Professor Dave confronts YouTube's top skeptic regarding the toxic "cults" of alternative archaeology and the lethal spread of unverified COVID cures like ivermectin, which caused deaths after being promoted by Joe Rogan despite lacking clinical evidence. They critique the weaponization of "anti-Semitism" to silence criticism of Israel, expose the Discovery Institute's erosion of science education, and warn against a surveillance state utilizing Palantir and DNA data to frame dissidents. Ultimately, the discussion highlights how pseudoscience, political corruption, and algorithmic polarization threaten public health and democratic institutions, urging a return to empirical evidence over sensationalist narratives. [Automatically generated summary]
Transcriber: CohereLabs/cohere-transcribe-03-2026, WAV2VEC2_ASR_BASE_960H, sat-12l-sm, script v26.04.01, and large-v3-turbo
Time
Text
From Band to YouTube Channel00:03:42
Professor Dave.
Howdy.
Howdy.
Thanks for coming, bro.
Yeah, happy to be here.
A little surprised to be here, but happy nonetheless.
Look, man, you're very talented and your videos are very funny.
Thank you.
And I can't deny that, whether I agree with all of the stuff you say or not.
Kudos to you for doing what you're doing and making it entertaining, informative, and fun.
Hilarious.
So, for the people that are listening to this that may hate your guts because they don't agree with you, which is stupid, this will be like taking an ice bath for them.
It'll be healthy, I think.
Yeah, I hope they get all the way through it.
Yeah.
I think it'd be good to start this off by explaining how you got into all this shit in the beginning.
Sure.
Okay, let's see.
I mean, even my viewers, I don't think, have the full in depth origin story.
So, I guess I can give you kind of the medium length one, and then anywhere you want more details, this is a long show, right?
You can feel free to pry and get more.
More information.
I guess I would say so.
I studied chemistry in college and then in grad school as well.
But ultimately, all I really wanted to do was play music.
So, from the beginning of college, I knew I wanted to be a musician.
I was playing in bands, really obsessed with that.
But, decided to be a chem major anyway.
Apparently, I was very practical in that regard.
But then, all through my 20s, I was playing in bands.
And all the while, just at first, I was sort of tutoring and substitute teaching.
You know, you still need to get by, you know, you need to make a living and pay the rent.
So, bandmates would all be bartenders or whatever.
I would teach chemistry.
And then I was teaching organic chemistry at this trade university for about three and a half years.
And during that time, the band I was in at that time started to kind of take off a little bit.
And so we were signed to a label and touring and all this stuff.
And we were touring so much that we decided we all needed some form of passive income.
And so we all had our little ideas.
And mine was a YouTube channel.
So this is 2014.
So this is quite a while ago at this point.
What kind of music?
So that band was called The Lonely Wild.
So I would call it like India Americana, I guess.
Rock and roll.
I mean, for Lucky.
Yeah.
It was guitar driven rock music.
I was the drummer in that band.
And so in 2014, like there was educational content on YouTube.
There was, I mean, Khan Academy started way like 07, 08 or something like that.
There was Crash Course.
There was some stuff like that.
And I thought, I can do that.
So I took my organic chemistry lectures and just delivered them to camera with a whiteboard.
Just here you go, OCHEM one and two students, and put them online with a little bit of branding and stuff.
And It was received very well.
It was the first thing in my life that just was instantly, you know, people were appreciative.
And, you know, so I had a lot of positive feedback.
And so I decided to do general chemistry tutorials with green screen and animations and things like that.
And so eventually, around mid 2016, it looked like the band wasn't really going to pan out, which was devastating.
But the channel was starting to, it had, you know, maybe 10, 20,000 subscribers or something.
It was enough to kind of go, all right, well, what if I put all my eggs in this basket?
So, For the next four or five years, I just started really relentlessly uploading educational tutorials.
So, high school and undergrad aligned, curriculum aligned stuff.
I moved on to like biochemistry, biology, physics, astronomy, math, just sort of whatever I had studied, whatever was tangential to what I had studied, and continued doing that.
And then the reason I'm probably here is that around 2019, 2020, I pivoted into not really pivoted, but in addition to the tutorials, which I still generate, I started making debunking content.
The Toxic Graham Hancock Cult00:10:07
Where I sort of go after charlatans in the science space who are lying about science for whatever financial or political motivation.
And I just make content sort of exposing and eviscerating them.
And that has definitely gained me more, not necessarily more notoriety.
I guess it depends.
If you're in a chemistry department at a university, they're probably talking about my tutorials.
But for the broader general public, I'm certainly better known for my debunking content.
Yeah.
Very entertaining shit, dude.
And are you familiar with CoffeeZilla?
Yes.
He's great.
He's similar.
He calls out sort of like more of the actual like financial fraud that happens with like a lot of the big influencers, like a lot of the crypto bullshit and a lot of like the, I don't know, he did a bunch of stuff on Patrick, but David, Grant Cardone, recently like Logan Paul and some other people.
I don't keep up with all of it.
Yes.
But he does really good work too.
We talked to him like years ago.
But recently I watched one of your videos on like on ancient Egypt.
I think it was about Jimmy Corsetti.
Mm hmm.
I like Jimmy.
He's always been pleasant to me.
I get along with him.
If this was about any of my friends, I would laugh my ass off about it.
It was very entertaining.
And I couldn't help but share it with a bunch of my friends.
Like, dude, have you seen this?
Like, it's great.
Like, even though I don't think the pyramids were tombs, this guy's great.
Like, this guy's funny.
And I think there needs to be people that are like this that are out there because, like, I don't think that.
You should be, even though the way it is, is everyone's kind of like siloed into their own ideological bubbles on the internet, which is kind of like what the algorithms have done.
It's kind of like siloed people away for whatever algorithmic reason to get more engagement on stuff or to monetize it better.
Who knows why?
But that has been the byproduct of it.
It's pretty easy to wrap your head around.
I mean, the sensationalist content is rewarded.
So you end up getting audience capture.
And so, I mean, that's why I'm.
Was reticent to come, but ultimately decided it was a good idea because it sounds like you're trying to not necessarily follow the Joe Rogan path of just exclusively platforming grifters because of the revenue that it brings.
People want to see this stuff.
And Jimmy's nice to you because he wants access to your platform, but he's a very toxic individual.
And that whole cult, the pseudo archaeology cult, which you've platformed a bit, Joe Rogan platforms endlessly, it's an extremely toxic cult.
And, you know, I'm sure your listeners that have watched all of these guys on your show and other shows don't want to hear that, but it's absolutely the case.
And I have made videos on Graham and his underlings and all of these other people.
I'm starting to move on to other figures because those are not as relevant anymore.
And there's other people that are kind of cropping up in this space.
And it's just sensationalist clickbait content, anti establishment archaeologists are all idiots and they don't know this like super special secret truth that I'm offering you.
It's very, it's tantalizing.
It's a tantalizing narrative, but it's.
Well, I think everything could be classified as a cult.
Online, there's a lot of things.
Both political parties are absolute cults.
Different segments of religious knowledge or religions are cults, basically.
Sure.
And these things have become religions where I don't think it's everyone, man.
I think most people are genuinely interested in this stuff, but the people that you see tweeting about it, the loudest people online, are, I agree with you, the most toxic people.
And then when you see people like that, you automatically want to lump everyone into it and say, this is this.
Big toxic cult, when in reality, it's a handful of people that are very loud online trying to get engagement.
Sure.
But that's, I mean, you know, we're in the heartland of Scientology, right?
We are.
We got an e meter right there.
We can do a technological exorcism on you right now.
I walked around by the headquarters yesterday.
I was like, this is wild.
It's insane.
But I mean, but you can say that, like, that is the biggest and most successful cult of the past century.
It is, really.
It is, right?
Why?
Like, they're the one cult that's been able to survive.
They've just mastered it.
But what I'm saying is that obviously there are always going to be people on the periphery, right?
You're trying to lure in people on the periphery, right?
That's why you, you know, all of what's been going on exposing the Church of Scientology is incredible.
And I can't believe they're still able to operate after what's come out.
But this is what you do, right?
With all of these.
Nascent cults, you have these cult leaders and they're trying to draw in people from the peripheries.
This is reasonable.
This is how we, you know, and so that's why there's not enough people making debunking content to sort of, there's too many of these and they, you know, there has to be enough content or a roughly equal amount of content debunking these claims as there are the people that are generating them.
So, yeah, I just think, you know, this all probably started as far as like the ancient archaeology angle of it.
I think.
Um, when Joe Rogan probably had Graham Hancock on over 10 years ago, just over and over again, I think that's kind of when the internet really exploded with this stuff.
I mean, that's I think Joe actually has said that that's like when his podcast really took off when he had Graham Hancock on.
And you know, some of the things Graham Hancock is saying, I'm not an expert in Graham Hancock, or I haven't, I have read one of his books maybe six years ago.
Um, I'm not the kind of the type, I'm not the person to debate whether he's right or wrong.
Um, But I think there's a genuine interest in this stuff, a genuine human interest in this stuff.
And clearly, academics and archaeologists and Egyptologists mostly disagree with him.
It's fascinating.
Whether there is a kernel of truth to what he's saying or not, at least the guy's traveling around to all these places, saying all this stuff.
Like he's not saying this is an absolute bona fide fact.
Right.
Right.
He's a tourist peddling sensationalist claims.
It's just not really an honest framing.
Academics don't disagree.
They know that he's wrong.
And Graham is very careful about making very few falsifiable claims.
He stays as vague as possible.
And that was what was great about Flint debating.
And let me be clear.
Another thing I'll be clear about is I kind of dissented from the norm on Joe's podcast with Flint.
I thought Graham bodybagged.
I mean, I'm sorry.
I thought Flint bodybagged Graham in that debate.
That was my.
Yeah.
Because there's this phenomenon I'm sure you're aware of when you watch things online, you kind of gaslight yourself by reading the comments because the comments sort of like have their own sort of conclusion they come to.
And then some people even read the comments first and be like, oh, this must be what it's about.
Then you watch the video in that context.
Hence bot campaigns because they know that if they can shift the optics in the comment section, that might lead people to not even watch the content at all or, you know, right.
Yeah.
Right.
So I thought that was a great.
Debate to see it.
I really learned a lot from it.
And I thought Flint actually did a good job as insufferable as he, some people think he may be.
I personally liked him.
I mean, I don't like what's insufferable about providing a mountain of facts and empirical evidence to disprove a group of people.
Well, he's very toxic online.
He's kind of, I mean, he's just as loud as Jimmy, but in the complete opposite direction.
Yeah, but these are people who have, you know, encouraged people to contact his place of work and try to get him fired.
And like there's just, after that debate began this entire narrative of Flint is a liar, Flint is a liar.
Joe said it on his show, had Graham on a bunch more times to talk about what a liar Flint is, and then all the other underlings repeating this narrative.
It's just damage control.
He humiliated Graham on Joe's show.
That's what happened.
You know what I mean?
He just brought all the, he got Graham to admit that there's no evidence for anything he says.
And then he also brought empirical evidence against the existence of agriculture and all this stuff.
And even got him to walk back and say, well, maybe it was just the idea of agriculture, which is meaningless, right?
It just, he exposed how vapid these narratives really are.
And Graham's very clever.
He doesn't make that many falsifiable claims, but ultimately it's just whimsy, right?
Dressed up as this bold anti establishment research that flies in the face.
Yeah.
Nuts.
It's just a great way to go.
One of the things that I've said before that I've thought about a lot, I was thinking about this a lot during that time when he did that podcast and before I had Flint on the show, is that when you are in that position that Graham Hancock was in in the beginning, where you are sort of like the fringe outlier, anti establishment person, you feel like everyone's coming to get you, everyone's trying to take you down, and you're kind of the one shining light in this sea of darkness, right?
You can go so far, you can come full circle.
To being like the very thing that you were fighting against in the beginning, to where now everyone is the enemy.
Yeah, but a figure like Graham never truly was that figure.
That's a narrative.
It's an alluring narrative.
Everyone wants Luke Skywalker versus the Death Star, right?
That is the only way to get people to discredit an entire field of science with millions of experts that actually know what they're talking about, right?
It has to have that bite to it.
So Graham has always been a grifter.
I mean, he started with like really ancient aliens, aliens on Mars kind of stuff, and then he kind of.
Pulled it back to sound as reasonable as possible to kind of lure people in.
Look, he speaks very well and he has these interesting ideas and he's not arrogant.
He says, What if?
But it's just all of it is absolutely baseless rhetoric to sell books.
That's all it is.
Do you think that people like him literally get into this stuff just to profit on it?
Like say, Hey, let's take this lie and let's just deceive people to make money?
Or do you think that they're actually maybe interested in it and they believe that it?
Homo Sapiens Age Debunked00:05:00
Could be true and they want to discuss.
I mean, obviously, I think there's nuance.
I think there are people that do do what I just described.
Right.
Billy Carson or.
Yeah.
But it's the same narrative.
He's just way more sensational with it, with the Anunnaki and Emerald Tablets and all that stuff.
Who, Billy?
Yeah.
It's the same grift.
Graham just tries to appear as reasonable as possible.
Now, the degree to which you want to get into human psychology and how much a grifter is able to convince themselves that they are the hero that they present themselves as, I don't know.
And it varies on a case by case basis.
Well, here's the thing about Graham.
And without drilling down into too much detail, like it's absolutely possible that human beings are a lot older than science, established science says right now, because that the age keeps getting older.
Like there's the, I've talked about this ad nauseum.
We talked about it yesterday or two days ago, whatever the last podcast was, that the skull, the human skull found in China that is dated back to over a million years old, like their evidence keeps coming out that humans were on this planet for way, starting out way earlier than we originally thought.
One million year old human skull, Unixon 2, discovered in Hubei, China in the 1990s, has been digitally reconstructed.
Oh, this was found that long ago.
Okay, but.
So, like, there's.
But you realize that, like, hominid species have been around for millions of years.
Hominids, but this says Homo sapien.
This was a human.
This was a Homo sapien human, not a hominid.
Similar to Homo.
Is that Longi?
Denisovans.
Is this the article, Steve, that we were talking about?
I thought the article was more recent.
Yeah, there it is.
There's the BBC article.
That was from 2025.
So, read the first paragraph of this.
Let's see what it says.
A million year old human skull found in China suggests that our species, Homo sapiens, began to emerge at least half a million years earlier than we thought.
Researchers are claiming in a new study.
Where's the new study?
What does it say about the new study?
Discovery published in the leading scientific journal Science shocked the research team, which included scientists from a university in China and the UK's Natural History Museum.
So.
It's a real study published in a scientific journal of a Homo sapiens skull that's a million years old.
So, like, I don't see why it's controversial to be open to the possibility that humans could be way older than we thought, right?
Like, sure, science evolves all the time.
But there's a huge difference between finding a Homo sapiens specimen that's earlier than you thought, right?
The, what is it, Jebel or Houd is 300,000.
That's what we, that was my impression of how old Homo sapiens is.
But that in no way.
Signifies that there was some kind of hyper advanced structure or civilization or all these other very outrageous claims.
We know that hominids have been around for millions of years, different species.
So, Homo sapiens emerging earlier than we thought.
Okay.
I mean, I'm open to it.
I don't know.
I haven't seen that.
But that doesn't in any way substantiate outrageous pseudoarchaeological claims.
Right.
And when it comes to some of the ancient structures that Graham talks about, like the ones in.
Indonesia, Turkey, Egypt, and even in the UK with Stonehenge.
There's a reason that it's one of the seven wonders of the world, right?
It's because it almost seems like an impossible feat for ancient humans to be able to do.
And that's why a lot of people, a huge subset of people in the world, believe there's a logic gap there, right?
There's like, how does this make sense?
We don't know.
Maybe we'll fill it in with God or maybe we'll fill it in with aliens.
I don't know, right?
But it's like the conventional explanation for how it happened seems to be like the, you know, it doesn't seem to add up.
It doesn't seem to make sense, which is why I think most people are so fascinated with this stuff and like to come up with all these crazy theories and ideas that may be bullshit, they may be bogus, but to be able to talk about them and discuss them and do, you know, podcasts on them, I don't think it's dangerous in any way.
Well, I don't know.
I mean, it depends.
First of all, I don't know.
So to go site by site, again, I wasn't sure what we were going to talk about here because I debunked so many things.
Pseudoarchaeology is one blip we do.
I'm talking about anti vaxxers and creationists and climate change deniers and all these things.
So I can't speak to specifics of each site.
But to speak generally about rhetoric, for an academic, for an archaeologist to propose something about a particular site, that's academic science.
Pharma Shills and Mainstream Science00:15:35
There's no problem with that.
And to have a discussion.
Within the scientific community, that's happening all the time in every field.
There's no problem with that.
But the way that these grifters come at this, you know, oh, all the archaeologists are closed minded and they're idiots and they don't know about this and they don't know about that and they're denying this for whatever reason, that poisons the public against the scientific community, right?
And that is what leads to enhanced vaccine hesitancy and all these other things, right?
Because the public can't compartmentalize science, right?
They don't really think about this is what this community is doing, this is what this community is doing.
They just leave with this general sense.
Of scientists are closed minded shills in the pocket of big whatever.
Big archaeology is an insane term.
But that's the narrative that is peddled.
And so, what you get is a public that is increasingly distrustful towards science.
And that's when you get the public voting in administrations that put science deniers in positions of power and things like that.
So, ultimately, what I want to say is that it is harmful.
Now, you can go into individual examples of one person saying this or that.
Something might be defensible.
But broadly speaking, it is harmful.
I'm not in my 20s anymore.
Even though I've improved my workouts and my diet over the years, I've still noticed a drop in my energy and my motivation.
And then one of my friends told me it sounded like a testosterone problem and told me he was using a natural pill, and that's what led me to Mars Men.
See, men begin to see a drop in testosterone around age 30.
And even though your body still makes it, most of it can get bound up by a protein called SHBG.
So even less of it becomes available.
Mars Men is designed to help free up locked testosterone so your body can better use what it already has.
No synthetics, no needles, just natural ingredients like Tonkat Ollie, Sheila G, vitamin D, zinc, and boron.
And what I've noticed is more sustained drive throughout the day, way stronger workouts, and sustained energy.
It's nothing like caffeine jitters, it's like being switched on again.
It's made in the USA, it's third party tested, and it comes with a 90 day money back guarantee.
And for a limited time, our listeners can get 50% off for life plus free shipping and three free gifts when you go to mengotomars.com and use the code DANI.
That's M E N G O T O. M A R S dot com for 50% off and three free gifts when you use the code DANI at checkout.
And it's also available on Amazon.
After you purchase, they're going to ask them where you heard about them and please help support the show by telling them we sent you.
Yeah.
So you're saying, by and large, over time, the public has become more distrustful of mainstream science and I would say authority in general, the government.
Simply by using the term mainstream science, it's illustrating my point.
It's not a theory.
Academic science.
What would be the Well, I mean, there's academic science and there's the private sector, but there's no mainstream science, right?
There's science and there's pseudoscience, right?
Right.
Whoever is publishing science, whether it is academic or, you know, whether it's in the private sector or whatever it is, right?
That's actual legitimate science.
And then there's people who lie about science on podcasts, right?
And they refer to it as.
Or there's Hamilton Morris, who does science and also does podcasts about, you know, scientific research that he does on psychedelics and stuff like that.
He's not a mainstream scientist by any meaning of that word.
Sure, that's fair.
He synthesizes chemicals.
That's totally fine.
You can do that.
He's an interesting case, like a hobbyist turned, you know, scientist.
Right.
But he's not pushing any super outrageous claims.
You know what I mean?
Yeah.
I think where it gets squirrely is when you have science and you have academic institutions that are all intertwined with governments.
And then you have financial entanglements with all of that stuff.
There's financial entanglements in every single aspect of science, whether it be climate science, whether it be vaccine science or pharmaceutical companies.
And, um, But that's even, even, even geopolitics type stuff.
Like, there's money and there's weird little financial incentives entwined into all of that stuff.
And that's where it gets squirrely and that's where it gets hard to figure out what the truth is.
But that can also be used number one, that can be used as a scapegoat, right?
Blah, blah, blah in the pocket of big pharma.
You just say that and people believe you.
But number two, financial entanglements for the frauds that are pushing these narratives, right?
They make money off of this stuff.
So, sure.
People can make money off of questioning power if they have a podcast or they're selling advertising or, I mean, selling books maybe.
This idea that a scientist is in this incredible position of power or is doing something incredibly lucrative, the vast majority of scientists are not paid that well, right?
They're just doing what they're doing because they love to do science and discover things, right?
So it's this way of painting the scientific community as this cabal, you know, that's beholden to blah, blah, blah, whatever.
It's a global scientific community operating in academia, in the private sector, under many different countries, many different, you know, political apparatus.
There's no way.
That is why the consensus of the global scientific community is what you go by at all times.
Anything that is contradicting the global scientific consensus, that's what you want to be skeptical about.
Because can you get one scientist to lie?
Absolutely you can.
And Wakefield or a doctor.
Sorry, I don't mean to interrupt.
I want to make sure I'm clear on this.
You think anyone who is questioning or skeptical of the global consensus.
Contradicting, yeah.
Of the global consensus.
The global scientific consensus, yeah.
What about that person?
You should be very skeptical of that person.
Right?
You should, they are making claims that contradict the entire body of scientific knowledge.
It doesn't 100% guarantee that they're wrong, but they're very unlikely to be right.
And especially if they're not scientists themselves, they're almost certainly not right.
So you can take someone's claims and go, all right, well, all of the science says no, but all right, say your thing.
And 99% of the time, they're trivially debunkable.
Sometimes it's a little harder to debunk.
You have to really dig into it.
But the idea that you can, You know, you have scientists all over the world.
There's no way to buy off millions of scientists in different countries, all these things.
It doesn't make sense economically, right?
You can buy off one scientist, maybe a handful, so you can get papers that are, you know, bought off by special interests.
But ultimately, like these are, you know, when you talk about climate sciences and things like that, these are the fossil fuel industry that's trying to manufacture this stuff, right?
So again, it's pretty easy to spot the motives.
With things like that, you know.
Then with individual grifters, it's just, it could be anything, right?
Somebody's just trying to make a buck however they can, you know.
But so, journalism by definition is being skeptical of power and being skeptical of the people in charge who are controlling things.
That is the very definition of journalism.
And it is, so are you holding the.
The people in power as your North Star of truth?
Are you like defending?
Scientists are not in tremendous positions of power.
They're just people doing a job.
And so this thread starts to evaporate when you say, well, this government made the scientists do the thing.
Okay, which government?
We got these vaccine studies.
This one's from Sweden.
This one's from China.
This one's from Argentina.
This one's from.
Which government?
What are you talking about?
The Illuminati government?
What do you mean by grants, scientific grants for that scientist?
One of the biggest ways scientists get funded is by grants from.
Pharmaceutical companies.
And I mean, we've had multiple in here.
We had one in here maybe two weeks ago, it was the most recent one who was a neuroscientist working in Montreal, Canada, if I remember correctly.
And it was in the 90s, I think it was 1994.
He got a grant from Pfizer to test a neurotransmitter, some sort of drug for Alzheimer's.
And he was testing the neurotransmersers.
He was using PET scans to detect.
The chemical reaction in the brain to this drug to see if it was effective or whatever.
And in the grant agreement, he had to sign off that if the results were negative, he could not publish them.
He could not make them public.
The results were overwhelmingly negative.
The drug was not effective at all for Alzheimer's.
It wasn't reacting.
I think it was acetylcholine, is what the proxy was he was looking for to see if it was reactive to this drug.
And it wasn't.
He asked if he could publish it.
They said, no, you actually signed this document agreeing that you wouldn't do it legally.
So you're legally bound to not publish this.
And they ended up bringing that drug to market and it probably made, who knows, billions of dollars.
But like the point is, these pharmaceutical companies, they spend.
I'd have to look into that though, because drugs don't get approved all the time, right?
You have independent institutions that are running clinical trials and drugs don't get approved all the time.
So this narrative that pharma is just like, every drug I want will go to market no matter how harmful.
It's just, you know, and I don't know the individual study that you're talking about.
I agree with you.
That's not probably true, but would you agree that it does happen?
I'm not sure.
I mean, you'd have to give me an individual.
I mean, you just did, but I'd have to look into it.
I'd have to see whether this is just a story or what it is, because there are, like, this is part of the reason that it's so disastrous what's happening under this administration, right?
Under the guise of protecting public health, you just have RFK just firing half of everybody at FDA, CDC, all these institutions, and all of these deregulations, right?
It's actually the precise opposite of what he. Pretends to stand for, right?
These institutions are there to protect us from the private sector and famously have, right?
Thalidomide wasn't approved in America because the FDA wouldn't approve it, you know, this kind of stuff.
That's what these institutions are for.
So, you know, what would a pharma company do?
I mean, first of all, opening itself up to all these lawsuits.
It's not like.
They've been fucked by lawsuits historically.
It happens.
I mean, and so it's just.
I mean, there's more lawsuits against pharma companies.
There's more money in settlements from pharmaceutical companies than any other industry, I think, on the face of, in the history of human.
Humanity.
Possibly.
And if well deserved, then great.
But this painting of pharma as this unbelievable boogeyman with all the money in the world, right?
Do you know that the alt health industry is significantly larger than the pharma industry?
The alt health industry?
The alt health?
Untested, unregulated supplement industry, right?
No.
Yeah, it's a trillion dollar industry.
It makes more money than the pharmaceutical companies.
More money than pharma, yes.
You got to find this, Steve.
Yeah.
I do know that it takes, and I've had.
Multiple people, like scientists, drug researchers on here that have done had grants from pharmaceutical companies, tell me that it takes between like 10 to 12 million dollars or I'm sorry, 10 to 12 years to develop a drug with all the testing on rodents and all that stuff.
It's very stringent and it can cost a billion dollars.
Yes, and only one in 10 drugs make it to market.
Right.
So they have a huge financial incentive to push those drugs out and to get those drugs out there in the marketplace.
And, you know, famously, there's billions and trillions of dollars of settlements from these pharmaceutical companies having to pay people out for killing people, injuring people, lying to people with their marketing, malpractice.
I mean, I don't have to look any farther than the opioid crisis.
So, I mean, my point is to default, to have that be your default, to want to protect or to fight for those people.
To want to be the bulldog that's attacking people who are attacking those billionaires.
And those trillion dollar companies who are literally only looking out for their bottom line.
And they don't give a fuck about a middle class person who can't afford a really fancy doctor who just has to go to their checkups every six months or whatever and has to do the bare minimum and can't afford healthy food.
They have to eat out.
They don't give a fuck.
It's the insurance companies and these pharmaceutical companies that are raking in trillions of fucking dollars, right?
And they have immunity.
This is why I'm trying to tell you about the alt health industry, right?
Yeah, let's look at this.
They're making more money and they're peddling lies and selling complete.
So everything you're saying about testing and everything, these are products that are not tested on anything.
It's not labeled as medicine, so they don't have to do anything.
And there's all these, you know, so there's not only supplements that actively harm people because they're not tested.
They don't go through any clinical trials.
There's no safeguards of any kind.
So you want to talk about that one drug that slipped through clinical trials and some, you know, unforeseen, not that, you know, pharma went through the checks and balances.
Here we go.
We did these clinical trials and something didn't show up and somebody got harmed.
Okay, well, lawsuit.
Great.
Go for it.
Get the money.
But we're talking about an all health industry.
All of these products are completely untested, they do measurable harm.
And they pull people away from legitimate medical attention.
That, you know, ivermectin would be, you know, although that is a real drug, the ivermectin craze would be a great example of that.
So, this is what is this?
Google's AI or whatever?
Summing it up.
The broader, this is what Google's saying the broader global wellness industry, which includes alternative health, wellness, tourism, nutrition, and personal care, is significantly larger than the pharmaceutical industry.
Estimates place the global wellness market at over 6%.
Which is several times larger than the estimated one to two trillion global pharmacies.
That's the global pharmacies.
So, this is not in the US.
This is global.
Yeah.
Massive market share the global wellness market.
Okay.
I mean, think about it.
How many people do you know?
Can you break this down by countries?
Sorry, what were you saying?
How many people do you know that are regularly taking tons of prescription drugs versus how many people do you know that follow a bunch of drugs?
You know, health influencers and buy the supplements they put on.
Everybody I know has been on fucking Adderall since they were like 12 and they were prescribed it.
There's some oversight on that.
Yeah.
I mean, Adderall, I think, was probably over prescribed in the 90s.
Yeah.
I think that's a huge problem, man.
Yeah.
So this is what I'm saying.
Like, you know, people, oh, Dave, Pharma, Shill, whatever.
There are things that you can criticize Pharma for, right?
And so, sure, sometimes they try to influence doctors to prescribe off label, right?
They'll say, well, this drug is for this, but it might work for this.
Can you prescribe it for that too, right?
There's a little bit of that kind of.
Oiling going on and call it out.
I don't care.
I'm not here.
There's absolutely grifters in the alternative health.
Grant Cardone, the fucking Scientologist, I'm sure you're familiar with him.
He brags about all of his jets.
He's selling hyperbaric chambers and cold plunges and he's calling it 10x health.
It's just comical.
This is what I'm saying this stuff has taken off because of the cartoonish degree to which people vilify pharma.
Like, do a really, really in depth give me all the cases you want to talk about.
We're staying high level.
We're not getting in the weeds.
Totally.
Yeah.
But what I'm saying is there are things you can criticize pharma for.
ButcherBox: Quality Over Quantity00:02:07
Go for it.
It's no problem.
But the cartoonish villainization is what has propped up this enormous health wellness industry that is just full of grifters.
I'm sure that's right.
I'm sure that's true.
Complete snake oil that is actively harming people.
Springtime means it's time to clean out your fridge of forgotten leftovers and old condiments.
And it's time to restock those shelves with some refreshing selections from Butcher Box.
For over a decade, ButcherBox has led the industry with meat and seafood that's antibiotic free, hormone free, and independently verified.
Because when it comes to fueling your body, quality isn't extra, it's everything.
Clean, whole protein means better support for strength, metabolism, and that steady all day energy we're all chasing.
ButcherBox sends over 100 premium protein choices like grass fed beef, free range organic chicken, crate free pork, and wild caught seafood.
Everything is hormone and antibiotic free, and it all meets the same strict requirements, whether it's filet mignon or chicken nuggets.
I love being able to customize my box.
I usually spring for the pork chops or the salmon, but sometimes if I'm feeling frisky, I'll throw in some chicken thighs for the week.
And everything shows up frozen, vacuum sealed, and ready to go.
So, no grocery store shenanigans.
They're a certified B Corp, which means they care about how animals are raised, how the team is treated, and how they impact the planet.
As an exclusive offer, new listeners can get their choice between chicken breasts or top sirloin for a year or ground beef for life, plus $20 off when you go to butcherbox.com/slash Danny.
That's right, your choice of chicken breasts or top sirloin for a year or ground beef for life.
Plus $20 off your first box and free shipping always.
That's butcherbox.comslash Danny.
And don't forget to use our link below so they know we sent you.
Even the grifters themselves, right?
Me and Dan Wilson did a debate against Pierre Corey and Steve Kirsch.
I watched that, bro.
Yeah.
And so one of them, Steve Kirsch, went blind in one eye because of a supplement that Peter McCullough, the spike detox supplement, this is a supplement that is completely untested.
Insurance Industry Corruption Exposed00:04:26
He took it and he went blind in one eye, and yet he's still on this.
Anti vaccine crusade, right?
Pierre Corey, another guy, just made a boatload off ivermectin.
Frontline doctors made a boatload off of ivermectin, saying this is this wonderful cure all drug.
You can't get COVID.
Take it as a prescription every month, right?
Every month, you know, keep spending money, you'll get it.
And just how many thousands and thousands of people died of COVID because they didn't get the critical care they needed and then it was too late.
That's the real villain.
So criticize pharma for the things that it does.
That's fine.
And I'll do it with you.
But This is the real villain right now, the health space.
I think it's fuck both of them.
I think we need to attack them both.
I don't think Pharma makes real drugs that save lives.
That's true.
But I'm also sure there's a subset of the people in the alternative health system are also selling shit that saves lives, right?
The difference is one of them is not intertwangled with the United States government, right?
How does that make it any.
That's when you have grifters that are just selling snake oil.
Why does it matter if they are or are not propped up by any government, right?
Well, it's because those guys get.
A they get shuttled into the public, um, and they work with insurance companies.
And basically, every run of the mill family that goes in for a routine checkup gets prescribed these things.
I mean, there's people that are in the pharmaceutical industry whose job is to take physician primary care physicians out to dinner and take them out to bars, take them out to strip clubs, and befriend them and convince them to use their drug.
I had a guy in here who was a sales rep for Viagra in like the early 2000s and was doing this job, and it's like.
Your job is to get them to prescribe more shit for more symptoms.
Like, we need you to prescribe this for more symptoms and prescribe it more because they get these kickbacks.
There's these kickbacks they get from the insurance companies.
And if you really dig into it, it's insanely corrupt, man.
And it's so fucked up that it's in our healthcare.
It's baked into the healthcare system that is supposed to be taking care of everybody in the United States, from every, especially the people that are lower income, which really pisses me off.
And the fact that, The United States is literally, I think, the last or second to last on the list of health outcomes in the world of countries.
To be clear, we do need to very strongly differentiate between medical science and the health insurance industry.
The health insurance industry is rotten to the core.
Yes.
That's a very, very different thing, right?
There's a difference between what is this drug?
What does it do?
Who can it help?
And who gets it for free?
These are very different things.
And in America, the only industrialized nation to not have socialized medicine, that's an enormous problem.
But you can see how these are contradictory lines of thinking, right?
The health insurance industry is terrible.
Because it doesn't, it disallows people from getting the medical attention and the drugs that they need, the ones that work, that actually work, the ones that are, that some would criticize Big Pharma for producing in the first place, right?
The health insurance industry, that's where you get the Luigi Mangioni's.
You get some vigilante justice going on.
So I'm right there with you on the American health insurance industry.
That's horrible stuff that's going on.
That's very different from the medical science, the chemistry, the molecular biology behind what is a drug?
Is it going to work, right?
All the Hamilton nurses that are working for these companies in their labs, making trying to do their best, and I'm sure that's true, I'm sure that exists.
They're trying to do their best to actually make create good medicines.
That is different from the executives sitting in the top of the tower who are working with the insurance companies and the hospitals and trying to they're just trying to grease the wheels of money and trying to make more profit and trying to lobby the out of every single congressman in our country.
Yeah, get 10% more profit here.
It's insane.
It, it, I, yeah, and I'm happy to see less of that however we can, but ultimately, it's just trying to.
Add a little more profit on drugs that work, right?
These are drugs that help people and save lives.
They're trying to squeeze some more money out of it.
And let's get rid of that corruption however we can.
But the way you do that is with regulatory bodies that do their job, not with RFK firing everybody that's competent in all of these institutions.
I don't know enough about the vaccine stuff.
I haven't done a deep dive on it.
Alternative Health Industry Scams00:15:09
I've had people on the show talk about it before, but I've never personally done a deep investigation of it, especially the COVID one.
I don't understand it.
It's too complex for me.
My whole problem with all the COVID stuff was all the censorship and all of the mandate stuff.
And, you know, basically, I'm not down with the idea of having to wake up in the morning and turn on your TV to find out what your governor is telling you you're allowed to do today, including taking your kid to the park or going to the beach or whatever the fuck it is.
I think that's totalitarian.
I think that's a slippery slope.
And I think once you give them that power, I don't think you ever get it back.
Okay.
I think it's a little bit of an exaggeration, though.
I mean, I don't know what it was in every state, but I live in California, and there was never a moment where we couldn't go to a park or anything where proper social distancing was happening.
You know, how are all of these restrictions totalitarian?
Is it totalitarian to say you can only drive on the right side of the street and not the left?
There are guidelines in place to ensure public safety.
When you have a pandemic, a global pandemic that's killing a lot of people, what are you going to do?
Nothing?
Just let every people, all the people convene in every manner imaginable and spread it and kill 10 times more people.
I mean, something must be done.
Yeah.
I think 12 or maybe two dozen people were arrested in New Jersey for trying to go to a church service and a synagogue.
I think it was either a synagogue or a church.
I can't remember, but it might have been some sort of a temple.
And the governor of New Jersey arrested them for trying to go to church.
There were beaches here.
The beaches here were shut down.
You couldn't fucking go to the beach without getting arrested.
That's by the death, that is totalitarian.
No matter what your excuse is for doing it, it goes against the Constitution.
It goes against the First Amendment in the church scenario.
But it has nothing to do.
So it's just religious people thinking that they're immune to a pandemic because God, which is ridiculous.
And then they convene in large numbers, pass the virus around, and then go out and kill other people.
You really can't see the other side of that?
I can see the other side of it.
I understand people were really afraid of it in the beginning.
They didn't know what it was.
We didn't know if this was going to be like instant death.
When it touched you.
But, and I'm not religious by any sense of the word, but I understand and I respect that, you know, people have religions and they believe them.
It brings a sense of community to them and they have the right, according to the Constitution and the First Amendment, to be able to practice their religion and to convene.
You know.
What if your religion is to murder people?
Should you be allowed to do that?
Like with a gun, just go around and shooting people.
My religious.
That's a reductio ad absurdum.
But what I'm saying is that the broader good, the public health, takes precedent over religious liberty, right?
You're not free.
Like, here's the thing.
So, with COVID response, there's doing absolutely nothing is insane.
Forcing everyone to remain locked in a cubicle for forever is insane.
So, what do you do?
Something in the middle.
So, if you want to have a debate about individual states' policies and exactly where it landed, You can have that debate, and I don't know what every state did.
I know what California did, and to me, it seemed extremely reasonable.
If you lost a business during that time, you have my sympathy, absolutely.
I mean, and you can have a debate, it was a little too much, not quite enough, whatever.
But the idea that it's some kind of constitutional right for religious people to convene and spread a disease that will kill other people, it's just that's not a good idea.
But how will it kill anyone else other than the people who are there?
Because you get it, and then you go out somewhere else, and then you give it to your family members.
And then people were meeting, people were gathering during COVID in every state, you know.
Some people were responsible about it and saw very, very few people, maybe only a couple of close friends or something.
And then there were very reckless people that changed absolutely nothing about their lifestyle, and those people killed other people.
It's absolutely a case.
Yeah.
Millions of people died, you know.
I mean, it's.
Yeah.
What is this, Steve?
This is about the alternative health industry.
Right.
Pharma is $645 billion.
Look at the difference in the US versus Germany.
Wow.
Number two is 99 billion.
The pharma is much larger than alternative medicine.
That is fucking crazy.
Right, but it was a very restrictive list that you just provided, right?
Like run of the mill supplements don't even fall into that, right?
If you're talking about naturopathy and stuff like that.
Oh, so he typed in alternative medicine.
It's a very, well, yeah, but look at what the list was of what was included there.
It was very restrictive, right?
What else should it have included?
The entire supplement industry.
Ask if this includes the supplement industry.
Or the unregulated sustenance.
But is it, are all supplements herbal medicine?
That's not, for sure, no.
So look, I mean, you don't need to convince me that pharma makes a lot of money, right?
It's a gigantic industry.
Right, but it's certainly not bigger than the alternative in the US, according to that.
We haven't included supplements yet.
But that's why I said it's a restrictive list.
But yeah, I mean, money is money.
So what is your position on censoring speech when it came to On the whole COVID narrative and alternative medicines and stuff like that.
I wasn't familiar with a lot of it.
I mean, I don't think, like, are you talking about like Twitter and stuff?
Like, were tweets deleted or something?
Tweets deleted, YouTube.
Certainly, lots of YouTube channels were deleted of practicing physicians who were talking about treating COVID and offering advice on how to treat it, how to take care of it.
There were lots of doctors who had treated thousands of patients themselves and had YouTube channels and were talking about what they were doing, what their results were, and they had their YouTube channels shut down.
I personally had people on this show talking about it and had those episodes taken down and gotten channel strikes because of.
The reason YouTube gave me was medical misinformation.
Yeah.
They were professionals.
They weren't just.
They were professionals, academics.
But there are professionals that engage, you know, in this.
That's the problem is you have doctors that get into this grift, right?
Paul Merrick and Pierre Corey and Peter McCullough and then, you know, in every.
So many of those guys.
Avi Loeb and, you know, these.
There are professionals that engage in grifting.
So it's not always Billy Carson, some joker or whatever, right?
You can have people in the highest echelon of academia that engage in grifting.
So.
I am under, like, everything that was labeled as medical misinformation was.
Right.
Now, the other question is should it have been censored?
That's a more delicate question.
I don't know.
I'm pretty neutral on it.
I think it is for the public good that it got censored, but do we want that in general?
Yeah, I don't know.
To me, I go the completely other way.
I'm not really interested in what is censored or what is not censored or whatever it is.
I am more interested in flooding the internet with factual information that debunks all the grifters.
That's what I want to do.
That's what I want to see.
Yeah, but what if you were getting censored for that?
But I, well, in what way?
What if YouTube was demonetizing your content for attacking people that were talking about vaccines or attacking people that were talking about the pyramids?
Well, that would be really shocking.
Then we would have a situation where factual information is getting censored.
Well, those people believe that their information is factual.
But they don't.
They're grifters.
So, this is why you have to dig into it, right?
So, I spend a lot of space on Alt Health because you do, like, they are professionals and everything they say.
It requires a lot of investigation into primary scientific literature, right?
There has to be content that does a deep dive on this stuff to show you, to illustrate.
And you can pick any handful of these guys, and I'll come back with a presentation to convince you that they're grifters, right?
But can you see the third, fourth, fifth, and sixth level domino effects of censoring content online based on maybe something legitimate, maybe negative misinformation that could harm people?
Do you see what can happen down the road with that?
Yeah, a couple things.
Number one, I do see that because then there's a lot of nuance, right?
There are grifters that are perpetrating a grift.
And then there are people who are echoing the grift because they fell for it.
And then there's people, there's, yeah, there's a lot of gradations of that.
And where do you choose to stop?
You know, that becomes very tricky.
My, my, what I, I'm under the impression that it's pretty selective and just the people that are grifting, right?
I don't know.
But maybe not.
You said you got one episode pulled down or something like that.
We had multiple, we had multiple pulled down, but most of them were regarding the, most of them were regarding the medical stuff and the pandemic stuff.
I mean, in the urgency of a global pandemic where millions of people are dying, I don't know.
I mean, it's hard to say.
But ultimately, I'm not defending censorship, right?
I want to encourage the production and sharing more speech.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
And the problem is that it doesn't, you know, most professionals are not willing to take the time from their job.
And, you know, it takes weirdos like me, right?
I'm a career science communicator and entrepreneur.
And there's very few people that have been able to make a living this way, such that they have all of their time free to hunt down these people.
And there's so few, there's just not enough because there's thousands of these people in every single sector of science and technology.
Um, and every single one of them needs a counterpart that's debunking them.
So, I'm trying to debunk 500 people at once, you know, which is why it's hard to retain.
You know, every time I particularly in the medical realm, there's so many papers, so much stuff that you really have to dig into that it's impossible to keep all of it in the forefront of your mind at once.
Yeah, but when I'm doing that video, I'm reading a lot of papers and I'm speaking with a lot of professionals, I'm really, you know.
Very thoroughly exposing that individual.
And then I move on to another, and then another, and then another.
So, and I've seen my content move the needle a little bit on certain figures, which is what I want, and which is what we need to see.
We need a lot more people doing that.
So I'm not here like, let's silence everybody.
I'm just, let's have the truth be louder than the frauds.
That's what I want.
Yeah.
And then also on the ivermectin stuff, I had a woman that's just popping into my head, Mary Bowden.
I'm familiar with her.
I have no idea.
She worked at Houston Methodist Hospital.
And her hospital that she worked at was the first hospital in the country to mandate the shots.
And she treated something like it was more than 6,000 patients for it.
She was a respiratory specialist.
And yeah, she treated over 6,000 people.
And this was starting before the shots came out.
And she was using all of the recommended treatments.
She was using a lot of monoclonal antibodies, which she said were very effective.
She was very skeptical about the ivermectin.
She did start using it.
She did not see any negative effects for the ivermectin.
I think she said that she was combining it with heavy doses of steroids, heavy doses of vitamin C.
And I think it was the steroids, the vitamin C, breath, breathing, breath work or something, some sort of like breathing exercises.
This is her.
Oh, yeah, let's watch this real quick.
She gives herself like a, she'll do better than I do.
Throw the little cans on real quick.
Oh, yeah.
God damn it.
I'm all tied up over here.
Just listen to like 30 seconds of this.
You're an ENT.
She normally doesn't get involved anywhere close to the vaccine issue.
And guess what?
She is knee deep in this.
Right.
So, Mary, I know we're like almost an hour into this podcast, but let's give me like a brief introduction, like your background.
Right.
So, I went to Stanford.
I'm an ENT.
And I kind of stumbled into.
I had patients coming to me because no one else would treat them.
And I'm an expert in respiratory diseases, so it makes sense.
And because I didn't shut my doors, people started coming to me.
And initially, I used, well, I tried hydroxychloroquine, but as soon as President Trump mentioned it as an option, it got shut down.
And literally, the Texas State Board of Pharmacy sent out a letter prohibiting us from prescribing it.
So then I moved on to monoclonal antibodies, and those worked great.
People turned around very quickly, and I get unlimited supply.
Well, then the government shut that down, and that was right around when Biden mandated the COVID shots.
They shut down monoclonal antibodies.
It was an orchestrated effort.
And so I started using ivermectin, and I found that ivermectin worked.
I was a little nervous that it wouldn't because monoclonal antibodies worked so well.
But what I did find, I found it worked.
And so I treated over 6,000 patients.
When you see that high volume, I mean, that's something I'll never again experience in my career.
I mean, usually I see a wide variety of issues as an ENT.
Never had such a large volume of the same disease in such a short period of time, and you become an expert in it.
And, you know, I started speaking out, and of course, I got ridiculed, smeared, canceled.
I'm still fighting for my medical license.
So, I put everything on the line to tell the truth.
And I think that brings us to another point is that all these people, all these doctors are going to be.
She's fined tens of thousands of dollars.
They threatened to take her medical license.
And she wasn't invited to any dinner parties anymore in Texas.
She had nothing to gain from it.
Very convincing.
I understand.
Convincing narrative.
Whether it's a narrative or it's her actual experience, I mean, it's possible that she's telling the truth.
But I understand that, like, None of the scientific journals have published any sort of studies that say ivermectin is effective, right?
They none of them do.
I listened to your interview with Pierre Corey, and I've listened to other interviews, and that's what people seem to be frustrated by is that there's no like placebo controlled trials that say that it did work for it.
Right.
They're always using very shady trials, very you know, small cohort, no controls.
The first one was just like high dose in vitro, which is not applicable to you.
To a human system.
The kernel that they used and then expanded upon was not legitimate.
And then mountains of legitimate science is done after the fact because of the fervor that crops up to demonstrate conclusively that it is not effective both ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine.
And so all you can do against this mountain of science is performed all over the world, all these different countries, all over the place, is just go big, giant conspiracy, pharma paid the blah, blah, blah, whatever.
That's all you can do.
Fraudulent Drug Research Trials00:15:25
But what about people like her who treated over 6,000 patients and she did say that?
It worked in combination with vitamin C, monoclonal antibodies, steroids, all that.
Okay, so what's the difference between that and it didn't work at all and other things worked?
You know what I mean?
Like, that's not how you do science, right?
You don't go, I gave them five things and they got better, so this one must have worked.
That's not how science works, you know?
Sure.
You have to do very rigorous trials where you control every single variable, right?
This is how you test drugs.
So, do you ban ivermectin?
Is that the answer?
Well, first of all, absolutely not, because it's a legitimate drug.
Should she be allowed to give it to prescribe it to her patients?
I don't know how bureaucratic stuff works, but I definitely would look down on any doctor that was prescribing it for COVID because it was shown to not work conclusively.
That anhydroxychloroquine.
And that is when those drugs enter the alt health space.
So that's what I wanted to say about that.
Well, I mean, she wasn't on like ivermectin's payroll or anything like that.
She didn't make it.
Well, okay, first of all, you don't know that.
You have all of these, you know, the frontline doctors, these organizations.
I don't know who that person is.
I don't know what her affiliations are.
It's very easy to just present yourself as the.
You know, the underdog fighting the big bad system.
But all of these people, so the earlier we were looking at the list of alt health versus pharma.
Yeah.
Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine are pharmaceutical drugs that have purpose, right?
Ivermectin, great Nobel Prize winning drug that eradicated a particular kind of parasite, does fuck all against COVID, but it's a great drug that has a purpose.
But then when you take it and you're prescribing it for something that it does nothing against, that's alt health.
That's when you get into this alt health wellness space and you have all these doctors, frontline doctors that are getting rich.
Because they're telling people, you don't do what the big bad government says.
I'll send you this in the mail.
Every month you give me 90 bucks or whatever, and I'll send you this in the mail.
That qualifies as alt health.
And there are a lot of people who got really, really rich.
Yeah, well, that's shitty.
When you're starting a pyramid scheme on selling ivermectin, you're a dirt pyramid scheme.
Not necessarily a pyramid scheme, but just whatever sort of fucking recurring shit.
These people are grifters.
It is.
It is.
Yeah, I would agree with you there.
But at the same time, like, again, I can't for a second bring myself to be able to defend.
Companies like Pfizer, who are fucking sponsoring every single news station and newscast that's telling you that we have to stay indoors, you have to go get your shot, do all this stuff.
By the way, we're sponsored by Pfizer.
But trust me, even if they were paying us millions of dollars, we would still tell you the truth if we thought the stuff was bad.
Like, get the fuck out of here.
Okay, but stay indoors and get a vaccine.
What's wrong with either of those things?
What's bad about that messaging?
Well, the question is do you trust the media and do you trust the government?
Do you trust these trillion dollar corporations?
Like, if you look at history and you read history, go look at the Iraq War.
Do we trust these people?
Okay, well, geopolitics is completely different.
It's the news is selling it to us.
Sure.
But the fact remains that money can't change the laws of physics or the laws of molecular biology and what a disease is.
It can't change what a pathogen is and how it kills you and what will cure it and what will defend, right?
These are all realities of the natural world.
And this is what scientists seek to study.
So you can find a media distortion, you can find a special interest group, you can find these things.
But ultimately, what a disease is and what cures it cannot be manipulated in that way, right?
And you have scientists all over the world that are studying this stuff.
That's why, again, I'm going to keep bringing it back to this.
The consensus of the global scientific community is what you go by.
When you have somebody that's contradicting that, you want to be skeptical of that person, right?
So it becomes ivermectin doesn't work against COVID, not because Pfizer said so.
It's because all of the scientists all over the world say so, right?
There's a big difference there.
Mm hmm.
Amanita Miscaria is the third most popular microdosed psychoactive in the US with over 3 million people using it.
That's more than LSD or DMT.
But there's a wave of dangerous gas station fakes out there, so who knows how many people were cheated out of the real deal.
Amentara is the complete opposite of those scams, which is why I only trust Amentara.
I never would have even touched Amanita Miscaria if it weren't for Amentara.
They are the trusted Amanita supplier in the US, totally legal, no synthetics, and 55,000 happy customers.
Small doses put you in a calm, focused, Flow state type headspace, while medium doses are more like a jolly alcohol alternative, great for sleep, dreams, and some people even call it nature's wine.
I take a few of these capsules most days after work, and it helps me forget about the stress of the day and be more engaged with my family.
Imagine being in a stress filled environment and not feeling triggered.
That's what Amanita does for me.
Amentara is the largest Amanita miscaria supplier in the U.S., totally legal, ethically sourced, and lab tested.
They have the largest Amanita selection from oils, capsules, to chocolates, and the raw caps.
It's not just a store or a single product.
These guys are helping pave the way for a new legal medicinal psychoactive mushroom in the U.S., and I'm really happy to be a part of it.
Go to amentara.comslash goslash DJ and use the code DJ22 for 22% off your first order.
That's A M E N T A R A.comslash goslash DJ.
And don't forget to use the code DJ22 for 22% off your first order.
I just question it when most of the scientists are paid by the pharmaceutical companies.
But they're not.
Yeah, but how do we know?
I mean, most scientists I've talked to have gotten grants from pharmaceutical pharmaceutical companies.
We're talking about millions of scientists.
Right.
We're talking about an unbelievable number.
It doesn't make sense.
Who pays them to study this stuff?
Who pays them to study the drugs?
I mean, all kinds of things.
I mean, you'd have to identify an individual study and we would find the source of the funding there.
If you were to broad brush it, like by and large, most scientists say there's a fucking billion scientists in the world that are studying, that are researching drugs, who pays them to do it?
Whatever government they're working under.
You think the government pays for it?
I mean, largely.
If it's a, right.
Maybe if it's a government or a country that has national or socialized medicine, right?
But certainly not in the United States.
United States medicine is.
No, still, yeah, still.
I mean, a large percentage of grants are from the government.
And I mean, we're talking about medical science in general and molecular biology in general, right?
When you're looking at what viruses do and what bacteria do and what a drug does and what an antibody does and all these things, this is just general science, right?
And so you can have clinical trials on a drug.
That's very different from scientists who are just performing general research on pathogens and epidemiology and this kind of stuff.
So, yeah, a lot of government grants, and there are private corporations that are also utilizing profits to do research.
So, money's coming from every.
I mean, it's just, it's very easy to just go, money, money, money.
Okay, money came from a thing.
It's like, it's the number one common denominator with most of this stuff.
And it doesn't have to be just like financial incentives, it can also be like personal vendettas.
I heard you talk with Hamilton about this, and I've heard that he's talked with me about this on this podcast there's like a really famous psilocybin study or an MDMA study.
Where there was this rich family who literally paid millions of dollars to buy podcasts and propaganda to sabotage this MDMA study and like the public perception of MDMA.
It's very interesting because a bunch of people left comments saying that that was not true.
And I didn't look into it further.
So I'm not sure.
Yeah, I don't know.
I mean, there's a guy I've had on the show many times.
He's a journalist and he really follows all the psychedelic stuff, he follows like.
Every single psychedelic study, every I mean, he's very skeptical of the whole industry.
Um, and he was a part of a really early psychedelic study in like the 90s, I think.
And I don't think anyone there's not too many people that are denying just by and large that psychedelics have no therapeutic application.
I think the vast majority of the scientific community is on board with that.
The story was the story was with this on this specific case was, um, and they threatened to sue Hamilton over this because he exposed it was that there was this study that was going on with MDMA.
And there was this guy who was really old.
He was a Holocaust survivor.
Some of the girls that were involved with this study somehow met him and started giving him MDMA, and he's like turned his life around.
He was like in his late 90s and he was loving it.
He was loving these girls.
I'm sure they were like banging him or whatever, and they were also giving him MDMA.
And he's like, fuck, I love this.
You got how much money you guys want to sponsor your MDMA study?
And the granddaughter of this guy was like, what the fuck?
He's giving these MDMA whores my inheritance.
So she.
Decided to take a bunch of her money to sabotage their stuff.
So, like, it's not like some big cabal.
It's not some big organization that's just trying to make profit.
It's just a personal vendetta.
But, like, it's about money at the end of the day.
Yeah.
And there are frauds within, you know, within the medical establishment as well.
Andrew Wakefield was bribed half a million pounds to pen the Lancet study.
Andrew Wakefield penned the 1990s Lancet study that started the whole vaccines autism craze that will never go away.
I don't know anything about that.
It's a whole saga.
I mean, he's like, you know, The most major figure in the anti vax movement sort of catalyzed from the mid 90s much of what is happening now.
But that's what I'm saying.
He was a doctor, he was a gastroenterologist.
Like it's possible to, it's humans, it's society.
There's people, there's politics, there's stuff going on at all times, right?
There's money over here, there's money over there.
That's just life, that's just reality.
You know what I mean?
Sure.
But that's human nature.
Yeah.
The problem is, and there's no problem in going, this individual instance of fraud occurred.
Let's expose that and let's dish out some justice there.
The problem is when you have the alt health space just relentlessly spinning this overblown villainization of pharma while they are making enormous amounts of money peddling snake oil.
I mean, that's the main take home message here.
I mean, this is going to happen.
It's going to happen.
You're going to get bad apples.
It's like, would you rather have three news channels that are feeding you all your information and you can't get it from anywhere else?
Or would you rather it be open season where everyone can go out and find information and you have to use your brain to figure out what's bullshit and what's good?
When the latter is the situation that we have now.
And unfortunately, an unbelievable percentage of the media landscape is lies.
So, yeah, it's a good point, right?
Yeah, when you had three news channels, does that mean that there was, and it was very, very respectable fact based journalism?
It doesn't mean there's no propaganda, right?
Of course, there can be propaganda that's just like there's a whole genocide happening over here that no one is talking about, and you'll never know about it because it's not on the news.
100%.
That's absolutely was the case.
You can't hide a genocide.
Everyone's got a phone and they're filming it and showing it to you.
Which I want to talk about.
That is probably the most unifying thing in this country right now.
Sure.
What did you just have pulled up, Steve?
Oh, this is not it.
It's right here.
For drug research, where does the majority of funding come from?
Government grants, pharmaceutical companies, or anything else?
What did it say?
It says that private money usually starts the research, but then pharmaceuticals take it over.
Okay.
In total dollar terms, the majority usually comes from pharmaceutical and biotech companies, not government grants.
In the US, CBO, whatever that is, reported that the pharmaceutical industry spent $83 billion on research and development in 2019.
And a National Academics NCBI review says private industry as a sector was the largest overall investor in biomedical research.
So pharmaceutical companies invest in RD to develop drugs, right?
That's what that's.
Right, exactly.
They make drugs.
That's the business.
It's the business of making drugs.
It takes a lot of money to make drugs.
Right.
Well, what was the question, though?
The question was what?
Well, you were asking about where all the funding comes from for medical science.
In drug research.
Oh, right.
Obviously.
Yeah.
Okay.
That question is in drug research.
Obviously, the money would come from the companies that are selling the drugs.
But I think what you wanted to talk about is where academic research is, funding for academic research is coming from in anything that is tangential or pertains to.
The correct question would be what academic scientists?
How much.
What percentage of funding for science in you can't really lump it into like science?
That's too broad.
Yeah, if you're talking about science, I wouldn't think the general science you'd be talking about for this kind of stuff.
Even that is difficult if you're just talking about medical science in general or something that would be medical science.
That's a good one.
I mean, I don't know.
It's hard to say, but I mean, obviously, I mean, it's very, very broad, right?
And you'd also have to narrow it down to the US, medical science in the US.
But science is that's the thing about academic science is that.
Much or most of academic science is just let's figure shit out.
How do things work?
What is this made of?
What does it do?
The point of academic science, which is why it's so tragic that the funding for science is being slashed under this administration, is that scientists that want to figure stuff out and know how everything works and find cool new applications.
They're doing the foundational work that then others can go in industry and say, well, they just figured out how to, there's this material.
What can we do with this material?
And we can make this thing or whatever.
That's what's incredible about academic science, right?
When you're in the private sector, everything's obviously very profit oriented.
And so to sacrifice academic science, which is what we're seeing right now, you're losing that foundational layer of like, just, well, what happens if we try this?
Or what's this thing all about?
It's the true exploratory science is largely happening in academia.
You find anything, Steve?
Do you type in medical science?
Oh, it's still searching.
ChatGPT is going slow for us.
Yeah.
And just again, Some of the history that some of the history of America and like the hit this the science that has been done in America for nefarious reasons and nefarious terms.
It's once you learn about that and you're exposed to that, it's really hard to get that out of your head, you know.
And that might be human nature.
You're gonna go to that one probably, maybe Tuskegee is one, maybe Operation Paperclip is another one, maybe the Manhattan Project is a good example of top scientists in the world.
Including Nazi ones.
Yeah, build a bomb and kill people with it.
I mean, that's the goal here is to kill people.
But yeah, no, I mean.
And look, you can't broad brush everything with that, obviously.
But it's like when you learn about all this stuff, it's overwhelming.
AIDS Skepticism and Pfizer Lies00:15:57
Yeah.
So there's a couple things here.
So, number one, we do want to differentiate between the veracity of science and what people do with it.
So, there are those in that space that want to call into question the validity of science.
There's nothing wrong with the validity of the science that made the bomb.
That's why the bomb worked, right?
So, they figured out a bunch of physics and then they made a bomb of it.
That's the.
I'm not saying whether it's valid or not.
I'm just questioning the motives.
Sure, sure, sure.
But no, but there are a lot of people who just, you know, physicists are all, it's all fake and all this stuff, right?
So, that's.
There's people that think nukes are fake, that thinks they aren't real.
Do you know that?
Are you aware of that one?
You got to check that one out.
There's just, at this point, nothing surprises me on the internet.
But then, so putting that aside, just, yeah, people do bad things.
In the world, there are people that do bad things and there are people who use science to do bad things.
And I mean, all we can do is point out all of these instances where malfeasance is occurring and Shine a spotlight on it.
Try to educate people on what has happened in the past and then try to empower regulatory bodies to minimize that happening in the future.
That's why we need a robust FDA.
We need these institutions to be able to do their job.
We have this constant seesaw between the government and the private sector.
And that is unfortunately how the world works.
Seesaw, it's a marriage.
Yeah, well, it's a very one sided marriage.
Look at Trump's cabinet.
Look at all the AI people.
Look at Peter Thiel.
All these people that are.
Peter Thiel is the maniac.
And, you know, Alex Karp talking about dropping fentanyl-laced urine on his enemies.
Like, these are the people that are getting all this money, like billions of dollars from the U.S. government, and like literally probably mostly responsible for getting him in power, grooming JD Vance, like all this crazy stuff.
Yeah.
And head of the EPA in the pocket of, you know, fossil fuel lobby.
Like, just you have people being put at the heads of institutions that are antithetical to the purpose of the institution, right?
So, this is why, right?
It's rotten to its core.
It's rotten to its core.
And that's why, like, Government bad, government bad, government bad.
Okay, we have the private sector.
Right now, the seesaw is that the private sector has undue influence on the government.
So you have, you know, a lot of the anti establishment narratives going on right now are very like pro private sector, right?
The government sucks.
Academia is communism, all this stuff.
We need to give all the money to Elon Musk because he's a brilliant man that knows what to do.
In the meantime, that's the point of Doge is to go in and just dismantle all the.
Really?
Do you see that?
Oh, yeah.
So the propaganda that is directly from the oligarchy is of this.
Flavor, right?
Academic institutions are woke indoctrination camps and all of the blah, blah, blah, and the side, you know, everybody sucks there and don't go to college and everything from a college sucks.
So, it's very pro private sector, right?
It's very deliberate, right?
That's why we're seeing this movement towards dismantling regulatory bodies and giving more and more and more power and influence to the private sector.
So, you know, that's not, I'm not saying government good, right?
There's a, you don't want a totalitarian government that wreaks havoc on the private sector.
But right now, it's not the case, right?
We have the other situation where the private sector has too much influence on government, right?
You can buy politicians and make them, you know, do what you want.
And they're also using their influence to trade stocks because they know what's going to happen.
They know the laws that are going to change, the policies that are going to change, and they're making the rules, they can predict the future.
I mean, similar to like you see with some of this crazy insider trading on this fucking Strait of Hormuz shit right now.
Sure.
Yeah.
I know very little about it, but I instantly believe everything that you're saying.
But I mean, so it's a tricky situation, right?
Because governments have to exist.
We need governments as a society, as a civilization.
But the trick is when you see an administration that is appointing all these people to these cabinet posts, It takes a very large grassroots political movement to, number one, recognize the problem.
Anybody who can't see that RFK is a nightmare, that's very problematic.
That society can't unanimously agree that RFK is a nightmare.
I don't see HHS as a nightmare.
Okay.
He's completely 100% antithetical to public health.
Everything about him, he is as if one of those insane TikTok wellness influencers became the head of HHS.
That's what he is.
Right.
So he's not a TikTok influencer.
He's not suing public health people for decades.
No.
Yeah.
One of his main sources or his main source of income is lawsuits.
He gets finder's fees for lawsuits, but none of those lawsuits actually demonstrate harm from vaccines or anything.
They're all just well, not just vaccines, but also glyphosate, right?
Wasn't there a guy that can restore it?
Right over for Monsanto.
Monsanto, right?
He's deregulating.
He's deregulating for all these things.
He waves this flag of like, I'm a champion of the people.
He absolutely is actually doing the opposite.
He's, I mean, not only is he firing everybody from all these institutions, CDC and FDA, that have any.
He's firing everybody.
I mean, not everybody, but I mean, yeah, like thousands upon thousands of dollars.
Maybe he's just like fumigating all the fucking corruption out of there.
No, he's making it corrupt by fumigating out all the legitimate scientists.
Yeah, but how do you know he's not getting the corruption out of there?
Because the output of these institutions is now exclusively medical misinformation, right?
That's what's happening now you have never before had medical misinformation of this degree.
Coming out of official state channels.
Like which one?
It's never happened before.
CDC.
CDC is no longer.
What is the CDC saying that's medical information?
RFK tells Trump, I'm going to figure out the cause of autism because of what's going to happen.
And then he goes on to say, it's Tylenol.
We figured out it's Tylenol.
All this crap.
Is that not true?
No, of course it's not true.
And then he had to.
How do we know?
How do we know it's not true?
Plenty of studies have been done.
And then more after this insane accusation.
And then they got sued, of course, by the makers of Tylenol.
Of course they did.
So it's just like.
It's a nonstop circus sideshow of a guy who definitely has no idea what he's talking about.
I mean, everything the guy said, I mean, he's like an HIV denialist, all like really insane stuff.
We've never seen this before in HHS or NIH.
And then Jay Bhattacharya is right behind him, also just complete fraud.
And so this is what you have you have all these institutions being stacked with loyalists that are running the narrative of this administration.
And we need to.
The core issue is getting the public aware that that is what is happening because then you can vote people out of office and then you can vote people into office that will put credible people at the helm of these institutions and you can very slowly start to rehabilitate this.
What did you find?
What are you looking for?
He's an HIV denialist.
He's an HIV.
Well, of course, Google's going to say this, bro.
What did he actually say about it?
Oh, my God.
That is unreadable.
I mean, so.
Okay, what is this?
Claims on HIV/AIDS causation.
In his 2021 book, The Real Anthony Fauci and Other Public Statements, Kennedy has argued that AIDS is not exclusively caused by HIV.
He has asserted that his initial AIDS epidemic was linked to the use of poppers.
In the gay community rather than the virus.
So he's saying AIDS is not the exclusive cause.
That makes him an HIV denialist.
Of course it does.
HIV causes AIDS.
Well, he's not denying that HIV also causes AIDS.
He's saying it's not the exclusive cause.
Okay.
But what he's saying is absolutely insane.
And it doesn't make any sense at face value anyway, right?
It is a disease caused by a virus, caused by the HIV virus.
That's what it is.
This is well known for this.
But he's saying it's also other things, right?
But how do you know that it's not?
Because it's caused by virus.
It's a viral disease.
Have you talked to AIDS experts on this?
Dude, come on, man.
This is such a laughing stock talking point, right?
Look at where we have come with AIDS treatment.
Why do you think that whereas AIDS was a death sentence in the 80s and 90s, that now it is not?
That through the use of various therapeutics, it's very.
Because we know how it's caused.
We have drugs that target every single step in the replication cycle of the virus that are inhibitors of this step and this step.
We understand very.
Very well.
This is what I'm talking about.
When you say, when you, so what's alarming is what you just did, I want everyone listening to not do that, right?
What you have to have is this intense skepticism.
When somebody like RFK says something like that, poppers cause AIDS.
This is insane because, and if you don't know a lot about AIDS, but you can look into it, right?
You can look into what these drugs do, how they affect the replicative cycle of the virus, how well we understand HIV and AIDS.
And that's why we are able to treat it so effectively.
Well, here's the thing.
I think that.
You should be skeptical of everything.
I think that anyone who's making the rules, anyone who is in charge, the principal of your school or the people that are making the laws in your country, you should absolutely hold their feet to the fire and question what they're doing and try to hold them accountable for things.
Whether that be the people who got us into the pandemic or the people who are.
Claiming whether true or not to get us out of some sort of fucked up system that we've been in for 50, 60 years.
That's fine.
Right.
And I think the problem here is which is human nature.
People see evidence of big bad guy right here, new guy comes in, he must be the savior.
It's binary.
Well, the reality of it is your savior that may be coming in, there may be some questionable things.
There may be some fucking corruption in there too.
So you can't just automatically.
Ignore all skepticism for the newcomer that's coming in.
You're also immaculately describing whatever jerk was on Joe Rogan last week, right?
What you just described is exactly what I want people to do to the person feeding them these narratives on whatever podcast they're watching, right?
Approach that person with skepticism.
What do you mean, jerk that was on Joe Rogan?
What do you mean?
I'm saying whatever fraud was on Joe Rogan last week telling them this narrative about COVID or ivermectin or whatever it is, right?
Approach that person with extreme skepticism.
Everybody you should approach with extreme skepticism.
Yeah, I mean, when you approach.
The entire body of scientific knowledge with skepticism.
I mean, you can do that if you want, but then what you inevitably doing is you start learning science, right?
If you're like, how does AIDS work?
Exactly.
Great.
How does AIDS work?
Everybody, Google that and learn how AIDS works.
And then you will see that what RFK said is insane, right?
So, fine.
I mean, I want to encourage learning.
If you come to learning from a position of skepticism, fine.
I don't care.
Whether you're like, I want to see how AIDS works, or whether you're like, I bet it's not true.
Let me learn it.
Whatever.
Learning is learning.
But the true skepticism should be applied to whatever institution you're talking about, but also whoever is feeding you these narratives.
At this point, it's such a trope the anti establishment narrative.
You have the big bad, whatever, fill in the blank.
I'm the truth teller on the podcast that's whistleblowing or whatever it is.
The people that are making these rounds on the podcasts, right?
You have to scrutinize what they're saying.
You have to follow up.
You have to look at, you know.
Of course.
And so.
Of course.
Yeah.
But why do you pick on Joe Rogan so much?
Because he just almost exclusively platforms frauds, you know?
Exclusively?
Anytime we're talking about in like with medical stuff and like with the pseudo archaeology stuff, right?
He just very, very, very heavily leans.
In that direction, I think he just talks to people that he's really interested in genuinely.
I don't think he's trying to deceive anybody.
I mean, I probably don't think that, but there's no way, but he may not, but it doesn't matter because he doesn't have anyone telling him who to have on a show, like he does it all himself, sure.
But he likes these stories, right?
He likes these stories of big bad whatever, and I'm telling him, I'm whistleblowing.
He just likes it.
You're whistleblowing?
He's no, the guest is whistleblowing.
Oh, the guest is whistleblowing.
I see what you're saying, right?
He has on somebody that's like the big bad establishment, and I have the super secret, awesome truth.
Right.
He just, anyone who presents that narrative, he is implicit, he is inherently biased towards that narrative.
And so, yeah.
Well, he was fucked by, and he was smeared by CNN during the whole COVID thing when they put him on there and they like, they photoshopped and made him yellow and said, look at this guy.
He's taking horse dewormer.
When he literally said, he goes, I took vitamin C, NAD, monoclonal antibodies, ivermectin, and a laundry list of other things.
And he's like, it's like they were upset that he did well.
And then they had Jay Bhattacharya come on his show like a couple weeks later, who was like the head scientist at CNN or whatever.
He goes, and you know, you should get your COVID shot, Joe.
He's like, no, why?
He's like, I just had COVID and recovered last week.
I have natural immunity.
And then Jay goes, oh, yeah, I guess you got a good point.
Well, I don't, you know, like.
Well, Jay also is a massive fraud, but not for suggesting that people get vaccinated.
But yeah, so, but I don't, yeah, they're like horse dewormer.
I mean, it is that, but it is also used for animals.
It's used for humans for a very particular parasite.
I mean, billions of uses on humans.
Not billions of uses.
No, essentially, mainly this one use.
Of this particular parasite.
But it's been used billions of times, like, oh, sure.
Since it came out.
Sure.
But so the other side of this is that many, many, many people died because they were convinced that ivermectin cured COVID, which it does not.
And the reason that this narrative gained traction is through podcasts, primarily through Joe Rogan.
A few others, Brett Weinstein was pushing this crap as well.
Like, a bunch of people were in the podcast space were pushing this narrative, and people died because of it.
So, Okay, like the thing of like they photoshopped his face.
I mean, yeah, I think, yeah, maybe he didn't look that way.
I don't know.
I don't know why they did.
They perpetually lied through the whole thing.
Okay, so they're doing a clickbait thing too.
But, you know, I mean, the media landscape has a lot of clickbait.
But Joe Rogan is not sponsored by people, but he's not sponsored by Pfizer.
Sure, that's awesome.
Did you see the montage of every single news station brought to you by Pfizer?
Like, there's montages of it.
Have you seen it?
No, but that's fine.
It's crazy.
Joe is sponsored by nobody.
And yet, he is constantly pushing disinformation, not himself deliberately, but through his guests.
Right?
So, this is the problem.
He's an independent journalist, is what he is.
He's having people on who he thinks he's reading books, he's listening to podcasts, and he's doing like five podcasts a week.
This is it.
Watch this.
I mean, you don't need to convince me.
It's fine.
This weather report brought to you by Pfizer.
Today's countdown to the royal wedding is brought to you by Pfizer.
And now a CBS Sports Update brought to you by Pfizer.
Meet the press, data download, brought to you by Pfizer.
This portion of CBS This Morning, sponsored by Pfizer.
On how to find the hidden sugars in the American family diet.
Sponsored by Pfizer.
Making a difference.
Brought to you by Pfizer.
CNN tonight.
Brought to you by Pfizer.
Early start.
Brought to you by Pfizer.
Friday night on Aaron Burnett out front.
Brought to you by Pfizer.
This week with George Stephanopoulos.
Brought to you by Pfizer.
I mean, it's comical.
It's comical.
Look, Pfizer is a brand and they want brand recognition and they sponsor stuff.
In the middle of a pandemic, pushing out a vaccine that's going to be mandated to everyone or else you lose your job.
Well, okay.
So how.
Okay.
We can get off this topic.
No, we'll come back to that because I just want to finish the thing I said.
Brought to you by Pfizer does not equal lie and not brought to you by Pfizer does not equal truth.
That's the main thing I want to say.
So, podcasts, in particular Joe's, are a vehicle by which enormous amounts of disinformation spread.
High volume, very rapidly, all over the place.
And Joe has these people on every week.
That's part one.
And he should.
Joe Rogan's Disinformation Machine00:11:59
Should he?
What do you mean he should?
He should.
He should have frauds that lie to people.
He should have frauds.
That's not the point.
The point is he should have as many people on as he thinks is possible, as many interesting people on as possible, and as many as he wants to.
It's not his job.
Are they interesting?
Is a grifter interesting?
It's not his job to attribute motive to that person.
His job is to make money.
He's just making money on his show and he has an unbelievably large net worth to show for it.
He can do whatever he wants.
He's a free agent.
He should be able to, and there should not be any limits on that person.
He should be able to.
I'm not saying.
Look, the point is, it's not about he shouldn't get to have a show or that person, whatever.
Having a media landscape where, and you know, this you had on Bart Sabrell, and I feel like you with Charlie Duke.
With Charlie Duke.
So, like the first, so I did two on Bart Sabrell, two videos.
And the second one, I used your two episodes.
So, you had on him the first episode.
It seemed like you kind of bought it a little bit.
Yeah.
And then the second time, unfortunately, Charlie was not prepared to do anything.
But he's.
I think Bart still lost me on that one, though.
That's what I'm saying is that you had done a little bit of work in the interim and you nailed him on some stuff with the shadows and stuff.
And so I think that you realized he's a fraud.
I think that hopefully your viewers realize that he's a fraud.
Then I think you had on Everyday Astronaut and you talked about it more, I believe.
Yep.
So, if Joe Rogan did that, I wouldn't have a problem with that.
That's why I agreed to be here because I feel like you are what Joe thinks he is.
I think that that's what you're trying to lean into, or at least that's my impression.
So I'm here to commend that and try to be part of it.
Well, I would have never done this if it wasn't for Joe Rogan.
Like, I would have never created a podcast if it wasn't for him.
I think everyone who has a podcast can say that.
Enormously.
And I've listened to Joe Wiggins episodes back in the day when he used to have just comedians on and interesting people.
And, you know, when I was in a tour van a lot, I would listen to the interviews.
I think like 80% of his library is comedians still.
Like he has more comedians on than anyone still.
Like eventually, yeah.
Recently, every once in a while, he has like some scientists on that, you know, he's had a lot of climate change scientists on.
He's had a lot of immunologists and all kinds of.
I mean, there's no topic that he hasn't covered.
But like going back to your point about the moon and Bart Sabrell, like I've changed my mind on things multiple times.
I've gone back and forth.
Just the other day, two days ago, have you seen these?
These are.
Pre dynastic Egyptian vases.
So, me and Flint Debel were talking about this when he was on my show.
And I pressured him on his.
I thought he was full of shit.
Right.
Because these are granite vases that were measured in light scanners at aerospace companies.
This is Ben's stuff, right?
This is Ben Kirkwick first brought this stuff to me.
So here's the idea behind these they're pre dynastic.
Back in the day, like 4,000 years ago, when the Egyptians were using copper tools and stone chisels, or yeah, stone and copper tools to create and craft and do hieroglyphics and build everything.
So these things.
Which were dated to the same time were made of granite, one of the hardest stones that exists.
And when they were measured with the most precise measuring equipment known to man, it found out they were so precise.
The only way we could make them today was on a CNC machine.
So it's like, how do we have this computer precision with granite, the hardest stone known to man, one of the below diamond, but dated to 4,000 years ago?
It doesn't add up to anything.
And I was convinced that, like, there's something wrong.
There's a huge gap here.
Like, how do we get, like, How do we get a fucking academic archaeologist from Egypt on here to address this stuff with someone like Ben and get to the bottom of this?
And lots of people, Chris Dunn, he wrote an amazing book that I really enjoyed called The Giza Power Plant.
He's an engineer, an aerospace engineer, who discovered the pyramids in the 80s, rather.
And he looked at the interior layout and said, This looks like a machine to me.
This looks like a mechanical thing that has some sort of a, it looks like it's performing a Built to perform a function rather than a funerary tomb.
So he wrote a book about it.
And he also talked about the vases when he came on.
He brought me that one, that 3D print.
So it's like what Ben was trying to say in his videos is like, well, this must be evidence for ancient machining or some sort of.
Yeah, I'm familiar with advanced ancient technology.
I know you're very aware of this.
So I'm just trying to describe it for people who don't know.
Advanced ancient technology that can be attributed to the Egyptians if they had stone tools and copper chisels, right?
So.
There's people that have like spent hundreds of thousands of dollars buying these on the antiquities markets.
Um, and they were like a huge anomaly to me, like almost as much, if not more, than the pyramids themselves.
I had a guy on just the other day who was a nuclear engineer who was fascinated by this.
He got into Ben's work early on, like found his YouTube channel, was fascinated by it, and he made this his life.
He started studying them, like measuring them, going to museums and measuring the ones that were in the museums, he measured the ones that were in the private collections.
And he also measured ones that were modern recreations, like that he knew for a fact were made on like CNC machines and like laser cutters and stuff like that.
And what he found was that all of the super precise ones that were really like accurate and how do I have done on a CNC machine were modern.
The vast majority, like he laid it all out on a graph.
And he convinced himself and me.
That the whole narrative was the whole thing.
Not that it was all bullshit.
Like, I don't think these people know this.
Or I'm sure a lot of them are going to push back against it and they're going to ignore it and they're going to deny it when it gets in their face.
Because you're emotionally invested now in this fantastical claim and it props up all of these wonderful, all the ancient, super advanced civilization, all this, right?
But Max, what?
Max Lily, Max Zamilov came up.
He showed us the evidence.
He put it all on a graph, man.
And all the super precise ones.
Were modern recreations.
He even paid to have a modern recreation done by a company in China.
And it was like very similar to the ones that all these people had that they said were ancient.
So it's like now the evidence is in the other court.
Like, I can't fucking say these things are ancient anymore until I see more evidence that goes to the contrary.
So, a couple of things.
Number one, I applaud you for that.
Number two, if every podcast in this space operated as you described, then I wouldn't be saying anything about it and we wouldn't have such widespread science denial as we do today, right?
Joe doesn't do that very rarely, right?
He'll have Flint on.
He did it with Flint.
Yeah.
Well, he did it with Flint.
And then after the fact, Started this giant smear campaign, Flint is a liar, or whatever, and then never had him back on, and then just had fraud after fraud after fraud, right?
The pseudo archaeology spaces thrived on Rogan first.
But so, look, once again, like you did that, right?
You had this guy says this, this guy says this.
You're giving equal attention to, you know, you're not the one that has to be the arbiter of what's true, right?
You hear people making claims.
So, I want to encourage that.
And it's very important, especially for people like you, to do that because you have in the past had these people on.
And I think that a lot of your viewers put a lot of stock in some of these figures.
And so for you to have someone on that's debunking this narrative, this claim, that ends up being very important because you can have it on a lot of different, you know, somebody can write a paper about it.
People are not going to read the paper, people don't read scientific journals.
It has to, like, this is what the podcast landscape has to transform into.
Is having credible people on.
And it's hard because you don't let, you know, I said Avi Loeb earlier, he's a Harvard professor.
How do you know he's a grifter?
Well, he is.
You know, Harvard professor can be a grifter.
Surprise, surprise.
You know, it happens.
It does happen.
And so in that case, right, you know, and hopefully maybe you'll have someone on that'll debunk everything that Avi says.
Well, we had, what's his name on?
What was the gentleman from MIT?
Jim Gates.
Jim Gates.
You heard him?
He's great.
He, anyways, he's very.
Very well respected.
He knew Fermi, I think, Enrico Fermi.
He knew Stephen Hawking, like one of the most legendary MIT physicists.
But those guys are hard to get.
They are hard to get.
So that's the other tricky part is that the podcasting landscape has become this alternate universe of outlandish claims that academia has traditionally just ignored.
They're just like, there's crazy people saying crazy things.
It doesn't affect me.
I don't care.
And I'm not going to deal with it.
And so most academics have traditionally.
Been unwilling to do.
So, me, I'm not an academic.
I live in this space, right?
I'm some guy making videos at home.
And so, these are the narratives that I deal with every day.
And for me to come here, it's not weird.
But I think that I'm finally starting to see a change within the scientific community because they're realizing how severely public perception of science affects their ability to do science because they're voting administrations into power that then slash funding for science.
And now, all of a sudden, they have all of their grants taken away.
They can't do science anymore.
So, I'm seeing a little bit of the stirrings of a fervor among scientists and a little bit more willingness to utilize these platforms to speak out.
So I'm hoping that if you can kind of lead the way in a certain regard in this way, and many other podcasts hopefully will try to be this way, be, you know, try to get, you know, and the more academics that do it, that traditionally haven't done it, you know, not Avi Loeb, right?
He's dying to, but people who wouldn't otherwise, that are going to, Give you factual information to discredit whatever RFK said this week because every week he's saying something insane.
We need that.
We need more of that in this podcasting space.
That's where it has to be.
We need to see more debates, more people get together with opposing ideologies or opposing viewpoints on things.
And I try, we try our best to do that.
It's not easy to do.
Yeah.
And the other, so, I mean, I think a lot of academics are not used to like a combative environment.
Right.
I mean, it's like academia can be combative in that everybody has different ideas.
That's one thing that I think a lot of people don't understand is that there exists debate within academia.
It's just that you have these opposing ideas, you know, the dark matter is this, dark matter is that.
Well, you publish papers, right?
You do research and you publish papers.
These are the results that I got, which.
Perhaps this dark matter candidate is no longer thought as credible.
Some of the smartest people aren't the best communicators.
That's true, right?
And some of the best communicators are the dumbest motherfuckers I've ever met.
That can also be true.
So it's just a situation.
We're here, 2026.
We have a situation where, very slowly over the past decade or so, this alternate reality has been cultivated in the podcast space where it's just sort of these very specific charlatans just make the rounds.
Conjure this other reality where it's, you know, the big bad academic science, you can't listen to them.
We have this super cool truth, and the academics have, up until this point, just kind of allowed it to happen.
And just like, well, we don't care what they say, you know?
They're just, it's some lunatic shouting on a street corner.
Well, it's not a lunatic shouting on the street corner.
Now it's the fucking head of the HHS.
I used to have this problem where coffee was a gamble.
Some mornings it helped, other mornings I was jittery, overstimulated, and crashing out by noon.
I love the ritual of coffee, but not always the extremeness of it.
Epstein Files and Government Secrets00:05:45
And that's what led me to Mudwater.
Their new low caffeine coffee blend has been a game changer.
It's made with organic Arabica coffee, Swiss water decaf, L theanine, and functional mushrooms like lion's mane and cordyceps.
So you still get that real coffee taste, but with calmer, steadier energy and no jitters.
And if you want something even gentler, they still have their original blend with cacao, chai, turmeric, and mushrooms.
Great for mornings when you want focus without that heavy hit of caffeine.
Everything is USDA organic, non GMO, gluten free, vegan, kosher, with zero sugar or sweeteners added.
For me, it's just a smoother start to the day.
Clearer focus, no roller coaster, and it's the perfect balance.
Ready to make the switch to cleaner energy?
Head on over to mudwater.com and grab your starter kit today.
And right now, our listeners are getting an exclusive deal up to 43% off your entire order, plus free shipping and a free rechargeable frother when you use my code DANIY JONES at checkout.
That's right, up to 43% off when you use the code DANIY JONES at M U D W T R.com.
After you purchase, they're going to ask where you found them, and please help support the show and let them know we sent you.
Let me ask you this.
Sorry to change the subject.
Has there ever been a conspiracy theory that you turned around on, did a 180 on?
That you maybe, maybe, maybe something like this that you absolutely thought was bullshit, maybe made a video attacking and then did it and turned around on it?
I don't, I can't think of one.
Nothing?
Nothing.
I mean, because.
Not even Epstein?
Well, but that's, I mean, I never doubted what that's going to happen.
I mean, two years ago, people would have been like, there's no way they're trafficking and eating kids.
And now there's emails that prove it, basically.
Yeah.
I mean, I don't know the precise details, but I never doubted.
I mean, I think part of it, Is just that I've been what you QAnon asshole?
Like, get out of here.
Well, I think that I've always just been with Epstein and like Mossad ties and stuff.
Like, I've been you know anti Zionist for a very, very long time.
So, you're Italian, right?
Yeah.
Um, but uh, my wife is Palestinian and I have a you know, a large extended Palestinian family.
So, I just kind of, I mean, not that you know, I was becoming aware of Israel prior to meeting her, but then you know, over the past, I just it's been a long process of like, is she from like born there?
She was not, she was born in Chicago, but her parents.
Fled, uh, they fled in the 70s.
So it's just, I've known what Israel is for a long time.
And so a figure like Epstein, like it's just, I never really doubted that.
I'm more in the science space where it's like I can pretty easily sniff out when something is scientifically inaccurate and then also the motivations behind it.
Sometimes I have to dig into the literature a little bit, but usually I can tell, oh, this is a Christian propaganda mill, right?
That's what's going on there.
But with that stuff, with geopolitics, I don't think I ever really.
Doubted a lot of that stuff.
I know how horrific certain people are and how horrific certain nations are, and how horrific a very large percentage of the American government is.
That was never something I doubted.
Yeah, I mean, but one of the craziest conspiracies that people were getting made fun of for is the whole global banker cabal that controls the world.
There's this globalist elite economy that goes to the Trilateral Commission.
Bill Gates and Bezos and Peter Thiel are going there and they're doing deals on arms trafficking and child human trafficking and all this stuff.
And like, they really control the world.
They really control the government.
And it's like, you know, at some level, there's a certain level of society that just like brushes those people off.
Like, these people are insane.
And then you have like, depending on how it's worded.
And who knows how much gaslighting is involved when it comes to the US government, too.
Because like, you know, like, there's no way you can tell me that the US government hasn't.
Predicted what's going to happen when they hide all this information and don't tell us the truth about things like hiding all the shit about the Charlie Kirk thing, not saying a word, hiding all the stuff about the Trump assassination, not saying a word about that guy.
That thing is just tied up.
We don't hear anything about it, nor does he say anything about it.
So many things like this where you don't give any answers, no conclusive answers.
And then the Epstein files, all this Epstein file stuff comes out, all these emails, all these people, these billionaires that run these huge corporations in the US and other countries are implicated in all this horrific shit.
And the FBI says, number one, first of all, they say, I mean, if you want to really rewind it, if you elect me, I'm going to release the Epstein files.
Now it's a Democratic hoax.
They don't exist.
They don't exist.
Yeah.
And then here's half of them, the half that I'm not in.
Yeah.
And then here it is.
The Dow's up 50,000 or whatever.
And then, you know, here they are.
But we're also, and by the way, I don't give the fucking Democrats that are, as much as I fucking can't stand Pam Bondi or Akash Patel, I don't give the Democratic people that are attacking her any credit because they didn't do jack shit when they were in power.
No.
And when Biden was president, when Clinton was president, when Obama was president, nothing was done.
That shit was codified.
The whole fucking time.
It's just a political, it's just politically advantageous to them right now.
So, yeah, they give it, they drop all that crazy, horrendous shit on us and they don't give us any explanation.
What was your conclusion?
Oh, nothing.
Here you go.
Have fun on Twitter.
Yeah, just blow up the internet.
Yeah, just nuke the internet and let everybody freak out.
Exactly.
Yeah, I don't know.
I mean, look, I don't need any convincing that there are evil people in power that do evil things.
Like that's, it's just categorically different, right?
I deal in the space of people who are, who are, Spreading disinformation that is scientifically untrue.
That's the thing about, like, with something like Epstein files or whatever, like, all of these people did all these things.
I don't, like, was there a camera?
I don't know.
But that's very.
There were.
There were cameras in every single house.
Reacting to Pseudo-Science Videos00:03:48
So let's see.
Like, we, like, the great thing about science is that it's empirical.
Anybody can test anything.
What does a pathogen do?
What does a drug do?
How does this law of physics work?
What is that made out of?
Anybody can test it and find out for themselves.
That's what's awesome about science.
And that's what makes.
Like science denial debunking, fairly accessible to someone like me is it's just 90% of it is just fumbling basic science.
And I can use very basic principles in physics and chemistry and et cetera to debunk it.
When it comes to what the government is doing, I don't know, man.
I don't know what they're doing.
They're doing bad stuff.
Yes, of course they are.
Yeah.
They're two different spheres.
I don't make political content.
People have complained that my content has gotten too political lately, but it's inevitable because you have people who politicize science.
So, in order to depoliticize science, I have to talk about the political motives of people who are politicizing science.
And that's Trump's, that's RFK's HHS.
All up and down, right?
So, in order to defend the scientific community and the and scientific truth from politicians, right, you have to mention them and talk about their motives and everything like that.
But, uh, in terms of, yeah, just I wasn't, I never doubted the Epstein stuff or, uh, the or the massage link.
I mean, people, yeah, people, I mean, and I mention it like offhand in a reaction video, maybe I'll talk about, yeah, Epstein was massaged or whatever.
And I'll get like, I will get a little bit of that, like, Dave, there's no evidence for that.
I don't know, man.
I, I, have you ever done a video or a debate with, um, Professor Jang?
No, I did a reaction video on him.
That guy's nuts.
Yeah.
And so I. Similar background, similar start to you, right?
I suppose.
He's a high school teacher.
Yeah.
Yeah.
I taught at a university.
But yeah, but you know, fake professors.
But he does the whole whiteboard thing and all that.
Yeah.
Yeah.
He's, it's like a fake school or I don't know what's going on there.
It's so fun.
It's super weird.
It's so fun.
I get sucked in.
Yeah.
It just, he just fucking holds.
I watched those videos and it just got me in a stranglehold.
I can't stop watching it, dude.
But the thing with that guy, so I did a reaction video and I got a little bit crucified in the comments because I did one.
So, I looked at his catalog, and a bunch of it is about science, which is my wheelhouse.
And I'm like, also the most boring titles ever.
Yeah.
Like, no clickbait.
Yeah.
But it's also insane.
I mean, when he talks about science, it's insane.
He has no idea what he's talking about, it's crazy.
And so I was like, oh, okay, I'll react to one of these science videos.
But at the front of it, I reacted to he went on Breaking Points, and it was like a little 15 minute one.
And so I was just like, well, let's react to this one first.
Disclaimer I don't know much about geopolitics, so I may or may not have anything to say.
And he kept it really, really tame on that one.
He didn't say anything outrageous except for at the end, he was like Illuminati, whatever the, you know, but he kind of just regurgitated some stuff about Straight of Hormuz and stuff that he'd like heard from other things.
So he didn't say anything that weird.
And so I got to the end, I was like, all right, whatever.
So now let's watch the science one.
And I just eviscerated.
He was just trying to talk about cosmology and evolution and just had no idea what he's talking about.
But so many people just watched like the first five minutes of me reacting to him on Breaking Points and were like, Dave doesn't know anything.
I mean, I said a naive thing, I said something because he said, Uh, you know, Iran will beat America, it will destroy the American, uh, um, uh, you know, American Empire or whatever.
And I was like, Well, that's insane, they're not going to destroy America, but he just has these vague, you know, Iran will win.
So I was like, Oh, well, that's silly.
So I said something that wasn't phrased properly, like America can't lose, or that doesn't it?
It's not about winning and losing, it's not like two armies and one remains at the end, you know what I mean?
It's not like a clear cut thing, like engage a winner and a loser.
Yeah, so I said something a little bit naive and I kind of got crucified in the comment section, but then it went on to like.
An hour of me reacting to him fumbling high school level science principles.
Why People Believe Conspiracies00:06:30
And it's just like, why does anybody believe this guy?
Like, he's just spewing.
A lot of the stuff that he does say, though, about the geopolitical implications of like what's going on and the relationships between countries, especially with this around war, is very accurate.
Like, yeah, but I think that some, whatever's saying he's saying that's accurate is pretty trivial that you can just get off of.
Maybe.
Yeah, I'm sure you could learn it from anybody else.
Yeah.
But I like learning it from him.
I think that's fine.
I mean, it gets like, here's another thing people like him.
And people like even Graham Hancock or any of these people.
Like, it's happened to me where, even if these people, whoever you want to say it is, say they're like the worst liars in the world, right?
It's happened to me where, like, that's hooked me into a topic where, like, I really thought, like, this is so fascinating.
This is so crazy.
Aliens built the pyramids.
Holy shit.
Now I want to go, I want to keep drilling down and drilling down and drilling down.
And eventually I'll get to where I got on these fucking Egyptian bases.
Like, oh my God.
But now I've learned so much along the way.
Yeah.
It's like, it was the catalyst that kind of got me into things.
A couple of things.
Not everyone's like you.
Number two, you're incentivized to seek out the information.
Because you have a podcast and you're going to bring all kinds of different guests on.
So there's absolutely nothing wrong with what you just said, right?
You got hooked by something, you investigated further, found that the thing that hooked you was not true, and then maybe found some passion for something.
And now maybe you'll listen to more legitimate sources of information.
The overwhelming majority of the populace that is tuning into these podcasts does not have that level of self reflection, that level of intellectual responsibility.
So we're seeing science denial becoming more and more mainstream, and it's largely the podcast space, not exclusively, but.
Largely the podcast space that is responsible for that.
So, again, that's why I'm here.
I commend you for doing that.
I want to help and be part of that, right?
Help in whatever tiny way I can to steer the podcasting space towards that kind of approach to truth, you know?
What is your take on UFOs?
Yeah, this is what I get requested because my viewers know that I debunk everything and I haven't done this one yet.
What?
Because it's such a hornet's nest, right?
The pseudo archaeology thing is a hornet's nest.
And eventually I was like, Fuck it, I'm gonna poke this hornet nest.
And it just, all the bees came at me.
But now I'm going down the roster one by one.
The UFO one is a hall of mirrors.
Yeah.
To answer your question very briefly, I don't buy any of it.
I don't think aliens have ever been here.
All of it is bullshit to me.
But yeah, but I have not yet begun the process of digging deeply into it and talking to a lot of people and reading a lot of stuff.
Everybody's like, dude, Bob Lazar on Joe Rogan, you gotta debunk this guy.
And I'm like, I have my little list of like, What I'm doing right now, and I'm like, dude, I'm like six debunks deep.
Like, I don't have time.
There's factions inside the UFO community that fucking war against each other.
It's just so, like, I'm on purpose delaying it.
Like, I don't feel like doing it yet.
It's just, it's so much, bro.
It'll take up so much of your time.
Yeah.
But you also learn a lot.
It's a fun topic.
What has been like the, has there been anything that you've seen or listened to that has been like something that's been like more compelling than others that you've, that you maybe would consider?
Like, what about this with the New York Times article that came out in 2014 about the tic tac UFOs that the Navy pilots were seeing?
I mean, a lot of it is, I mean, and it's lent credence by being in those publications.
But all it takes is the same publication that sold us the Iraq war.
Sure, exactly.
So is it more credence or not?
You know what I mean?
And what is the motive of the American government in having Senate hearings about these things?
Like, what is happening?
Like, why are we doing this?
No, I think that I just looked at some videos of people recreating that, you know, there's like a transparency on a window and they go like that really fast.
And I don't know.
Mick West is a great guy to have on if you want somebody that'll debunk all this stuff for you.
He's kind of the premier.
UAP debunker guy.
I just haven't.
It's just, I'm dealing with, like, I started with flat earthers, got bored of that really fast.
Then creationism and anti vax.
Like, there are certain spheres that I could spend my entire life debunking creationists, or like, I could spend my entire life debunking one thing.
There's just so many charlatans in there.
So I choose to spread myself very thin.
I've become a generalist at this point, and I really go after as much as I can, whatever I think is very damaging to the public at any given time.
But I just can't.
I can't do it all.
Like, there's.
Can you explain to me creationists?
I'm not familiar with this one.
I mean, I'm generally kind of vaguely familiar with it, but.
I mean, God made all the life exactly as it is.
God, you know, I mean, biblical creationists are like, you know, Adam and Eve.
And, you know, you have young earth creationists that are like the earth is 6,000 years old and God went poof and here's all the animals and the humans.
Here's Adam and Eve and whatever.
Then there's creationists that try to be slightly more compatible with science.
So you have like old earth creationists that are like, well, I think that Genesis has an element of allegory and a day can be a million years or, you know, whatever it is.
But ultimately, all of it is science denial, and then it is weaponized science denial when you have Christian propaganda mills.
One of them is called the Discovery Institute, that I've been, that I am well known for debunking quite voraciously.
A Christian propaganda mill?
Yeah.
What are they actually?
Like, is it a website or like a podcast?
I mean, it's an institute in Seattle, and it's very well funded by Christian nationalists, and they try to appear as academic as possible, like it's a think tank or like they actually do research, which, of Course, they don't.
And it is populated by people who have at one point been legitimate academics, but now they are, you know, they might have a PhD in something tangential to what they're talking about.
But their entire job is to go through the primary scientific literature in biology, anthropology, you know, any number of fields, distort it like crazy, and try to convince the public that there's a debate between evolution and creation happening in the zeitgeist and, you know, within the scientific community.
And here's these scholars that.
That are dubious of evolution.
It's all just a bunch of, it's an attempt to erode the separation of church and state by planting doubt in science such that religion ought to be taught in public science classes in school alongside legitimate science.
Anti-Semitic Rhetoric in Politics00:07:59
And then from there, you go, you know, it's handmaid's tail stuff.
Dude, one of the craziest things to me is this marriage of this new surge of Christian nationalism in the military and its tie to Israel.
That's freaky to me.
And I watched a couple of documentaries.
I watched an old Vice documentary about the evangelical lobby in the US, which is also, I think, bigger than the fucking Jewish lobby or the Israel lobby.
Well, I mean, there's a lot of overlap.
But they're all tied in together.
They're all the same thing, right?
Because the Jewish lobby or the Israel lobby has made them a part of their team somehow.
And they're all advocating for the same thing for this messianic age in Israel.
And they like to bring the diaspora back to Israel and to control the United States.
Right.
And it's certainly what they're doing.
And it's hard to decipher how much of it is rhetoric to entrance a highly religious general public versus what they're actually doing.
I mean, it's scarily.
I think maybe they really do believe all that.
I think some of them do.
I think so.
I mean, there's clearly some of them that don't, but I think there's a huge majority of them who do.
But it's very clear.
I mean, you have a guy like Ted Cruz that'll just outright admit, like, the purpose is to protect Israel.
It's like, what do you.
This is like sedition.
Dude, I didn't believe that was real when I was listening to it.
You have American politicians admitting we have to.
Protect Israel, serve Israel, send a billion people to Israel.
That's his number one issue.
That's why he got into Congress to push the goals of Israel.
Like, how is that real, dude?
I don't get it.
Yeah.
So, yeah, the history.
And did you see the one that Tucker did with Mike Huckabee?
Yeah, they can have it all, which, by the way, they are doing right now.
They're using the Iran war to distract us while they annex southern Lebanon.
Million people displaced.
That shit is Israel now.
And Gaza, I mean, Gaza is a foregone conclusion.
That is Israel.
And, you know, Trump will get his hotel.
On the new Riviera?
There was a new thing that came out this morning.
Let me text it to you real quick, Steve, so we can pull it up.
Pull it up.
This was, I guess, I think this was put out by the Israeli government.
This is a tweet I'm forwarding to you.
And they listed, I don't know if you saw this, they listed the top like 20 anti Semites in the US.
I'm not top 20, but I'm on that list.
I was anti Semite of the week.
Were you really?
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Anti Semite of the year was Miss Rachel.
Who put you?
I saw that.
Miss Rachel of all people.
It's a way to tank your credibility by going after Miss Rachel, the sweetest angel.
I mean, they just, I think that the problem is that, not the problem, the good thing is that public opinion has.
Dan Bilzerian is number one anti Semitic influencer.
Well, yeah, he talks a lot about Israel.
I mean, he said, say what you want about him, but he posted a tweet that said, he said, I am not, he goes, I'm not for a two state solution.
He says Palestine should be all of Israel.
Yeah, and I agree with him.
I don't like, it shouldn't be a controversial statement.
You know, yeah, you can.
Look who's number two.
Number two is.
Greta Thunberg.
Well, of course.
Just any activist must be smeared.
Yeah, I got Stop Antisemitism.org, which is an organization that tries to ruin the lives of anybody who speaks up for Palestine.
I didn't know you talked about this a lot.
So I didn't for a long time because I make science content, but it creeps in, right?
When you're talking about the Trump administration or whatever administration is in power.
It just crept in in certain ways.
And then now my viewers know that I'm, you know, staunchly.
What is that on the right?
Sorry to interrupt you.
Dude, it's okay to have.
What is that?
Is that real?
Poland MP Konrad Berkowitz openly called Israel the new Third Reich.
No, Hinkle is.
Is that a real picture?
Did he really hold that flag up like that?
I think his Hinkle is not a reliable source of information.
So copy and paste Poland MP Konrad, that name.
Copy and paste that into the search on.
Oh, it's a screenshot.
I don't know.
But no, also, what I was doing is right after October 7th on Twitter, I was voraciously combating Zionist propaganda.
Because in the beginning of this, you know, what is still ongoing, the ongoing genocide, there was just this unbelievable wave of propaganda.
I don't know if you remember when they were first bombing all the hospitals and everything.
It was just like, Hamas is there, Hamas is there.
No, they're just bombing hospitals.
And they would go, you know, there was Al Shifa Hospital, it was supposed to be, they had this CGI, like, it's the ultimate Hamas base underground, all these things.
They go in there, they delay it for like five hours.
They go in, there's like a couple of guns over there.
There's a, they say, here's a list of terrorists.
It was a calendar.
Like, it was like just the most embarrassing.
Like, the propaganda was so embarrassing that, like, even like CNN stopped running Israeli propaganda.
Like, they were just the media landscape was starting to like jump ship a little bit.
And so you just had all these influencers on Twitter that were just nonstop, 24 seven, pushing this propaganda to kind of like massage, like, manufacture consent for genocide essentially.
And I mean, it did largely backfire just because.
Of how many people, how many people you like, it's if you really want to see it, you'll see it.
You'll go and you'll follow Gazan journalists and you'll see the carnage and you'll see what's really happening.
And so I was really for the first like four months of the conflict, I was ever spending way too much time and like losing my mind and crying every day of just like, you know, combating this stuff.
And so they kind of dogpiled me on, dogpiled on me and got my account terminated.
And on what?
On Twitter.
Twitter.
Yeah.
And so that's how I got.
The anti Semite of the Week, I was alongside.
Congratulations.
Yeah, it's good.
Alongside just what they would do, it's an organization that any, like, especially if you were like a medical professional, they would dox the hell out of you, call your place of employment, pressure so much pressure to hire them.
And yeah, yeah, very similar.
Yeah.
See, that's the most insane thing is how the Israeli government is trying to box in all Jewish people into their government narrative and trying to say anyone that criticizes the Israeli government is criticizing Jews, right?
Right.
That's like, it's a brilliant.
That's like associating me and you with Dick Cheney and George. Bush.
Yeah, it's a brilliant tactic and kind of the only tactic they had available to them, but it has backfired spectacularly.
The word anti Semitism doesn't even mean anything anymore, just because, which is a shame because anti Semitism does exist.
Sure.
But now when somebody says that word, you have to go, do you mean anti Semitism or anti Semitism?
Right.
What do you mean?
Right.
Because I'm an anti Semite because I protest genocide, right?
Right, because you're against killing innocent little girls.
Killing babies, yeah.
So is this the video, Steve?
The MP of Poland?
Yeah, dude, this was released seven hours ago.
Seven hours ago?
Polish MP sparks fury after displaying Israel's flag with the hack counter rents in parliament.
Okay, this is in the Polish Parliament.
Israel's attacks in the Middle East are already being felt by Poles through fuel prices, but how are they felt by children whose deaths already number dozens of times more than during the entire war in Ukraine?
Well, like this Jews are using a banned phosphorus bomb that consumes oxygen from the air and leads to death by suffocation.
Moreover, the smoke from this bomb enters the lungs and burns them from the inside.
They suffocate and burn from the inside at the same time, tens of thousands of women and children.
But if a child is lucky enough not to suffocate, white phosphorus sticks to the cheek or to the hand and burns through the tissue down to the bone.
It cannot be extinguished until the cheek is cut off and the hand is amputated.
Israel is committing genocide before its eyes.
It's an apt comparison.
Young Adults and Political Disillusionment00:10:06
It is.
Zionists are committing genocide before their eyes.
Particular.
No, Netanyahu and Smotrich and Ben Gabriel, they are Hitler.
They're terrorists.
Exactly.
There's really no difference.
But yeah, it's war crimes all day.
And the endless victim complex.
Yeah, man.
It's insane, dude.
And like I said earlier, I think this is an interesting topic because it's the one thing I think can unify everybody.
And it is unifying, especially young people in America right now.
I think they are all aware of this insane corruption of Israeli influence in the United States government with people like Ted Cruz and all this.
And, you know, shockingly enough, you know, we have this establishment media right wing personality, Tucker Carlson, who's doing the biggest job of exposing all of it.
It's kind of crazy.
It's kind of crazy.
I don't know exactly what motivated Tucker to like be so, because on every other topic, it's just nonstop garbage out of his mouth.
But it's, well, he's a very hardcore Christian.
Yeah.
But he says, he says, I don't believe in having a theocracy.
He believes in separation of church and state.
I mean, he looks at most things through a Christian lens, which is whatever, more power to him.
But, you know, he does call out his own bullshit.
Like, he's literally like, he's apologized and said that he was wrong about selling the Iran war.
He believed everything.
He believed all the propaganda and sold it on Fox, the whole Iran war, until he said he went there in 2003 and saw what was going on.
And he's like, oh my God, this is complete and utter bullshit.
And then he stopped doing it and he started going against the narrative on that.
So I don't know.
To me, I mean, it seems like he's being very genuine because what he's doing is like, I think it's uniting more Americans than it's dividing.
I think it's the.
I mean, Fox and CNN are doing the most dividing, and it's only really effective on the older, the boomers.
I mean, the right wing is largely flipping.
Yeah.
I mean, yeah.
The next president's not going to be able to run without addressing this.
I feel like the younger generations are going to hold them accountable.
I don't even think anyone believes that a president's going to change anything in this country anymore.
We've seen so many presidents just do the same things, the same bullshit, the same wars.
It's probably the single thread that unites all of American foreign policy under every administration since we've been alive or longer.
Yeah, I don't really know.
I think that's part of the thing is that everybody can kind of sense this unbelievable corruption and destruction.
And it's very easy to channel that rage and point it at other things, right?
Not to bring it back to all the grifters.
I mean, I want to keep talking about this too, but it's very easy to go, evil power, bad man thing, me, underdog, listen to me, right?
That's kind of because we're all experiencing this.
We're all very frustrated, right?
How do we stop our tax dollars from going to my government murdering people?
I don't like that.
I want it to stop and I don't know how to do it.
I don't know what to do.
And so that frustration is very easy to channel into other things.
I think, in no matter what part of society you're looking at, I think a pattern that I've recognized that is probably accurate is that psychopaths typically gather around the top of anything.
They're usually at the top level of most things.
Unfortunately, that is true.
The type of person that That you have to lust for power to get it in this kind of a landscape.
And you've got to be willing to cut any throat.
Any throat to get there, to climb that ladder.
Yeah, I don't know.
Yeah, my transitioning into adulthood was a bit of a disillusioning experience, I think, when you come of age and realize that who is in power and how unlikely it is to change just by virtue of the power dynamic.
And I don't know.
I'm a big Mamdani fan.
Let's keep that going.
I love Mamdani.
Who doesn't like Mamdani?
You know?
A lot of people don't like Mamdani.
Well, for very bad reasons.
Him and Trump got along great.
I think Trump loved him.
Trump was fucking smiling better than I've ever seen.
I think that number one, Trump just wants everyone to like him.
And number two, he's just, you know, can recognize.
Ain't doing a very good job.
Grassroots.
Yeah.
But it's hard to not recognize the fervor surrounding Mamdani and like want to bask in that flame and like try to.
Channel that.
So I don't know.
I hope we see more figures like him.
Yeah, I'm skeptical of any people that are really young getting into politics like that who speak so confidently and like they know shit.
Like maybe he's good, maybe he's not.
I don't know a lot about him.
I mean, I know like a very high level about it.
But there's a guy who's running for the fucking governor of Florida.
Fishback is his last name.
He's like 30 years old, maybe.
And he's an immigrant from Columbia.
And like he's like, the first thing I want to do is I'm going to abolish.
All foreign ties to Israel.
We're not going to take any Israeli money in any parts of the US government or else you're out or any part of the Florida government or you're out.
Got my vote.
And his other one is he wants to do an instant moratorium on any immigration.
Cut off all immigration, even though he immigrated here from Columbia.
And the other one is he wants to do a 50% syntax on OnlyFans because of his religious things.
And like, I have a weird sort of like.
People who are just doing like basket weaving or something, they're just like, what about me?
Right, right.
Yeah.
Go to Patreon.
Sell your ass on Patreon.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
I just have this.
I don't know.
I have like an allergic reaction to people who are so young, and there's no way he can have that much experience in the world.
Maybe I'm wrong.
But like when I was his age, I was such a fucking moron.
Yeah, but how much experience do you need to know that genocide is bad?
Not that much.
You don't.
I think that it doesn't.
And Trump has proven that you can be president with zero experience.
You can be governor of a fucking state at that age?
Yeah, I mean, look.
I don't know.
I don't know.
Maybe I'm wrong.
I know nothing about this guy.
I don't know much about him.
First time I've ever heard about it, just speaking very generally, I think young people are less likely to be corrupt.
And are more likely to run for legitimate reasons just trying to combat corruption because somebody's got to do it.
Like America is just continuing in this direction that is going to, I don't know what's going to happen.
I mean, we're becoming more and more authoritarian under Trump, and it's just, I don't know where that leads.
And so people need to get, young people need to get into government, and you got to go on a case by case basis, right?
I'm not saying anyone who's under 30 or under 40 is going to be great for the job, but.
They're less likely to be beholden to special interests.
They're less likely to, you know, I don't know.
That's how I see it.
What is your take or your view on the government surveillance on American citizens?
It's terrifying.
So you're not pro that?
No.
Okay, good.
Absolutely not.
And I do a lot of stuff with Peter, you know, Teal and Palantir.
That's where this is coming from.
And he is.
So you're a Snowden fan?
You don't think Snowden is a trader?
Yeah, I'm a Snowden fan.
Okay.
And so, what I was saying earlier, kind of at the beginning of when we were talking about like oligarchy promoted rhetoric, right?
It's all so Teal pays Eric Weinstein and I imagine probably Brett as well.
But like that, that's the angle.
Yeah.
What does Eric do for Teal?
He's like the financial or something for him.
Yeah.
Managing director.
Oh, managing director of Teal Capital.
Interesting.
Eric's job is to spew horseshit on podcasts.
That's what Eric's job is.
Eric's job is to manipulate public perception of.
You think that's his job?
Yes, that is his job.
He gets paid to do that.
That's what he's doing.
Yeah, that's what he's doing.
That's all he does.
He doesn't do anything else.
What do you think about Lex Friedman?
Lex is.
He reached out to me once because he wanted me to debate.
There's this particular creationist chemist that I have kind of taken through the ringer and he wanted us to appear on his show.
And I was like, okay, yeah, I'll do it.
And then it kind of fizzled out.
I've heard a lot of stuff about just like he has no affiliation with MIT, like that stuff.
I don't know.
That kind of thing.
I mean, yeah, Lex.
Is kind of just platforming Elon Musk and like, you know, a lot of these figures.
I don't know.
Yeah, the surveillance thing.
Yeah, that's one of the most insane things because there's something just came out, I think, yesterday where Mike Johnson literally did a 180 on all that stuff, where now they're like ushering in all these new surveillance things for like these tech companies where they can actually like surveil us and track the social media stuff.
And like, I think with that.
Find out exactly what that was because I remember Glenn Greenwald did an interview with Mike Johnson before he was elected, and he was saying how government surveillance keeps him up at night, he loses sleep over that, and that he wants to fight against her.
I was terrified about it, and now he's out here promoting it.
My fear is, and the thing is that I see us moving this way already.
Right?
I see like Trump's Gestapo in the streets and things.
Um, a situation where you have all of our DNA through Ancestry.com or whatever those things, you have deep fakes, you have AI, you have the.
Of these things, if you have a totalitarian police state such that any dissident can be framed for any crime and be jailed immediately, right?
That's, I feel like that is what certain people want, and I feel like we are inching in that direction, right?
Uh, and I'm very, very scared of that, yes, me too.
I think that's certainly what people like Peter Thiel want, yes, they want to have the ultimate control.
And I feel like, I mean, just based on some of his emails, I mean, he has so many goddamn emails with Jeffrey Epstein, it's insane.
Warrantless Surveillance Debate00:02:11
And like looking at some of those and like seeing how he communicates, and like I don't know how much attention you paid to it, but he was like very like there was like a 20 paragraph list of all the foods that he could and couldn't eat that was sent to like Jeffrey Epstein and for their chefs.
Because of how often he's there, they need to have a special treat.
He's like a hypochondriac.
He's like super paranoid, like hyper, hyper paranoid of everything from his own health to external shit.
And that, okay, here's the surveillance thing the FISA surveillance vote sparks fierce debate as Congress.
Splits on warrantless monitoring.
Donald Trump says he's working very hard with White House Republicans to extend Section 702 without changes.
What does that actually mean?
When did this get published, by the way?
Like a day ago.
Okay.
A controversial law that grants US government sweeping powers for warrantless surveillance is set to expire next week.
Replacing it has inspired fierce debate within the White House and Congress, including a scheduled vote.
A scheduled vote canceled the day of.
A coalition of progressive Democrats and far right Republicans is pushing for reform on Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, but they face strong bipartisan positions from lawmakers advocating for an 18 month renewal with no changes in line with Donald Trump's demands.
House GOP leaders delayed the vote on a clean extension of Section 702 on Wednesday after the Chamber's Rules Committee approved the measure on Tuesday night.
So, what are they going to do?
Go to the bottom.
Go down.
Surveillance under Section 702 can continue through March 2027, even if Congress does not extend the law by then, because it operates through year long certifications approved, blah, Okay.
So, there's a fight within Congress whether or not to renew this warrantless surveillance on U.S. citizens.
Mm hmm.
Dual Citizenship Loyalty Issues00:02:42
That's crazy.
It's terrifying.
That's crazy, especially when all the people on both sides literally ran on getting rid of this stuff because nobody fucking wants it.
Yeah, well, the citizenry certainly doesn't want it.
It's about how well you can manipulate people.
I mean, that's why all the rhetoric has to be about, and not to bring it back to Zionism, but a lot of what this is being used for is to people who speak out against Israel on, you know, you have people that have valid visas that are being abducted and deported.
Something based on, and I mean, that's not any like high tech monitoring, but you know, if this is what they're doing with social media activity, what do you think they're going to be doing with when they're monitoring text messages and things like that?
Yeah.
Yeah.
Look, man, at the end of the day, no matter what our beliefs are, me and you are both American citizens who both have kids in this country, and we want our kids to be healthy, safe, to thrive, and whatever.
Not drafted into the military.
Not drafted into the military, not to go die for Israel.
Yeah.
And to have good lives.
And I think that's a huge thing that we have in common.
And I think it's like super important that any elected officials in the United States that run the United States government shouldn't have dual loyalty to another country.
They shouldn't have two passports.
They should have one passport.
They shouldn't have a get out of jail free card in case everything fucking collapses here.
In fact, they're trying to make it illegal for citizens to be dual citizens.
For citizens to be dual.
Oh, oh, for so.
Yeah, like we, if you're American, you can't have another citizen.
I'm working on getting my Italians and shit out of here.
That's weird.
Because I want that.
Like if we get to that totalitarian police state, I'm fucking out of here.
You know what I mean?
Yeah.
So, right, right.
Well, that's, I don't know how I feel about that.
That's probably not great.
But certainly, if you're in the government, you shouldn't, and you're making the laws in this country and you're dictating how people should live, how people's lives should be run.
Yeah.
I think that it's what this conflict has done is it just has brought it to the forefront.
You now have the vast majority of the public going, Why are we sending billions of dollars to Israel every year?
Why are we doing this?
Right.
Why?
And it, unfortunately, I mean, like, I will give credit where credit is due.
Tucker Carlson, like, has this very loyal right wing following that traditionally would kind of just go along with, you know, the president.
And I've never seen, I've never seen in my lifetime, for as long as I've been paying attention to politics, I've never seen such a vast amount of people flip on their support for a president.
Like, I've seen so many people who supported Trump hardcore in this last election that have done a complete fucking 180 on him.
Yeah.
Tucker Carlson's Loyal Following00:08:16
Which is why.
I never saw that on Obama when he started fucking carpet bombing Yemen.
That's true.
Yeah.
Yeah.
No, because it wasn't talked about as much.
I mean, if you don't watch Fox News anyway.
Right.
But the thing is, you know, the right wing also endorses that foreign policy.
So there wasn't even that much impetus to talk about it.
I mean, you could.
I didn't watch Fox News.
I don't know.
I think it's the combination of all this exposure of the Israel conflict and the Israel lobby combined with the Epstein files, which is like the Epstein files is another thing.
I don't understand.
Why aren't people in the street marching and protesting against this shit?
Yeah.
Yeah, they're just relying on trying to, you know, get the next news cycle, like just desperately move on.
But yeah, with Israel, it's we're not moving on because they're like it's ongoing, right?
They are now trying to take over Lebanon.
They're like it's just they're trying to expand.
I mean, it's very, very obvious what's going on.
You know, I don't know.
I wish it's just funny because like this now, this is just a sock.
Like, I don't have any expertise in all of the politics that we've been talking about.
I'm passionate about being anti Israel.
But, you know, I'd love to.
To like dig into a particular anti science charlatan or something, you know, be very prepared.
But, uh, yeah.
We should do a debate.
We should set up a debate with someone.
Sure.
What topic do you think you'd be most confident in debating?
I mean, uh, well, okay, flat earth, but nobody cares about that.
Flat earth, yeah.
Um, I have one friend who just always like, he's shoving shit in my face every time I see him.
He's like, look at this, look at this.
This is the fucking map.
Yeah.
But create, yeah.
It's like, what's the point?
Why do we waste all this money on rockets then?
What's the point?
It's such a waste of money.
For no reason.
Yeah.
To keep the deception alive.
Yeah.
That's the dumbest part.
I've debated a few flat earthers.
I've debated some.
Creationists.
So that's a whole thing.
I don't know who.
I mean, it's hard to say.
I mean, the problem is that anyone that I would debate, it's not really a debate, right?
It's just me doing my best job to expose a charlatan in real time.
Because the things that I debate, there's very little debate with scientific topics, right?
There's debate that's going on within the scientific community, and people publish different papers that propose different ideas and then maybe invalidate another idea.
And so there's that going on.
But when you have.
When you have these debates in the public discourse, it's science versus pseudoscience.
That's almost invariably the case.
So it's not even any more about bringing the science to the table.
It's also about disarming the rhetoric, disarming the tactics of the person that is lying.
But I have done that.
I'm pretty confrontational and combative.
So I do better than most academics in a debate scenario.
So I do it when I find that it is something that.
That I think is going to push the needle in a direction.
If I can show everyone this person's a fraud, this person is lying, and demonstrate it in real time.
Yeah, maybe we can set something up on the whole vaccine topic.
But the problem is, no one will see it on YouTube.
Well, that's not true.
I mean, me and Dan Wilson did one with Pierre Corey and Steve.
That is true.
That is true.
But for some reason, we regret it deeply, but it did occur.
I loved that.
I loved that.
I learned a lot on that.
And it's amazing to see.
It's amazing to see the push and pull between you guys and see how certain people react.
See people, you know, it's really telling when you see somebody lose their cool, right?
And I appreciated that you guys did that.
And it was, I agreed with each side at different points.
And I thought it was very illuminating to see that.
I wish more people would see it.
But unfortunately, on this channel, for some reason, there's something that happens whenever we do this vaccine topic, the videos never go anywhere or they get in trouble, they get flagged for some reason.
That's very fishy because there's a mountain of monetized content, both from anti vaxxers and debunkers.
I agree with you.
So, do you have like a partner manager at YouTube?
I have had many partner managers at YouTube.
We kind of cycled through a few.
I do have one right now.
There's two topics that I've had videos nuked off YouTube for, and it's the UFO topic and then the vaccine topic.
And I had a phone call with a guy, one of my original partner managers.
Who had like put me up to the boss, partner, manager, or whatever about a video I did on UFOs about this guy who's a UFO, allegedly a UFO abductee.
And it was like going crazy viral for the first few weeks.
And it was at maybe like 900,000 views by like, I don't know, maybe like seven or maybe like 12 days into it.
And I was watching it every day, watching it climb, watching it climb.
And then on Christmas Eve, it went from getting like 20,000 views an hour, got throttled to.
Two views an hour.
And I looked at all the data or whatever and saw that, like, all of a sudden it was getting no reach.
And then I was going on YouTube and typing in, like, the name of the guy to see where it was ranking with everything else.
And it was always at the top, always at the top, always at the top.
Then that day where it dropped, I would search him and then I could scroll for fucking days and I would never find it.
I could even search Danny Jones' podcast, this guy's name, nothing.
I would find fucking History Channel videos.
There was even a video that somebody did where they ripped the podcast and did commentary on it.
That was coming up.
That's like the fifth one down.
Right.
So I called this guy from YouTube and I was talking to him about it.
And he's like, all right, let me look, blah, blah, blah, blah.
Okay, I don't see any red flags on your account.
You didn't, this video did not violate any terms of service.
Right.
He goes, I've seen this happen a couple of times.
Whenever this happens, it's above my pay grade.
It's the floor above me, basically, is what he said.
So, whatever the fuck that means.
Yeah.
I mean, the algorithm can turn on a dime, but it's weird that the precise search result wouldn't show it.
It should just be unbiased matching keywords to pull it up.
Yeah, totally.
Yeah.
I don't know.
I've had some funny stuff like that.
I've never had it quite that bad, but it definitely, yeah, there's stuff.
That definitely appears to get throttled.
And then also, sometimes it's a little bit when you violate terms of service.
Actually, the first Bart Sabrell one that I did, just because I showed footage of Buzz punching him in the face, it got age restricted for that.
Oh, really?
Yeah.
Whereas part two, I show the same clip.
I actually keep cutting to Buzz punching him in the face because it's so funny.
And I use it as a palate cleanser in between his talking points.
And that one didn't get age restricted.
And I show it more times than in the first one.
Yeah.
I don't know.
It's very, it's, yeah, it is tempting to go conspiratorial with it.
And it may or may not be true.
I don't really know.
I know the algorithm is funny.
Not everyone really fully knows how it works, but yeah, that's the problem.
It should be transparent how it works.
But, you know, end of the day, bro, it was really nice to meet you and talk to you as well.
Whether we agree, I think we agree on probably most of a lot of things we don't agree on.
And I'm sure I could convince you on the rest.
Yeah, right.
My goal is to just turn you around on one of my conspiracy theories.
Okay.
We got to get you in here to debate.
We got to get you in here to debate.
Fucking who knows?
We'll find someone.
But my friend Julian Dory has a great theory.
That is very relevant to this.
It's called the Wawa theory.
He lives in New Jersey.
He says, You go online, you go on Twitter and YouTube, and you find all these people screaming at each other, calling each other names over what fucking political party they like better.
And he goes, Then I walk outside and I go to Wawa and I see the girl with the fucking nose ring and the purple hair holding the door for the guy with the Vietnam hat.
It's not like that in real life, bro.
People don't really act like that towards each other.
And you got to fucking go outside and touch grass sometimes.
There's a lot of truth to that.
There's a lot of truth to that.
Yeah.
But ultimately, the direction the government goes depends on voting behavior, and that is influenced by the online zeitgeist.
So, a little bit of both, I think.
Yeah.
The internet definitely throws fuel on it.
Yeah.
But thanks again, man.
I really appreciate it.
Tell people where they can find you, all your stuff on social media.