Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Sept. 15, 2023 - Stay Free - Russel Brand

01:24:40

THESE HEALTH SECRETS CHANGED MY LIFE! - Stay Free #208

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	So, it's a very, very good opportunity to get out there and get involved in the community.
	There's a lot of people who are interested in the community.
	And I think that's a good thing.
	The National Park Service is a national park.
	It's a national park that's been around for over a thousand years.
	Brought to you by Pfizer.
	In this video, we're going to be talking about the National Park Service.
	In this video, you're going to see the future.
	This is our medical special, our longevity show.
	We aim to keep you alive longer.
	We've got Dr. Paul Saladino.
	He's our first doctor.
	He's going to be talking about the rising trend of the carnivore diet and its efficacy.
	Does it work?
	We've been told that meat is bad for us, but when I look at the science, I think meat is good for humans nutritionally.
	You and I can talk about the ethics.
	We're also going to talk to Dr. Rhonda Patrick.
	And so I started looking into this research, and like, there's something going on in the brain.
	Dr. Mark Hyman, who looks like Jon Stewart, but talks like a medical expert.
	We're in the middle of a crisis, and unless we revolutionize the way we grow food, the food we produce, the food we market, the food we eat, we're in trouble.
	And if you're joining us on Rumble, you will see Dr. Peter Attia.
	What is it about our finitude that obsesses us?
	Why are we trying to extend life?
	Now, you know, Paul, that I'm a very committed vegan.
	By God, I live and I die for sweet lady veganism.
	But you're saying that the carnivore diet might have some method to its madness.
	And what about veganism?
	Is it some sort of fad?
	Should we put aside our compassion for the cow and down a bit of their leg?
	Not at all.
	I think that anyone who makes an intentional choice with regard to their diet, anyone who's not just walking as a zombie and eating whatever foods fall in front of them or they can pick up in an airport or at a fast food joint, deserves to be appreciated.
	And though you and I make different intentional decisions with regard to our diets, the first step for people finding health, and I think Being good citizens in the community of the earth is making intentional choices and understanding how we're choosing to eat.
	With regard to meat versus plants, I have found and I have concerns that when humans don't eat meat and organs, so we're talking about like muscle meat, steaks, hamburgers, or organs like heart and liver, which come with the whole package of the animal, There are a lot of nutrient deficiencies that can develop unless we're very, very intentional about supplementation.
	And this is where things get really interesting and you go really far down the rabbit hole.
	But I've just seen so many people improve their health when they include more meat in their diet and organs especially, like liver.
	And I think that for the last Decades.
	Last two to three, maybe five decades, we've been told that meat is bad for us.
	But when I look at the science, I think meat is good for humans nutritionally.
	You and I can talk about the ethics and how we navigate that in the world if you want.
	But I think nutritionally, meat is so valuable for kids, for adults, for elderly.
	There's so many things to argue for including these animal foods in our diet from a nutritional standpoint.
	From a nutritional standpoint?
	Yes, thank you, Paul, for that distinction.
	Is it primarily because of protein or particular types of protein?
	Because I'll say this, I'm actually looking to put on functional muscle mass as a result of a forthcoming contest against RFK.
	I've got to do a pull-up competition.
	I'm willing to ingest almost anything.
	Are you saying it's impossible to get strong enough to win a pull-up competition without a little bit of meat in your diet and what is it in particular that, where
	are the benefits derived from, mate?
	There's, the protein in animal foods is more bioavailable than the protein in plant foods.
	But there are examples of people who eat a vegan diet who have lots of muscles.
	And some of those people are probably supplementing with some steroids or some
	exogenous hormones. But I know people in the vegan community that I've had
	respectful conversations with who are probably just taking a lot of protein powder.
	But if you just want to eat foods that you could get from the earth, that you could hunt and gather, and not a synthetic hemp protein or a synthetic pea protein made in the lab, you're going to be able to gain muscle and all of the other benefits that come with the meat.
	We can talk about the other nutrients much more easily by including animal foods in your diet than you would by eating things like peas and lentils and things like this.
	So if you think about this, This gets a little technical, but there's this one amino acid, leucine, in meat that's associated with muscle growth.
	And you can get enough leucine to trigger optimal muscle growth in eight ounces of meat, like a burger patty, maybe even six ounces of meat.
	But to get that amount of leucine, to get Russell Brand jacked, to beat RFK in this pull-up contest, you're going to have to eat pounds of rice and lentils.
	I mean, pounds a day.
	That's going to cause problems for your septic system in your house, and maybe nobody will want to be around you because of the flatulence.
	So I'm telling you, Like it's a better and then we can talk about the other things too.
	That's just the protein, but there are many other nutrients that are valuable in animal foods and meat that you can't get in plant foods at all.
	True nature's child says I've got no gallbladder so I have to watch the fat or it gets runny.
	And I like I feel like you know like I do take a lot of protein powders.
	I'm like I drink a nice protein shake.
	It's delicious most days, but you're saying that it not.
	It's not just protein we need to like.
	In your ideal world, Dr. Paul Saladino, you've got salad in your name, but not in your game.
	The ball bag is out the window, baking in the sun.
	You're noshing down on elk meat.
	Is that what it's going to take?
	Tell us a little bit about your diet, oh wise and handsome man.
	Yeah, elk meat and elk liver and grass-fed cattle.
	We can talk about regenerative agriculture, but beyond the protein, when people think about meat and steaks, they just think about protein.
	But Russell, it's so interesting when you go down the rabbit hole and you think about the other nutrients that are in meat that are difficult to find in plant foods or impossible to find in plant foods.
	There's been a lot of research recently about this.
	This compound called taurine, and of course the name is there, it's bull.
	And taurine has been found in worm models, in mice models, and in primate models to extend longevity in those models.
	So we haven't done controlled experiments in humans, but taurine looks to be beneficial for humans in other sorts of experiments in terms of cognitive benefits and as an antioxidant.
	And the only place you get taurine, so clearly shows benefit across multiple species in longevity, And overall quality of life.
	The only place you get this is animal meat.
	And I don't know many vegans that are supplementing with taurine, and that's just the tip of the iceberg.
	What about creatine?
	What about carnitine?
	What about carnosine?
	What about anserine?
	What about vitamin K2?
	What about riboflavin?
	It's just that we've evolved eating meat, and there are so many of these key nutrients
	that allow us to thrive as humans that are predominantly or exclusively found
	in meat and organs that don't occur in hemp protein or pea protein or Brussels sprouts.
	What about Tina Turner?
	What about Flavor Flav?
	You can't just hit me with a list of magical strings of nutrients
	and expect me to sit there and take it like a baking ball bag.
	Dr. Paul Saladino, what are the ethnographic and anthropological undergirdings of this?
	Because as surely as we are hunters, we are gatherers.
	And I suppose really the only reason I'm not eating animals is not for nutritional reasons in my case.
	I've seen game changers, I've seen them documentaries.
	For me, it's just I think, ah, animals, they're all right.
	I don't want, like as Morrissey once said, I don't think something's life should end
	just so I can have a snack.
	Like, no, no, no, so what, no, it's just...
	That's the only reason.
	And I agree with you as well, by the way.
	I don't think everything should get so politicized that you can't let people be different from you.
	That's crazy.
	My wife ain't vegan.
	It's not a political thing for me.
	It's just a personal choice.
	Like, I believe all spiritual choices should fundamentally be personal and if people Are you inspired by your sacrifices or endeavours?
	Although I don't know how they would be when they hear how I live my life.
	Coffee sloshing about in my groin while I displace my neighbour's shrubbery.
	You know, then that's that.
	But do you think that human beings... Is there not a way, mate, that it could be healthier to live on plants?
	Or would that involve the degree of supplementation you've described?
	And if it does, what of it?
	Why not supplement yourself up to the hilt?
	I don't believe there's any evidence in the medical literature that meat is bad for humans.
	I mean, you sort of asked, is it healthier to be on plants?
	And I would say, no, it's not.
	It's healthier to include meat in your diet, especially for children, but even for adults, and then for elderly who become frail, who need the muscle mass to avoid sarcopenia, which is when we get kind of skinny fat, lose our peripheral muscle mass, and get kind of like fat on the inside.
	So we know that what Kills elderly people.
	What causes us to die is frailty.
	And the way that you avoid frailty is by having enough quality food in your diet, especially micronutrient-rich meat and organs.
	And then for children's development, for proper development of the brain and all of the organs and all of these tendons and muscles as kids are developing and growing so they're strong and resilient, the animal foods provide so many unique nutrients that are so hard to get elsewhere.
	You asked about the anthropology, and I think this is an incredibly important point.
	So I went to Tanzania last year and got to hang out with this tribe of hunter-gatherers called the Hadza.
	They're some of the last hunter-gatherers left on the planet.
	There's only a few thousand true hunter-gatherers left on the planet.
	And I'll tell you what, we hunted and then we ate the animal.
	We ate the organs first.
	We ate the animal from nose to tail.
	I shared the brain of this animal with the hunter that killed the animal the next day.
	I ate the brain with him.
	I'm sure they ate the testicles, but I didn't get a chance to see them because they were so prized.
	And Then we ate honey.
	They found a beehive, and they ate the honey.
	We found some berries.
	These hunter-gatherers, they don't care about vegetables at all.
	They don't want to eat vegetables.
	They just want to eat meat.
	They want to eat fruit.
	They want to eat honey.
	And they want to eat this baobab fruit.
	And occasionally, they'll eat a tuber, but that's the last thing they care about.
	If you look at hunter-gatherers, I think that, from what we can tell with our ethnographic and anthropologic time machines, humans, we don't give a shit about vegetables if we can get other stuff that tastes better.
	Title.
	Good title.
	Paul, when you was living with them indigenous people, how did you get on?
	Was the vibe good?
	Did they include you?
	Did you get on their nerves?
	Did you start cosying up to them too tight in the living quarters?
	Was it a bit like dances with wolves?
	Also, like, was there a good ceremonial atmosphere?
	People living a lifestyle where they were connected to meaning and purpose because survival acquired a kind of mythic quality because it took so much endeavour and focus after a day's hunting.
	Did it feel beautiful to sit around a campfire?
	Was there a sense of community, connection?
	Were there other aspects beyond diet, you diet-obsessed lunatic, that were inspiring?
	Yeah, it was really cool to be with them.
	I mean, I think of them as like the best time machine we've got.
	It's not a perfect DeLorean, this isn't perfectly Back to the Future, but it's about 50,000 years ago, I imagine, that you go back in time when you see these people now.
	They're influenced by the Western world, for sure, but it was It was really moving to sit around the fire with them.
	They were very welcoming.
	They were happy, Russell.
	They were fundamentally happy and peaceful people.
	They welcomed us.
	I think they were more welcoming because we wanted to go on hunts.
	We said, let's take us on the longest hike.
	And very few people go visit them.
	And even fewer of the people that go visit them will go on an eight or nine hour hike slash run slash hunt with them.
	So we got to see as much as we possibly could embedded with them.
	And it was It was just fundamental happiness was what they were sharing with us.
	They didn't have cell phones.
	They don't use money.
	They were just happy having what they had.
	They had community, and they celebrated the food when they could get it, and they shared it.
	And especially when we had very successful hunts, there was music and dancing, and they were happy to share that with us.
	So not a perfect time machine, but it was pretty idyllic.
	It was really pretty remarkable, the experience with them.
	Also, the DeLorean was not a very good time machine.
	As I recall, there were problems with the flux capacitor, and it broke down in that barn, and Marty McFly had to stay there.
	And we all know what he did when he met his mum, Paul.
	And I'm sure you're not endorsing that, Paul, because that's called incest.
	And that, no, it don't matter how much elk meat you consume, if you're eating it from your mother's lap, that is a problem in the sweet name of Jesus!
	Mae, what do they hunt, and what do they hunt with?
	They make all of their own hunting implements.
	So they have bows and arrows they make from wood.
	Their arrows are made from wood.
	They have a neighboring tribe called the Datoga that will make them steel or metal arrowheads.
	And they will sometimes take a local plant called an elephant foot plant and put poison on the tip of an arrow.
	And so they hunt with bows made from wood, sinew, and then arrows they've made by themselves.
	And they are predominantly hunting local animals around Lake Iasi in Tanzania.
	And their hunting grounds have been constricted because of encroachment from other pastoralist tribes.
	So they don't have as much access to game as they once did, but their prize thing is an elan,
	which is a large sort of impala type ruminant animal.
	When I was with them, we hunted baboons, and along the way they would hunt small monkeys and birds.
	Did you feel, did you have a go in the bow and arrow?
	And wouldn't you feel a bit guilty shooting a baboon down?
	Because it's so, uh, sort of, the simian's beings are so human.
	Like, I imagine him tumbling out of a tree, sort of going, ah!
	And almost maybe going, bloody hell!
	I've got a date tonight!
	Don't you feel a bit... I mean, at least if you shoot an undulate, it's got that slit up itself, I think.
	Oh, well, you're asking for it.
	But a monkey that looks like it... I put aside the one that betrayed Indiana Jones in the marketplace.
	Fuck that little guy.
	But normally, monkeys are our friends.
	Didn't you feel a bit bad about it, and did you have a go?
	It's so when we were actually at the key part of the hunt for the baboons this tribe of Hadza this maybe eight or nine Hadza males hunters they just scattered everywhere they were running and I was just sort of watching and like trying not to get in their way but they were hurting the monkeys in certain ways they had dogs and so they were the ones that were actually trying to get the monkeys out of the tree or the baboons excuse me so I wasn't directly involved in the baboon hunt I was like right there with them but it was so frenetic and I I'm You know, I'm a Westerner, right?
	I've never hunted a baboon in my life.
	I've never been in their tribe.
	I have no business doing this with them.
	The fact that it's like a human and has a thumb and opposable fingers, it is kind of stirring and disturbing, but you also realize that this is life for them.
	And this kind of goes back to your point earlier, and I'll just add this as humbly and as respectfully as possible.
	When I think about food choices that we make as humans, I'm reminded of a book that I read when I was younger.
	It's called The Tracker by Tom Brown.
	And he tells a story in the book of being apprenticed to this Apache Indian elder who was teaching him sort of these Native American ways.
	And he tells a story of killing his first animal when he was 9 or 10 years old.
	And it's a lame deer that he's killed by himself with a knife.
	He brings it back to camp and he's weeping.
	And this Apache Indian, this Apache Native American says, why are you crying?
	And he says, because I killed this animal.
	And I'm paraphrasing from the book.
	But this has stuck with me.
	So the response from this elder was, in order for something to live, something else must die.
	This is the way of life.
	When you understand that the life in a blade of grass is the same, and it's all kind of this life force, you'll understand this.
	And the goal is to be respectful of the things that you're using to fuel your life.
	So even when people want to eat plants and they believe that the plants are resulting in less death, I think that it's interesting and important to really look into that and understand all of the ecosystems that are disrupted by the plants that we eat, all of the by-kills, all the moles, the voles, the beavers, the snakes, the rabbits.
	There are literally tens of thousands of lives that are disrupted, that are displaced, that are killed when we're Plowing a field to grow plants.
	And so I think that if we want to live on this earth as humans, and I feel like you especially illustrate this, we have the ability to do a lot of good in the world as humans.
	We have to accept that in order for something to live, something else must die.
	And when I think about the choices we make, In terms of food quality, I believe, and this is just my belief, that by eating meat and organs, we're giving our bodies such unique nutrients that allows us to do the best work in the world, allows us our brains to function well, allows us to be strong and protect our families.
	And so I believe that we have this purpose on Earth to do good in the world, and that none of us should be, I think, ignorant to the way that we affect the world.
	We're all responsible for ending life.
	And it's just how we choose to use that gift that we're given as we get the chance to live and do things in the world.
	Why is there an assumption that we should want to live, you know, forever, endlessly?
	And what does it tell us sometimes about what does it indicate around our fears around death, Peter?
	So I think, Russell, you've hit on two very interesting points.
	And given that we could literally spend an hour just talking about these two things, because on the one hand, you're asking the question, what is it about our finitude that obsesses us?
	Why are we trying to extend life?
	And in the other part of your question, you're basically asking, at least the way I would hear it, why the hell would you want to live longer if the quality of your life, and you're referring, I think, to perhaps the most important aspect of that, which is emotional health, is unwell?
	So we could talk about both of those, and I'll just briefly offer my take.
	So first, this is a book that took me seven years to write and three versions.
	So The first version of that book had no emphasis whatsoever on your first question, right?
	It was really a Silicon Valley-esque, you know, how to hack your way into a longer life, inch by inch, but with no attention paid to the quality of that life.
	And I think through my own sort of struggles, the final version of this book came to reflect a very different viewpoint, which is if your relationships to other people, to yourself, are suboptimal.
	If you're living in pain, you know, living longer would actually be the greatest form of torture.
	I think to your second question, why are we obsessed with it?
	I think truthfully, I think mortality is a very difficult concept for us to accept.
	So we can intellectually sort of say, well, you know, none of us actually matter that much.
	Our time on this earth is incredibly small.
	It's a sliver of a sliver of a sliver, a degree of time relative to even just Homo sapiens, let alone life on this planet.
	But yet emotionally, that fact is so difficult that you and I won't be here in 50 years.
	I mean, we're simply not going to exist anymore.
	And I think we tend to want to claw at that as well.
	I guess those would be my high-level inputs on those two important questions.
	What I feel sometimes, Peter, is that it's a war to remain healthy in a society that requires you to be sick.
	I feel sometimes from some of the great guests we spoke to on our show that we're kind of, systemically at least, regarded as blobs.
	Blobs to pump bad food into and sometimes questionable pharmacological remedies into.
	And so sometimes to remain healthy can be a campaign that has to be almost militaristic.
	How did health become politicized?
	How did we arrive at the point where wanting to be fit and healthy was regarded as a, well, most recently it's been called a right-wing issue?
	How has health become regarded in this way and how is it that our life has become a kind of commodity in itself where we're latched onto vampirically by parasitical big food and big farmer interests?
	So again, I think you ask these interesting questions, Russell, and there are several layers to it.
	So in the order, I think, that you're asking it, I think there's a very important transition that has occurred in our species.
	And even though our entire lives, meaning those of us that are talking here now and listening, all took place in one era, in the arc of humanity, most of the time we died very fast deaths.
	Right?
	So if you think about our ancestors, they died from infections and they died from traumatic injuries, and that was it.
	And, you know, obviously, infant mortality was enormous.
	So mothers were dying all the time, giving birth to kids, many of whom would just die right away.
	And if you somehow managed to survive childbirth and childhood, you were gonna be, you know, mauled by an animal or die of an infection.
	And that was the way it was for 99.9% of our existence as a species.
	We, as a species, had this enormous victory in the late 19th and early 20th century, which was we basically figured out the remedy for how to stop fast death.
	And that basically became sanitation, antibiotics, and all of the things that came with germ theory and around that.
	Also, you developed things in medicine around critical care, trauma, acute care, things like that.
	The good side of that was we stopped dying from those conditions.
	The bad news was that toolkit for how to prevent people from dying quickly really had no efficacy against preventing people from dying slowly, which is how we all die today.
	So most people today are going to die from cardiovascular disease, cancer, dementia, diabetes, things of that nature.
	And the approach of wait till you're sick to treat those things doesn't work very well.
	So that's why we have become these entities that, you know, we're kind of using the wrong playbook.
	And you've alluded to a number of other things as well, right?
	Which is our food sucks, our environment sucks, our stress levels suck.
	I mean, all of these things are kind of working against us.
	But I think of those is basically the flip side of a technology that also gave us a great advantage.
	And we just we're just kind of out of balance with it.
	I think would be the simplest way to describe that.
	Do you have anything to say on the politicization of health and wellness?
	It seems that during the pandemic era, get outside, get some vitamin D, natural immunity, all became sort of contested ideas.
	And there's no doubt that there can be a machismo attached to staying fit and healthy, participating in martial arts and indeed pull up challenges against RFK, which I'm personally I'm engaged in right now.
	I'm having a competition with Robert F. Kennedy to see who can do the most pull-ups.
	Spoiler alert, it's him.
	He can do 28.
	I can't do nearly that many unless I start taking... In fact, I could do with some tips on that subject, Peter.
	If there are any effective and immediate remedies to make your upper body strength treble, I'll take them.
	And I don't care who invented them.
	Moderna, Pfizer, you name it, I'll take it.
	Even if, and I mean this sincerely, it's a suppository.
	I'd probably prefer that.
	We can talk about the pull-up tips later.
	28 is pretty impressive for Robert.
	Very few people can do that.
	Don't feel bad if you can't, Russell.
	Now, I'm somewhat surprised by the phenomenon you've described.
	I saw an article yesterday, not yesterday, maybe last week, that said something to the effect of, and this was a serious article, like it was in Time magazine or something.
	And it talked about how the origins of fitness are racist.
	And it went on this long rant about how it's really because of the KKK that we have the fitness industry or something like that.
	And I don't know, truthfully, I'm just I'm kind of apoplectic when I see stuff like that.
	I do think you're right, by the way.
	I think that during COVID, somehow that became the entire entity of COVID became political and the people who said, you know, I would probably rather have My own immune system bolstered by being outdoors, exercising, being in the sauna, being fit, eating well.
	That became a right-wing view, which it shouldn't be.
	That should be, I think, the view of everybody.
	And I think what we're seeing now is simply the snowballing extension of that.
	Yet, Peter, life expectancy in the United States is the shortest it's been for a couple of decades.
	Is that because our modern diet is killing us?
	Because of environmental factors?
	What is it that is decreasing life expectancy?
	You've already given us a sort of a bit of an understanding that the causes of fatality were more environmental, traumatic disease oriented historically.
	Why is there this incremental and sudden decline in life expectancy?
	So there's two separate things.
	So if you go back to, I don't know, 1880-ish, and you look at the change in life expectancy for the next hundred years, it doubled.
	And it doubled only because the top eight causes of death, which were all infectious, came out.
	So you doubled human lifespan from roughly 40 to 80 by removing the eight most prevalent sources of infectious diseases and communicable diseases.
	But to your point, no real bearing on chronic diseases.
	Now, to your question, why has UF's life expectancy been in decline The answer is actually in the numbers, which is it is the increase in the deaths of despair.
	So it is not an increase in cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes, or dementia.
	It is the increase in suicide, overdoses, and alcohol-related deaths.
	So those three, which I lumped together as deaths of despair, are growing That's such a clip that is outpacing any incremental improvements we have in the others.
	And as you probably know, Russell, in the past year, we've seen now over 100,000 people die in the U.S.
	just on account of opioid poisoning.
	That's astonishing and terrifying.
	The gains that have been made as we advance beyond the era of dying like dumb apes as a result of infections is warping and metastasizing into the era where we're being killed by an ailing civilization that induces and perhaps you could even argue requires despair.
	Now on that spectrum of addiction I would definitely include Eating disorders.
	I've had an eating disorder when I was a young person, specifically bulimia.
	And I've seen you talk about obesity and weight loss.
	And while we're still on YouTube, I'll pose this question.
	What is the real reason, Peter, that some people Can never lose weight, no matter what they do.
	But before you answer, we're going to leave YouTube now and we're going to do our show exclusively over on Rumble, where we can speak freely and openly in the spirit of love, not so that we can convey misinformation, disinformation, malinformation, nor so that we can engage in senseless and pointless rhetoric of hate.
	So that we can freely and openly discuss ways that we might live better, individually and collectively, and there's no question that Peter's fine work is contributing on a grand scale to that endeavour.
	Join us over on Rumble to hear the answer to the question, what is the real reason some people never lose weight?
	Peter Atiyah, what is the real reason some people never lose weight?
	What's wrong with them?
	What's wrong with us?
	Why can't they do it?
	Why can't we do it?
	What's going on?
	I'll preface this by saying I don't think I know the answer and I don't think anybody knows the answer.
	So I can posit several ideas and the reality of it is this.
	We are very, very hardwired, Russell, to store energy.
	Okay, so this is like the superpower of Homo sapiens.
	So you go back 200 to 250,000 years ago, as our particular species began to diverge from others, chimps, Neanderthals, there are lots of reasons that we out-competed them.
	You know, we can talk about our capacity to work in concert with other members of our species in large numbers.
	I think those things matter.
	We can talk about a lot of things.
	But from a biologic perspective, I think our superpower was our ability to store energy.
	And that's what enabled the organ between our ears to be so prolific, right?
	So your brain weighs like 2% of your body weight and consumes between 20 and 25% of your energy.
	Just kind of reflect on that for a moment.
	This tiny little organ is so energetically demanding that the only way our species could kind of leapfrog all the others was to make sure we never went without energy.
	And to do that, we had to be able to store energy when food was plentiful.
	And so we spend hundreds of thousands of years honing this genetic tool To basically be able to put fat into fat stores so that we can access it later on.
	And until food became entirely plentiful a hundred years ago, that problem basically didn't, you know, come back to bite us in the ass.
	So I think it's important to understand that when we think about how we are mired in an epidemic of obesity, we need to understand that we are putting these very, very, very old genes in an environment in which they never had a chance to adapt, right?
	We would never, in the current food environment, optimize around energy storage the way we have today.
	So the question then becomes, why are some people more genetically susceptible to this?
	Why are some people more behaviorally sensitive to this?
	Why are some people in an environment where, for example, they don't have the education, they don't have the means, they're in food deserts?
	You know, all of these things play a role.
	So, It's easier for me to answer the question at the species level, why are we getting fatter?
	It's harder for me to answer at the individual level, but I don't dispute for a moment that there are social and genetic factors that account for those differences.
	It's interesting to ponder, Peter, where the distinction between genetics and behavior might lie, where that particular line might be drawn.
	And also to reflect on the earlier part of our conversation where we discussed the crisis of despair, and whether or not that is similarly the result of finding ourselves suddenly in an environment more similar to a farm or a zoo than a forest or a plain, where suddenly hundreds of thousands of years of evolution, obviously much longer if you consider the entire lineage, are suddenly warped into an unnatural and perhaps, what do I want to say, antithetical, punishing condition that we have diets that are not reflective of our needs.
	We have systems of government that are not reflective of our needs.
	We have relationships that are not reflective of our needs.
	We have power systems that do not reflect our needs.
	Our emotional and spiritual requirements are neglected, warped and misunderstood in the same way that more observably Our dietary requirements have been inverted and reversed.
	People that are storing energy in the form of obesity would have been hugely advantaged in previous incarnations of our civilization, and they would never have found themselves in that condition.
	Furthermore...
	I was talking about the culture of reverence for elders, that revering elders makes sense in a culture where being an elder was an indication that you've survived.
	You've survived disease, you've survived the traumas and causes of death that you would have described.
	So you can see an evolutionary, biological and psychological undergirding for the concept of elder worship and perhaps even ancestor respect.
	So those are interesting things to tie together.
	I wonder about the carnivore diet, Pete.
	A lot of folk like Jordan Peterson comes on here a lot.
	He's a friend of ours, a friend of mine.
	And I know that he's not happy unless he's biting a lump out of the side of a cow.
	Is the carnivore diet just another fad?
	Is it good for you?
	I'm vegan, so like, you know, I've got my own little struggles.
	What do you think about the carnivore diet?
	Yeah, vegan and carnivore would be about as far apart as possible.
	You know, it's funny, I did talk a little bit about this with Jordan when I was on his show a few months ago, and he posed the question, you know, genuinely from a place of curiosity, right?
	And as you know, because you're close to Jordan, You know, his arrival at a carnivore diet was not some sort of ideologic choice, right?
	This was a trial and error process brought on by his own physical ailments and a search for elimination, right?
	How could he eliminate things from his diet that were causing him inflammatory symptoms?
	I don't think we know the answer, right?
	I would really like to see this diet studied more.
	I think what we can say with relative clarity is that the carnivore diet, like any highly restrictive diet, will almost assuredly result in weight loss.
	And when a person loses weight, a number of parameters in their health will improve.
	But it's not clear that everything will improve, and it's not clear to me that any form of highly restrictive diet is in the long term going to be as healthy as a less restrictive, somewhat more balanced diet.
	And in particular with the carnivore diet, I think the one thing I would want to have better insight into before embarking on it for the rest of my life Would be what is the effect on for example cardiovascular disease if a person said look I want to go on this diet And I don't want to address the consequences of my lipids because for many people when they go on these diets Their lipids go haywire Which is the non-technical way of saying that they are increasing their risk at least on paper of cardiovascular disease so
	This hasn't been studied, and there really isn't a great way to do these studies because there isn't a huge motivation or incentive to study diets, right?
	They're not really profit centers.
	It's not like you package and sell a diet.
	So who's the one that's going to pay $12 million to do, you know, even the three year study on the carnivore diet, which is a pittance, right?
	If you think about it, like $12 million is a trivial sum of money in the pharma landscape, and we'll happily spend You know, frankly, close to a billion dollars to gain approval for any single drug as you go from IND to Phase 3 approval.
	That's not an unlikely sum of money.
	In fact, that's a little bit below typical.
	But we would never spend that much money to understand the questions about diet.
	And I think that's just an unfortunate consequence of our existence.
	Is it true that in every single conceivable, measurable metric, if you have, like, saunas, it's good for you?
	Like, heart disease, it's good for respiratory conditions, it's good for cancer.
	Is that true, or am I... is that fake news?
	It's almost true.
	With the exception of cancer, that hasn't been shown yet.
	But as you mentioned, you know, thermal stress, the sauna is a type of thermal stress.
	You're elevating your core body temperature, much like exercise.
	When you exercise, you elevate your core body temperature.
	You sweat to try to cool yourself down.
	Well, saunas, you know, There are a type of stress, they're called intermittent
	stress.
	And this is the same type of stress that exercise is.
	It's a good type of stress where you're stressing your body, but your body has evolved these
	stress responses that are beneficial to that stress.
	I mean, humans were, you know, throughout evolution, we were exposed to intermittent
	We were, you know, hunting, gathering, you're running fast to get prey, you know, that we went through periods of food scarcity, right?
	Like we, these are, these are types of intermittent stress.
	And our bodies have evolved pathways, genes that are turned on that sort of respond to
	that that are not only beneficial in that moment, but they have a net beneficial effect.
	Anti-inflammatory responses, antioxidant responses that are active much longer than the intermittent
	type of, you know, stress period that we sort of engaged in.
	And so, yes, sauna use has been, you know, it's a modality, another modality, I argue
	another modality of basically.
	Healthful types of behaviors like exercise, like meditation, like good sleep, all these things that good diet, you know, these are lifestyle factors that are known to improve health.
	And I think sauna should be one of those factors because there is just mounting evidence that the sauna is associated with a 50% lower cardiovascular related mortality.
	It's associated with a 40% lower, what's called all-cause mortality, basically dying from all non-accidental causes.
	As you mentioned, respiratory disease as well, it affects the lungs.
	Alzheimer's disease, the 66% lower chance of getting Alzheimer's disease.
	So many different benefits that have been sort of over the years, now we're getting more evidence that the sauna is beneficial.
	It's extraordinary, it seems to me, Doctor, that by replicating the conditions by which we long lived deep in our forgotten history, we can engage dormant forces, and that one of the hallmarks of our time appears to be this Disembodying way of life that we increasingly stare sedentary at screens, glazed and lost and not connected to our bodies, unable to have healthy sex, eat healthy food, move nimbly through trees.
	It's like we've Forgotten who we are.
	Do you believe that that's part of what it is?
	That it replicates the conditions for which we are evolved?
	And indeed, is that why it even, like exercise, sauna, and can I ask, cold therapy, is that why they affect your mental health positively too?
	I do think so.
	I think that because we have been able to measure genetic pathways, molecular pathways, molecules that are increasing in our body in response to sauna use, in response to exercise, in response to cold exposure, We're able to measure those molecules and genes and go, look, these are beneficial molecules.
	They're anti-inflammatory molecules.
	They're things that are blunting chronic inflammation, which is a byproduct of being sedentary, of being overweight, obese, of eating a refined, you know, carbohydrate, processed food, rich diet.
	And we're able to then also look at these genes.
	These are genes that are, you know, heat shock proteins for one,
	they respond to heat, but they also respond to just stress in general.
	So you can actually activate heat shock proteins, obviously from sauna,
	which would increase your core body temperature and exercise, but cold exposure also increases those.
	And they're basically, they have a beneficial effect in your brain,
	also in muscle mass, they're preserving muscle mass, preventing atrophy.
	And so, yes, I do think that actually the intermittent type of stress,
	you have to kind of be uncomfortable for a little bit.
	And that uncomfortable feeling is essential for the response, which is beneficial.
	And this term is somewhat, sometimes it's called,
	referred to as what's called hormesis.
	So essentially you expose your body to a little bit of stress.
	And sometimes that stress could be in the form of physical activity or temperature stress,
	or it can be plant polyphenols.
	You can, you know, turmeric for one.
	You know, these are bioactive compounds that are found in plants that they're a little
	bit toxic, but only when they're like in a really, really, really, really high dose.
	So like, for example, they're toxic to insects or fungus.
	And that's kind of how, why plants evolve these compounds is to sort of ward them off.
	But when humans ingest them, it has the same, a similar response.
	It activates these beneficial anti-inflammatory, antioxidant pathways.
	And in our brain and in our body that are improving the way we age and improving the
	way we feel, the way we think.
	And it's interesting because I actually became so interested in Asana when I was a graduate
	student getting my PhD.
	I was in the lab, failed experiment after failed experiment.
	I mean, let me tell you, there's like 10 more failed experiments than successful ones as a scientist.
	I was very stressed out.
	I mean, it was very overwhelming.
	And I started using the sauna every morning before I went into the lab to do my experiments.
	And it was like night and day difference.
	I knew something was happening in my brain.
	I was able to handle stress better.
	I was able to handle the anxiety of, you know, graduate school better.
	And so I started looking into this research and I'm like, there's something going on in the brain.
	Like, people usually think about sauna, they think about sweating out toxins, which is true, but I was very interested in the profound effects that it was having on my mental health.
	And that was sort of the start of my interest in saunas.
	This was back in like 2010.
	And since then, there has been quite a bit of literature showing that sauna is beneficial on the brain.
	So work by Dr. Charles Raison, you know, this was back in about 2016, he published a paper with people that have major depressive disorder, and they were sort of resistant to typical treatment.
	So like SSRIs, serotonin reuptake inhibitors is a very common one.
	And so he took these individuals and separated them into two groups.
	One group got what's called whole body hyperthermia, which is kind of like a sauna.
	So there's a machine, it's an infrared type of sauna where you basically, you know, are warming the person up via infrared radiation.
	And so they were getting that active treatment.
	And then there was a placebo group that was, Getting just a little bit warmer, like enough to think they were getting the treatment, but it wasn't.
	And the people that were getting the actual treatment, they actually were in a feverish state.
	So their core body temperature, I mean they were at about 101.3 degrees Fahrenheit, which is a little bit feverish.
	So they were really getting hot.
	And after just one treatment, they had an antidepressant effect that was not found in the placebo group that lasted six weeks.
	And this was sort of the instigation of now what is a field of research that I'm involved in.
	Dr. Ashley Mason at UCSF is now taking that.
	She's taken that study.
	And she said, okay, well, that was one session.
	What if we take depressed people and give them like four or eight sessions?
	What kind of effect will that have?
	And so the data is very promising.
	It's not published yet.
	I can't talk too many details about it, but it's Extremely promising.
	And it's so exciting because what we have here is a potential modality for, you know, mood disorders, anxiety, much more work needs to be done.
	But the reality is, is that, you know, sauna does mimic in many ways moderate cardiovascular intensity.
	A lot of the physiological response is similar.
	And, you know, it takes a certain amount of commitment to go for a run, to get on a bike,
	you know, get on your Peloton, you know, whatever it is that's going to get your heart rate,
	you know, up and you're sweating, you know.
	And a lot of times people that are depressed, it is challenging for them to try to take
	that initial step.
	But when you tell them to get into a sauna, it kind of feels like, you know, well, I just
	Yes, it's uncomfortable.
	It gets uncomfortable when you get hot.
	And you do have to sort of bear through that uncomfort.
	But it's easier to step into a sauna than to start going for a jog, especially if you've never done that.
	You've been sedentary.
	And so not to mention people that are disabled.
	There are a variety of people that can't go for a run. They can't get on a bike and cycle. And
	so, you know, this is a potential new way to improve, not only improve mood and basically
	mental health, but the side effects are reduced cardiovascular disease, reduced
	respiratory disease, reduced Alzheimer's disease risk. I mean, it's beneficial side effects. So I'm
	so excited about this area of research. And we have known for a while that exercise is
	also a potential treatment, not just I wouldn't, I don't want to say potential. I mean,
	it really is. It could be a treatment for depression. Study after study has come out. In fact, a
	new one just came out comparing head to head comparison, people getting antidepressants
	versus people getting, getting running therapy.
	And it, you know, the running therapies is basically working just as good as the antidepressants.
	you Thanks for joining us, Dr. Mark.
	I've seen some pictures of you looking very fit.
	You're a fit and healthy fella, ain't ya?
	I'm good.
	I'm good.
	I'm 64.
	I'm old, but I'm a very good vintage.
	Let's have another look at this.
	Get closer on that picture of him with his top off.
	Wait a second, because I can't make out fully because it's too little on the monitor.
	I'll tell you what, mate.
	You are the age that's been immortalized by the Beatles.
	You are 64.
	And you're looking absolutely fantastic.
	We care about health.
	We want to live forever.
	I'm willing to... You want to look that good right now, even at your tender time of life.
	How are you doing this?
	Are you doing this with supplements?
	Are you doing this by working out?
	Are you doing this by avoiding the toxins in our food?
	How are we to literally, Doctor, cheat Sweet Lady Death?
	Well, I basically don't listen to the advice of the medical system or the recommendations of our government or food industry, which are all promulgating theories about Health and I've nothing to do with health.
	In fact, they're promoting disease.
	We have a sick care system, a disease creation system from field to fork, and it's driving a global epidemic of chronic disease.
	It's the number one killer globally.
	11 million people die every year from eating bad food.
	And it doesn't have to be that way.
	So it's pretty simple.
	I basically eat real food.
	I move my body, lift some weights, actually do bands.
	I get sleep, have fun, hang out with my friends.
	It's not that complicated.
	Every morning, up I get, I drink the lemon water.
	Then it's celery juice.
	Now I'm taking these supplements.
	NMN, MNM, something like that.
	Something that sounds a bit like testosterone and Turkmenistan.
	I can't remember exactly what it is.
	But I'm loading myself up on all sorts of things, Doc.
	I hope I'm doing the Right thing.
	I'm eating well.
	I'm vegan.
	I'm exercising.
	I'm doing yoga.
	I'm doing Brazilian jiu-jitsu.
	Am I doing the right thing?
	But perhaps more importantly, are you suggesting that the medical industry and the food industry are conspiring to keep us in a cycle of sickness, seeing us as sort of consuming blobs that remain forever real?
	But deal with me first and then move on to everyone else in the world.
	I think, Russell, you're doing good.
	You look beautiful.
	You look fit, healthy.
	I've seen you in person.
	You're good.
	I keep doing what you're doing.
	As far as the food industry, the ag industry, the farm industry, the medical industry, it's really a big one medical industrial complex and we are in a situation that is You know, unlike anything we've ever seen before.
	We've seen a global increase in obesity from when I was born about 3 to 5% and now we're 42% in America.
	We're seeing 93% of Americans poor metabolic health.
	And it's really driven by our food system that keep people going into the health care system.
	And it's a perfect kind of virtuous or vicious cycle, if you will, of bad food, creating chronic disease that's then taken care by the medical system that's paid for by tax dollars.
	And that's driven by lobbying, and research and the co-opting of professional groups,
	the co-opting of social groups, the creating of front groups to confuse the public.
	It's really a very well orchestrated strategy to keep it from the truth of what creates health
	and what creates disease.
	Which foods do we know are bad for us?
	Bad for us. I- Are we continuing to eat precisely because they are being lobbied for because that information is not being conveyed?
	What should we stop eating immediately?
	And what do we do about, is it a fallacy that it's just expensive to eat well and eat healthy, that it's expensive to eat healthy food, and that it's just easier to glug down salt and syrup and sugar all day long, nihilistically waiting away like some lilo on a couch?
	Well, it's true that we are all promoted these foods, but they're not necessarily cheaper.
	They're subsidized in part by government and industry, and they're made These processed foods are really cheap, but that's not actually expensive to eat well, if you know what you're doing.
	And in terms of the overall strategy of the food industry, you know, it's to produce large amounts of ultra-processed food from three main ingredients, corn, wheat, and soy, that are turned into all kinds of shapes, colors, sizes of chemically treated food-like substances that have nothing to do with health or food.
	And that we consume at an enormous volume, 60% of our diet in America is ultra processed food, 67% of kids diet.
	And for every 10% of your diet that's ultra processed food, your risk of death goes up by 14%.
	This is the number one killer period in the planet.
	And on top of that, you know, the rest of our diet is pretty low in good stuff.
	So we have lots of bad stuff and very low good stuff, like fruits and vegetables, nuts and seeds, whole foods.
	And so we're ending up driving our bodies into this catastrophic state Where 6 out of 10 Americans have a chronic disease.
	4 out of 10 have 2 or more.
	1 in 4 teenagers now has pre-diabetes or type 2 diabetes.
	This didn't even exist when I was a kid.
	It used to be called adult-onset diabetes and juvenile diabetes.
	Now it's type 1 and type 2 because they had to change the name because little kids were getting it.
	And 50-year-olds need liver transplants and gastric bypass because of the sugar they're eating from the soda.
	So we're in a big problem.
	Throughout the pandemic period we talked about the problem of comorbidities and how vulnerable people with comorbidities were, but now it seems that there's an epidemic of comorbidities.
	Plainly awareness and education are part of this, but this feels like a much bigger political problem.
	Do you offer, Dr. Mark, that what's required is nothing less than a revolution in agriculture that leads to the localization of the food supply chain, a revolution in the big food industry to regulate against it, to prevent them from lobbying, from shutting down the self-funded regulatory bodies that permit this kind of behavior, and a revolution in pharma?
	Is that what's required?
	We need to change our food system from field to fork.
	We need to change all our food policies to support the right thing rather than the wrong thing.
	You know, right now, Russell, we have, for example, a food system where we're not paying the true cost of food.
	For every dollar we spend on food, according to the Rockefeller Foundation, there's three extra dollars spent on the downstream costs, whether it's the damage to our soils, loss of biodiversity, the depletion of our water resources, the destruction of the soil, which leads to Carbon in the atmosphere.
	I mean, one third of all the carbon in the atmosphere today for climate change comes from the destruction of our soil through our modern farming practices.
	And then our food is more nutritionally depleted.
	So we're driving huge amounts of production of the wrong foods, not enough of the right foods.
	And it's creating this epidemic.
	And I think You know, when you look at the food industry, it's the largest industry on the planet.
	When I say food, I mean food and ag.
	And you add farm on top of that, it's even more.
	So we've got a $17 trillion industry, which is about $16 trillion, which is about 70% of the world's GDP.
	It's enormous.
	And it's a huge amount of money at stake.
	That's propagating farming in ways that use heavy doses of fertilizer, which uses about 1% to 2% of all global energy, about 10% of greenhouse gas emissions.
	It pollutes our waterways, rivers, and lakes, causing eutrophication, which kills all the wildlife and fish in the water.
	And we deplete our soils as well by chemical spraying.
	We deplete the microbiome of the soil.
	So our food now is 50% less nutritious than it was 50 years ago, less vitamins and minerals and nutrients.
	And we're actually seeing land being degraded at such a rate that we're creating a new desert the size of Nicaragua every year.
	And we're in trouble.
	We may only have 60 years of soil left to grow food in, according to the UN.
	So we're in a bit of a crisis.
	And unless we revolutionize the way we grow food, the food we produce, the food we market, the food we eat, we're in trouble.
	I don't think we can get there, but we're in trouble right now.
	I wonder if you feel, Mark, that the desacralization of food, the desacralization of our relationship with the land, with the soil, with the plants and animals that we eat, is in part responsible.
	The fact that this insidious, invasive ideology of commodity has so detached us from the The conscious component that eating in all healthy cultures contains is partly to blame.
	Whether it's the Mediterranean or the Indian subcontinent, so-called, people sacralise, and even Christian, Northern European cultures say in grace, recognising that our relationship with food is part of our symbiotic connection to nature.
	The loss of this awareness, is it part of the problem?
	And perhaps somewhat less esoterically, Katie in the chat says, do you think all this is causing my thyroid condition?
	Could you do both of those for us, Mark?
	I don't know about the thyroid condition, but actually chemical spraying and pesticides are a big source of thyroid issues.
	And so is gluten, which has changed in our food supply because of the hybridization of wheat.
	It's created dwarf wheat, which has far more gluten proteins that are far more inflammatory.
	So in part, yes, because of that, you might be increasing your thyroid risk.
	But I think the reality is that we have become disconnected from the land.
	We have been disconnected from our food source.
	In America, about 2% of the people were not farmers at the turn of the 1900s.
	Now about 2% are farmers.
	We've completely unsettled America from being a rural agrarian society
	as most countries around the world and become a more urban society.
	And we've moved people off the farms and disconnected them from the land, their food sources
	and the connection to nature.
	And I think that plays a big role.
	Most people don't have idea where their food comes from, how it was grown, what's going on with it.
	And if they did, they'd be really appalled.
	So I think people need to get back, like in America, for example, during World War II,
	40% of the food was grown by Victory Gardens.
	We need to get back into actually being connected more to our source of nutrition and food
	through either growing or being involved with farms.
	I was at a farm today and I visited this regenerative farm where they were growing incredible intercropping
	of animals and plants and fruit trees and vegetables in this beautiful way that was restoring
	the organic matter in the soil that was storing water in the soil,
	that was increasing biodiversity in the land, that was doing all the right things,
	was adding value to the nature rather than stealing and making nature a commodity to use up.
	Become awakened.
	Grow your own food!
	Regain control of your own life and gastric system!
	Awaken!
	Immediately!
	Cause for optimism, cause for hope, Dr. Mark, but also the precipice of despair, for it's time for... Hmm.
	It's my question.
	Hello, Dr. Mark.
	Uh, that didn't need to be answered.
	That wasn't a question, actually.
	Uh, I was just wondering, so one element... Small talk.
	We don't have a jingle for Gareth flirts with Dr. Mark Hyman.
	Although, oh god, I can only imagine what Biographics Jack would conjure up with that brief.
	I was just wondering, you talked a lot about the way in which we're being poisoned by the foods that we're eating that are making us sick.
	I guess the other element to this is the drugs that we're being told to take to make us better.
	And when we have a situation where drug studies are sponsored by drug companies and the FDA is funded by the pharmaceutical companies that it's meant to regulate, are we at a point where the drugs, I guess, you know, obviously this has been raised a lot during the pandemic, but the drugs that we're being told to take to lessen the issues of the things that are making us sick, aren't the things that we should be taking?
	Drugs that we shouldn't be taking at all and different drugs that we could be taking that would be more effective Yeah, listen, pharmaceutical drugs have a role, and they can benefit many people for many things.
	But they're now being prescribed in ways that actually don't, for the most part, help people create health.
	They're treating symptoms and diseases, and they often come with significant side effects.
	And the problem with research is that it's primarily funded by industry.
	Whether it's nutrition research, 12 times as much money is flowing into nutrition research as the government funding of research.
	And the findings of those Food industry-sponsored studies are 8 to 50 times more likely to show a positive benefit for their product.
	Like if dairy is seen to be a sports drink, well, guess what?
	It's going to work if it's funded by the Dairy Council.
	And same thing with pharmaceutical industry.
	You know, the frightening thing is that, you know, pharmaceutical industry has to submit all their data to the FDA for review.
	And then the FDA will approve the drug or will not approve the drug.
	But But they don't have to publish all the data.
	So they just publish the positive data that they kind of twist and contort and adjust and make statistical manipulations to make it seem good.
	Well, they don't actually publish the negative data.
	And this is quite concerning to me because we don't actually have true transparency about what we're taking and its impact, its benefit, and its risk.
	And most drugs are marginally effective, you know, and they don't reverse the disease.
	And you can't reverse diabetes with a drug.
	You can manage it, but the only place diabetes is cured is on the farm, in the grocery store, in the restaurants, in the kitchen.
	I can't cure it in my office with a medication.
	And I see it all the time when you actually Treat people by creating health using functional medicine, which is really the science of creating health.
	Treats the body as an ecosystem.
	It's so much like regenerative agriculture.
	It's like regenerative human health.
	It works to actually reverse disease, whether it's autoimmune diseases, cardiovascular diseases, metabolic disease like diabetes, digestive problems, mood disorders.
	And where, you know, medication is important, but it's not the solution for most of the problems people have.
	And I think we need to move away from our reductionist model, which is you treat a single disease with a single drug, which is really predominantly how research is done, and look at how do we start to understand the science of what is health?
	How do we define health?
	How do we create it through an intervention, set of interventions that actually work, like lifestyle, what you eat, how you move, your sleep, stress, you know, the right practices in your life, community, meaning, belonging, purpose.
	Those are all the ingredients for health.
	Thanks for watching Zik Fox News.
	Video.
	No.
	Here's the fucking news.
	The mainstream media and the government condemn Elon Musk for refusing to facilitate the bombing of Crimea that could
	lead to World War 3.
	So who's right?
	The mainstream in the government or Elon Musk?
	Elon Musk refused to use Starlink's internet connectivity to facilitate Ukrainian bombing of Crimea, perhaps because he thought it might escalate the tensions between the two countries in what some people regard as a proxy war and lead to World War 3.
	That hasn't stopped Elizabeth Warren and CNN condemning him, I suppose, for meddling in international affairs and geopolitical matters.
	Musk, of course, says, well, it's against our terms and conditions.
	to facilitate acts of violence.
	Astonishingly, he's correct.
	I mean, imagine the reverse.
	Imagine if the government wanted peace, crazy concept, and Elon Musk had gone, I'm going to let them use Starlink to bomb another country.
	That would literally be a James Bond villain, wouldn't it?
	Like an Elon Musk, let's face it, in terms of his persona, he could carry that off.
	But the reality is astonishing.
	Musk doesn't want to facilitate bombing.
	The mainstream media and the government condemn Musk.
	Maybe all their years of collaborating with big tech Surveillance?
	Censorship?
	Manipulation?
	Think of some of the things that were revealed in the Twitter files about deep state infiltration of social media sites are coming home to roost for them.
	Let's have a look at this story and see what it exposes about the relationships between government and big tech and how they can't always have it their way.
	Maybe they just can't have Armageddon yet.
	That last year, Musk blocked access to his Starlink satellite network in Crimea in order to disrupt a major Ukrainian attack on the Russian Navy there.
	In other words, Musk effectively sabotaged a military operation by Ukraine, a U.S.
	ally, against Russia, an aggressor country that invaded a U.S.
	ally.
	What an extraordinary new world we're living in.
	For a moment, let us consider the vast power of a man like Elon Musk, that he has the facility and ability to make choices that interrupt the trajectory of a geopolitical superpower, or at least in this case the allies of America, in an ongoing war that is plainly supported by the United States of America.
	But also let's check morally the framing of this.
	There is a complaint that Elon Musk did that.
	Now this is extraordinary.
	Look at the opportunities we have to analyse our current state.
	There are big tech companies that are so powerful they are essentially states in themselves.
	This is not just exposed in this Starlink Elon Musk example where, you know, just for the hell of it, I'll tell you, I think generally speaking, not exacerbating war is probably a good thing.
	I don't know.
	Let me know in the comments in the chat if you agree.
	But it shows that companies like Microsoft that have massive contracts with the government, Facebook that cooperated in extraordinary ways during COVID, the Twitter files revelations about deep state infiltration into all social media sites, Edward Snowden's revelations about how how much we were being spied on by our governments.
	It just shows you that big tech and the state are involved in extraordinary projects together.
	And Elon Musk remains an anomaly because he is one of those rare figures
	that doesn't play by their rules.
	They say it's time to bomb Crimea and he says check the terms and conditions.
	Should there be repercussions for that?
	Antony Blinken is a funny colour.
	They've accidentally put the same filter over Antony Blinken that they put over Joe Rogan when he said that he had healed himself of coronavirus.
	They've greened him out.
	Look.
	Jake, I can't speak to a specific episode.
	Here's what I can tell you.
	Starlink has been a vital tool for the Ukrainians to be able to communicate with each other, and particularly for the military to communicate in their effort to defend all of Ukraine's territory.
	It remains so, and I would expect it to continue to be critical to their efforts.
	The ordinary semantics of war being deployed.
	Defend.
	I'm just going to defend myself.
	Oh, and how are we going to do that?
	By firing these missiles into Crimea.
	Well, that's a really very, very defensive move.
	You better get out of here or I'm going to defend the shit out of you.
	What we would hope and expect is that that technology will remain fully available to the Ukrainians.
	It is vital to what they're doing.
	Even though they plainly don't agree with what Musk has done, they can't even really criticize him because they are dependent on Musk's facilities.
	So even though the main thrust of this could be, yeah it's a good thing that we've avoided Armageddon, let me know in the comments if you think that's a significant component of this story and it's somewhat peculiar that it's a sort of a tech billionaire that's making decisions that guide the world towards less war and the government that's sort of agitated by that, but what it Also reveals is the changing nature of relationships between the state and big tech.
	It's often been remarked to the point of cliche that these organizations have unprecedented power, that compared to them, energy companies and the Carnegie's and the Rockefeller's and some of the other famous names are as nothing compared to big tech's capacity to influence world affairs.
	And this is a very real example.
	There would have been a missile attack on Crimea last year if Elon Musk had said, OK, yeah, that seems like a good idea.
	This is an example of where we're seeing it on the mainstream news because it's against their agenda.
	Think of the numerous times where they collaborated successfully.
	Would you mind if we had those files?
	Would you mind delisting this information?
	Would you mind promoting that information?
	Do you think that stuff doesn't go on?
	That stuff doesn't make it onto the mainstream news.
	Extraordinary.
	Let me know in the comments what you think about that.
	Do you see how this system is open to exploitation?
	Carry on with your privacy violations, carry on selling data, carry on spying, because we're going to be asking you for a little favour down the line.
	Do you see how these two titans, usually Elon Musk aside, are able to collaborate to a degree that's obviously adverse to the freedom of ordinary people, and by ordinary people I mean basically everyone that's not the state and big tech.
	I don't know that you can't speak to it.
	You won't speak to it.
	Musk says he was reportedly afraid that Russia would retaliate with nuclear weapons.
	Musk says that's based on his private discussions he had with senior Russian officials.
	Elon Musk is now having to sort of, as well as run Twitter on X, in his hands hangs the balance of world peace.
	What kind of diary has this guy got?
	Oh, better make that car work properly.
	I've got that flamethrower thing.
	Is Twitter okay?
	I mean, X. Also, shit!
	Putin!
	Like, Jesus Christ!
	What?! !
	It's an unstable and extraordinary situation we find ourselves in.
	The only reason it's being reported on, of course, is because Elon Musk's actions were out of line with the preferences of the trajectory of power.
	He's an interrupter, a disrupter.
	He's not playing by their rules, is he?
	Plainly, otherwise you wouldn't get news stories like this one.
	Think about the other big tech billionaires and big tech organizations that, for a long while now, have collaborated with the state.
	Are you concerned that Musk is apparently conducting his own diplomatic outreach to the Russian government?
	It's extraordinary, but in this case, it seems like he's doing a better job of it than them.
	I mean, how many of us are saying, shouldn't we be talking about peace?
	Shouldn't we be talking about diplomacy?
	How's that counter-offensive going?
	Shouldn't we acknowledge some culpability for the events in 2014, for the exacerbation of this conflict?
	Seems like all of that is being left to Elon Musk.
	Like, he's the only person that's taking seriously Really?
	the potential that continual agitation of Russia could lead to a very serious global
	conflict. Now that isn't ideal. Ideally what you would have are governments and states
	people that were collaboratively looking to bring about the best potential outcome for
	the people of the world. But we don't have that. What we have is a government that somehow
	under the guise of liberalism is saying the best thing to do is more war.
	Really? None of this concerns you?
	Is the implication there that Elon Musk is some kind of Russian asset?
	an ally of the Russians and it's an extraordinary situation where a sort of private individual is
	able to have that kind of influence and that kind of dialogue but this is the machine that
	the United States more than any other nation has contributed to building because of the
	relationships they've had with big tech because of the way they've funded big tech because of the
	way they've infiltrated big tech because the way they've exploited big tech for censorship and
	surveillance. Now they have someone who's out of step with their agenda and it's a problem but I
	would say the problem began a long time ago. Senator Elizabeth Warren called for a probe Tuesday
	following a claim that Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk curbed a Ukrainian military operation aimed
	at Russia's Black Sea fleet last year by limiting access to SpaceX's Starlink satellite network a
	report said. Congress needs to investigate what's happened here and whether we have adequate tools
	to make sure foreign policy is conducted by the government and not by one billionaire,
	Warren said on Monday.
	Unless it's a billionaire that we like, in which case, carry on.
	Unless those billionaires are facilitating surveillance and censorship, then we don't like it.
	What an extraordinary sentence.
	Also, doesn't it start to melt away the veneer, the lie, the charge that this isn't a proxy war?
	That America's only involvement is kind of humanitarian aid and then lethal aid and it's still not a war.
	What business is it of theirs if Elon Musk, who's apparently a private individual, goes, I'm not going to facilitate the bombing of Crimea or this Black Sea naval attack.
	So now they're involved in that aspect of it.
	Do you see how immersive, how integral, how obvious and evident, whether it's in the lead up to this war, the arming of Ukraine, the potential for rebuilding Ukraine subsequently.
	Again, I have to always specify and express explicitly The humanitarian aid for Ukraine and bringing about an end to their suffering and opposing the criminal invasion by Russia are all important things but remember the ICC can't be consulted because America's own military history is so dubious that they can't call upon anybody to adjudicate.
	Elon Musk says he refused to give Kiev access to his Starlink communications network over Crimea to avoid complicity in a major act of war.
	It's just so It's so odd, I think, that what Elon Musk is saying makes more sense than the oddly saccharine and lacquered language of the mainstream media and the government.
	Like, Elizabeth Warren, who I sort of feel like I remember is meant to be kind of a super liberal person who cares about people's rights, is like, we better check because we can't have people stopping us bombing people when we need.
	Not us, them, that we're supporting bombing people when we need.
	And it's Elon Musk that says we've got to avoid complicity in a major act of war.
	Just again, imagine this was flipped.
	Imagine the government and the mainstream media were advocating for peace and a billionaire like Elon Musk with all of his quirks of personality was going, I have decided that instead I'm going to facilitate the ongoing bombing.
	They're going, this geyser has got to be reined in, this is out of control.
	But it isn't that.
	Look at how normality has just flipped.
	Look how you're just invited to go, yeah, Elon Musk's a bit out of order, isn't he?
	Stopping the escalation of a global conflict.
	I'm sick of that.
	If I get one more billionaire stopping the escalation of nuclear Armageddon, I don't know what I'm going to do.
	Well, what are you going to do if he doesn't?
	I'm going to become sort of dust.
	Here's what Musk says on X. Much appreciated, Walter.
	The onus is meaningfully different if I refuse to act upon a request from Ukraine versus made a deliberate change to Starlink to thwart Ukraine.
	At no point did I or anyone at SpaceX promise coverage over Crimea.
	Moreover, our terms of service clearly prohibit Starlink for offensive military action as we are a civilian system.
	So they were again asking for something that was expressly prohibited.
	I can't believe that, you know stuff you see in terms and conditions when you scroll down?
	Like somewhere that goes, we can't let you create Armageddon.
	Oh, that's never gonna be relevant.
	You know, the kind of things that you think, God, why have they bothered to put that on there?
	So actually I have to go, hold on a minute, check the terms and conditions.
	It says in here that you're not allowed to start nuclear war.
	Foiled again.
	I never ticked that!
	I never ticked it!
	In order to continue to bring you this high-quality content, we need commercial partners.
	Here is a message from one of those.
	Stay to the end.
	I'll try and make it funny, baby.
	Is it me, or does the future feel more insecure and uncertain?
	Wars, pandemics, lies, trickery.
	My cats keep having kittens.
	The last one's personal.
	For those who are in the United States, there is a way to secure your hard-earned nest egg.
	American Hartford Gold make it easy to protect your savings and retirement accounts with physical gold and silver.
	With one phone call, they can have physical gold and silver delivered right to your door or inside a qualifying retirement account like your IRA or 401k.
	American Hartford Gold is the highest-rated firm in the U.S.
	with an A-plus rating from the BBB and thousands of satisfied clients.
	Right now, they will give you up to $5,000 of free silver on your first qualifying order.
	This offer is only for US customers.
	Call 866-505-8315.
	That's 866-505-8315.
	Or simply text BRAND to 99-88-99.
	505 8315 that's 866 505 8315 or simply text brand to 99 88 99. Get up to $5,000 of silver
	and protect your future in this crazy crazy world with some solid precious metals literally
	made in stars. Mr Musk has previously said he does not want Starlink used to conduct
	long range offensive strikes.
	Like, what world are we living in where that has to be said?
	Where Elon Musk has to publicly say, I don't really want it used for long-range.
	Like, I remember hearing about Starlink before when they were saying Elon Musk should be donating money.
	He goes, actually, I've given him Starlink and stuff.
	Shouldn't the collective aim be peace and diplomacy?
	People go, I know you're being naive because Russia, Putin's man.
	But like, I think that they have to present Russia as an unprecedented aggressor and Putin as an unassailable, indefatigable lunatic in order to continue with their agenda.
	Because if Putin, like any other politician, is a, you know, you know what I think of politicians and I don't think that he's an exemplary character, but neither do I think that he's distinctly worse than anyone else.
	That is the truth.
	Let me know in the comments what you think.
	How can it not be right?
	How can it not be favourable that this would be approached by the UN, by NATO, by global bodies with an incentive for peace?
	Look, this is obviously going to escalate.
	We are going to have to come to some compromise over these disputed territories and these ethnic areas and obviously Russia does have sovereign rights to not feel impeded upon by the North Atlantic Trade Organization that were expressly set up to make the Soviet Union Feel threatened.
	It's so plain to me that a conversation needs to take place.
	Isn't it you?
	And it's so extraordinary to me that it takes Elon Musk to be the person that steps in and prevents all of us dying.
	I mean, what if he changes his mind?
	The technology entrepreneur has long held reservations over his system being used for offensive capabilities.
	I'm not sure.
	I don't know.
	I don't know if that's a good thing.
	He has restricted access to Starlink on multiple occasions throughout the war, according to a report by the New York Times, citing people familiar with the situation.
	In February, he wrote on Twitter, we are not allowing Starlink to be used for long-range drone strikes.
	Ooh, you bastards.
	Last year, Mr. Musk published a peace plan for Ukraine, suggesting it should mirror sovereignty referendums organized by Russia in regions it occupied.
	The Kremlin welcomed the billionaire's suggestion as a positive step, while Kiev accused him of presenting proposals aligned to Russian interests.
	In February, Secretary of State Antony Blinken said in a Zoom call with a group of experts that a Ukrainian attempt to retake Crimea would be a red line for Vladimir Putin that could lead to wider Russian response.
	The total number of Ukrainian-Russian troops killed or wounded since the war in Ukraine began 18 months ago is nearing half a million people, U.S.
	officials said.
	Those numbers now are just sort of lost in the mist and madness of war, in the rhetoric of, oh, don't you support Ukraine?
	And, well, Putin's a criminal.
	Like, just half a million lives, the devastation.
	The news is discussing the wrong thing.
	Andy Blinken's the person that said that Crimea would be a red line for Putin.
	Why are we not discussing the madness that it takes a private individual, a tech billionaire, to make a decision that favours world safety more than the United States of America and the military-industrial complex?
	What's going on?
	Antony Blink is in an extraordinary situation, isn't he?
	He has to keep Elon Musk happy because of the requirement for his ongoing cooperation with Starlink.
	He's got to somehow acknowledge and yet not declare that he knows that Crimea is a red line for Putin and that he's potentially involved in nuclear brinkmanship with a nuclear superpower, as well as some extraordinary relationships that he has with the military-industrial complex.
	It's a long way from like John Lennon saying, all we are saying is give peace a chance.
	All we're saying is we need Starlink.
	Crimea's a red line.
	It's weird that a private individual does this.
	We've got all sorts of other relationships.
	We have big tech.
	And I might be accepting money in some extraordinary ways myself, is all we're saying.
	Jake, I can't speak to conversations that may or may not have happened.
	I don't know.
	I'm focused on the fact that the technology itself, Starlink, How's this war going?
	I don't know.
	to the Ukrainians. It remains so. And it should continue to be part of what they're able to
	call on to be able to communicate with themselves and again to have the military be able to
	communicate.
	Communicate with themselves. How's this war going? I don't know. I feel like we possibly
	are being exploited because of...
	Thanks for letting us use it, Elon.
	and our legitimate grievances and ongoing historic conflict with Russia in order to facilitate military-industrial
	complex objectives, as well as a unipolar globalist agenda pursued by an
	American nation that wants to weaken Russia.
	Well, I'm glad you called.
	Thanks for letting us use it, Elon.
	Throughout this Russian aggression, you know, we ourselves have always had to factor in what Russia may do in response
	to any given thing that we or others do or the Ukrainians do.
	And we have.
	But what's so critical now is that Ukraine has had real success over the past year.
	I was just in Ukraine, as you know.
	The last time I was there was almost exactly a year ago.
	In that year, from the last time I was there till this week, the Ukrainians have retaken more than 50% of the territory seized by Russia since February of 2022.
	They're now engaged in a critical counter-offensive.
	And we're doing everything we can to maximize our support for them, along with many other countries, so that they can be successful.
	Starlink is an important part of their success, and as I said, we expect that it will continue to be so.
	It sounds like Starlink's so important the US government doesn't want to risk offending a capricious billionaire who did some things that I think in another situation the US government might want to say something about but let's move on.
	That's so extraordinary that the only time you hear the mainstream media being sort of overtly critical it's when the military-industrial complex's agenda is broken.
	Briefly interrupted or unable to be completely fulfilled because of the reliance of the government on big tech, which is a problem.
	Well, not a problem, it's a solution elsewhere across their governments when it comes to surveillance and censorship and spy and all the stuff that you already know about.
	That's the only time you see CNN.
	Do you see the alignment between the mainstream media and the military-industrial complex?
	It's extraordinary to see how that lines up, isn't it?
	Let me know in the comments if you agree.
	So what is that agenda that the mainstream media and Jake Tapper there, quite aggressively, are supporting?
	Democrat Senator Richard Blumenthal recently commented that the US is getting its money's worth in Ukraine because Russia is taking losses and no Americans are dying, showing a lack of concern for Ukrainian lives.
	Yeah, I suppose that is what it does.
	Half a million human beings, like you, like me, dead.
	For what?
	For less than 3% of our nation's military budget, we've enabled Ukraine to degrade Russia's military strength by half, all without a single American servicewoman or man injured or lost, he added.
	You know, every so often they just say stuff that's like, oh right, so this is what's going on, why don't we talk about this plainly so we can, like, you know, have a vote on it.
	And, is Anthony Blinken right that the war's going well for Ukraine?
	The Washington Post recently reported that US intelligence has determined Ukraine's counteroffensive will fail to meet its main objective of severing Russia's land bridge to Crimea.
	Despite the conclusion, The US is pushing Ukrainian commanders to go harder on the battlefield and complaining that Ukraine has become too casualty averse.
	So is the counter-offensive going well for Ukraine?
	Is this beneficial to Ukraine?
	Are Ukraine and Ukrainian people doing well as a result of this?
	Or is it a very, very difficult conflict which is draining resources and life out of Ukraine?
	Let me know in the comments.
	And casualty averse, that means they don't want people dying.
	They're starting to realise that too many people are dying in an unwinnable war.
	It's an unwinnable war because there's so many scenarios where it just leads to unthinkable devastation.
	Leading up to the counter-offensive, the Discord leaks and other media reports show that the US did not believe Ukraine could regain significant territory, but the Biden administration still pushed for the assault and rejected the idea of a ceasefire.
	But the assumption that peace is the most favourable outcome in any conflict has long been abandoned.
	Listen to this extraordinary piece of discourse from NATO and NATO member companies.
	Er, countries.
	What's the difference anymore?
	Companies, countries, they all seem to intermingle these days.
	Where they talk about how undesirable peace and peace talks are.
	NATO members that border Russia and Belarus are afraid that growing opposition to the proxy war in Ukraine inside the United States will put pressure on the Ukrainians to pursue peace talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin, The Hill reported on Tuesday.
	The narrative from the countries on NATO's eastern flank is that peace talks would reward Putin and put Russia in a better position to exert its influence.
	All of this then increases the threat on NATO's borders.
	Putin would be able to sell negotiations as a victory, and it would help him exert even greater political influence globally.
	Often this conflict is compared to the Second World War.
	Of course, famously, Adolf Hitler was appeased initially by many countries, including our country, which ultimately was a significant opponent of Nazism.
	Way back then.
	And obviously what happened was there were incremental lines that were drawn.
	Like, oh, if they invade Czechoslovakia, if they retake Alsace-Lorraine and the Rhineland.
	Until ultimately, at the point where Poland was invaded, war was declared.
	In this situation, it appears that there are numerous narratives available.
	For example, isn't it possible to consider That peace talks could be sought between Russia, Ukraine, including solutions for these disputed territories, including Ukraine's NATO status.
	And if after that, Russia went, and now we invade Belarus, you go, oh shit, actually they are imperialist lunatics.
	It's not like it would then be too late.
	Particularly contrasted with the strategy of continuing to push Russia on the issue of Crimea, where they've said that's a red line and it will lead to war.
	So if you look at historical precedent, it seems that we are at the point where negotiation is not the same as appeasement.
	Where negotiation will be sensible.
	Let me know in the comments if you agree.
	In the early days of the war, Russia and Ukraine were engaged in peace talks that seemed promising, but they were discouraged by the US and its allies.
	Why?
	The Washington Post reported at the time that for some in NATO it's better for the Ukrainians to keep fighting and dying.
	So is that good for Ukraine?
	Than to achieve a peace that comes too early or at too high a cost to Kiev and the rest of Europe.
	You have to question the entire mentality that leads to sentences, paradigms and equations like that.
	Dying too early, peace too... You have to question everything because what's being normalised is too astonishing.
	While the US and NATO insist it's up to Ukraine to negotiate, according to Ukrainska Pravda, then British Prime Minister Boris Johnson told Zelensky when a deal was on the table in April 22 that even if Ukraine was ready to sign an agreement with Putin, Kiev's Western backers were not.
	Russia's main demand during the short-lived negotiations that took place in the first months of the war was Ukrainian neutrality.
	What an extraordinary conflict this is, where Elon Musk appears to have to be relied upon to act more responsibly than a nation state.
	How evident it is from rhetoric like, Ukraine have become casualty averse, that Ukraine are being used and manipulated.
	The failed or even sabotaged peace talks are a further indicator that Ukraine are a junior partner in a proxy war between the United States and Russia in which the United States plainly has an agenda to weaken Russia and has found a way of doing that without risking too much adverse publicity at home because it isn't the sons and daughters of America that are being used to fight this battle that are coming home in coffins, it's the sons and daughters of Ukraine.
	And according to this information, that's a price worth paying.
	Value for money is the phrase that was used.
	So it is an economic war.
	It is an extraordinary new world where tech billionaires have to be relied upon to make diplomatic decisions.
	But thankfully, in this instance, the tech billionaire is making a better decision than the people you're voting for and funding to make those decisions for you.
	But that's just what I think.
	Let me know what you think in the chat.

▲