chemicals.
Children are exposed to an increasing number of synthetic chemicals, some of which have been linked to developmental issues and chronic disease.
The current regulatory framework should be continually evaluated to ensure that chemicals and other exposures do not interact together to pose a threat to the health of our children.
Three, lack of physical activity and chronic stress.
I would have said chronic stress and lack of physical activity because they're not denouncing the lack of chronic stress in children.
They're actually talking about a rise in chronic stress.
American children are experiencing unprecedented levels of inactivity, screen use, sleep deprivation, and chronic stress.
These factors significantly significantly contribute to the rise in chronic diseases and mental health challenges.
And four, over-medicalization.
There is a concerning trend of overscribing medications to children, often driven by conflicts of interest and medical research, regulation and practice.
This has led to unnecessary treatments and long-term health risk.
Now you could argue that every one of these is so understated as to be to be missing what is actually going on.
But the fact that we have those four things where you know over-medicalization, part of that is going to be about the childhood vaccine schedule, but there's no mention of vaccines in this bullet point.
Because there doesn't need to be.
The point here is that there are these four major things contributing to the decline of American children's health, and indeed of all Americans'health, and people worldwide.
Poor diet, environmental chemicals, lack of physical activity, and increase in chronic stress as somehow one item, and over-medicalization.
So we've got toxicants, to use Toby Rogers'word, through compounds that we shouldn't have anywhere near us from both outside the aggregation of environmental chemicals and willingly brought inside the body through over-medicalization.
Both of those, it's the same kind of thing.
It's just, are you exposed and you had no say in it?
Either because no one is regulating the stuff out of existence, or you happen to live in a place where it's impossible to avoid it, or did you have some choice?
Did your family have some choice?
Did they get denied the ability to say no when the doctor said you must take X, and therefore you've been toxified by being given meds?
These are all things that are happening.
So this report is important, long, dense, but there's one more thing here that I wanted to share, which points just a tiny bit to how this has been allowed to happen.
Which is, a lot of good stuff here, keep going.
Somewhere.
There's, uh, okay.
Well, there we go.
Okay, so in talking about corporate capture and the revolving door, we have this.
The pharmaceutical industry from 1999 to 2018 spent 4.7 billion dollars on lobbying expenditures at the federal level more than any other industry.
In addition, nine out of the last 10 FDA commissioners, and approximately 70% of the agency's medical reviewers have gone on to work for the pharmaceutical industry.
Because what prepares you better for work in the pharmaceutical industry than to have been working for the supposed watchdog.
Nine out of the last 10 FDA commissioners went on to work for pharma.
That is so stunning.
Nine out of ten.
I mean, holy cow.
Um it strikes me in hearing you discuss this.
Part of what we're doing in this broadcast is picking up another level of what I've called the game of pharma, right?
How does the game of pharma accomplish the goal of getting us to take all of these things which may not be in our interest to take?
All right.
Lobbying the um the regulatory agencies is one thing, but they do something that you might call lobbying the press as well, right?
We've talked separately about the idea that the huge expenditures on pharmaceutical advertising are not really about persuading people to take drugs.
They are about making it impossible for the mainstream outlets to report on the net impact of those drugs.
So that's like lobbying uh news firms, which shouldn't be lobbyable, right?
That their whole purpose is not to be lobbyable.
Um anyway, wow, it's just a stunning, stunning piece of information.
It is.
Um we have the pharmaceutical companies uh being heavily influenced by effectively uh inside information on what the what the government watchdog, what the government oversight is is doing and how it is that they accomplish things.
And you have a large part of the population of America who are so confused, so angry, so frightened by what is coming out in the media that they are proudly uh getting their COVID boosters, apparently to um show Poppy Hoose boss.
So this is uh from the Twitter uh Twitter account, Camu.
Oops, oh that's sorry, we don't need the sound to go with this.
Um we have images of uh, you know, all of the particular accounts have been anonymized, but pictures of people with bandages on their arm, flu and COVID boosters, RFK Jr. can get bent.
My wife and I got our COVID and flu vaccines to do our part to make sure everyone is safe.
We have fall 2025 new COVID updated and 2025 new updated flu vaccines, suck it secretary Kennedy, COVID booster achieved, and it goes on and on and on.
Some of these people aren't referencing Kennedy, but enough of them are here.
This is what I hey RFK, this is what I think of your bullshit conspiracy theories.
So, um, and I'm just gonna stop this before it randomly goes into another thing.
Um this shows such a confusion about what it is that you should do to take control of your health.
What you should not do is make a not just futile but actually self-harming gesture in order to give the finger to someone who you have been assured is denying science while actually trying, and this, you know, I it's been over two years that we have had our eyes open to what was is even the case with the traditional vaccines, not just the COVID vaccines.
But you know what is the basis for the claim that they are the route to health.
The basis is not placebo.
The basis is not an actual test of efficacy or safety against nothing.
The basis is a test against what is probably the most toxic parts of the vaccine almost always, the aluminum adjuvants and the other stuff that are in there, the excipients that are there in part, the adjuvants are there precisely to aggravate your immune system.
I I guess I'm having a hard time understanding why that point is having such a hard time landing.
Well, I think you know, part of this has to do with marginalizing voices that are trying to help you see it, right?
Yeah.
You know, I I know from talking to intelligent people who for whatever reason are on the blue team.
Yeah.
And when we talk about Bobby Kennedy, the answer is, well, he sounds like a crazy person to me.
And I think the only way that he sounds like a crazy person to you is if you were allowing him to be filtered by something that wishes to portray him that way.
The man himself doesn't come off that way.
You can disagree with a point.
Yeah.
But he has an encyclopedic knowledge far more than you are, whoever it is who's judging him.
And so if you basically allow the, you know, the New York Times church to dispense what you're supposed to conclude, then you can end up in this place.
And then you reinforce each other online by, you know, being defiant as if, you know, you're showing Bobby Kennedy anything by getting the vaccine.
But let me just point out the absurdity here, the thing that's really at the bottom of this.
Let's agree that the only thing you as a patient should care about is net.
Is that shot net beneficial for me?
That is not a static target.
COVID shows up at the end of 2019.
Evolution happens.
I would bet you every single one of the people who depicts themselves getting this booster would tell you that they believe in evolution.
They're the science people, right?
They believe in evolution.
But as an evolutionist, I would tell you, hey, you've got a brand new pathogen, whatever its route to infecting humans was, and it certainly seems to be via a laboratory, but whatever its route, once that thing is in the wild, it is going to evolve.
It's part of, it's involved in an arms race with the human immune system, in which making you really sick is not an is it, it's interest.
So it is going to tend to evolve, and this is a well-established evolutionary principle, is going to tend to evolve in the direction of being less virulent.
It may be more contagious, but less virulent.
So that means if you were convinced on the dawn of 2021 that this shot was in your interest, you need to go back and re-evaluate how good would the shot have to be, and how safe would it have to be to be in your interest now?
How many people do we actually think are dying from this disease?
And how many people are getting better?
And how many of these boosters do you intend to have?
Your protest going to get this shot is predicated on an assumption that's actually insane.
The assumption is that the shot is perfectly safe, so safe that you don't need to do a net analysis because there's no there's no cost to you.
And that's nonsense.
It's I mean, it's the same confusion.
I don't want to always use this as sort of the baseline uh crazy example, but it's the same confusion as, oh my God, they're gonna take our gender reassignment surgery rights away.
Your your rights come again, the rights of 14-year-olds to have their breasts hacked off because they've been fed a lie by people who have no idea what humans are.
Like that's that isn't actually a right, uh, any more than um the creation of both a uh a virus in a lab and a shot that m may or may not in any way effectively engage with that virus in a lab uh is your right to have.
And I think, you know, I've had I've had some conversations with people who um think of themselves um or young, but think of themselves as leaning libertarian who say, well, but if it's there, then it's our right to have it.
It's like that that that argument doesn't hold once you're talking about something that we have created, that is our technological invention, and especially the newer it is, uh, the the more likely there is a really good argument that we shouldn't have released it.
It should not be out there.
SARS-CoV-2 certain should certainly shouldn't have been released, whether it was done so um by accident, as I still presume, but I don't know, um, or intentionally, uh, but the idea that anything that is created is your right to have access to, no, that's not actually the case.
No, and if that is your position, then you are effectively saying that there shouldn't be Mandatory safety testing and licensure.
Right.
As soon as you acknowledge that there should be safety testing and licensure, then you are acknowledging that anything that cheated to get through those processes shouldn't be on the market and you shouldn't have access to it.
Um, you know, what's more, and that you use the analogy of the uh so-called gender-affirming surgeries, in the case of gender-affirming surgeries, people, you know, are you arguing against the idea of consent?
Because people who can't consent to sex can't consent to destroy their capacity to, you know, being sexually functional.
Right.
And yet you want a double standard.
So it is double standards all the way down.
Yeah.
Okay, so just uh before we stop, um, I want to say just a tiny bit about what's going on with the Universal Ostrich Farm in British Columbia, which sounds like it has nothing to do with this, but it but it really does.
No, it really does.
It really does.
So uh the Universal Ostrich Farm in British Columbia, not too far from the U.S. border here on the West Coast where we are, has had ostriches for decades.
Uh, and in December 2024 and January of this year, they had 69 of their flock die.
Um, and it is it is presumed that uh they died of avian flu, although that isn't actually certain.
Um, all of the living herd, of which there are 400-ish uh individuals, have been, quote, according to a September 6th article in Rebel News, healthy and symptom-free for 235 days.
So they had a substantial fraction, uh, less than a fifth, but a substantial fraction of their flock, which they've had for decades, die.
Um, but the vast majority of them have been um healthy and symptom-free for uh much more than half a year.
The it's now come to a head because uh the Canadian, I don't remember what the what the acronym is, but the Canadian animal safety something regulatory structure is saying that the entire flock needs to be culled uh in order to get avian flu out of um out of existence.
And uh, of course, the owners of the farm and many other people um largely being reported on again at Rebel News, have said this is this is ridiculous, these animals are healthy.
Uh you're also um you also have no right to take to declare our animals unsafe when there's no evidence that they are and kill our animals, which will inherently kill our business.
Uh but compare that to the mainstream coverage, uh, of which there hasn't been a lot, but we have, for instance, let's see, um we have, for instance, in Politico, uh, in and this is just in chronological order of three articles that I found covering this story.
So this is going to be mid-July.
Politico, why RFK Jr. wants Canada to pardon 400 ostriches.
So right away, the you know, the the way into this story is it's Bobby Kennedy, you know what to think, right?
Also pardon.
Which It's true.
Yeah.
Pardon part.
Um, so this is the first four paragraphs of this article in Politico, Ottawa, the fate of nearly 400 Canadian ostriches, which Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is trying to save now rests with federal justices in Ottawa.
As the controversial case makes its way through court, members of U.S. President Donald Trump's administration, right-wing influencers, and a Republican mega donor are urging the liberal government to spare the ostriches that were exposed to bird flu.
The Secretary has urged Canada not to kill the ostriches, but to do further testing to try to better understand the virus.
A spokesperson for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services told Politico.
MAGA supporters and Canada's Freedom Convoy, which blockaded Ottawa for weeks over COVID-19 measures, have coalesced around the cause, which they say is an example of government overreach, an erosion of institutional trust and outdated policies.
So there's a lot to object to here, but just the entire framing is if you agree with this stance, recognize that your fellow travelers are MAGA supporters and freedom convoy supporters, and you know, their description of blockaded Ottawa for weeks over COVID-19 measures.
Like it you know, everything about the descriptions here are wrong, but also they are just trying to make you feel icky about thinking that maybe the ostriches should be saved because other people who think that are far right-wing lunatics like Apparently us.
Uh here we have uh a couple weeks later in the Wall Street Journal, why America is rallying to save 400 Canadian ostriches, plans a plan to euthanize birds prompts RFK Jr. and other U.S. officials to come to the Animal's Defense and an offer from Dr. Oz.
So again, just a little bit from the middle of this article.
It is government overreach at its worst because we have rights as landowners, said Katie Pis uh Pisitney, whose mother, Karen Asperson, is co-owner of the farm.
The animals have recovered from the outbreak and have developed herd immunity, she said.
These animals, we own them.
The government doesn't.
Under Canada's policy for dealing with avian flu outbreaks, officials will kill any commercial flock whose members have been exposed.
Canada's food inspection agency has said even if the rest of the herd doesn't show symptoms, the virus may be dormant and could mutate.
Killing the entire herd is the best way to ensure it doesn't spread.
And that's just that's just a statement in here as if it's true.
The world has been lucky that the virus hasn't spread widely to humans, said Dr. Gregory Torres, head of the science department of the Paris-based World Organization for Animal Health.
We should not leave this virus circulating.
Oh my god.
Okay, so before you respond, one more, uh one more piece on this story from the mainstream media, this is WAPOS, the Washington Post, uh a few weeks later, August 22nd, so just a few weeks ago.
Canadian court allows coal of 400 ostriches that R. Faye Jr. hope to save.
And here, from the middle of this piece, mass slaughter has long been the chief strategy for containing bird flu, a highly contagious disease caused by influenza A viruses spread among wild birds, aquatic birds, birds of prey on waterfowl, as well as demers domestic birds such as poultry.
An outbreak this year resulted in more than 120 million hens being slaughtered and egg prices rising to record levels.
Humans can also become infected with bird flu, although this is rare, with cases typically involving people who come into close contact with infected birds.
So lots to say here, obviously, but let me just start by pointing out that in this in this paragraph that I just read from the Washington Post article from August 22nd of this year.
Note the clever use of rhetoric.
An out so, oh my God, bird flu.
It's highly contagious.
Look at all the birds who can get it.
Quote, an outbreak this year resulted in more than 120 million years being slaughtered and egg prices rising to record levels.
No, it did not.
Wait, wait.
120 million hens being slaughtered and egg prices rising to record levels.
Got it.
An outbreak this year resulted in policies being employed that caused the slaughter of hens, and once the hens were dead and therefore egg production was down because the animals that produce eggs were dead, egg prices rose.
That is not attributable to bird flu.
That is attributable to the policies around bird flu.
And if we go back to the Wall Street Journal and the claim that the world has been lucky that the virus hasn't spread widely to humans, and we should not leave this virus circulating, it seems like none of the people involved, none of the so-called experts, none of the expertise here has anything to do with evolutionary thinking.
Uh and this this then harkens back to what we said, I think at the end of last um the last live stream with regard to uh Bobby Kennedy and the chickens and uh what was it, Dr. uh ex here, give me my screen back if I can for a second.
Uh Dr. Uh Daskalakis, the CDC say uh scientist, sorry, not Satanist.
Oh, maybe that too.
Um, who resigned uh in in you know objection to Kennedy and made a claim that he was being eugenicist when actually what Kennedy was saying was actually this is what selection does.
If you have animals who have died, you don't kill the ones who have survived because that actually is an indication that they have survived and they have better immunity.
And now we have in Canada the same argument being made.
And in this case, it's gonna take out not only 400 beautiful primitive birds, I don't know if they're beautiful, many people would call them beautiful, remarkable, interesting birds, but also an entire family's business.
For for for zero reason.
And again, it's not just zero reason, it's the inverse.
Negative reason.
They they they are Actually indicated in being more immune to avian flu should it come through again.
So they are playing us for fools in this story, right?
They've engaged in sleight of hand in a number of different places.
One is you will note in that last story, the exact conflation of highly contagious with dangerous.
Yep.
Right?
You know what's highly contagious?
Colds are highly contagious.
Okay.
Now I'm not saying that bird flu is a cold.
It's not.
Right.
But the idea that we ought to be very concerned about it because it's very contagious does not follow, right?
It needs to be highly virulent in humans for it to matter.
And they tell you that it doesn't transmit to humans very frequently.
Now, could it?
Yeah.
On the other hand, it is a generalist flu inherently.
It circulates between different species of birds and from birds to mammals.
So it has to be a generalist flu.
Why yeah, wildly different clades of birds, like this this description here, and we can't tell exactly what all the birds are, but we know at least you've got um several different clades of birds, and birds are ancient and uh and uh this isn't this isn't just affecting ostriches or not just affecting itself.
If you found out that there was, you know something circulating in hippos, it doesn't necessarily follow that because it's a mammal and you're a mammal that you need to be worried about it, right?
So But in but in this case, this is a general, this is a generalist bird flu.
Right.
It's a generalist bird flu, which puts evolutionary constraints on it, which they are either pretending not to understand or don't understand.
Yeah.
But I think what I'm really getting from this.
Okay, you had an outbreak of something in this flock of 400 animals.
69 of them died.
That's significant.
Yes.
The fact that 69 of them died and there are no symptomatic birds left says two things are highly likely.
One, this flock, all of them having now been exposed, is now highly immune.
The next time bird flu comes through, chances that this flood flock does disproportionately well are extremely high.
Right.
The second thing is the likelihood that it's circulating there because there was an outbreak and we've now detected it.
No, that's not how we think flu typically works.
So it's like the the people who don't believe in the health of the body, who think that terrain theory is for idiots and the only thing that matters is the pathogen, have for the sake of this argument, because it's political, forgotten what they think they know about germ theory.
Right.
And you know, to the extent that the Daskalakis or whatever his name was is arguing that uh wanting to save these birds because they've been naturally selected to be more immune than they were in two different ways.
They've developed natural immunity, and they've been selected for those who were highly vulnerable to begin with.
So this is now a you know, a uh flock of birds that is especially robust with respect um to these flues.
But the idea that you would respond, even if you thought that this was, you know, if I think that uh a population that has survived disease is superior because it has disease resistance, a that's true.
B, that's not eugenic, and C, the right response to it is not to kill everybody who survived the eugenic event, right?
That's what they're effectively arguing for, right?
The the pathological event.
Right.
But what they're calling if they are dumb enough to believe it's a eugenic event, right?
That you're advocating for natural selection to have culled this herd, and then your point is, well, then kill them all, right?
That's you you that's your morally superior position.
That's insane, right?
That makes no freaking sense.
It's utterly insane, and it feels like like so much does in the last five and ten years.
Like the people who are calling themselves liberals have flipped their positions without acknowledging it.
These are exactly the people who would have been caring about the ostriches 10 years ago, 20 years ago.
Right.
And they've become pharma puppets.
And I must tell you, you know, I've thought a lot about this ostrich story.
I've thought about the culling of the chickens, which was equally insane because what it did was it left a vulnerable population.
You get rid of all the chickens that have been selected or induced into having natural immunity, and you replace them with naive chickens who are now vulnerable to the next bird flu.
That's exactly the opposite of what you should do.
Yeah.
Um, but here's the diabolical thought that is now bubbling to the surface.
If you were pharma and you viewed natural immunity, that is non-medicalized immunity as a competitor in the marketplace, like nature is competing with you by creating immunity that you didn't get paid for.
And that is galling.
You want all immunity to come from, you know, uh CVS or something.
So you go after herds that have, despite your best efforts, gotten natural immunity, right?
And so some combination, I should separate the two terms.
You've got innate immunity.
Some birds are more resistant to bird flu than others, presumably the 69 birds in this flock that died, if they died from bird flu were more susceptible.
The ones that survived either didn't get the disease in the first place because they had innate immunity, or they developed what we call natural immunity, which is the result of your immune system learning to fight the disease.
Both of those things are excellent.
You want a population that has through those two things no susceptibility to bird flu.
That's what you want.
Whether you're raising chickens or ostriches, doesn't matter.
Whether you want to protect people by not having a circulating reservoir of bird flu.
You want a flock of birds that's immune through natural processes.
But pharma viewing natural processes as a competitor to its business, is therefore trying to wipe the slate clean of any population that has attained this through a natural process.
And that is truly diabolical.
What's more, I think it's an extension of a mindset in which health itself is a competitor to pharma.
And you've heard people like Bobby Kennedy say that a healthy child is not profitable to pharma.
But can you imagine that maybe they're actually they view it this way?
I'm sure they don't view it this way with respect to their own children.
But with respect to, you know, your children, why do they care?
Yeah.
Right.
The point is you're a potential profit center for life and making sure, and this goes back to the point about the the Maha report's point about medicalization.
Yes, right, which includes vaccines.
The whole idea is where does health come from?
Oh, it comes from doctors.
And once again, once again, Monty Python nailed it, right?
Because I think I've mentioned this skit before, but there's the skit in which the doctors in the delivery room are under the false impression that they are creating a baby, right?
Um, through technological means.
And the point is, no, you're not.
And pharma, the best pharma could do is it could augment health, right?
That's what we should be doing, is hoping for pharma that in those cases where a healthy environment did not successfully fend off disease, that there might be some tweak that would be useful, not some insane upside-down world in which health itself is imagined to come from technology.
That's not how it works.
Well, and for that fantasy to stick with people and to work their its fearful magic on people, we have to once again have this history in our heads of people falling over dying in the streets all the time, just nonstop.
Right.
Because it's only through the marvel of modernity, modern technological fixes, that humans are healthy.
That that it doesn't make sense as a story, full stop, but it certainly can't even begin to make sense in people's heads as a story unless they have images of plague after plague after plague from uh all the moments before now, effectively.
Right.
And like the industrial revolution didn't just bring us industrialization, it also brought us health.
But there's a reason we don't, we've never called it the health revolution, because it actually brought the opposite.
Well, and this goes to Steve Kirsch's point about the Amish, that the Amish are actually a natural control group for a lot of this.
Not perfect, there's a certain amount of vaccination, a certain amount of exposure, but the degree to which the Amish are overwhelmingly healthier and don't have this chronic uh health epidemic is not subtle, and they're therefore, you know, galling and a target.
And, you know, we've uh seen that they've, you know, their right to have raw milk has been targeted and all of this.
Um, but in any case, it's an upside-down world because somebody's making a profit on it not functioning very well and right down to the level of our own physiology.
And across all of these stories, I would say that there is an overarching uh picture developing.
The body politic has become desperately sick.
Now, not only is the body politic composed of people who are chronically ill, but it has a confusion about the world that is upside down and backwards and making things vastly worse.
And what I think you are watching in all of the stories that we've talked about today, from you know, the ostrich story uh to the Senate hearings, is the finally the dawning of a kind of natural immunity to the game that is being played on us.
Um I will also give a shout out to Brownstone, which I think has been uh a you know, a beacon in the storm.
It has gathered people from across the political spectrum who are awake by whatever mechanism brought them there, it uh it has gathered them together, and you know, you're looking at the consequences of it in the Senate, right?
Any of these people in isolation would have a very hard time telling their story.
Yes.
But having come to understand each other's perspectives and learn from each other, you have a much more vibrant discussion taking place.
So I really think that that is the almost perfect analog to a body finally becoming to an immu to immune to a disease that has nearly killed it and you know, recovering from the desperate flu or whatever it is.
I think that's that's really where we are, and you know, it couldn't come soon enough.
Yeah, no, it really can't couldn't.
Um so just you said this to me before, and you said it just now.
But I'm gonna repeat your words because I think it's it is it it is the moment that we are beginning to see this, and we and we need to win, which is the immune system that defends the body politic is discovering how to defeat the infection.
Yep.
And the battle is over the public consciousness, and we're seeing, you know, with people posting proudly that they're getting their tenth COVID booster and uh and the mainstream media attributing crazy talk uh to Kennedy and making it seem like science is on the side of the people who don't know science.
Uh that's that is hopefully the sounds, the sights of the last gasp of the pathogen that has taken over uh the body politic with regard to public health.
Yeah, that's I think that's exactly where we are.
And uh it's uh, you know, there's been a lot of carnage, but um, but maybe finally we're we're waking up collectively.
Yeah.
Yeah.
All right.
Um maybe that's it.
Maybe we're we're there.
Yeah, maybe that's it.
Um obviously we have not gotten any further word on Charlie Kirk, but uh I I certainly hope he's doing well.
Um and uh, you know, if by any chance Charlie, you are out there and you find yourself watching this uh hang in there, brother, we're rooting for you.
Indeed.
Indeed.
Um we will be back next week, same time, same place.
And uh we encourage you to take a look at our sponsors this week, Massachips.
Where's that bag of chips?
Now we can start eating them after we're off there.
Massachips, uh crowd health, armra, um all awesome, awesome sponsors.
Uh check out um some of these other conversations that um that Brett's had, uh, including with Toby Rogers as well on on the inside rail.
And uh we got uh interesting inside rail drop in tomorrow as well.
And until you see us next time.
Be good to the ones you love, eat good food, and get outside.
