The David Knight Show - Livestream

All Episodes

Previous Next

Dec. 26, 2025 - The David Knight Show

03:21:42

Livestream

None
[Read More]

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	In a world of deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
	It's The David Knight Show.
	All right, welcome back.
	And joining us now is Wayne Morrow.
	He is the CEO of the John Birch Society.
	And he's got something I think is very interesting to talk about, and that is Fabian socialism.
	You probably heard this term before, but maybe you don't understand what it is or the difference between it and the Marx and Karl Marx's approach and how much more dangerous it is.
	You know, for me growing up, Fabian was a teen idol.
	And I saw Fabian socialism, I was like, what is that?
	You know, but actually, it was a famous Roman general, and the, and I guess Fabian's parents were Italian, and I guess maybe that was the namesake, or they might have been socialist.
	I don't know.
	But anyway, It is important to understand the distinction because they have very different tactics that they use to achieve the same totalitarian goals.
	So, joining us now is Wayne Morrow, CEO of the John Burke Society.
	Thank you for joining us, sir.
	Thank you, David.
	Appreciate being here.
	And yeah, it's Fabians, much like the Council on Foreign Relations, very little known about people in their respective countries.
	It's sort of that secretive behind-the-scenes group.
	You know, that's part of the plan, you know.
	And you mentioned, you told me just as we were talking here just before you came on, how you there is also a book that the John Burke Society sells called The Fabian Freeway.
	Yes, exactly.
	It's a very in-depth book.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, it's a book we've written past and we republished it.
	We have our own publishing company called The Western Islands.
	And the Fabian Freeway is a book about the genesis of the Fabians and how impacted are even our U.S. policies and our foreign policies.
	It all ties together.
	But it's a real good book, and it's over about 600 pages, so it's not a quick read, but it's in-depth, and I think it's for people who are serious students about history and what goes on today.
	Surely, I call we're the top of the puzzle box.
	You know, now we understand what goes on.
	That's right.
	That's right.
	But tell us a little bit about us about Fabian socialism.
	You know, what was it about that general that they liked, and how does that tell us about their tactics?
	And how is it different from Marxism?
	Well, that's a good question.
	Well, anyway, the genesis is, as you mentioned, Quintus Fabius Maximus, he was a Roman general, very slow-moving.
	He was very, you know, quiet, but he was slow and forceful.
	And much like the Fabians took his name because that's the process they want.
	You know, their moniker originally was a wolf in sheep's clothing, and that didn't work over too well.
	Figured that one out for a while.
	And they said, now we'll go switch to a turtle.
	I think the Republicans and Democrats could use that imagery as well.
	Instead of a donkey and an elephant, they could have a wolf in a sheep's clothing for both of them.
	They had to change their moniker because it wasn't going over well.
	But, you know, if you go back to the genesis of it all, Cecil Rhodes and Lord Milner were involved in forming this elite group.
	And George Bernard Shaw was certainly one of the members, and the Webb, Sydney Webb, and all.
	And, you know, they were very open about socialism.
	And, you know, the dispute they had between Marx and themselves was they wanted to believe in the more of the ethical, slow-moving educational route versus violence.
	And so that was their goal.
	So, you know, they formed the London School of Economics.
	And out of that school, you know, they put in place various key legislators in government and even in institutions around the UK.
	And they knew that by influencing public policy, it didn't make any difference who was the elected official because they were setting the policy.
	And they do that today, as a matter of fact.
	And so George Bernard Shaw was, he was also very large on eugenics.
	Matter of fact, I don't have that video clip, but if you could listen to the audio clip, he talks about once every five years, this is this one, we'd have to stand in front of this board to determine if we should be worthy of staying alive or not.
	I mean, actually, he said that, you know.
	So he's going to go imagine that.
	Just destroyed my appreciation of my fair lady, right?
	Can you imagine?
	You can listen to it.
	No, don't believe me.
	You can look him up.
	You can listen to the video, audio clip.
	It's amazing.
	And so every prime minister, every Labor Party member of the UK is a Fabian.
	And so the Fabians' goal is, is always has been, as we call it, socialism, but it's a slow walk to Marxism.
	And what they want to do is govern every aspect of your life, enforce globalism.
	So as you see now today with Kier Starber, who, by the way, is a Fabian, as well as the mayor of London, you're watching it happen, the country being destroyed.
	And I have podcasts with folks in London.
	And I tell them, This is all to cue.
	This is exactly what the plan is to destroy their heritage, their history, to bring in usher in world government.
	Now, when you say what it's all about, yes.
	Yes, when you say they're Fabians, is there still an organization that they belong as an active member, like somebody who would belong to the John Burch Society?
	So they actually have the Fabian Society there?
	Yes, yeah.
	Tony Blair is a member of the Fabians, you know.
	Guard carry a member of the Fabio.
	He's very active, by the way, you know, with the World Economic Forum.
	Interesting.
	But if you go online, you can look up the Fabian Society.
	They have Organization Australia.
	They're young Fabians, you know, but they exist.
	I mean, they exist today.
	And when I speak to the British, very few really understand the Fabians.
	Liz Truss, I met Liz Truss, a past prime minister.
	I was at a CEO conference, and I gave her my card and I said, I'll send you a copy of the Fabian Freeway.
	Now she's actively doing YouTube phenomena.
	It's not because they said, you never mentioned the Fabians, Liz.
	But, you know, I think she knew exactly what they were.
	But the whole thing was, David, back in Woodrow Wilson's days, when he actually worked with Colonel Mandel House, another globalist, they formed this thing called the Inquiry.
	And the Inquiry was a group of men, we're British and U.S., and they discussed how are we going to work together and kind of really conquer the world as far as the political agenda and then eventually total.
	And so that was the genesis of the Council on Foreign Relations.
	So the Council on Foreign Relations, which is housed in New York City, they and the Fabians work together, as we speak today, and setting governance and policy.
	And they do that, regardless of what the elections look like, they're behind the scenes doing foreign policy.
	And that's why we always look at each other.
	Why doesn't everything change?
	Well, that's because behind the scenes, the same folks have been working the agenda.
	That's what's going on.
	And we have to bring the light to the UK people as well as the United States that this group, these groups, are hard at work directing our foreign policy, but our future.
	It is for world government.
	It's nothing to do with freedom.
	And our job in the Birch Society is through education to make people aware of who they are so we know what to do.
	It's not mystical.
	It's not magical.
	It's not a beauty contest when you elect somebody.
	But we have to know the threats are real, and we see it today.
	Yes.
	It sounds very much like Antonio Gramsey, the father of the Italian Communist Party's strategy, where he wanted to march through the institutions.
	How is it different than Gramsey's communism?
	And I mentioned Antonio Gramsey because Pete Boudig is what I call him because he's very proud of that.
	But, you know, his father spent his entire career at Notre Dame.
	That was really his specialty, Antonio Gramsey.
	And he had him go to Harvard where he studied under Sakvan Berkovich, who was also very much a fan of Italian communism.
	He changed his name to honor Sacco and Vanzetti.
	And so, you know, I learned something about Antonio Gramsey because of Booty Gay, but I also called him Booty Marx because that's really where they're trying to take us.
	Again, it is a slow march through the institutions.
	And so, what is the difference?
	Is it that one of them was Italian and the other one was predominantly English and American, kind of Anglo?
	Yeah, well, Gramsky was involved as an Italian.
	He's from Sardinia, and he grew up in that area of farm.
	He watched the farmer owners take advantage of the farmer workers.
	He actually has a book called David called The Gramsky Papers, Prison Papers.
	And that's about this thing I have behind me in my library.
	And it was written on toilet paper, by the way.
	And he passed it to the.
	Well, he knew what it was worth.
	He passed it to his sister, and it became the Gramsci paper, the prison papers.
	And Gramsky was a threat to the Nazis in Germany, and that's why it was called the Frankfurt School.
	And Hitler tossed them out of the United States.
	They ended up in Colubby University.
	And so the goal then was then to indoctrinate and reduce the morality of young college students and shove down their throats socialism and communism.
	So now we have the professors from various institutions in the country about, remember that in the 60s, about the hippie movement, all that was all coming from the Frankfurt School through Columbia University.
	Destroyed.
	They knew they have.
	This is what Gramsky said, David.
	We can't destroy the United States or Western societies.
	We talk to it economically.
	That's hard.
	We have to change them morally.
	Because if we could do that, we could destroy the morality because that's the glue that holds them together.
	Then we can destroy them.
	And that's the whole story with the Frankfurt School, which ended up at Columbia University.
	If you think about it, where we are back in the 40s, to where today you could see the morality of the United States go in the other direction.
	And that's all according to plan.
	And that's why they got so heavily involved in Hollywood and the entertainment business as well.
	Absolutely correct.
	And that's what happened.
	So they knew that's exactly one of the key points that makes the United States or Western civilization so strong is our moral behavior and our beliefs.
	So that's what we see today.
	But that's the difference between the two.
	And so they're Marxists, but they use that social element.
	They said Karl Marx wasn't right.
	He thought economics was the only way.
	No, we're going to have to do the moral end of it.
	So they morphed it into another strategy.
	But it's all the same end goal is total slavery.
	And you can see that very much in what Sach Van Berkovich focused on there at Harvard.
	Everything for him was a product of Puritanism.
	And so we've got to overthrow this whole Puritan roots of America and we've got to attack it at its foundation.
	But he was really what he was trying to do was to attack the moral foundation of the country.
	That's why he focused on that so much.
	But everything he talked about was in terms of that.
	You know, well, this is because of the Mayflower.
	We've got to get rid of that.
	But it is kind of interesting.
	And of course, we see other approaches as well.
	You had people like Bill Ayers.
	They decided that they would, they said, well, we've had class struggles over Marxism in Europe.
	That's not going to work here.
	It's not working here that well.
	So let's go to a race struggle.
	So there's yet another approach that the communists have taken.
	They've got so many different prongs to get all of them take us to the same hell, don't they?
	A lot of different roads.
	Yeah, we do the dirty work for them.
	We have class struggles, men against women.
	That's another big one right now.
	Children against their parents, black versus white or tan.
	It's all about conflict and war.
	That's their goal because they need that to enforce more rules and regulations in the government and less freedom.
	You guys can't play nice.
	Okay, well, we're going to incite that.
	And, you know, the Marxists knew that's one of the goals.
	And it's well written over a period of time.
	Lots of documentation on how that works.
	But that's the goal.
	So they're playing to our frailties of humans, you know, rich versus poor, black versus white, tan versus white, Chinese, whatever.
	Doesn't make a difference because their end game is world government and they know that they can't have a lot of us.
	So we have to exterminate some.
	So I'll let those guys exterminate themselves.
	And that's what we see, you know, and we're seeing that now in the UK as we start a conversation about the Fabians.
	As I talk to the folks in the UK, we're watching their country.
	And I used to live there, work there in Oxfordshire.
	So I know the country rather well, and I'm watching those folks being destroyed by the invaders on purpose.
	But they're doing their dirty work, destroying all their history and terror and terror into those folks in Ireland as well as the UK.
	And they're concerned.
	But I'm seeing a resurgence of the British citizen rising up.
	It was about a month ago.
	You recall in London, they had people marching with the British flag.
	It wasn't 200,000, David.
	We had people that were there, and they said it was more like 3 million people were there.
	And you'll see farmer trucks now marching into London with their tractors.
	They don't want to be slaves.
	And I've talked to enough Europeans.
	They don't want to be a part of the European AC any longer.
	They're losing their sovereignty.
	They love their history, David.
	And they really respect it.
	And when I travel throughout Europe, when I live there, they really love their history and they love their heritage.
	It's being destroyed systematically, and it does not work.
	One thing I wanted to tell you, which is interesting, I found out talking to several of the folks within past legislators, they tell me they get their news about the United States in two ways: CNN and the New York Times.
	What does that tell you, David?
	Yeah, they need to go to different sources.
	Yeah, you're going to see CNN.
	I go, what is that doing in there?
	I'm in Hungary or I'm in Italy.
	I'm watching CNN.
	But that's how they look at the United States.
	I said, well, that's totally upside down.
	Yeah.
	Well, I had a friend who worked in the Pentagon about 20 or 30 years ago.
	And when I talked to him, he said, yeah, CNN is playing on the screen all over the Pentagon, all the different rooms and everything.
	Oh, yeah.
	That's Communist News Network.
	That's right.
	It's very important that who you listen to.
	And, you know, I've always tried to listen to various sources.
	And I would go to the, I always preferred people who would tell me what they think and why they think it, rather than the people who try to be this mushy middle, like Time and Newsweek.
	You know, so I was always looking at the nation or national review or something like that, even though I don't support their views.
	I'd like to see that conflict that was there because a lot of times that would help me to understand where I stood on the issue.
	So I tried to get these people that are opposed to each other.
	But most people just go for something like Time or Newsweek or CNN, and it's kind of the mushy middle that's put out there by the mockingbird programs that are out there for people.
	But that's why it's very important for people to educate themselves.
	And that's a very important thing that you do at the John Birch Society.
	Tell us a little bit about the John Birch Society and how it's organized.
	Well, we started in 19, yeah, thank you.
	We started 1958, and our goal is education.
	You know, education is really critical for us, educating people about American values.
	Our job is limited government.
	You know, so people call us far-right.
	That's not true.
	We're actually constitutional moderates.
	Some form of government, but not total.
	All the left is all the isms, glee fascism, right?
	And our job is to teach American Americanism.
	It's not taught anymore.
	So we have free courses online, the jbs.org, about teaching about the Constitution.
	And we said, how do you elect constitutional representatives, state, local, or federal, if you don't know the playbook?
	So how do you hold them accountable?
	And it's not taught on purpose.
	So now it becomes a personality contest.
	We don't want that.
	So we teach people Americanism, and we give them the history, and we show them who's behind the curtain.
	Like we mentioned, the Fabians and the CFR and who's forming foreign policy.
	And once people know what goes on, that's important.
	We call it a conspiracy.
	It's not a theory any longer.
	But the conspiracy says this.
	The first goal is to deny its existence.
	Of course.
	So we said, look, let's expose them.
	It's not us.
	That's why I have a thousand books behind me.
	Is that over the course of time, it proves that they does exist, and they actually come out and talk about it.
	It's interesting as we look through time and look through history.
	I always go back to my UK experience where Audis Huxley was a Fabian.
	I go back to that for a second to answer your question.
	And what happened is he was writing, this guy was a young author, writing all the information about what he heard.
	He was so excited about it that he decided to write a book.
	And he said, I can't use my pen name.
	My name is Eric Blair.
	I can't use that.
	I have to use a pen name.
	So I'll think my name is George.
	And Orwell, Joe, George Orwell is really the Eric Blair.
	And he wrote 1984 about the Fabians.
	The question becomes, why is it 1984?
	Well, January 4th of 1884 is the foundation of the Fabians.
	And they said, within 100 years, we have world government.
	That's why that book's titled 1984.
	Oh, okay.
	So that's 1984.
	I'd heard people say, because he wrote it in 1948, but yeah, that's my 100th anniversary.
	I don't believe it.
	Because he was indoctrinated by H.G. Wells and Alex Huxley about, when he writes about Big Brother, News Speak, that's all about the Fabians.
	And now that's Sed Vogue, I'm saying, hey, look, that wasn't done as a science fiction.
	That was really his telling you, and he couldn't, you know, hold himself.
	He said, I have to really talk about this.
	That's why it's, and I believe, I personally believe that's why it's 1984.
	It's 100 years of existence.
	And, of course, I mentioned the Council on Foreign Relations is a child of the Fabians.
	And now we have an American version.
	Then we have the European version.
	Work in unison.
	So our job in Birch Society is to educate people what's going on to be personally responsible to elect constitutional moderates and constitutional-minded representatives, state, local, and federal, so we can monitor not only our behavior, but go back to constitutional based law and not rule by elitists.
	And that's what we see today.
	Yeah, and so, you know, and it's important for people to understand how many different ways they come at us in order to set up a totalitarian government.
	They have so many different tactics and strategies.
	And of course, one of those, I think you're talking about Aldous Huxley and others like that, H.G. Wells and Huxley, the technocracy that was there.
	I mean, talk a little bit about technocracy as well.
	That's really kind of coming to us.
	People don't really know where to fit that, you know, because it doesn't really fit into the left-right paradigm.
	And yet that seems to be on the ascendancy as well.
	Talk a little bit about that.
	Well, you know, the story about technology.
	You know, I have a fellow who used to be a member of the Birch Society.
	He was a word of CIA.
	He said, smile a lot because your picture gets taken about 300 times a day.
	That's right.
	More than that now.
	Yeah, you go bank grocery store, going to get gas.
	But technocracy is a tool for monitoring and governance.
	And that's why you see AI data centers and all every little thing that you've done.
	And they openly said this in the Bank of International Settlements.
	They want to have this digital currency where they can monitor any of your expenditures from $100 on up.
	So they can determine, by checking China, if you have a bad social score, then you're not going to buy anything.
	So if you think about technology is going to be their weapon or tool to keep you in line, that's where I see it happening.
	And they're doing it through a lot of different angles.
	It looks kind of cool, but that's really their goal.
	One of the things I began the program with today was talking about the fact that, you know, I mention all the time about how artificial intelligence is really going to be a superpower for any kind of government tyranny to be able to monitor you and everything that you're doing, as you're just talking about, but also to manipulate opinion as well.
	And that's why it's very concerning to me to see that this latest executive order from Trump that essentially presumes to prohibit any state laws that would curb things that are happening with AI companies.
	Because I think where that would really happen would be with the data centers.
	I think it's where the big conflict is going to come.
	Very true.
	And that is the bottleneck for them.
	And that would be one of the ways that you could limit them to buy a little bit of time to try to get some control of the situation or structure to keep some of these things at bay.
	But again, to prohibit that at the federal level.
	And that is in direct conflict with the 10th Amendment.
	And of course, the Democrats will tell you that now because they're not in power.
	But as soon as they get in power, they don't care about the 10th Amendment either.
	But it is really a real concern about this concentration of power and the structure of the 10th Amendment.
	And of course, the enforcement mechanism that it's going to run through is going to be to use financial carrots and sticks for people coming out of the federal government.
	That's the way they always get around the 10th Amendment, isn't it?
	Absolutely correct.
	Yes, the technocracy.
	That's exactly what we call technocracy.
	The techno-bureaucrats.
	That's where they use that technology.
	As I call it, digital prison.
	That's basically where you're looking at.
	And that's kind of where we're at.
	And that's what they're setting up digital prison.
	So you can't go anywhere to do anything within your 15-minute city, whatever you want to be, to monitor where you are.
	And you lose all your freedoms.
	They're constantly coming up with different justifications to take us to the same kind of Orwellian hell that they want to set up.
	And that's why, you know, when you look at the Chinese communists, many times I'd look at them and say, okay, so are they really communist anymore?
	Are they fascist?
	Because they've kind of merged economics and politics to a great extent there.
	And it's highly nationalistic and all the rest of these other things.
	So it's important to understand all these different strains, but then to not get boxed in by any of them, to understand these people will mix and match.
	They'll take whatever they can use, maybe these different strategies.
	And, you know, when you look at them, if you were to construct a Venn diagram, it seems like they're all starting to reach convergence instead of one little point of overlap, doesn't it?
	Yeah, exactly.
	Well, you know, communism is just a tool.
	That's all it's a tool for global governance.
	It's not the be-all-end-all.
	Just like any other religious things that we see, it's got nothing to do with at all.
	Matter of fact, the men who are globalists are not communists.
	That's a tool.
	They're not fascists, but they use that mentality.
	But it's all the tool for world government.
	It's all going to come through the United Nations.
	And you see the UN.
	That's the center point of it all.
	And we have a magazine called The New American.
	And matter of fact, we're actually launching it in Eric called The New European.
	And I can show you this.
	Oh, good.
	Yeah.
	Matt here, David, these little bubble diagrams.
	I don't know if you can see this all.
	These are all the UN offices in the world.
	They're not just one location in the East River in Brussels.
	What do these people do in all these locations?
	Well, you're on the menu.
	That's what's going on.
	So you can imagine all those, you know, it's all over the United States.
	So I'd be happy to send this to you in a new American magazine.
	We have this one called the Global Power Grab.
	We did this one, and it talks, and I show this around the Australians and the New Zealands and the UK folks and the lady in France.
	They were totally amazed, the depth of the United Nations, all these offices all over the world.
	Yes.
	And they're busy carving up the world for global governance.
	So that's part of our job at the Birch Society, expose what's happening through education and make it aware.
	It's not too late because there's more of us than them.
	And they know that our job, their job is to keep us off message and looking at sports figures or Hollywood or this or that.
	At the same time, they're destroying our foundational principles of freedom.
	Oh, absolutely.
	Yeah, I've had Alex Newman on many times.
	I've talked to Alex, a great guy there at the New American.
	And I've had other people as well from the New American.
	It's a great publication.
	And as you point out with that map, and you see all the different areas where they have areas of responsibility and actual physical locations and everything, I think that's a key thing for people to understand is that it's not necessarily going to be, as you point out, in Brussels when you say, well, there's the seat of government or whatever, or the East River in New York.
	It really is not so much about that, it's about global governance.
	It's about this network of different organizations that are out there.
	And that's one of the things that I see about technocracy is really that not just the electronic networking that's out there, but actually the political networking that is there and the interlocking of these different financial interests that are out there.
	So they can all have their own goals and things, but it is all pushing us towards this global governance.
	And the technology is really giving them power that they've never had before.
	That's the key thing that's really concerning me.
	We saw that with COVID-19 was a good status beta test for them, how you had the whole world under control.
	I'm sure they were absolutely laughing in a maze how easy it was to make that happen.
	I know.
	I was absolutely astounded how easy it was for them as well.
	And again, I think, you know, you look at the stimulus checks and all the rest of this stuff, that was training wheels for universal basic income, which was something that Elon Musk has always been focused on when you had Andrew Yang come out and said he was going to run for president, and that was going to be his issue, the main issue.
	He branched out into some other things later on.
	But as soon as he came out and said universal basic income, Elon Musk handed him a million dollars.
	You know, he wanted him to push that idea.
	Well, it got pushed really big in 2020.
	Well, that's all part of the program, universal income to the UN.
	Of course it is.
	The whole job, they want you to be industrious, they want you to be collective, not individualists.
	And we fight collectivism.
	We believe in individualism, not collectivism.
	That's all part of the rule.
	There's a culture herd mentality.
	And that's exactly what they need to control us.
	That's the end game, is that world government, and they will determine, as I mentioned early on, we started the show, George Bernard Shaw, before the eugenics committee, who lives and who dies.
	And you may not have that choice.
	If you're a strong Crow Christian or belief, you may not fit into it because they're amoral.
	They don't have any beliefs.
	The state is their belief.
	You may not fit into their program.
	If you can't be indoctrinated correctly, you may be exterminated.
	That's right.
	And they're written about that.
	So these guys play for keeps, and it's serious.
	And our job has been to expose their plan since the late 50s and really what they want to do.
	And they're very open about it, now more so than ever because they feel like young adults have been so indoctrinated through the universities and school that socialism is good.
	Like we saw the last mayor race in New York City.
	Can you imagine?
	Yeah.
	Nothing's free.
	Schools have indoctrinated that.
	But then we also have the situation where the Gen Z people are finding it very, kids are finding it very difficult to find a job.
	Even if they go to college, they're finding it difficult to find a job.
	And that is something I think that really drives this.
	Because, again, one of the things that socialism has always pushed out there, I think, is envy.
	They find these different at its core, I think, like Sololinsky dedicated his book, Rules for Radicals, to Satan.
	And I think at the core of it, there's all these different satanic appeals to the evil aspects of our nature.
	Whether it's about greed, whether it's about envy, whether it's about hatred, racism, tribalism, all these different things.
	And they identify these things and seek to exploit them with these different approaches that they take.
	And so that's what I think is we have to be aware of the tactics and the strategies that are there if we're ever going to be able to defeat them.
	Otherwise, we're just putting their hands, aren't we?
	That's exactly.
	And you're exactly correct.
	That's exactly what they do.
	They pit one group against another, one philosophy, because it's all about conflict.
	It's all about the conflict.
	That's critically important.
	But we have to identify what it is and expose what it is.
	That's really important.
	So we know the game.
	It's a charades.
	Remember the movie where we had with Julie Garland, Folly Yellowvik Road, and all of a sudden, who's the man behind the curtain?
	Don't pay attention to him.
	Well, we expose who's behind the curtain.
	And that's really what it's all about.
	It's really a plan.
	It's not done by accident.
	And we see a lot of kabuki theater.
	But the thing is, is that we identify really what it is.
	And tell you what, it's very difficult for people to believe it because some of their heroes of the past were not good people.
	That's right.
	And I'm sorry, folks.
	Or the heroes of the present.
	Or the present.
	I mentioned about George Bernard Shaw.
	The guy was, you know, think about that one.
	I mean, I can go on, but there's a lot of them.
	And they were not who they thought they were.
	Yeah, he wrote Pygmalion, which was then turned into My Fair Lady, you know, the musical and the play.
	You know, we enjoy the music with that.
	But, yeah, the guy who was there.
	And even when you look at all these different science fiction novels, they basically become a blueprint for them.
	But when you're talking about how they like to set up conflict between different groups, that's why I think we really need to have our guard up about partisan politics, because that is another way they do it.
	They don't just do it by race or by sex or this or that.
	They do it also with political factions.
	And when people buy into these things and start to excuse the actions of their leaders, what they really need to do is to look at the longer historical view and say, where were the Fabian socialists trying to take us?
	Where were the Gram C socialists trying to take us?
	Where were the Marxists trying to take us?
	And if the actions of the person that's the hero of your party is going to move us in the direction of these socialists and Marxists, then you need to pull back and say we're not going to follow that, even though that's part of our tribe here or whatever.
	I think that's a very important thing.
	Elections change governments, but institutions change nations.
	That's really important.
	They actually fabious even said that.
	They also said power shifts from representation to management.
	And that's where we are.
	No matter it's left or right on the politics scene, the policy being stepped forward doesn't make a difference who runs back and forth.
	It's all kabuki theater for us because they're not setting the policy someone else is.
	And we identify who they are.
	That's really critically important.
	So it's all a big game in front of us, but we have to identify really who they are, what's happening.
	And that's all part of what we do: educate people and make them aware.
	There's more of us than them, but our job is to wake people up.
	And sometimes they don't want to, they want to hear about it.
	Our job is to wake people up and tell them really what's going on, much like the story I gave to the UK folks about the Fabians.
	I said, look, they're destroying your country on plan.
	It's not by accident.
	It's not by accident.
	Well, that's why, you know, I question you.
	So, do they still have a Fabian society that people belong to?
	Because typically these things are done in secret, you know, or quietly.
	So you have secret societies, you know, things like the Masons or whatever, but people will be members of this.
	But I don't think, do we have a Fabian society that you have politicians that are a part of here in the U.S., or is it mainly the CFR that you'll see?
	Mostly the CFR.
	It's exactly.
	It's more a partner of the Fabians.
	So back to Cecil Rhodes and Lord Milner.
	And Willrow Wilson took Congo House.
	They had this thing called the Inquiry back in the 1900s or so.
	And they formed this group.
	And they want the United States and the Council of Foreign Relations born in 1921.
	And they're going to set foreign policy up marked through David Rockefeller.
	And today you have members of the cabinet, 40, 50% of the people in presidential cabinets were part of the CFR.
	You know, had Clinton, Eisenhower, all those guys were all involved in the CFR.
	They knew exactly what was going on.
	So they were tearing the water for the CFR policy group.
	And that's exactly what goes on.
	So it was all, it looked good, you know, but reality is one of the stories goes this way.
	You know, every year of several years we have an election.
	It's like when you're in high school, you know, remember the president of the student council?
	Remember those back in high school?
	Beauty contest.
	Yeah.
	Remember that?
	Yeah.
	And by the way, I'm going to have longer lunch hours.
	We're going to have less homework, right?
	And all of a sudden they get elected and who's running this show?
	The superintendent of the principal high school.
	And it never happened.
	And that's the story with the CFR.
	We have a beauty contest, which is a public, you know, either a presidential election or congressional.
	And then who's running the show behind the scenes?
	It's really those groups, those unelected bureaucratic officials or unelected.
	And we expose what they are.
	We have that book called The Shadows of Power.
	Another book that we published years ago called The Shadows of Power exposes the Council on Foreign Relations, World War I, World War II, Korean, and Vietnam, and how they all morphed into all part of the plan.
	That's called The Shadows of Power.
	So the Fabians is freeway is about the Fabians.
	The Shadows of Power is about the Council on Foreign Relations.
	And once people look at history, they get pretty angry because they know it's all been a theater for not for us, but for them.
	And they play the game to make it look like you're running the show, but you're not.
	You're just a victim of the globalist plan.
	I agree.
	And when I think of the John Burst Society, you guys have done a great job of educating people about the Council on Foreign Relations, the CFR stuff.
	And yet we still have these people run for office, and you'll see them proudly list that as part of their CV.
	You know, that, yeah, I'm a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.
	And it surprises me.
	It's like, yeah, I'm part of the satanic group over here.
	But it's, you know, they see it as a, you know, because it really does have a lot of panache or whatever or clout in Washington to be a member of that club.
	And they're proud of it.
	And so we need to call them out on it.
	We need to understand the history of it.
	We need to understand really just how evil the actions have been and how that has really been there.
	So, I guess in the UK, they still have people who are part of the Fabian Society, but here you'll see it in the CFR, and they'll be doing the same type of thing.
	Yeah, Bill Clinton was a member, Madden Albury was a member, Robert Rubin was a member, Ben Cohen, Larry Summers, George W. Bush was, Ghana Leah Rice, Colin Power, Robert Gates, Henry Paulson, Barack Obama was president, describing candidate, Timmy Gaithard, Susan Rice, you know, John Bolton, Henry McMaster, and Mike Pompeo, Idoku Iowan, you know, you see what's going on here.
	So they're there in strategic locations to monitor and steer public policy.
	That's what it's going on.
	So when you see this, we hear the song, Garza was Democrat, Republican, you get to the same place all the time.
	That's the key.
	And I remember when Reagan got elected, people were excited.
	Oh, look, he's not CFR.
	And I can't remember the last time we had a president that wasn't CFR.
	And yet, what he did was he put CFR people in all the different positions around him.
	That's exactly.
	Well, Trump is not a member of the CFR, I can tell you that, so he's not a member.
	But he's got people around to make sure he doesn't get too far off the script, although he does.
	That's right.
	Yeah, I think what Trump is really, as much as anything, it's the technocracy because these guys are writing the checks there.
	I'm very concerned that we all know now what the CBDC is, and yet I think the same thing can be accomplished with a stablecoin, and they can make a lot of money putting the stablecoin out there at the same time.
	So it's one way they can get rich.
	They can get rich off of that, or they can't get rich off of the CBDC.
	And since everybody's kind of wise to the game of the CBDC, they don't realize that Stablecoin is still going to have those capabilities to be able to turn off your ability to trade and do other things like that.
	Tell us a little bit about the John Burst Society.
	I mean, I know you guys have had a lot of fights and that type of stuff.
	Have you been hit with any kind of debanking or stuff like that?
	Because, I mean, I have.
	And I've been kicked off of PayPal and Venmo and other formats like that because of things that I was saying in 2020 about the lockdown and the pandemic and the vaccine, climate change, and all the rest of the stuff.
	Are you seeing that kind of debanking and deplatforming in various places?
	Yeah, well, sometimes we say that we get too much of truth.
	YouTube will take us down for a while or something like that, and then we'll come back on again.
	We don't have that issue with banking per se, but they ignore us because they don't need attention.
	We get attacked, we start to grow.
	So they try to pretend we don't exist any longer.
	Yeah, that's when I first learned of the John Burst Society was when William F. Buckley was on a tear review to come after you guys.
	It's like, well, I think I agree with these guys, and I'm with Buckley.
	He's a CFR member, by the way, David.
	Think about it.
	Probably CIA as well.
	Skull and Bones, you know, from Yale.
	You know, I can go on.
	He was a good guy, right?
	Yeah, sure.
	You know, his organization exists today.
	Don't listen to those guys over there.
	Yeah, okay.
	That's why he was a good guy.
	That's why NPR had him on.
	Yeah, right.
	People go, we wrote a book about that called The Pie Piper of the Establishment.
	We wrote that book, Jack McMaster, our past president.
	You may have known him.
	He wrote the book about Buckley, and he was, you know, he was all put together to make sure that he steers the conservative movement, the direction of the CFR, in which he was a member of the CFR.
	So, you know, it's like, you know, as I said, it's not a matter of who it's all controlled.
	And he was controlled opposition.
	He's a very poster child for that, isn't he?
	Controlled opposition.
	Absolutely correct.
	And people still hold him up as he was some super conservative.
	He wasn't sure.
	I remember, you know, Rush Limbaugh really idolized him.
	It's like, man, you don't realize who this guy is.
	That's kind of telling.
	But anyway, It really is a great organization, and I really do appreciate what you guys do.
	And again, the quiet ideology reshaping policy from London Parlors to DC Power.
	Is that a book or is that an article?
	Because that's how I found out about it.
	It sounds like the Fabian Freeway.
	That's what it sounds like.
	Okay, that's the subtitle of Fabian.
	The JBS has been around for a long time.
	We have area chapters.
	We educate people on the voting record of their representatives.
	And so we try to encourage people to be active participants in the process.
	How do you change your representative, David, is if you don't understand the Constitution, or at least go visit them and say, why did you vote unconstitutionally?
	So we have this thing called the scorecard.
	We print it out every quarter, and it talks about the voting record.
	Constitutionally, we pick them on Congress, you know, Senate as well as the House, where they are.
	So people know if they're voting constitutionally or not.
	And it's our personal responsibility as Americans to uphold, remember, the representatives work for us and say, hey, why are you voting this way?
	And what they have not.
	I mean, Representative called me and said, no one ever, very rarely calls me on the phone and talks about anything.
	And so we can't, it's not, you know, we can't sit back and I said, and one day we have a handsome young conservative show up in Congress.
	It doesn't happen that way.
	Yeah.
	So my biggest goal is to fight complacency in Americans.
	And it's life is too good.
	And even though the economics today is hurting them, now they're listening, but life is too good.
	And they have to, you know, we have to get behind and spend a little time protecting our sovereignty and our freedoms, but we have to know who we are first.
	And that's what we try to teach Americanist principles and hold up representatives who work for us and make sure that happens.
	I agree.
	And that's what I liked about the John Burch Society was the focus on local activism as well and knowing what is happening locally in your state as well.
	And I've seen what you're talking about in terms of representatives who say nobody ever calls me.
	I saw the power of that.
	And I've talked about this on the program.
	When I lived in North Carolina, I was involved with homeschooling.
	And at that point in time, all of North Carolina's government was Democrat, Democrat, House, and Senate, as well as the governor and all the rest of the stuff.
	So they decided, the teachers' unions decided that they were going to shut down homeschooling.
	And it looked like they were going to be able to do it because it was all Democrats.
	And an active minority of homeschoolers, which was really small at the time, there wasn't a lot of people homeschooling.
	There's so many more who are doing it today.
	But everybody got actively involved and started writing.
	And it made them look so much bigger than they actually were.
	And actually beat down the teachers' unions in a Democrat state that were going to try to regulate homeschooling out of existence.
	And so that was a very important first-hand lesson to learn.
	But it's difficult to get people to do that.
	And that's one of the things that the John Burch Society does, I think, is excellent, which is to educate each other about what is happening locally within your state and how you can take action at a local level.
	I remember probably my earliest memory of the John Burch Society was to support your local sheriff stuff, being concerned about the federalization of the police.
	And that is something that is now really escalating, isn't it?
	Yeah.
	Yeah, we actually have it.
	We have that group.
	It still exists called Support Your Local Police.
	We want to keep them independent, not federalized.
	We have a group.
	We have an affiliate not-for-profit called Support Your Local Police.
	And we also have a, you mentioned school with a homeschool.
	We've been in existence for 15 years called the Freedom Project Academy.
	It goes from a kindergarten high school.
	We have live education, of course, online, or you can buy a recorded version of it.
	And that's been around.
	So we're educating all over the world adults are having their children sign up to learn really Americanism, who we are, not fabricated history.
	And we're teaching how the kids how to write cursive and do math or read books.
	How about that for a change?
	And so we, you know, it hasn't happened in a public school, I can tell you that.
	And we spent more time in education than social emotional learning.
	But the thing is, and as you mentioned, Alice Human wrote a lot of books about that.
	But the thing is, so we look at education with our children, our adults, bring into view really who we are, what we're all about, because we've been indoctrinated.
	And we know that brainwashing has existed through all the mass media, David.
	All the mass media, as you know very well because you're in the media business, that's all controlled by the Council on Foreign Relations.
	Every one of those, New York Times, all the networks, including Fox News, it's all controlled media.
	And they all say the same thing, same deal.
	So guess what?
	That's the only thing you hear.
	That's the only thing you believe.
	So we said, no, timeout.
	Let's talk about reality here.
	And it's hard for some people to swallow, but once you've been red-pilled, all of a sudden the world changes.
	Like, now I see what's going on here.
	So that's our job in the birth society.
	We did it with kids with school.
	You're right about the law enforcement.
	We want to keep them independent.
	We teach the Constitution.
	We get people involved.
	It's about education and get people activated and involved.
	That's really important.
	I absolutely agree.
	Get activated and involved.
	And that's how we save our country, as well as the people over in England.
	They see the problem now because they're watching their country be destroyed.
	And I mentioned the Fabians when we first came on because that's coming attractions for the United States.
	What you see in Europe is the coming attractions for here.
	Oh, yeah.
	Just delayed just a little bit.
	It's a warning.
	That's right.
	Yeah.
	And so, you know, getting back to the federalization of the police, you know, we look at these things and we say, okay, even if you like the guy who's doing it, and even if you agree with the stated goal, you have to look at this and say, yeah, but that policy is going to establish a precedent of the federalization of law enforcement.
	And so I know where that leads, right?
	So we pull this back and we say, okay, so let's walk this back.
	And we have to oppose this.
	Even if we agree with the stated purpose, that's the wrong way to do it.
	And it is so important that we not sacrifice that the means does not is not just, that the end does not justify the means.
	That's how these people always get us there.
	And it's understanding those principles and what America is about, understanding the Constitution and what that's about and why those things are there, those important safeguards against tyranny, and understanding that if we wipe those things away because it's going to make it more expedient for us to achieve this particular policy goal, we are going to pay the price in the long run, aren't we?
	Nationalized Police Force is one of Marx's, one of Karl Marx's plan.
	And so that's where we're trying to avoid keep them local and independent.
	Your sheriff is a very important person in your county, very important person.
	And I encourage people to know who the sheriff is and talk to them and making sure that you understand and they understand about America's principles and our rights.
	And you have to know who the sheriff is so they know who you are.
	Much like your legislators and state legislators.
	You know, go back to our basics of our country.
	Our United States were formed as independent states, sovereign states.
	And over a period of time, David, the states have given power from themselves to the federal government.
	That's not the way it was supposed to operate.
	The government's supposed to defend us against public and domestic enemies, you know?
	And that's very limited powers.
	Look at Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution.
	Very limited powers Congress has, right?
	And government.
	And so we have actually given more power to the federal government why it's all upside-side and distorted today.
	So we spend time with our local legislators in each state to make sure they uphold the constitutional responsibility.
	Each state has a constitution.
	The word democracy does not exist.
	It's always a republic.
	That's a whole nother thing we teach people.
	That word does not appear in our Constitution or any state constitution.
	And people don't even know that.
	And I said, you have to understand states are sovereign.
	Make sure you make this where it begins.
	So if you look at our history, it was done with that phenomenal idea that keep them sovereign, independent states.
	So those basic things I just said to you, most Americans I talk to do not understand that.
	They don't understand it at all.
	That's right.
	They absolutely do not.
	And it's so important that we understand foundational principles and why these things were set up the way they were.
	Actually, it's a good plan, you know, even though the Constitution has been completely violated.
	It's still a good plan, and we should try it someday in our lifetime, I think.
	It's like the Ten Commandments.
	It's not the Ten Suggestions, you know?
	That's right.
	That's right.
	The Constitution, you have to know it before you can uphold it.
	And everybody, pretty much, whether they're local or state, or especially federal, they take an oath to the Constitution as a requirement of their authority.
	And so when they violate that, they no longer have any legitimate authority, but they do have a lot of power.
	And so we need to understand that we can have power collectively.
	And that's one of the things I think the John Birch Society does bring to the table.
	Thank you so much for joining us.
	It's been a fascinating discussion, Mr. Morrow.
	Wayne Morrow.
	Thank you.
	Wayne Morrow, the CEO of the John Birch Society.
	Always great talking to you guys.
	We're going to take a quick break, folks, and we'll be right back.
	I want to talk a little bit about what's going on with cars here in just a second.
	So we'll be right back.
	Stay with us.
	You're listening to The David Knight Show.
	You're listening to the David Knight Show.
	Tell Alexa to add the APS radio skill and have access to the best channels anywhere.
	From country to blues, classic hits to news.
	APS Radio curates incredibly diverse playlists for you to enjoy.
	Get details at APSRadio.com.
	Welcome back, folks.
	We got a lot of comments.
	And Jersey Boy, thank you so much for the support.
	He says, can you please ask if he's ever heard of William Cooper, who wrote Behold a Pale Horse?
	I'm sorry.
	I didn't see that comment in time.
	I'm sorry.
	And does he know about Jimmy from Brooklyn, who JBS interviewed, who I'm trying to get on your show?
	Okay.
	Well, I'm sorry I missed that.
	I'm very sorry.
	Yes, apologies.
	Owen61, thank you so much for the support.
	He just says, thank you.
	Well, thank you, Owen.
	Appreciate it.
	Yes, thank you so much.
	And Jersey Boy again says, I remember a few years ago from JBS an email, history of, and I need to, history of Republicans, it was started by a communist.
	Does he know what it was?
	And what does he think of JFK?
	You know, it's interesting.
	A book I really enjoyed was an alternative history book by Harry Turtledove.
	He's written a lot of alternative history books.
	And this one was about the Civil War.
	It's called How Few Remain.
	And in it, you know, you may know the history that Antietam, as bloody as a battle was, nearly was, could have been a victory for the South, except that one of the couriers dropped the orders that he was carrying, and they fell into the Union's hands.
	And so in his book, guys say, hey, you dropped those orders.
	Better pick those up.
	Can you imagine what would happen if the other guys got that right?
	And so that causes an early end to the war.
	And pretty much all the major figures of both North and South survive.
	And it causes an early end of the war and the South to gain its independence.
	And in his alternative history, Lincoln is entirely discredited because he lost the war.
	But then he makes a comeback as this book is picking up a couple of decades on at that point in time.
	I think he's got Stonewall Jackson as the president of the Confederacy.
	And Lincoln makes a political comeback as head of the Socialist Party.
	And that's one of the things that made that book so interesting was he really did understand these people, what motivated them, and the things behind them.
	And so, yeah, there was an early connection with that.
	And if you look at, I always think about the Pledge of Allegiance that was put in by the Grand Army of the Republic.
	Most of the veterans, especially if they were well-known or successful, played an important part in the war, they got very big positions in the subsequent governments that were there.
	And the Grand Army of the Republic, which was the organization of Civil War Veterans for the North, had a tremendous amount of influence.
	They were the ones who instituted the Pledge of Allegiance, and it initially did not have Under God in it until the mid-1950s.
	And so the emphasis was on one nation, indivisible.
	And that, you know, very harsh with that.
	And the pledge was done with one arm extended out, palm down, just like the Nazi salute.
	They changed it to hand over your heart because of the Nazi salute.
	But yeah, socialism and a lot of other things were there.
	And as well as the concentration of power, really talking about the destruction of the states as sovereign entities and the understanding that the states had created the federal government, all that stuff disappeared with the Civil War.
	Go ahead.
	We have username 0123456789.
	AI will be kosher and DEI.
	Niburu, 2029, says, we have the best government money can buy.
	And that's a quote from Mark Twain.
	And they spend more and more every single day.
	Pezzo Novante, 1776.
	Ask the guest his take on war, Gaza, Trump's anti-Semitism, and the Heritage Foundation's Project Estimate.
	I apologize, I didn't see that.
	The conversation was too good.
	Garrett Goldsmith says, curiously, people often claim Marx was focused solely on economics, but his entire worldview was cultural based on envy and hate.
	Yeah.
	Conflict, yeah.
	The Guillian dialectic.
	That's why, you know, we have to look at the different ways that they divide us.
	You know, it was very explicit what Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dorn, the weathermen wanted to do.
	They wouldn't have a race war.
	Marx focused, the thing about economics was there, but that was really a class struggle, right?
	And the economics was a part of that class struggle.
	But it's always about dividing us.
	And that's why he said, you know, we have to be very careful about the Republican versus Democrat thing.
	Any kind of division that they can use like that.
	And when we attach ourselves to a different ethnic group or a different political group, these different types of things, those attachments draw us away from the principles that can be the bulwark against this kind of socialist hell that they want to put us in.
	And Mama C., 1996, says, I never learned so much as when I was homeschooling my kids.
	That's right.
	That's right.
	That's excellent.
	And that was the thing that I really missed about it.
	That was where I put all of my effort before I had the show.
	As a matter of fact, that was at one point it was kind of bothering me because I was filling in for Alex at the very beginning.
	He said, you know, there's going to be millions of people listening to you.
	I said, don't tell me that.
	I need to hear that right now.
	Because I was not very much into public speaking or anything like that.
	And I said, no, the way I think of this, and that was in his original studio, which was really small and intimate.
	I said, the way I think of this is I'm talking to the guys over there running the board.
	I could see them.
	And I said, I'm just thinking like I'm doing homeschooling with my kids.
	So I said, don't talk to me about millions of people listening.
	That'll freeze me up.
	So that's the way I always looked at it.
	And it was such a wonderful thing because it gave us an opportunity to go back and look at content that was compelled on us in the schools and to view it in a different way.
	And that's one of the things I've always said about biology and evolution.
	You know, when it's taught to us in the schools, it was always dumbed down into skeletons and death, right?
	For the evolutionists, death is the thing, the engine of creation.
	For us, it is the giver of life.
	And we didn't look at comparative anatomy of skeletons.
	We looked at the unique design of each and every animal.
	And that was the thing that was so fascinating.
	So it really is a blessing and an opportunity.
	I hope if you have the opportunity, you take that to homeschool your kids.
	Have a good day.
	Thank you.
	You can take a photo on a phone.
	There is machine learning in the background.
	Highest quality video capture ever in a smartphone.
	In the metaverse, we're going to need AI that is built around helping people navigate virtual worlds as well as our physical world with augmented reality.
	Augmented reality is a profound technology.
	It includes like your position in 3D space, your body language, facial gestures.
	We invented new, intimate ways to connect and communicate directly from your wrist.
	Everything from virtual reality to designing our own data centers.
	Describing what's coming even.
	It's just so different in you.
	I've been in this infrastructure business for three decades.
	No one has ever seen infrastructure.
	Yeah.
	And now I expect that these trends will only increase in the future.
	In the last few months, we launched voice and vision capabilities so that ChatGPT can now see, hear, and speak.
	Ports up to 128,000 tokens of context.
	That's 300 pages of a standard book.
	That's all AI generated.
	Actually, let's add up some alto cumulus clos.
	All right.
	Break free of the technocratic nightmare this Christmas and go back to basics with a David Knight Show bookmark and notebook.
	This high-quality embossed metal bookmark with a full color design on the back is guaranteed to be cross-compatible with all physical books.
	And the beautiful faux leather notebook is 100% hacking proof.
	An ideal gift for fans of the David Knight Show or anyone looking to start a journaling or prayer journal habit.
	No bells, no whistles, just pen and paper.
	Available at DavidKnight.news.
	Merry Christmas.
	Keith Regert says that there's only two possibilities for AI.
	It's either going to collapse the economy if it doesn't work out, or if it does work out, the use case is to take everybody's job and make everybody's jobs obsolete.
	Not a good prospect if those are the two choices that are there.
	I think though that there is a third choice, and that is that the government, maybe it won't take everybody's jobs, and maybe it won't collapse the economy because maybe the AI bubble won't burst, but we will live under a dystopian control surveillance grid because that's what the government will use it for.
	So there's a third alternative.
	AI's killer use case, folks, is surveillance and control of us.
	And that's why the government is going to be so desperate to fund it, whatever it takes.
	If you want to know why gold and silver and Bitcoin are soaring, it's the debasement of the dollar in order to fund the AI arms race, they said.
	And of course, energy is the reality factor in all of this.
	That's where it gets real.
	And that's one of the reasons why Bill Gates and others are moving back away from the climate MacGuffin.
	The pandemic MacGuffin gives them all the justification that they need, and they need to have this surveillance control and ID, this control grid that is there.
	They need to have that.
	They need to have artificial intelligence to run that.
	they're pulling back from that because in order to have the ai control structure they've got to have massive amounts of energy all right and joining us now is dr richard restack md and he is a neuroscientist as well and he has written a lot of books on the brain and And now this is one at kind of the nexus of our brain and artificial intelligence.
	So I wanted to get him on because we, as you know, we talk about AI and its impact on society quite a bit.
	Thank you for joining us, Dr. Restick.
	Wood, I'm happy to be here.
	Thank you, David.
	You've written so many books and a best-selling author, and of course people can find this on Amazon.
	You've written so many books.
	What is different about the brain?
	What is different about this one?
	And why did you write this book?
	I wrote this book to announce and to discuss the dangers that are lurking, so to speak, in the 21st century and are unique to the 21st century, but are having an effect on the brain and a negative one.
	So we really are imperiled by eight different factors, one of which is the global warming.
	We have new diseases that are present in the 21st century that are increasing, starting with COVID and moving forward.
	We have problems, of course, with the global warming, which we'll talk about in more detail.
	And then the internet, the effect of the internet, the effect of AI, memory, the alteration, the attempt to alter memory, almost to alter our memories of what the past was like.
	This is an ongoing enterprise by various governments in the world, including our own.
	We also have surveillance, the seventh, the surveillance, becoming increasingly a surveillance society.
	It's almost impossible to not be revealing things about yourself because there's surveillance cameras everywhere.
	I can give you several examples of that just in my own personal life.
	And then finally, the eighth one is anxiety.
	All of these things are creating what I call an existential anxiety.
	People are being given information, but it's being molded according to the thoughts and the inclinations of people in power.
	For instance, let's take today's, right out of today's New York Times, on page A7, there's an article called, The Air in New Delhi is Life-Threatening.
	And it tells the tale of the New York Times reporters who have spread themselves throughout New Delhi from 6 a.m. until late in the evening of a certain day recently.
	And they measured the particulate matter in the air, and it was anywhere from 10 times to 30 times as great as would be considered minimally normal.
	Now, on top of that, you have the statement that they state that the government is actually trying to hide this kind of insight to the populace by spraying water and other things like that.
	It says that they're doing this around the measuring stations.
	They're also losing data from the measuring stations during the worst bouts of pollution.
	So there you have the molding of the facts, either denying them altogether or trying to improve them so people say, oh, well, they measured it down at such and such a measuring station, and it was really not all that high.
	Well, of course, they were spreading water and other things to try to reduce this.
	So we've got a capitalist society here in the United States, which has a vested interest in pushing forward certain scientific points of view.
	So science is being put sort of in the back seat.
	And there's politicians and other people, all of whom share one thing, capitalistic enterprises, which they're part of or which they are advancing.
	And a kind of crony capitalism where they can get protection and subsidies as well.
	And the control is being taken away from us because, as I was just reporting earlier today, they're working very hard to make sure that state and local governments can't enact any control on artificial intelligence.
	And that came up in the context of talking about how the manufacturers of tasers, also big manufacturers of police body cams, how they want to wed that to artificial intelligence.
	And the question is, you know, what could possibly go wrong with that?
	If they identify you, they misidentify you as a dangerous criminal and warn the police about how dangerous you are.
	They could get people killed.
	Well, not only that, but all of these efforts set up a sense of anxiety and fear.
	Let me just tell you what happened to me one morning.
	Call a cab to go to a medical appointment.
	And when we started going down the road, I said to the driver, you know, you're not going the most efficient or the quickest way.
	He said, I know that.
	He said, but I don't want to go that way because there's speed cameras.
	I said, well, you know, you're driving very sensibly and you're not speeding.
	And I'm in no hurry.
	So what's the problem?
	He said, well, they take pictures of everybody that goes by those cameras because they want to see who's in those photos, in those cars.
	So I asked him to give me a reference for that.
	And he got sort of, didn't say anything else for the rest of the trip.
	So when I got down to the medical building, I got in the elevator and said, in this facility, there is surveillance, both obvious and hidden.
	Santa Claus was watching you now.
	This is all one morning.
	And then when I got up to sign in, I signed the board with an electronic pen, and I didn't see no signatures.
	I said, well, it didn't take.
	She said, oh, it took.
	But we don't allow it to go on the screen so it could be seen.
	I said, why is that?
	She said, well, somebody behind you might see the thing and then remember it and use your signature to forward something somewhere.
	Well, first of all, there was a sign that said, stand 10 feet back.
	And secondly, there's nobody else behind me.
	So there's three examples just drawn at random that we're becoming an increasingly surveilled society, which is creating a sense of paranoia and a sense of fear.
	So the brain has to adjust to these type of things, David.
	And it's very hard to do.
	And I think that is calculated.
	They want to do this, even to the extent when you talk about these cameras taking everybody's picture, the flock network that is out there, this corporation that is saying, Well, we can do whatever we want because it's in public space.
	And we're not government, so we can collect this information.
	And yet they collect it in order to sell it to the government.
	So it's just one level indirect, but they not only grab your license plate, but they also do a complete profile of your car and all of its idiosyncrasies.
	Does it have a dent here?
	Does it have a scrape there?
	What about a bumper sticker?
	So it creates a model of your car.
	And so they almost have like biometric identification of your cars as well as of you.
	And this is now made possible because of the advances of AI.
	But this has been something that has been concerning me.
	I look at things kind of from a libertarian perspective.
	And this has been concerning me for a long time.
	The idea that government is using technology many different ways, internet, social media, things like that, to monitor and to manipulate us all the time.
	And to me, artificial intelligence just puts this on steroids.
	And so I think there's something to be anxious about if we're going to look at this.
	We should be concerned about it.
	Maybe not anxious, but we should be concerned about the goals of people who are putting this kind of stuff together.
	So, yeah.
	But there's that.
	And then there's if you can manage to change the present, you can manipulate the future.
	Of course, there's a real way to get it is to get control of the past, as Orwell pointed out.
	You control the past, you can control the present, and by the implication, control the future.
	And we're seeing alterations of materials, even government documents, government films, documentaries, things like that, are being altered in ways that are not visible, not, I should say, detectable, not detectable to the ordinary person.
	So they get ideas about what the past was like, which are wrong and don't show you, as I mentioned in the book, if you were at a dance in 1850 before the Civil War, and it's a film we're watching.
	Let's say we're watching a film about 1850, and we're seeing people ballroom dancing, all that.
	Then one of them pulls the side and pulls out a cell phone.
	And you say, wait, I mean, we didn't have cell phones then.
	Well, you know, there were a lot of things that were going on now that were not going on in the past.
	And it's not to our advantage to try to pretend that they were.
	They weren't.
	We have to understand the past to understand the future.
	And we're not only creating situations that are false, but we're also like in 1984, Orwell created a character called Commander Ogilvy.
	He was a war hero.
	He got all sorts of medals, and it was all the prologues were all told to honor him and so forth.
	Well, he never existed.
	He actually was made up entirely.
	And that's one of the things that the narrator is doing in the job of work is filling in photographs, inserting Ogilvy into historical events that happened, wartime scenarios, etc.
	And anyone reading it will say, Wow, this is some man.
	Well, he was a complete fabrication.
	We're just about at that point with Sora out, the AI app, which could take you and had you, you know, to say, let's get David Knight and have him leading some sort of a parade of whatever.
	And, you know, suddenly people say, well, gosh, I saw with my own eyes.
	So what's happening is that the actual seeing is believing is being turned on its head.
	So that's no longer true.
	You're talking about a completely fabricated character out of Orwell.
	Just recently, they had Tilly Norwood, who is a completely fabricated AI personality.
	And the person who came up with it got agents representing her.
	They got her out there as an actress.
	I mean, it's like, so I've created an AI actress, which will do a lot of different roles for you.
	She probably does her own stunts as well, I imagine.
	People in SAG, Screen Actors Guild and they're furious about this.
	And said, any agent that represents this AI character is not going to do any business with us.
	But we're already at that point.
	It truly is interesting.
	And one of the ways of neutralizing it is to create the situation that exists right now between you and me.
	You're laughing and I'm laughing because it seems sunny.
	And it is sunny.
	But it's a very serious purpose behind all this.
	It's all a matter to try to alter people's perceptions so that they begin to doubt the veridity of what they're seeing.
	That's right.
	Yes.
	And I've talked for the longest time about how the whole idea for the internet was created by DARPA psychologists.
	And I've been concerned that it was all about psychological manipulation from the get-go with all of this.
	But as a physician and as a neuroscientist, I'd be interested in your take on what is currently going on.
	Because besides manipulating the past by changing information about the past or memory-holing it or writing a new alternative history of it, they're also concerned, and there's been projects that have been put out by DARPA, and I don't know if they've been successful or not, but they're putting out requests for people to come up with things to manipulate people's memories.
	So you've got a soldier, they say, who's got bad PTSD?
	Let's get rid of that memory.
	Let's give them different memories.
	What do you see in terms of someone who studies the brain and neuroscience?
	What do you see about that?
	What do you think is the state of the art with that?
	Well, my last book was called The Complete Book of Memory.
	It had to do with memory.
	I studied memory in great detail.
	And of course, you have to do away with the concept that memory is like a videotape or something that you just store in your brain.
	And when you get them going to get it, you just bring it out like you'd bring out a videotape.
	It's not like that.
	It's a reconstruction.
	Each time you think back to a certain event, you alter that memory so that you have memory one, memory two, memory three, on and on and on.
	That's the nature of memory.
	And memory can be manipulated.
	It's always, you know, in the courtroom, they're always trying to avoid the contamination of the witness.
	The example of that would be, well, which car went through the red light?
	And to ask a witness, and he said, oh, it was the red car went through the red light.
	Well, wouldn't surprise you to know that it wasn't a red light, but it was a stop sign, Mr. Witness.
	Of course, his credibility is gone because he took the suggestion that it was a red light and said, it'll be very easy to do because you don't necessarily have that image of that intersection in your mind.
	So that's why there's protections, even in the courtroom, against leading the witness, they call it.
	In other words, providing information that's either not true at all or half true.
	So we've got that going.
	This didn't start in the 21st century.
	That started, you know, as long as we've had courtrooms.
	This is more an emphasis now on altering memory so that people will get up there and under cross-examination, they'll do pretty well because their whole memory's been altered.
	Things change by various mechanisms, suggestion, repeating information which is false, of course, which is the misinformation.
	There's a cartoon about a week ago by Ramirez in which he's built a prize winner.
	He has three doctors in an operating room in a laboratory.
	One of them is looking into a microscope, and he looks up and he says, this is the most dangerous pathogen we have ever encountered.
	And the second doctor says, well, is it bubonic plague?
	Is it smallpox?
	And then the one he says, no, it's misinformation and disinformation.
	That's right.
	And we've got to be very careful because many times the people who will tell us about that are the people who want to be the ones who define what the information is for us.
	And they will ask those leading questions.
	You know, when we talk about leading questions and manipulating people, there's been a lot of reports about artificial intelligence, kind of people who have a particular psychosis or something, and they get involved with the AI, and it starts to confirm the things that they want because that's what it is set up to do in terms of bias.
	It want to, you know, be empathetic and sympathetic to people.
	And so it starts doing that and leading them further and further down a particular rabbit hole.
	There's been situations of people who got into severe mental distress, some suicides of some young children and other things like that.
	Speak to that aspect of it and the real danger of that.
	That is really kind of, I think, speaks to the psychological aspect and potential of artificial intelligence.
	And that could be weaponized.
	Right now, it's just kind of happening out of their business model, right?
	But that could definitely be weaponized against people.
	Well, I talk about that in my book, in the chapter on the internet.
	There are famous examples of people who have suicided right on the internet live feed.
	And they've been manipulated to doing that by other people who've encouraged them, said this would be a sign of strength.
	This would be a sign of that you're not afraid to die if necessary.
	And there's cases of it that actually led to the suicide.
	One of them is the most grisly I have in my book about a person who was talked into pouring gasoline over themselves and setting a match all on open feed internet.
	And while this fire is burning, you can hear everybody in the background cheering.
	We did it.
	We did it.
	We got him to do it.
	Wow.
	That's amazing.
	That's amazing.
	So there's something about the internet and about that actually brings out sadistic, criminal, psychopathic trends.
	And we don't know why.
	Is it the fact that you don't necessarily can't be identified?
	It's something that is going to be influencing and has influenced the internet greatly.
	And it will continue to do so until we understand it.
	I think that's one of the things that's so dangerous about the things that we saw with lockdown, other aspects of it.
	There's an atomization here.
	And so many different ways the government and tech companies are trying to make sure that we're not in person with each other.
	Many cases, like for example, in this interview, we couldn't do this interview if one of both of us had to travel.
	We're able to do this because we can do it over Zoom or whatever.
	But just taking ordinary things that you would normally do in terms of interacting with people in school or in church or in your community or whatever, taking that away and putting a screen between the two of you, it really does change the way people interact with each other.
	I remember Errol Morris, the film director, was able to get people to say all kinds of things to him.
	He got a murderer to confess.
	He got Robert McNamara to confess about the false flag of the Vietnam War.
	He got people to say all kinds of stuff because there was that distance between him and them.
	He could have interviewed them in person, but what he did was he put an Interatron, which is what he called it.
	It was basically a teleprompter that he had set up so he could do two-way communication at the time.
	And once he had that distance there, then it completely changed the dynamics that he would have versus with somebody person to person.
	And that's what we're talking about here, isn't it?
	Yeah, we're talking about that.
	And of course, there's integrations of this, and it continues.
	Like you're interviewing me, we're discussing.
	I feel like it's a discussion.
	If I were to say something that later I regretted, I could probably say, oh, well, that wasn't me.
	That was my avatar.
	Or my agent, right?
	I got an AI agent that's out there doing it.
	That's right.
	It's crazy.
	We also see, though, as a doctor, you're seeing people have noticed actual physical changes that can be observed in people's brains.
	I'm thinking of the story about the London taxi drivers who would do the knowledge.
	And they would find that after they memorized all these factual details and drew on that all the time in order to take people to this very complicated city with its complicated streets, that they had a particular part of their brain that was larger than the typical person.
	And then they found that once they stopped doing that, it started to shrink again.
	And we're starting to see that happening with people in a lot of different areas of their life, that kind of atrophy.
	And it's physically observable, isn't it?
	Well, it is.
	You have to learn.
	You have to use the things that you have learned to do.
	Like I mentioned in my memory book, there's all kinds of memory exercises that you could do.
	I do them every day.
	And they're very easy, and they help you to continue with your memory and keep it sharp.
	Give us some examples.
	I'm sure everybody would love to know that.
	We'd all like to have a better memory.
	What kind of things can we do to exercise?
	Well, think about the fact that you never had to learn pictures.
	When you were an infant and a young child, a picture was something that you could, you know, may not know what you're looking at, but you could see it without an intermediary.
	Whereas language is something that you have to hear from other people.
	It's something that's sort of added on to the brain.
	Okay.
	So as a result, the most best way of remembering something is to make an image for it.
	For instance, I have a little dog called a Skipper Key.
	Skipper Key is a Belgian dog.
	He's a nice little fellow.
	But it was embarrassing to me when walking the street.
	People would say, What kind of a dog is that?
	And I couldn't come up with a name because it was such complicated.
	And I thought, that's Skipper Key.
	I didn't speak any Dutch or anything.
	So then I got this image of a small boat with a large captain with a beard holding a big key.
	So it was Skipper Key.
	And I remember it forever.
	So I was, I had the picture.
	Once I have the picture, it's easy to do.
	Another way, an easy way to do it, and you can do that with all kinds of times all the time.
	I was going upstairs before I came down to the office, and I wanted to get my wallet, and I wanted to get my cell phone.
	So I just had an image of a wallet in the form of a cell phone, and I was walking up the stairs talking into the wallet cell phone.
	So I got up, and I knew I had these two elements to get.
	It'd be very easy to get one and forget the other.
	So you have these images all the time.
	And the quickest, you know, this is sort of off the topic of the book, but if you want to have a firepower memory for a load of things, that's up to 10 things, and get 10 areas that you are familiar with, that you see every day.
	And then you can put on those images the thing you're trying to remember.
	So if I'm trying to remember a loaf of bread, milk, maybe batteries, I have a regular way of doing that.
	I have like I remember my library that's near my home, the coffee shop, liquor store, Georgetown University Medical School, where I went, Georgetown University, Cafe Milano, which is a place in Washington everybody gathers, and then Keybridge, Ewajima Memorial, and Reagan Airport.
	So that bread would be, for instance, the loaf of bread.
	I would look in the window of the library, instead of seeing books, I'd see bread, loaves of bread.
	And when I get down to the liquor store, instead of it being filled with liquor, it'll all be milk bottles.
	So that's how to get to it.
	So I have those 10, so I can get 10 items together without any problems at all.
	That's great.
	Yeah, it's interesting you talk about the importance of a visualization.
	It's one of the things that I do in terms of preparing for the show.
	I have a lot of articles that I go through.
	And it's really when I highlight things or when I write them down, that's when I can remember them.
	If I don't do that, if I were just to read these things, I wouldn't remember them.
	But if I interact with it and write it down, that helps me to remember it.
	So that is a kind of visualization there, I guess, as well.
	It truly is interesting.
	And what you said earlier about memory not being something that is stored in a place, as somebody coming from a computer science background, that was a very different thing.
	When you construct your memory, how do you reconstruct that?
	I mean, that opens up a whole new area of questions as well.
	In other words, every time somebody brings up a subject, I mean, there isn't something that's stored initially to reference that and then rebuild from that.
	Yeah, there's that.
	There's the interconnections.
	Like, you know, somebody listening to us might say, well, gee, this is called the 21st century brain, but I haven't heard that much about the brain.
	Well, let me just link that up so that these things make sense.
	We have a new version, or I should say a new understanding of the brain called the connectomic brain, in which there's all kinds of interactions in the brain of parts of the brain, which you don't, we're just learning about.
	I have the, I use the metaphor of a bowl of spaghetti.
	You pull out one of the strains of spaghetti, and you never have any idea what it's connected to, how many other strains of spaghetti this is connected to.
	So that's, if you think of the brain as being kind of set to make connections, that's its natural processing.
	So it gets back to these things that we were talking about earlier, you know, global warming and memory and surveillance and all that.
	How are we going to solve all those?
	Well, somehow or other, those things are connected with each other.
	That's the take-home message of this book.
	And the basic goal is to try to figure out what it is that connects these things, what it is that would allow us to, by solving one of them, solve the other.
	And I mentioned at the end of the book, experts so far haven't done it.
	So it's useful, as Hayek said, to get ordinary people to give, when I say ordinary, I mean non-specialized people, to give their ideas.
	Gee, I wonder what such and such would happen.
	What would happen about global warming?
	For a while, there was, in fact, there's still experiments going on on the effect of sulfur that would help the CO2 problem.
	And, you know, shooting sulfur up into the atmosphere.
	Of course, the reason for that was the volcano in 1980-something, in which after that volcano in Hawaii, it was noted that the air was clearer and there was less pollution.
	Thank you.
	So that's something to think about.
	Is there some way of using that particular sulfur experiment to decrease global warming?
	War, for instance, we don't think of war as a cause of global warming, but it is.
	Or CO2.
	Thermonuclear warming.
	Yeah, it's been up since the Ukraine war and the Gaza war, then tremendous amount.
	It's going to overcome and exceed the benefit of any of these things like non-gasoline engines, but using electrical and things like that.
	Absolutely.
	Yeah, it's kind of like shooting up rockets in order to put satellites up.
	How many cars and lifetime use of cars from people would that be equivalent to?
	And you start talking about all the missiles that are being shot.
	And then you get to the explosives as well.
	It is really interesting how they focus us on their objectives for their ways to control it.
	The manipulation has been going on for quite some time.
	And so, yeah, that is pretty amazing.
	And I guess that's my, you know, my, when we look at this stuff, it really does look like science fiction.
	And I'm almost inclined to write it off when I first see it.
	When DARPA is saying, well, we need to find some way that we can erase memories in people and insert new memories into them.
	I mean, we're going back to total recall, right?
	So it sounds like something from a Philip K. Dick novel, but they're really working on that.
	And I guess one of the most striking things we saw, we reported on a couple of weeks ago.
	And it was a company that was bragging about how they could read your mind more accurately and quickly than their competitors, because there's a lot of different companies that are doing this.
	And how they could, it was called Brain IT was the name of the company.
	And so they had a way that they would do MRI and they could essentially train it on your brain in a much shorter period of time than the other people.
	And they could get much better results.
	And our producers just pull this up.
	So what they do is they show you an image and you're looking at that image and then it's reading your mind and reconstructing what you're looking at, which I thought was absolutely amazing and terrifying at the same time.
	How is this going to be used?
	I guess that's the real issue.
	When we start talking about all these different things, I think that is the real case that it's difficult for people to understand just how far and how quickly the technology has progressed.
	And then to say, and how do we control this from it being used for bad purposes?
	Well, that's a specifically 21st century problem.
	Yes.
	Because all of these things have either originated in the 21st century or they have in fact further developed and become increasingly threatening.
	And bear in mind, we have to have to solve these problems because they're not something that's going to go away.
	And then the most important thing to remember, David, is that all of these things harm the brain.
	And the brain is the thinking processor that's going to save us.
	It's going to figure out what the problems, what the solutions to the problems are.
	So we know now that wildfire smoke, for instance, it creates dementia.
	It enhances the likelihood of somebody becoming demented.
	So as the brain is affected negatively, increasingly over longer and longer periods of time, our ability to solve these problems is going to decrease.
	So we've got to do it now.
	We've got to get serious about it.
	And this business of people getting up and saying that global warming is fiction and all that is really very disturbing.
	Yeah, well, you know, the example that you gave earlier of the fact that the Indian government was manipulating the temperature at some of the stations there, that kind of works both ways.
	They have put some of these temperature stations on the airport tarmacs.
	And in the UK, they have a lot of the temperature stations that they've got there, they're just extrapolating the data.
	They don't have real temperature measurement stations there.
	So it all really gets back, I think, to the scientific method.
	And that's really where we have to hold people's feet to the fire.
	We're talking about something like that.
	We can have an absolute standard of what truth is.
	And that truth is going to be being able to measure something accurately and being able to reproduce that.
	And then I think a good yardstick for that is when somebody is trying to hide their data, that's the clue right there that they're not doing science.
	Because if they're doing science and they've come to the right conclusion, they don't have a problem with somebody looking at their data.
	And so I've got a question here for you from a person in the audience asking about doctors James Giordano and Charles Morgan and their work with military.
	I'm not familiar with those names.
	I don't know if you know anything about that or not.
	Giordano says familiar.
	What particular thing are they asking about them?
	I don't know.
	It just says their work with the military.
	I guess it would have to do with something, but you haven't heard of it.
	I'm not sure whether they're talking about it.
	I could say Giordano did this or did that.
	No.
	Sure, I understand.
	Yeah, let's talk a little bit about the things that we have been anxious about.
	And, of course, as Christians, we have one answer to it.
	But you talk about how this is something that has been around pretty much all of our life.
	I mean, I grew up with anxiety about nuclear war, for example.
	That was on everybody's television, and that was forefront of our mind, especially growing up in Florida when the Cuban Missile Crisis was happening.
	They got us really afraid of that when I was in elementary school.
	It's like there's not going to be enough time for you to get home when the nuclear bombs start falling.
	And so, I mean, there's all these different ways that you can panic people.
	I guess part of it is how do we identify the real problems and how do we deal with those problems?
	Because there's always things that are competing for our attention and our anxiety, many of which are not real.
	And usually the things that you're really the most concerned about don't happen.
	And it may be sometimes because you have taken a precaution about it.
	What would you say about that, about anxiety?
	You're starting to break up a little bit.
	Can you hear me clearly?
	I hear you.
	Yes, yes.
	Sorry about that.
	It's breaking up a little bit.
	You're talking about traumatizing a population.
	What do you do to guard against that type of thing?
	And of course, that's going to really escalate with the ability of AI to create a narrative.
	Yeah, well, let's talk as an avenue to get into that.
	Let's go back to what you brought about the atomic weapons and the atomic war and the fears of people that there's going to be another atomic war.
	I mean, you know, this is not unrealistic.
	There's even been a movie that's just come out that's getting all kinds of attention, as you know, and it has to do with the threat of a nuclear war.
	If you look at what's happening in Europe right now, there's all kinds of suggestions that could lead to a nuclear war.
	I mean, Ukraine now has announced that they're under no conditions willing to give up any land.
	And Stalin is, I mean, Putin is thinking what he can do to change that.
	Maybe he'll attack another country.
	I mean, this is scary stuff.
	So what's happening in response to the government is to try to show that, oh, we shouldn't worry about it.
	We have things under control, but I don't think things are under control.
	And we've talked about the problems, and we talked about problems all the time.
	You have your final chapter is New Ways of Thinking.
	And I'd like to talk about that.
	One of the things that you say is Occam was wrong, Occam's razor that people are familiar with.
	Tell us a little bit about that.
	Why is Occam wrong?
	Well, because he says that entities are not to be multiplied, meaning that we can always explain things best by limiting ourselves to the minimum amount of factors, ideally one, one cause of every effect.
	That's not true.
	It's certainly not true in the 21st century, where there's all kinds of interactions between factors and causes.
	So that Occam was wrong in that way.
	We have to think of an interconnecting pool, just as in the brain, of interconnections of neurons, interconnections of these problems.
	And they're all related.
	They're all related.
	All eight of them that I talk about in my book.
	They're all related.
	And if you can figure a way of influencing one, you influence all the others.
	I mean, who would think there'd be a connection between global warming and the amount of artisan and cheese, for instance, high-end cheese?
	Well, there is because they don't chickens don't lay many eggs and all the various other things that come on in terms of making cheese.
	I learned that the other day.
	That was something that was a surprise to me.
	You know, it's kind of interesting we talk about connections so much.
	There was a series that was on, I think it was on PBS.
	I think the guy's name was Burke.
	I can't remember his first name.
	I'm not sure about the last name, but he had a series called Connections.
	And I thought it was fascinating because what he would do is he would take a whole series of connections to show how a particular technology had evolved.
	So he might go from the quill to the jet engine or something like that.
	And it was a fascinating, fascinating thread of things, very much like what you're talking about.
	It really is.
	And I did consult his work, actually.
	Did you?
	When I was writing this book, because he did that connections.
	He did a book called The Day the World Changed and all this.
	He also did a book called Circles, in which he would start with one particular event that had occurred in history.
	And if you go around the circle, you come back to the beginning where it started, where this particular inventor invented something.
	What led up to it?
	What was the circle leading to that?
	So, yes, we're talking about connections, and we're talking about the inability to understand things without reference to supporting and accessory factors.
	We have that going all the time, denying things that are going to be happening.
	Of course, I think the fearful thing is that the government is aiding in this denial.
	Because if you deny that there's a problem, then there's very little impetus to try to solve it.
	If there ain't no problem, don't try to solve it.
	They're throwing out their own chaos and uncertainty and anxiety that's out there all the time, always, I guess.
	So, the question is, you're talking about volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity.
	I mean, that sounds like a government policy.
	I think they've got bureaucracies that specialize in that.
	Yeah.
	Well, actually, that's true.
	Yeah, that's in your section there about new ways of thinking.
	And so, how do we incorporate that into new ways of thinking that help us to solve this riddle?
	Well, each of those factors is a factor that helps you to understand things and to have more control.
	It doesn't necessarily mean it helps you to link them together.
	That has to be done by original thinking.
	You have to be, you know, under those things, things are volatile.
	You don't have a basic situation that doesn't change.
	It changes all the time.
	So, the other thing that I want to emphasize most is the role of capitalism in all of this.
	I mean, there's all this, like the private equity, the business of people having a point of view that is going to advance them financially and then blinding them to the problems that are here.
	Like, for instance, we talked about global warming.
	Well, the rich people, very rich people, are buying multi-million dollar apartments and condominiums, which have special air filters, which will keep wildfire smoke out and will try to keep the global warming effect at bay by superpower air conditioners.
	Of course, they're building their own bunkers too.
	They're buildings that are creating all kinds of chaos and weapons of war, mass destruction.
	They're out there building super bunkers in various places as well.
	So, I think they're somewhat pessimistic about what they're doing.
	Well, it's basically the idea is that we don't care about the ordinary person.
	We're going to survive.
	We're going to see to our own survival.
	And in order to do that, we have to deny certain things that are going on.
	We'll do so.
	Now, incidentally, all of this is not conscious thinking.
	They don't necessarily say, well, I'm going to deny global warming because it'll be to my advantage financially because all my investment is in the oil and gas industry.
	They don't do it that way.
	They come up with pseudo-logic, things that seem to make sense to them.
	But if they didn't have a financial thrust in the matter, they would look upon it quite differently.
	That's right.
	We can always find a justification for what it is that we really want.
	Everybody should understand that if you're a parent this time of year at Christmastime, you can always understand that people will come up with a justification for what they want.
	And that's as true of government as it is of corporations out there.
	And it's really dangerous when the two of them connect with each other.
	I think that's one of the things, you know, you talk about connections and the importance of it and how we can try to connect these different factors, each of us individually, but I think it's the human connection that is out there that is going to be essential for all of this.
	It's going to be our collective work on all this.
	What do you think about that?
	Would you agree with that?
	Well, I'd agree with it, but there's so many things that are taking place now that are causing the schisms in splitting people into factors and belief systems and political points of view.
	And that's very dangerous because then you can't get together any kind of unity even in the face of an emergency.
	Well, I think we've always had these factors, you know, factions and things like that.
	You know, the founders of the country warned about factions and political parties.
	I think what makes it unique is that when you're interacting with people on a personal basis, you interact with them a little bit differently than if you've got that separation between you that technology is giving us now.
	Because now you're interacting with something that's abstract, it's not with another person.
	And there's also the body language that you're not picking up on.
	But it makes it easier for you to be harder on people when there's that distance there, I think.
	That's why I think the personal connection is really vital to making these connections and coming up with an understanding of what's going on.
	We talk about the hidden factors that are out there, hidden unrelated topics, other people, as you pointed out earlier, just talking to ordinary people about what it is that you see with different things.
	I think that is the genius of the collective free market out there, that there's so many observers who are looking at things and thinking about them.
	And it's kind of their collective decision that is kind of guiding things along, as opposed to having a central planner who's doing that.
	What do you think about that?
	You've got to, in your final chapter, a new way of thinking, you have what you call a sensible solution.
	What does that really involve?
	I'm sorry, I didn't hear what you said.
	What's the last part?
	You have a sensible solution.
	What do you think a sensible solution to the kind of stress and chaos and anxiety that we have, manipulation that we have?
	What is a solution to that?
	Well, I think the Wikipedia is a good example of that.
	They have people from all walks of life, all levels of education, free to contribute to whatever topic they may want to do that.
	It may be helpful.
	I mentioned earlier about the effect of global warming on the making of cheese.
	It might be somebody who makes cheese that's going to come up with some idea.
	You know, we don't know that.
	We don't know that that may not be where comes some original idea about what to do about global warming.
	And you put it on what I'd like to think, and I hope it will be developed, a kind of Wikipedia where the ordinary person can feel free to put forth their ideas about it.
	Now, you say, well, we already have that.
	We have the internet.
	No, we don't.
	The internet is a commercial situation.
	It's all done for making money and grab attention and all that.
	And there's no criticism of it.
	There's no peer review, if you will.
	Whereas in the Wikipedia, I mean, you know, people can write in and say, well, that particular contribution is bonkers and then give an example why it is, or that was a very good idea.
	And after that, you begin to get things coming together in unpredictable ways that may help us solve these eight problems.
	You know, the problem is, it seems like whenever you wind up having a form or place where things can be, and that's true of the internet, it's also true of Wikipedia, then it becomes, you have gatekeepers who are there.
	And we saw this in spades throughout the COVID stuff: that if somebody's got a different idea, rather than debate them, the impetus is to silence them by the people who are in authority.
	And so that really, I think, is the key thing.
	And I think as part of that, we see a continuing rise in disgust and deprivation of free speech.
	People are not interested in the principle of free speech.
	They don't want to have open debate.
	And I see this, regardless of where people are coming from on the political spectrum, there is a declining interest in debate and thinking.
	The debate is critical to critical thinking.
	And so the people who are in charge, the gatekeepers, whether it's Wikipedia or the Internet or any other form of information, they are weighing in on that.
	And they don't want things that they disagree with.
	And it might be because they've got an agenda or it might be because they've just got a particular prejudice about something.
	They want to make sure that the contrary views don't get out there.
	That, I think, is the real key that's there.
	And again, this is part of this atomization that we have of people, feeding that tribalism in a way that we've never seen it before using technology.
	I agree with everything you've just said, exactly.
	And I think we have to try to get beyond that.
	But we get back again to this business of people having their own personal financial point of view and position and pushing that basically on the fact that they look upon it as so maybe we're talking about a capitalism problem.
	We've got capitalism.
	That's what this country is all about.
	But I mean, it's certain parts of it now.
	We've gotten to the point where people are unable to take another point of view if it's going to be financially harmful and hurtful to them.
	Yeah.
	I think that, you know, start looking at the tech companies.
	I don't think that their capitalism would exist.
	I don't think they'd have billions of dollars if they weren't unified with the government.
	So there's a symbiosis there that the two of these entities feed off of each other.
	And I think that nexus right there is the difficult thing.
	And so I think, you know, when I think of capitalism, I don't like to refer to capitalism anymore because I think of it as a partnership, a public-private partnership, some kind of economic fascism where they are working together.
	But I like to think of a free competitive market where the government doesn't have any role except as some kind of a referee between two parties that have a conflict or something.
	But yeah, that's the thing that's really driving this.
	Many people, when they talk about AI, they said, well, here's a couple of different outcomes.
	Maybe this stuff really works the way it's supposed to work and takes everybody's jobs and we wind up with a depression.
	Or maybe it doesn't work at all, in which case the big AI stock bubble that we've got bursts and everybody loses their job because of that.
	I said, well, there's a third alternative, and that is that the government keeps propping it up with public funds because it feeds their surveillance and manipulation needs, their ability to surveil and to control us.
	And I really think that that's where this is all going to head.
	I don't really, you know, those other two things may happen and they may be true.
	But I think there is a customer out there for the AI stuff that is driving all this stuff that has been putting out these proposals for the longest time.
	And that's governments, governments around the world.
	I mean, we look at the brain project that we had a few years ago.
	That was during the Obama administration.
	But things like the brain-computer interface that Elon Musk and many other tech companies are doing out there with Neural Inc., and there's a lot of them that are doing that.
	That's being driven by the government wanting to connect into our minds, hack into our minds, really.
	And they've been funding that kind of stuff.
	So how do we break that?
	Yeah.
	On the Musk side, he's doing it for money.
	I mean, obviously to make money.
	That's right.
	So that there's an unholy alliance, if you will, between someone who can't see anything other than the dollar and another side, the government can't see anything other than increasing power and surveillance over the population.
	Yeah, that's right.
	Absolutely true.
	Well, it's a fascinating book.
	It's a fascinating take on this.
	And, of course, you've written many books on the brain.
	The memory one, very interesting.
	And you do have sections about memory in this book as well.
	And people will be able to find this on Amazon, I guess, is the best place that they can find it.
	Looking for the title of this.
	And it is something that I think we all need to think about how we're going to operate the effects that this technology is having on our brains in the 21st century.
	And that is the title of the book, The 21st Century Brain by Richard Restak.
	Thank you very much, Dr. Restak.
	Thank you.
	Appreciate you coming on.
	I enjoyed it very much.
	Thank you.
	Yeah, very interesting conversation.
	Thank you.
	Have a good day.
	Folks, we're going to take a quick break and we will be right back.
	That brings us to something that Lance found that I thought was very interesting.
	Uh, And that is the brain interface transference here that is a company that is called, hang on a second, I'll get it right here.
	Brain IT.
	Brain IT is their thing.
	And they're not the only company that's doing this.
	There's a lot of different companies that are doing this.
	And let's show people what this really looks like.
	Scroll down and show, zoom in on those pictures.
	Now, there's pairs of pictures, and you'll see an image that the person is looking at.
	It says scene image.
	Right next to it is the reconstructed image.
	And look at that.
	There's a giraffe.
	And then right next to it is a giraffe.
	But the giraffe is standing in exactly the same position and same way and looked at from the same angle, looking kind of back over its shoulder.
	To be clear, the scene image is what the human is looking at.
	And then there is sensors connected to the brain that's creating the reconstructed image.
	The computer hasn't seen this scene image.
	Only the human sees this.
	And this is entirely constructed from a brain scan.
	That's right.
	So they can sense what you are looking at and completely reconstructed.
	And look at how identical these images are.
	Now, you've got a stop sign, and it got stop sign as well as the word stop.
	The only thing that's missing there is the four-way thing underneath it.
	It didn't quite reconstruct that exactly.
	And then when you look at the pieces of pizza, it is a little bit more orderly in the way that it put the pizza together that's there.
	But even when it gets some of the details wrong, it still has the basic orientation there.
	Scroll it up a little bit, the snowboarder that is there.
	Take a look at the snowboarder.
	So here the basic orientation is right, even though the snowboarder has one leg up, the arms are still extended and still in basically the same orientation.
	It's going down the snow with a shadow that's being cast.
	But it is truly amazing.
	Yeah, show the baseball one.
	That's another good one that's there.
	So the baseball thing, you've got three different people.
	And they're all basically in the same orientation.
	The one again on the left is the actual picture that the human is looking at.
	The one on the right is the reconstruction by scanning his, by monitoring his brain, and then the computer is reconstructing that one on the right.
	And so you've got a catcher who is squatting and has got one arm extended out, and that is captured again.
	And then the umpire behind him, who is in the same crouching position, even though the colors change a little bit.
	It still has that there.
	And then moving up to the room, the motel room, look at that.
	It even has the same color bed spread there.
	And the one above it, we have the motorcycle still in exactly the same angle.
	And it figured out there's a person on a racing motorcycle, even though it got the colors slightly different on that.
	It truly is amazing.
	Interesting to me because it's little details that it gets wrong that if you were to remember this image, you would probably get a lot of these same details wrong, like exactly the color scheme of their clothes.
	But it still gets the general color scheme across all three of them.
	Yeah, the three people sitting there for the skiing thing.
	And again, the jet, the military jet, it gets a little bit of the details on the bottom that are different, but it basically has it all there.
	So it is pretty much getting the gist of it, just as Lance said.
	You would remember that when you come back.
	Now, what is interesting about this, I think, is the fact that it's not just one company that's doing this.
	There are at least 11, we'll say a dozen companies that are out there.
	I bet you, we didn't look this up, but I bet you every single one of them has got grants from DARPA or some federal agency, most likely DARPA, in order to do this kind of stuff.
	What is the use case for something like this?
	And how did they put it together?
	Well, this particular company is bragging about how superior their method is.
	They use F MRI, FMRI, the MRI scanner that you have, they put you in the machine and scan your brain and things like that.
	I had several of those done.
	This is functional MRI.
	And what it does, instead of looking at the structure of the brain and seeing, are there physical alterations to the brain after a stroke or something like that?
	It looks at changes in the brain that are happening dynamically over time.
	And so that's what the functional MRI is about.
	Rather than looking at the physiology or the structure of the brain, it's actually looking at the dynamic brain activity.
	And so to train these models, one of the things that this company is bragging about is that they spend about an hour training it, and their competitors might spend 40 hours training it.
	And they get far superior results.
	It truly is amazing when you look at how long they spend training it and how much better their recognition is, you know, being able to sense what you are seeing and thinking about and basically reading your mind.
	And so it is the brain interaction transformer.
	They call themselves BIT.
	Now what they do, what is the training?
	Well, it turns out that everybody has these localized patch-level image features.
	And so they call them the they call them clusters, okay?
	And so they're looking at brain voxel clusters.
	And they say all humans have this, but these clusters will be located in different places on different subjects.
	Same thing, but it'll be slightly moved around.
	You know, when you have a stroke, they call it brain plasticity.
	And so when you have a stroke, part of your brain dies.
	And if you get the functionality back, it's because another part of your brain has taken up that activity.
	They said, so some very, very young children, maybe in infancy, might have a stroke that would affect, for example, their speech.
	And what they found is that even though that might reside on one side of their brain versus the other side of the brain, those young children, when they have the stroke that affects the side of the brain where normally speech would be, they found that as they learn to speak, the other side of their brain picks it up.
	And so that's what's called brain plasticity.
	In other words, it can adapt and train that other side of the brain to take over those functions.
	So that's what they're basically looking at here with these voxel clusters.
	They know that certain things are going to be fired.
	They just don't know exactly where that's going to be in a person's brain.
	So they spend an hour mapping those things out.
	And then they get very, very accurate results.
	And what they do is they split it into two different aspects.
	One of them is the semantics.
	And I think what that does is kind of give them a context.
	So when you look at how, oh, you've got two people standing and they're kind of standing in this particular orientation, picks up that.
	And then the other one is more about the details that are there.
	And then they run these two different paths together.
	So first they have programs that are looking at the voxel clusters, creating a kind of semantic context.
	The other one is creating a context for the features.
	And then they take the output of those two things and put them into something else that combines and sums those things together to give them that kind of image.
	It's pretty interesting in terms of technology that is there.
	But I think it is absolutely abhorrent that they're doing this.
	I can't think of any reason for them to do something like this.
	Now they'll come up with some kind of a fake justification, just like they're talking about with the creating babies with a hatchery.
	Oh, well, we'll do it to save people from some kind of genetic disease.
	And they're leaning into that excuse, leaning into that narrative by calling their company preventive, right?
	But these are the kinds of things, you know, when we look at this, actually, you know, Lance, pull up the one that says it's titled Brain Interaction Transformer.
	And when you look at that chart, you'll see that in their chart, when they're talking about the cross-transformer module, they've got that listed there twice.
	And guess what?
	They misspelled Transformer.
	I'm being a little bit of a grammar Nazi here, but I got to just say that, you know, we're talking about things like this.
	The little details matter.
	And I wonder what happens when you switch some of the stuff and you're reconstructing things and it's a critical mission.
	I don't know.
	To be honest, this sounds a lot more like a Decepticon ploy than the Transformers to me, but what do I know?
	Yeah, that sounds pretty crazy to me.
	Look at one last one here, and that is comparing their images to these other models that are out there.
	Their company is called BrainIT, and they compare it to some other companies, Mind Turner, MindI2, Neuro VLA.
	And so look at this.
	The best mind reader on the market right now.
	yeah that's absolutely right so uh you know when you're trusting one i think is the uh last one the neuro vla because it always gets the object correct but it gets it in a very different context Yeah, that's right.
	Yeah, so that first row there, you're seeing a bowl of some white stuff.
	Maybe it's oatmeal or something, and you're seeing a banana right next to it.
	And then when you look at the neuro VLA, they've got a bowl and then they've got a banana, but it's not at all in the same orientation.
	And Brain IT was able to do that.
	And you see that repeated over and over again.
	They kind of get some of it, but they don't get all of it.
	And, you know, it's kind of interesting.
	What it reminded me of was this.
	Mr. Vinman, Ghostbusters.
	Good guess, but wrong.
	Heard that from Bill Murray and the mind reading thing.
	Opened up Ghostbusters.
	I wonder if they shock these people who created these models and they get it wrong.
	Tell me what you think it is.
	Is it a star?
	It is a star.
	It's great.
	And yet you can see from behind him that it wasn't.
	Think hard.
	Circle.
	Close.
	Definitely wrong.
	Okay.
	All right.
	Ready?
	What is it?
	Figure eight.
	Incredible.
	That's five for five.
	You can't see these, can you?
	No, no.
	You're not cheap.
	Of course, that's not what it was.
	No, I swear they're just coming to me.
	Okay.
	Nervous?
	Yes.
	I don't like this.
	You only have 75 more to go.
	Okay?
	What's this one?
	Just a couple wavy lines.
	Sorry.
	Get it right?
	I get a little tired of this.
	You volunteered, didn't you?
	We're paying you, aren't we?
	Yeah, but I didn't know you were going to be giving me electric shocks.
	What are you trying to prove here anyway?
	I'm studying the effect of negative reinforcement on ESP ability.
	The effect?
	I'll tell you what the effect is.
	It's pissing me off.
	Well, then maybe my theory is correct.
	Okay, kick the five bucks I've had.
	I will, mister.
	Keep the five bucks.
	I wonder why they pay these people to go through an hour of MRI.
	It's the kind of resentment that your ability is going to provoke in some people.
	Yeah, so yeah, that's kind of interesting.
	But now they're doing it for real.
	Okay, they're going to use AI to read people's minds.
	And again, when they list out a table and they compare themselves percentage-wise to these other people, you see that there are 11 of these companies that are out there doing this stuff.
	And who is paying them?
	I bet it is some evil organization like it's,
	it all just about the winning?
	When we look at this, is winning everything and the only thing?
	No, I don't think that's the case.
	We really need to have meaningful moral reform.
	You know, there's an excellent article, and I've talked about William Wilberforce in the past, but there's an excellent article talking about what he wrote in 1807 when he stopped the slave trade.
	And we're not going to go through all the details of it, but just to make you aware of it.
	It was called A Letter on the Abolition of the Slave Trade by William Wilberforce.
	It was published less than a month before the British Parliament voted overwhelmingly to abolish the slave trade.
	And it encapsulates two decades of relentless effort by Wilberforce.
	One historian aptly described that parliamentary vote as, quote, one of the turning events in the history of the world.
	And it was.
	Slavery has always existed at every time and in every culture.
	But it was William Wilberforce who single-handedly started to turn this tide.
	And he did it because of his Christian principles.
	And that's the point of this article.
	To talk about how effective and how necessary it is for Christians to hold to those principles.
	It's not just about winning.
	It's not about that at all.
	The whole reason he did this fight, and understand, take the biggest things that are out there.
	This is like one guy taking on all of the technocracy, or one guy taking on all of the oil industry, or all the military-industrial complex, or all the pharmaceuticals, or roll those all together.
	Big pharma, big food, the military-industrial complex, roll those all together.
	That was slavery at the time in his country.
	He took all that on and he won.
	And he won because he stood on principle.
	Wilberforce's work is not merely historical.
	It provides a timeless model for how Christians can and should engage in public life.
	It calls us to integrate faith, reason, and courage into our engagement with public policy.
	Wilberforce's approach to public policy was unapologetically grounded in Christian morality.
	By the way, this article is from Christian Post.
	He spoke boldly as a Christian in parliament, addressing his nation's accountability to God.
	Even in a society that might appear more receptive to Christian values than our own, such declarations were not always welcome.
	Yeah, not even in Britain at that time, which is far more accepting of Christian values than America is now.
	Wilberforce begins and ends with a solemn warning.
	He said the slave trade was an abominable evil that placed the British Empire under the judgment of God.
	His moral clarity cut through the political expediency, challenging his contemporaries to see the slave trade not as an economic necessity, but as a profound moral failing.
	Same thing is true of abortion today, isn't it?
	And so many other issues.
	We always have culture is downstream from religion and politics is downstream from culture.
	Wilberforce paired his moral convictions with meticulous research and evidence.
	He often spent 14 hours a day studying and gathering facts about the slave trade, a pace that he eventually moderated for the sake of his health.
	The rigorous preparation, though, allowed him to systematically counter every objection raised by his opponents.
	Folks, if you don't read, you can't lead.
	You've got to lead with the facts.
	Especially if you're going to do things in the name of truth, in the name of morality, and do things in the name of God.
	You've got to lead with the truth.
	And you've got to know what that is.
	In his letter on the abolition of the slave trade, Wilberforce methodically dismantled pro-slavery arguments, presenting a case so thorough, so compelling that it could not be ignored.
	His work underscores the importance of combining moral passion with intellectual precision and a lot of hard work.
	He said, it's not enough to simply declare what is right.
	We have to also engage in reasoned, evidence-based advocacy.
	Whether the issue is religious freedom, the sanctity of life, or justice for the marginalized, we must be prepared to make our case with clarity and convictions for us today.
	He faced fierce opposition from powerful interests tied to the slave trade and to colonial economies.
	And at one point, he was challenged to a duel by a slave ship captain.
	And he received multiple death threats yet he pressed on with unwavering determination.
	Wilberforce confronts his opponents head-on in his book, arguing that the abolition of the slave trade would ultimately benefit the economy.
	He declared that even if economic losses occurred, the moral imperative to end, quote, the most enormous crime of slavery outweighed everything else.
	You know, we have to understand, and the founders of this country understood, that prosperity, like liberty, are a blessing from God.
	And that should be our first concern.
	Our first concern should be to seek God's blessing.
	And that means that we follow the principles that he laid out.
	As I say here in the Christian Post for Christians today, engaging in public life often means standing against cultural tides, enduring criticism, and hostility.
	Wilberforce's example challenges us to speak the truth in love regardless of the cost.
	Transformational change is possible when Christians engage the public square with conviction and perseverance.
	That is the legacy that was taught to us by William Wilberforce.
	That's right, boys and girls.
	There's a post-election sale on silver and gold.
	Drunk euphoria has caused a dip in silver and gold.
	It's time to buy some medals with fiat dollars before they come to their sense.
	Go to davidknight.gov to get in touch with the wise wolf himself, Tony Arderburn.
	He knows where to look to find silver and gold.
	Hi, my name is Brian Hooker and I'm the Chief Scientific Officer for Children's Health Defense.
	And I want to talk to you about an important initiative of CHD called the COVID Index.
	This is the information that the Powers at Be did not want you to see.
	This web repository refutes the narrative, the official narrative, regarding COVID-19.
	It has a very, very comprehensive, easy-to-use search engine.
	So you can search readily and also get direct excerpts from every entry in the COVID index.
	There's so much information out there that needs to be curated.
	And this is a place where it has been done and is being done continuously.
	So I highly recommend that you check out this resource at www.covidindex.science.
	All right, welcome back.
	And that was a little introductory video that you'll find at that site, COVIDIndex.science.
	I didn't even know they had a .science.
	I guess they did that in honor of Fauci.
	It'd be interesting to get the domain name.
	I am.science.
	Joining us now is Dr. Brian Hooker.
	He's a chief scientific officer at Children's Health Defense, formerly the department chair and professor emeritus of biology at Simpson University.
	And I have been following his very valuable research and the very valuable things that Children's Health Defense had through this massive pandemic MacGuffin that we always talk about.
	And it's good that, you know, we can look at this stuff and we can understand the motivations of these people and we can sanity check it.
	But it's important to have the scientific information that's there as well.
	And that's what Dr. Hooker provides.
	You know, it was actually Children's Health Defense, and I think ICON that when they sued the CDC, the CDC is part of the vaccine holding them not responsible for any damage that they did to the kids.
	I forget the exact name of it, the 1986 Act.
	And you probably know what that is, Dr. Hooker.
	What's the name of that official act?
	It's called the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, and it set up the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.
	And the program was up and running at about 1989.
	And they were supposed to be tracking as part of that agreement.
	They were supposed to track the adverse events and to make recommendations and so forth.
	And so I remember RFK Jr. and Del Bigtree at ICON asked them, you know, we'd like to see your records and see what recommendations you have made and so forth and so on.
	They stalled, installed, installed, and wouldn't comply with it.
	Finally, they had a judge that forced them to give the information.
	You could see that for 30 plus years, they had not been concerned about any of this stuff.
	They'd kept no records at all.
	And so it's very important when we come into this, if we understand what the priorities of these people are, that it's not your health, that it's the profits of the corporations and the revolving door that is there, that's an important thing to start with.
	But what Dr. Hooker has provided is beyond that, and it gives us the tools that we need in order to try to help educate people.
	And they've got a new resource now, COVIDIndex.science.
	So with that long introduction, thank you so much.
	Welcome.
	And I'm excited that Children's Health Defense is hosting COVIDIndex.science.
	It is such an amazing repository of information of all things around the COVID era and now what's going on the post-COVID era.
	You know, the mess that was created by the whole pandemic needs to be cleaned up.
	And that's, you know, the fallout.
	We're continuing to see publications come out and publications that we feel are bad or fraudulent that are not good science.
	We want to make sure that those are critiqued in the COVID index.
	And then also the good science that's coming out so people will know what's going on with things like remdesivir, hospital protocols, the vaccine.
	The therapies that work that have been disparaged, like ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, and vitamin d3 and zinc, um and you know.
	So we've got sort of a historical basis and we've built this edifice of information and it's and it's a living um database.
	We're we're always updating the covet index so when things come out then we can feature the new information and some of the information pouring out, like um ties to things like autism as well as neurodevelopmental disabilities.
	Uh, for individuals that got the shot in pregnancy is, and and also, you know, one of the things that practitioners are talking about are turbo cancers.
	We're seeing so many turbo cancers that we believe that the vaccine played a role in either causing that cancer or hastening the growth of that cancer.
	Yes, I remember, and I remember uh, pathologist dr Ryan Cole talking in the spring of 2021, as it's really starting to roll out in a large way.
	He said, i'm looking at patients and i'm seeing that it's damaging their killer t cells, and he goes, and that's when I first heard the term turbo cancer.
	I think he was talking about that.
	He said, it's really going to cause that to explode, because that's your body's first defense against cancer cells, the killer t cells.
	And so I guess the question first question I would have for you what about people who got the shots many of the listeners have?
	Uh, hopefully they haven't gotten it, but perhaps they have um, a family or friends who have.
	What types of things is there?
	Are there going to be resources there at covidindex.science that would help people who have been exposed to this pathogen?
	Yes uh, there are resources on uh recovery from Covid vaccine injury.
	That is a part of the database.
	And I would also encourage those individuals that are suffering and they really don't know where to go because so many practitioners either don't acknowledge that it happens or they'll throw up their hands and say I have no idea what to do.
	So I would encourage those individuals to email us at info at Children's Healthdefense.org and ask that question directly.
	Um, you know I can't really recommend practitioners, you know, in an interview or in that particular setting, but at least we can let people know what practitioners are in the area or what practitioners are specially are specializing in those types of Of cancers or in those types of difficulties.
	Like, you know, long COVID vaccine injury is extremely prevalent.
	A lot of people are having symptoms that are similar to fibromyalgia that either got COVID or got the COVID shot.
	And we're finding circulating spike protein in these individuals that got the COVID shot for upwards to two years after they got their last vaccine.
	So things can be done and things need to be done.
	Yes, I had an interview years ago with an injured orthopedic surgeon who could no longer work because his hands were shaking.
	And he kept going to fellow physicians.
	And, you know, as soon as he would say he thought it was a vaccine injury and this is what they would, they would just basically, I can't help you.
	You know, they would run away.
	It just tells us so much about the state of medicine right now, doesn't it?
	Even to the extent that he finally went to somebody and the guy said, all right, I've got some things here that I think will help you, but we're not going to talk about what caused it.
	I mean, that kind of fear is like a totalitarian Stalin-esque state.
	I mean, this is the kind of stuff that Solzhenitsyn talked about in the Soviet Union.
	It is.
	And, you know, we were so fortunate.
	California had a bill to actually codify that so physicians and providers could not deviate from the standard of care.
	They could not talk about things that were outside of like Rem Deservir or Paxlovid or Mono Pulvinir that were the sort of, you know, patented technologies that were going to give the most money, you know, to government scientists.
	And so they could not deviate from that line.
	They could never talk about ivermectin.
	That bill passed, but fortunately it was overturned by a court decision.
	And the bill, the California legislature, withdrew it.
	But many practitioners do not know that, that they have the freedom to be able to deviate from the standard of care.
	Many are afraid, you know, because of individuals that have been persecuted, that have lost their certifications, things like that.
	But, you know, quite honestly, I know the practitioners that have gone through the persecution, that have lost their certifications, they fight back, they win.
	And so many of them are still in practice today.
	And I'm glad for people like Ryan Cole, for Peter McCullough, for Pierre Corey, that have really fought the system and are still seeing patients, treating patients, and doing a lot of good.
	That's great.
	Yeah.
	It is horrific to look at how corrupt the system is.
	And of course, they got a lot of different ways that they can come after you.
	I'm pretty sure it was a Children's Health Defense article where they were talking about how the insurance companies will come after the pediatricians who don't follow the vaccine schedule and get a certain percentage of their children vaccinated on schedule.
	They will basically cut across the board what they will pay these pediatricians and basically put them out of practice.
	Even if you don't get some review board to pull their license, they can pull that economic trick on you.
	I think that was from Children's Health Defense.
	They have done that and they threatened that all the time.
	We were able to get the incentive program for one of the largest HMOs in the United States, and it was Anthem Blue Cross.
	And what we found was that pediatricians stood to make over a half a million dollars a year if 63% or more of their pediatric practice was fully vaccinated.
	They could get $600 per patient if they had 1,000 patients that were fully vaccinated.
	That was $600,000.
	And that was a yearly incentive.
	So, you know, those individuals that have been fired from pediatric practices because they haven't been following the vaccine schedule.
	That's why it has nothing to do with health.
	It has everything to do with a pediatrician on the take.
	Yeah, that's right.
	And of course, we look at the whole COVID thing.
	I was absolutely amazed.
	I remember it was in August of 2020.
	The American Hospital Association was saying, wait a minute, you told us you're going to give us a 20% bonus and now you're telling us that we've got to give you our PCR tests.
	You told us at the beginning that you didn't have enough of them and that they didn't work anyway.
	Right.
	This is amazing.
	I've been shouting about that now for five years.
	And people just don't realize how they use financial strings to get their way with people and how they were financially incentivizing people.
	So you just point at them and say they got COVID, $9,000.
	You put them in a ventilator.
	We're going to give you $39,000.
	We'll give you a 20% bonus on everything that you do if you say this person has COVID.
	I mean, the whole thing was bought and paid for, wasn't it?
	It really was.
	And that, you know, there was sort of an economic dearth right during the shutdown because they were shutting down hospitals and taking elective surgeries and things like that and telling them to stay home.
	So then they waived these incentive programs come, you know, July, August of 2020 to the providers, to the hospitals, and really, you know, forced them into a situation where many of them just had to go along.
	You know, let's diagnose COVID.
	Let's diagnose, you know, we're not going to give effective therapies.
	We really want to put people on ventilators because they got more money for ventilated patients that were in ICU.
	And so that forced many, many more patients into that whole system where they got worse and worse and worse.
	And I think a lot of them, David, died of bacterial pneumonia, but they, you know, they were never tested for the presence of bacteria and they were allowed to die.
	It was just a crying shame.
	And people should go to jail over this.
	Yes.
	Yes.
	Putting people on the ventilator and that type of thing.
	We have Grace Sherris' case, and they're reopening that again.
	And that was another one of these cases, just basically hospital murder, put a do not resuscitate and put on a ventilator.
	But I wanted to ask you a couple of things because there's been some disappointment on my part and as well as a lot of my listeners with what's going on with Maha.
	I'm disappointed that the mRNA jab is still there.
	I mean, we've had the process, and I understand there's a lot of inertia here.
	I understand there's a real political fight there.
	And I kind of watched this as it's been developing in Florida with Joseph Latipo there.
	First they came back and they said, well, we don't recommend it, you know, but if you get it, you can go ahead and get it.
	But they're not going to ban it.
	And they're gradually moving into that, you know, first saying we strongly, we don't recommend it.
	We're not going to force anymore.
	But now we strongly do not recommend it.
	But they won't actually come in with a ban on this kind of stuff.
	And it's so frustrating because we have seen in the past when a handful of people died over a vaccine or over a medicine, they would pull it.
	And that is not happening now.
	They will pull it if you've got a couple of children who die because of a faulty baby crib.
	They pull all of them off the market.
	But they don't do that with this.
	And so the question is, you know, what is happening?
	Why don't we see a ban of the mRNA?
	And of course, what Latipo has moved to is to say that now pointing out the fact there's a lot of DNA contamination in the vaccines and say this is something that should cause you to pull this off the market, but it's not.
	And so at what point do you think this is going to happen or is it going to happen?
	I want it to happen desperately.
	You know, we have things that are not on the open market that are not sold or distributed ever because they're poisons.
	We call them poisons.
	And so when you look at the mRNA shot, it is pure poison.
	It is basically, you know, and people unfortunately are up in arms that they want their COVID boosters, they want their COVID boosters.
	I know people personally that are on their seventh or eighth booster and they are addicted to these things and you'll wonder like, well, why are you still around?
	Because they are so, so toxic.
	And we've seen so many people affected.
	You know, I believe that in the United States easily, if the calculations were done, we'd see over a million people who have died because of the COVID shot.
	But the HHS has been dragging its heels.
	And I think that part of it is, you know, the more the administration end of it and not the HHS end of it.
	Because I know, you know, I know Secretary Kennedy.
	I worked with Secretary Kennedy for, you know, 12 years before he became Secretary Kennedy.
	And it is his heart and his plan to be able to get rid of that technology because it never should have been rolled out.
	People knew historically that that type of technology was bad news.
	And it was a grand medical experiment.
	You know, basically a big clinical trial that was head up by Tony Fauci, and it should have never happened.
	That man belongs in jail.
	You know, we're pushing as hard as we can push.
	And honestly, there are people on the inside of HHS that are rooting for us and saying, no, push harder, push harder, because we have this behemoth of an organization that doesn't want to change.
	We have deep state people in HHS that don't want to change.
	So we need more pressure.
	And of course, when we look at this, I think we really dodged the bullet there with Susan Monarez being taken out of the CDC.
	And she was somebody who was at BARDA and ARPA-H and very focused on mRNA plus AI.
	And we know that Trump was pushing that on like his first day in office with Stargate.
	He had Larry Ellison there saying, yeah, we're going to do an AI assessment of you and we'll custom make an mRNA thing there.
	So I was very concerned as to what was going to happen there.
	And of course, that's created a lot of pushback against RFK.
	And they said, well, you just fired her because of a personal disagreement or something, you know, insubordination because you wanted some of these other people fired.
	And she said, no, no, no, I'm not going to fire them.
	And so he fired her.
	What do you know about that?
	Do you think that he gets that, that he's pushing back against the mRNA that's basically being put out there for everything?
	I mean, we had at USDA with this administration, with the Trump administration, we had Brooke Rollins, who with all this bird flu insanity and the mass culling of chickens before that was happening with Biden, her big solution was, well, we'll give the mRNA bird flu shot to all the chickens, and then that'll be fine.
	And also to the cattle and to the pigs as well, all of our food supply.
	And so she has the authority to approve that for agricultural issues.
	But on the other side, the mRNA things that are there, especially when you combine it with artificial intelligence, very concerning.
	What do you know about what's going on with Monterey's and the rest of the stuff?
	When you talk about deep state, I mean, that's what I think of as BARDA and ARPA-H and these insidious programs that are out there.
	And it seems like there's a lot of people in the Trump administration.
	Trump is working with Larry Ellison.
	And of course, Brooke Rollins is in on all that as well.
	What's your take on that?
	Well, not, you know, not all that glitters is gold, even in HHS.
	And so, you know, by Susan Monarez being fired and then other, you know, CDC officials taking their toys and going home.
	I mean, they did us a huge favor.
	Yeah.
	You know, they needed to be fired anyway.
	So it was like, okay, you know, don't let the door hit your butt on the way out.
	So we were, you know, we were very, very fortunate to that.
	There has to be more of a mass exodus of these individuals because mRNA technology is sort of this new playtoy.
	Yeah.
	And scientists think, oh, well, it's plug and play.
	We can just, you know, program AI to tell us what the next pathogen is.
	And they have this buzzword that they're hiding behind called universal vaccination.
	And so when you look at the buzzword universal vaccination, even Jay Bhattacharya put it out in a memo talking about a new vaccine platform.
	It was mRNA written all over it.
	That needs to go.
	You know, I've already emailed him directly and said, you know what?
	Universal vaccination is code word for gain of function.
	And so that means that you're weaponizing and you're basically giving permission for scientists in the NIH to weaponize H5N1, to weaponize, you know, SARS-CoV-2 or whatever monkeypox.
	And so they can have the pathogen du jour.
	And if that leaks out, then that's the whole pandemic that, you know, Fauci is sitting on the edge of a seat waiting for so we can, you know, somehow swoop in and save the day again.
	But these, these are bad.
	These are horrible technologies.
	Nobody has talked about innate immune suppression that happens when you get mRNA shots.
	Nobody's talked about the effect of the lipid nanoparticle on the immune system.
	And I think you excuse me.
	I think you mentioned that at the very beginning.
	I remember in the fall of 2020 when they were talking about it, there was an article, and I think it was you that was involved in it that questioned the idea of this pegylation, the PEG encapsulation.
	And he says, this is going to create anaphylactic shock.
	And I've told this to people many times.
	I said, they told you to, you contacted the FDA and it said, no, we don't care about it.
	Contact Pfizer.
	Of course, Pfizer doesn't care if the FDA doesn't care.
	That was you, I think, at Children's Health Defense, was it?
	It was Children's Health Defense.
	And I was working with a distinguished colleague, Lynn Redwood, on that.
	And it turns out that because of exposure to PEG, 75% of the population in the United States carries PEG antibodies.
	And so that meant, you know, that, and many people did go into anaphylaxis and, you know, sudden anaphylactic shock after getting the jab.
	And so, you know, it was predictable.
	It was highly predictable.
	Why would you coat, you know, this lipid nanoparticle with a known allergen?
	You know, it's a recipe for disaster, but it's convenient.
	People say, oh, well, you know, you have immune reactions all the time.
	They frankly didn't really care.
	They didn't want to do the experimentation.
	They just wanted to roll out a vaccine.
	And they were paid handsomely to the tune of about $250 billion over the course of the pandemic in sales of those shots.
	Yeah, amazing how many billionaires they coined with that.
	But it just shows the utter disregard for safety and health that exists in these institutions and these corporations.
	I've got a question here from Flower Sower.
	Thank you for the tip, Flower Sower.
	Please ask Dr. Hooker when Children's Health Defense is going to pursue and promote removing the protection the pharmaceutical industry hides behind with the 1986 Act.
	Why isn't this a priority for CHD?
	She asks.
	Well, I am so grateful for that question because we are working on it.
	We're working with key legislators that we can't name right now on being able to abolish the 1986 Act.
	We're also working with HHS, who is trying to re-envision the act.
	I mean, frankly, my own opinion is that it just needs to go.
	It needs to go away.
	And then we need guardrails for protection of families of vaccine-injured kids.
	We need at least a one-time look back for those that were denied justice, especially around the omnibus autism proceedings.
	You know, my family, and this is why I fight this.
	My family was in vaccine court for 16 years.
	We filed our claim in May of 2002, and we did not get a decision, and we were not allowed to even go to oral arguments because of sort of a vendetta, I believe, that our special master had against our expert witnesses, you know, regarding the toxicity of mercury.
	You know, my son got a full wallet of mercury from his vaccines that never should have been in there.
	And arguably, mercury does cause neurodevelopmental disorders.
	And so we were never given our day in court.
	There are thousands upon thousands of families just like that, and they all need justice.
	They all need their day in court.
	They were promised that by the Seventh Amendment and the 14th Amendment, and they were never given it.
	And that's one of the things.
	That was the key aha moment for me when I found out about the 1986 Act.
	Very important.
	That's why, you know, I've talked many times about Dr. Andrew Wakefield's movie, 1986, The Act, I think is the name of it.
	And it's a dramatization of how it affects a family.
	When you do something like that, basically that shows what this is truly all about.
	And that should be the moment.
	I think we need to spread the news far and wide if we can't stop this, if people at least understand that they have absolutely no liability.
	And that, as we said before, if somebody you've got a crib and you might have one or two freak accidents with that crib, they recall all of them and massive fines for the manufacturers.
	But nothing for this, no matter how many people they kill.
	It's absolutely amazing the damage that they're allowed to get away with it.
	And it's that type of stuff that, you know, I look at and it's like, okay, well, I know what's going on here.
	That's how I make my decisions.
	But it's always good to have a scientist who's going to go through and tell people what the mechanisms are to get them to understand that.
	You know, there was just a recent article on Reason.
	I haven't covered it on the show yet, but I was absolutely stunned to see this article from Reason saying, well, we were told we're all going to die.
	And look, I'm still alive.
	I got the vaccine.
	I know a lot of people got the vaccine and they're still alive.
	And again, this is another one of the issues why when you have the COVID index.science, it's good to have the truth that is out there.
	We had a lot of people who made predictions that everybody that got this vaccine is going to be dead within a year or so.
	A guy that I used to work for said that.
	And that is making the, that is essentially an alibi for these people because they can point to that exaggeration and say that didn't work.
	And of course, when Reason looks at this, they should know, first of all, that the statistics are being suppressed.
	They're being lied to about it.
	They understand that.
	They see that all the time, whether you're talking about unemployment figures or talking about inflation figures, they know the government lies with statistics.
	They should expect that the government is going to lie with statistics about this when they rush something to market.
	But the other part of it is the individual variation that we see from person to person.
	But there's a third thing I wanted to ask you about.
	And that is there was research that was done by Naomi Wolf, and they went through and looked at the different batches.
	I remember at the very beginning of this, again, back in August, September, the CDC was putting out information about a form that they wanted the health providers to collect information on about the vaccine.
	And so they wanted all your personal information, your address, and so forth and so on.
	And the only other thing they kept about the vaccine was the lot number.
	And I talked about that at the time because I said it's kind of ominous that they get all this personal information and there's a box there that says refused.
	I said, what are they going to do with that?
	And so I said, you know, be aware of that that's there, that they're going to keep a record of you if you refuse.
	But they kept the lot information.
	And she went back in her research and they found a tremendous variation.
	I think it was like 30-fold from the least to the most active ingredients that were in there.
	Is that something you're aware of?
	Is that something that is still going on?
	It is still going on.
	And lot-to-lot variability with this type of technology is, you know, very, very, you know, the margins for error are really, really large.
	And that's not something you want to see in anything that you would put in your body.
	We saw that, you know, the first batches that were rolled out had so many adverse events that, you know, maybe 80,000, 60,000 would be distributed.
	And then they would quietly pull them off the market and not tell anybody that that was a hot lot.
	And you can actually go, you know, to a tracking site that tracks the adverse events on VARES and just Google how bad is my batch.
	And that will tell you, you know, what adverse events have been reported for that particular batch of vaccines.
	That's the lot information that you need.
	And we know that historically, lots and lots of vaccines, not just the COVID shot, have been subject to this level of poor biotechnology processing.
	You look at the Merck MMR vaccine, MMR2, that was introduced, I believe, in the United States in about 1978.
	Nobody knows the exact concentration of virus in that vaccine.
	Nobody has ever really done the quality control.
	And so the lot-to-lot variability is very, very high.
	And the only thing that we do know because of whistleblowers that have come out of Merck is that the maximum concentration of virus in that vaccine is much, much higher than what the FDA ever approved.
	And so it's another grand medical experiment.
	And we know when that happened, it happened in 1999.
	They started doing a process called overfilling the batches and boosting the virus concentrations.
	That's when anaphylactic shock really started in earnest and death really started in earnest for the MMR vaccines after they boosted those virus concentrations.
	You can see it clear as the nose on your face if you do a VARES analysis.
	Wow.
	And that's the other thing, too.
	You know, besides the fact they don't have any liability, so they don't have to care.
	It's just a lackadaisical, haphazard attitude of this.
	Of all things, medicines and pharmaceuticals that are very concentrated, they are carefully controlled in terms of the amounts of whatever that it is that you're getting.
	And that I always looked at that and I kind of thought, Dr. Hooker, that maybe what they were doing was that was maybe part of the experiment, you know, experimenting on everybody.
	Because when you're trying to roll out something, you're trying to find the sweet spot between something that is going to be toxic because it's too much and something that's going to be ineffective because it's too little.
	I said, it looks to me like a massive experiment to play around with people.
	But it's just absolute disregard for any standards of safety or medicine that's there.
	Really, it is abysmal.
	And when you look at the level of contamination in biologics, you know, FDA is separated into two divisions, two main divisions or centers.
	There's the centers for drugs evaluation and research, and then the center of biologics evaluation and research.
	It's called SIBER.
	But historically, those biotech drugs come from a soup that has been fermented with a particular genetically modified organism.
	A lot of times it's E. coli that is involved in that.
	So you get carryover of E. coli proteins, you get carryover of yeast proteins, you get carryover of foreign DNA.
	And in the case of the mRNA jabs, then you have carryover of virus particles like SV40.
	And SV40, we know, causes cancer.
	It is known to be carcinogenic.
	Yeah.
	Just awful.
	I've got a couple of questions here, several questions, as a matter of fact, from the audience.
	Jerry Alitalo says, please ask Dr. Hooker how he feels about ENF A-K-Y-I-L-D-I-Z public admission that COVID mRNA injections are nanoscale machines programmed for human injection.
	I don't know who that individual is.
	Are you familiar with his work and that statement?
	No, I'm not familiar with the work, but you know, I will say I have not observed this directly.
	I obtained some of the mRNA technology shots myself, examined them under the microscope, you know, just used face contrast microscopy to see what I could find, and then tried to incubate it over a period of time at physiological temperature.
	And the batch that I saw did not have that in it.
	I'm not saying that it doesn't because again, you know, David, nothing surprises me anymore when I see the things that the government has gotten away with and knowingly gotten away with, you know, with horrible poisons that should have never been introduced, like remdesivir.
	You know, remdesivir killed the organs that caused the lungs to fill up with fluid.
	And then the patients had to be intubated to force the fluid out of the lungs because the tissue in the lungs was dying.
	So so many different things have been voiced.
	Is that technology readily available and off the shelf?
	Oh, most definitely.
	Most definitely they could do that.
	Did they do it?
	That's something I'm still investigating, and I honestly do not know.
	Let me ask you this.
	This is something else I covered.
	I remember when it happened.
	In Japan, they had two different batches of over a million each.
	It's like one was a million, the other was like 1.2 million of these Pfizer or Moderna mRNA things.
	And they noticed that there were black particulates in it.
	And they also noticed that they interacted with magnets and they threw all of them away.
	And that was briefly reported and then disappeared.
	And I was just wondering, are you familiar with that?
	Could you verify that, that that happened?
	Anything?
	I know individuals that you could do that experiment on and you know at the injection site and it was magnetic.
	Wow.
	What I make of that, was there, you know, were there magnetic particles in the vaccine?
	Yeah, the technology exists.
	So it is, we need all of the documentation of Pfizer.
	There's a big, big reason why Pfizer wanted to seal those records for 76 years.
	Yeah.
	Because, you know, that is, you know, we're going to find a witch's brew in there.
	Yes.
	And I think that's.
	The connection with DARPA.
	Yeah.
	Connection with DARPA and BARD and everything, right?
	That points to a witch's brew of some sort.
	I was just wondering if maybe, you know, it showed up in Japan because of a long travel time.
	Maybe there was an issue with refrigeration because the unusual issue about how unusually cold it had to be kept.
	But it's also, it seems like the Japanese are a little bit more open and honest about some of these things.
	They were the first ones to report about the biodistribution issues.
	And that was something that people reported on that got severely punished in the West, but they reported it in Japan.
	Exactly.
	I'm thankful for that information because we didn't know the biodistribution.
	We were told lies.
	And I think that they were bold-faced lies.
	I don't think that they were just mistakes or misspeaking.
	I think those people had the distribution.
	They did animal studies.
	Surely they had the distribution information at that time.
	In fact, what was leaked in Japan was a Pfizer document.
	Yes, yes.
	Got another question here from Karen Carpenter, 27 with Nights of the Storm.
	She says, question, please comment on Susan Monarez and the vaccine safety data link.
	Is the VSD accessible for studies?
	That is a horrible mess.
	And I think that we need to apply pressure on HHS.
	I think we need to apply pressure on Congress to open up the vaccine safety data link.
	The vaccine safety data link is an ongoing record of about 10 million patients enrolled in 10 different HMOs.
	It's all de-identified, anonymized, so you can't figure out what patient is what.
	You can't get any type of identity information from that.
	But the Dr. Doscalakis, I forget his first name, he hid, literally hid and then bragged about hiding the vaccine safety data link from Secretary Kennedy for the first seven months that Secretary Kennedy was in office.
	And then Dr. Daskalakis then ended up resigning in protest with Monterey's.
	Now we know it's there.
	Now we know that the vaccine safety data link is there.
	But there are contractual hiccups that keep anybody from getting data from 2002 on.
	We do not have that information.
	And we need to demand that information because, you know, there's so many different things.
	There are so many different vaccines that were introduced that have never been adequately studied.
	There are even unvaccinated individuals in the vaccine safety data link because it's not required.
	The patient enrollment doesn't require vaccination.
	So I know they have, you know, they have tens of thousands of records for individuals that have never seen a vaccine.
	So we need all that information.
	Montereyz was hiding it.
	Dascalakis was hiding it.
	It should go to jail.
	And now the head of the immunization safety office, I believe his name is Mike McNeil, is stonewalling to allow Secretary Kennedy and his advisors to get access to that data.
	Again, it's deep state gurus that have been there forever.
	They're hiding this information.
	It needs to come open.
	Well, again, it's the sort of thing in another field that I was working in.
	We were trying to get climate data from Dr. Michael Mann, and it was something that he had done at a public university on their work computers.
	And he had published the information and it had been used to create public policy.
	But he absolutely refused to show us the data.
	You know, when I see something like that, same type of thing that we're seeing with Susan Monarez and the CDC doing, trying to hide this vaccine safety data, that is an admission of guilt.
	And it's an admission that, you know, science is not on your side.
	If you are afraid to show people the data and you just want them to do what you say because the position you're in, that is the antithesis of science.
	I've got another question here from Gard Goldsmith of Liberty Conspiracy.
	He said, I wonder if the doctor has any knowledge of breakthroughs for long COVID.
	I still search, finding some interesting hope.
	What do you think about that?
	I, you know, I am not a practitioner, and I know many, many good practitioners that are starting to have breakthroughs using different cocktails of antivirals, antiparasitics, and antibiotics.
	That, you know, that's where I'm hearing the success.
	There are also, you know, and David, I thought I'd never hear myself saying this.
	There are also individuals that are using hypochlorite, hypochlorite solutions.
	You know, they're not, it's not bleach.
	Everybody says, oh, it's bleach.
	You know, no, these are very, very dilute, very, very safe solutions.
	And they're doing nasal lavage on patients.
	That is helping clear the virus.
	That's helping clear the spike.
	And then there are myriad sort of recipes.
	Homeopathy is, you know, I'm hearing from those practicing naturopaths and homeopaths are having really, really good success with long COVID and COVID vaccine injury.
	So, you know, follow the rule that, you know, try it, do one thing at a time, see if it works.
	If it doesn't work, ditch it and move on to the next thing.
	I mean, you know, because you shouldn't suffer.
	We've brought my son a tremendous amount of weight with his vaccine injury that he sustained at 15 months.
	And my house is a house of many clinical trials, whether it's allopathic, whether it's naturopathic, you know, where it comes from.
	You know, I honestly don't care if it's effective.
	You need to use it.
	And if it's not effective, then move on.
	I agree.
	I look at it.
	And if it's something that is not going to be harmful, you know, I'll try it.
	You know, how much does it cost?
	I'll buy it.
	Going back to the old song from the 1970s.
	Let me ask you about what's going on with autism because I know that you spend a lot of time with autism focusing on that.
	I'm looking at this Tylenol thing.
	To me, it looks like a red herring.
	It looks like they're trying to dodge the connection for the vaccine stuff.
	What is your take on that?
	I mean, I just don't see that Tylenol has corresponded uptake in Tylenol has changed radically that would explain the radical change in autism.
	I just don't buy that all.
	What do you think about that?
	What do you think is?
	Well, I think, you know, I've done a lot of research on this and spent a lot of time with the lead researcher in that whole field of acetaminophen, neurodevelopmental disorders, and autism.
	His name is William Parker.
	You know, I actually sat down with him for five days and said, look, convince me, you know, because he was hounding me about this.
	And so the thing that's really convenient about Tylenol is that it is a quick solution to a not-so-quick problem.
	And I think that, yeah, there are cases that are definitely associated with some type of infection, some type of vaccination, followed by acetaminophen, definitely, you know, sort of a one-two punch.
	But Tylenol itself is a necessary component, but it's not sufficient.
	You can't just say, oh, you know, Tylenol is bad.
	It is the individuals that have genetic susceptibility that then have a huge amount of oxidative stress, like multiple vaccines all at the same time.
	And then you add Tylenol to the mix.
	That's really the perfect storm.
	So you can't just take care of one and say, oh, we've broken the chain.
	All of them need to be taken care of.
	All of them need to be addressed.
	I think that the administration came out with regarding Tylenol because they thought it's an easy fix.
	But, you know, it is, we didn't get here just from Tylenol.
	We got here from years of abuse of the system.
	And that needs to be fixed.
	And then we can see the autism epidemic go away.
	That's good.
	Yeah, I feel like, you know, when you look at this, it seemed to coincide with a rapid escalation of the vaccine schedule.
	Now, what is going on with that?
	You know, what is happening with that?
	I know you were involved with the measles issue, you know, where they said a couple of people died in Texas and you investigated that with the families.
	I know the media is still selling that narrative.
	I think you effectively debunked that that was what had happened there.
	Yeah, they died of bacterial pneumonia that was left untreated.
	Yes.
	But I'm still seeing mainstream articles saying, oh, it killed two people and so forth.
	And, you know, so what are the chances of us pulling back on this vaccine schedule?
	I know that it's tremendous support within the bureaucracy and the corporations and the media.
	And I guess that's another part of it.
	What's going to happen with the ads?
	The issue with that?
	I know that RFK Jr. has talked about that.
	Well, my hope is that, you know, direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical advertising will go by the wayside.
	I mean, it's gotten ridiculous.
	It is absolutely inane.
	I watch news and old people TV.
	So, you know, my wife is a serial addict to the Hallmark channel.
	And so it's all the drugs, biologics, and vaccines that you can push on old people.
	Yeah.
	You know, every day, every ad.
	It is very infrequent that you see anything else.
	And so those need to be pulled.
	And I believe that Secretary Kennedy is working stepwise to get there.
	I believe that they're de facto fraudulent, you know, in the sense that, you know, ask your doctor.
	Well, you're not, you don't understand.
	They're not giving you all the information that you need to make an informed decision.
	And so it is really fraudulent what they're putting out there.
	Even if they have somebody rattling off very rapidly, all the adverse effects that they are going to talk about, it's still not sufficient to be truthful, I think.
	No, no, it doesn't tell you how effective that particular therapy is.
	It doesn't tell you how effective the vaccine is at preventing that particular disease.
	I mean, we see, you know, over and over again, RSV, shingles, pneumonia, you know, flu over and over again.
	But they don't, you know, the dirty little secret is some years that when you get the flu shot, you're more likely to get the flu than if you didn't get the flu shot.
	Oh, yeah.
	And so, you know, they.
	Seen that over and over again almost pretty much every year.
	People who get it, they get it right away.
	Yeah.
	And we know individuals that got the trivalent, the quadrivalent flu shot, got them for their babies, and the babies died within hours.
	I mean, we're investigating several cases of SIDS right now that were the quadrivalent flu shot.
	And it's just, it's such a shame, you know, when you see these babies die.
	Yes.
	And then, you know, the entire system is there to cover it up.
	We want to be able to expose it.
	That's just horrific.
	Yeah, I've played a clip several times of a lady that was on social media, and she said it wasn't until she saw the sudden adult death syndrome stuff that was out there that it clicked with her.
	And she said, I killed my baby.
	And I said so many times, I wish I could talk to her.
	She didn't kill her baby.
	It's people who lied to her, people who knew better, who killed her baby for money.
	That's the saddest thing about it.
	I've got a couple more comments here.
	Real Jason Barker with Nights of the Storm said the CDC took down the publicly available tools that show excess death spikes after the vaccine rollout.
	That's very damning info right there in reply to a person who said, I can't even get the excess death statistics anymore.
	I could in 2022 for every year since it started to be recorded.
	What's going on with that?
	And do you have that information there at covidindex.science?
	That has been pulled down.
	And I believe that that's addressed in COVIDIndex.science.
	We do not have the new data regarding excess deaths.
	And it is weird because I published on excess deaths in D-Med, the Department of Defense Medical Epidemiological Database.
	I published on excess deaths in 2022 from, you know, from the rollout of the vaccine.
	And all of a sudden, all this stuff just dried up.
	CDC was no longer reporting excess deaths on their website.
	There's so many show games on, you know, you go to the National Center for Health Statistics.
	They never say flu deaths.
	They always say influenza and pneumonia.
	They combine those two categories so people will get scared and get their flu shots, even though they're not effective at preventing death, preventing serious illness, and many times not even effective at doing the flu.
	So yeah, a lot of those databases are pulled down.
	I do encourage any and everybody to FOIA the CDC for specific information.
	It's as simple as an email.
	Just, you know, FOIA request at cdc.gov, F-O-I-A-request at cdc.gov.
	You know, put very concise language of what you want, limit, you know, the ask to specific information.
	And then by law, they have to respond to you within 30 days.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	I remember when they did that with the Defense Department's database of D-Med stuff.
	I remember there's some doctors that saw how things were exploding in a lot of different areas.
	And their absurd reply was, well, not that there was something going on with the vaccine, but they went back and they looked at it.
	They compared it over five years.
	They said, well, all of our data for five years is wrong.
	And it's like, come on.
	Right.
	And then the next thing you know, they pulled it all down.
	I mean, if this isn't the most juvenile cover-up, it's just absolutely amazing.
	It would be comical if it wasn't so horrific what it's doing to people's lives.
	I've got, let's see, Bulldog says they could have very specifically targeted people by lot number.
	Yeah, they could.
	SG Sutton, can Dr. Hooker tell us about the volunteer opportunity with the COVID index?
	Oh, that is so good.
	That is such a great question.
	If you look at the COVIDIndex.science, there is a box that you can click on to volunteer.
	And these volunteers, they're basically individuals that go out and they get new information, newly published information for the COVID index.
	They curate it.
	You know, it's very, very simple.
	You fill out a very, very simple form.
	And then once you filled out that form, then it goes to a very small committee.
	And then they give you thumbs up or thumbs down like, oh, yeah, this should go in the COVID index.
	About 95% of it does go into the index.
	But that helps us keep it up to date.
	We have an army of volunteers that does that.
	And we're recruiting more volunteers.
	You get free COVID index merch.
	You get free CHD merch.
	And we love our volunteers.
	We want, I mean, I know there's a lot of people out there that want to help.
	They're really studious and nerdy like me, and they like to read this literature.
	And so, you know, if that is your vibe, if that's the thing that you like to do, make sure that you check out that volunteer opportunities tab on COVIDIndex.science.
	That's great.
	That's great.
	And again, yeah, COVIDindex.science.
	And they have, I guess, most of them were one-minute videos that you can just very easily click on a thing and share it on social media.
	Get this information around.
	That's the most important thing.
	People are not informed or they're misinformed about what's going on here.
	And so it's very important to get those videos that they put together out there.
	I got one more question here from Karen Carpenter with Nights of Storm.
	Says, does Dr. Hooker think that ultrasound and Wi-Fi, EMF, could play a role in autism?
	What do you think about that?
	I absolutely believe that it plays a role in autism.
	A lot of autism researchers have looked into this and they find statistically significant correlations with EMF.
	You know, there was very little reason for 5G.
	5G is basically there for surveillance purposes.
	Not so you can have better internet, but so the government can know more about you.
	And so you look at all these new technologies, the internet of things.
	So my phone can talk to my computer, my refrigerator, and my ironing board or whatever.
	That is producing energetic signals.
	It's producing energetic signals in the IR range, in the microwave range.
	And that is bad for you.
	I mean, there's nothing good about it.
	I mean, if I had my choice, my own house would be hardwired.
	But what we do is we turn off our devices and Wi-Fi at night and have just like an old clock that tells us the one that you have to change during daylight things and just tells us what time it is.
	Just sleep with it off.
	Just start with turning your Wi-Fi off because there is a connection.
	I don't believe that it's completely causal, but there is a connection with Wi-Fi and with excitatory excited toxic processes in the brain.
	And you don't want to stimulate that.
	I agree.
	I mean, when I was going back trying to do some research on Monster Slowy, I found all these different conferences that he was speaking at, Fauci was speaking at, and Francis Collins was speaking at.
	And they were all talking about electroceuticals.
	And I thought, well, this is going to be the next big thing, electroceuticals.
	And it's like, okay, well, if you're going to treat people electrically with things like that, then clearly EMF is going to have a big effect on people.
	Yeah, it's a tacit admission, isn't it?
	Yeah.
	That EMF does have an effect.
	If we can manipulate it to, you know, do some type of medical intervention, then what is it doing every day?
	Yes, exactly.
	And, you know, we had Alan Fry, who worked for the Navy doing experiments, and he documented the fry effect, which you can, certain frequencies, you'll hear it, like a clicking type of thing.
	You know, just like we had, you know, the military discovered microwave cooking, you know, the radar ranges of a manna in the early days, you know, then just noticed that the coffee was getting hot.
	Well, if you see something like that, you know, there's a little bit of smoke there.
	There's got to be a fire there somewhere as well, I think.
	I started looking at that in conjunction with the Havana effect that was out there because people were saying they were hearing a clicking stuff.
	It's like, oh, wait, that sounds like the fry effect.
	Maybe that is some kind of directed EMF.
	Not sure.
	And I got another question here.
	We're just about out of time.
	This is from Jerry Alitalo.
	He says, please ask Dr. Hooker how he felt immediately after listening closely to DARPA Associated Neuroscientist James Giandaro's horrifying public lectures.
	Thank you.
	You know, that one stumped me.
	I know of those lectures.
	I just don't know enough about those lectures.
	I apologize.
	I should know this information.
	And my defense is that we're playing whack-a-mole with everything right now.
	That's right.
	There's so many.
	I mean, these people have billion-dollar budgets, and they're constantly coming up with one bizarre Frankenstein experiment after the other.
	It truly is a scary situation that we find ourselves in at this particular time.
	It is an interesting time, and it is a very dangerous time.
	But thank you so much for the work that you do at Children's Health Defense and for the COVIDIndex.science.
	Thank you, Dr. Hooker.
	Thank you.
	Thank you very much.

▲