#391 - “You’re WRONG” YouTube’s #1 Skeptic Confronts Danny | Professor Dave

professor date howdy howdy thanks for coming bro yeah happy to be here a little surprised to be here but happy nonetheless look man you're very talented and your videos are very funny thank you uh and i can't deny that whether i agree with all of your the stuff you say or not um kudos to you for doing what you're doing and making it entertaining informative and hilarious so for the people that are listening to this that may hate your guts because they don't agree with you which is stupid right uh this will be a like taking an ice bath for them it'll be healthy i think i yeah i hope they i hope they get all the way through it yeah i think it'd be good to start this off by like explaining how you got into all this shit in the beginning sure uh okay let's see it's good i mean even my viewers i don't think have like the full in-depth origin story so i guess i can give you kind of the medium length one and then anywhere you want more details this is a long show right you can feel free to pry and get more more information um i guess i would say so i studied chemistry in college uh and then in grad school as well but ultimately all i really wanted to do was play music so from the beginning of college i knew i wanted to be a musician i was playing in bands really obsessed with that and uh but decided to be a chem major anyway apparently i was very practical in that regard uh but then all through my 20s i was playing in bands uh and all the while just uh at first i was sort of tutoring and substitute teaching you know you still need to get by you know you need to make a living and pay the pay the rent so bandmates would all be bartenders or whatever i would teach chemistry um and then i was teaching uh organic chemistry at this trade university for about three and a half years uh and during that time the band i was in at that time started to kind of take off a little bit um and so we were able and touring and all this stuff and we were touring so much that we uh decided we all needed some form of passive income and so we all had our little ideas and mine was a youtube channel so this is 2014 so this is quite a while ago at this point what kind of music uh so that band was called the lonely wild uh so i i would call it like india americana i guess rock and roll i mean for life yeah it was guitar driven rock music uh i was the drummer in that band um and so uh in 2014 on youtube there was i mean con academy started way like 0708 or something like that um there was crash course there was some stuff like that yeah and i thought i can do that so uh i i took my organic chemistry lectures um and just delivered them to camera with a white board just here you go ok i'm one and two students um and put them online with a little bit of branding and stuff and uh it it was received very well it was the first thing in my life that just was instantly you know people were appreciative and you know uh so i had a lot of positive feedback and um so i decided to do general chemistry tutorials with uh green screen and animations and things like that and uh so eventually around mid 2016 it looked like the band wasn't really going to pan out uh which was devastating um but the channel was starting to it had you know maybe 10 20 000 subscribers or something it was enough to kind of go all right well what if i put all my eggs in this basket so for the next four or five years i just started really relentlessly uploading educational tutorials so high school and undergrad uh aligned curriculum aligned stuff um i moved on to like biochemistry biology physics astronomy math just sort of whatever i had studied whatever was tangential to what i had studied um and uh continued doing that and then the reason i'm probably here is that around 2019 2020 i pivoted into not really pivoted but uh in addition to the tutorials which i still generate uh i started making debunking content where i sort of go after charlatans uh in in the science space who are lying about science for whatever financial or political motivation um and i just make content sort of exposing and eviscerating them and that has definitely gained me more no i'm not necessarily more notoriety i guess it depends you know if you're if you're in a chemistry department at a university they're probably talking about my tutorials but for the broader general public i'm certainly better known for my debunking content so yeah yeah yeah very very entertaining dude and and are you familiar with coffeezilla yes he's similar he calls out sort of like more of the actual like financial fraud that happens with like a lot of the big influencers like a lot of the crypto and a lot of like the uh i don't know he did a bunch of a bunch of stuff on patrick but david grant cardone recently like logan paul and some other people i don't keep up with all of it yes but uh he does really good work too we talked to him like years ago um but recently i watched one of your videos on like on on ancient history and i think it was about jimmy corsetti um i like jimmy he's he's i've always he's always been pleasant to me um i get along with him uh if this was about any of my friends i would laugh my ass off about it it was it was very entertaining um and i i couldn't help but like share it with a bunch of my friends like dude have you seen this like it's great like even though like i don't think the pyramids were tombs this guy's great like this guy's funny and i think there needs to be people that are like this that are out there because like i i don't think that you should be even though the way it is is everyone's kind of like siloed into their own ideological bubbles on the internet which is kind of like what's the what the algorithms have done it's kind of like like siloed people away for for whatever algorithmic reason to get more um engagement on stuff or to monetize it better who knows why that has been the byproduct it's pretty easy to wrap your head around i mean the the you know sensationalist uh content uh is is rewarded so you end up getting audience capture and so i mean that's why i'm was reticent to come but ultimately decided it was a good idea because it sounds like you're trying to not necessarily follow you know the joe rogan path of just exclusively platforming grifters because of you know because of the the revenue that it brings um people want to see this stuff that you know and jimmy's nice to you because he wants access to your platform but he's a very toxic individual and that whole cult the pseudo-archaeology cult which you know you've platformed a bit uh uh you know joe joe rogan platforms endlessly it's an extremely toxic uh cult and uh you know i'm sure your listeners that have watched all these guys on your show and other shows don't want to hear that but it's absolutely the case and i've made videos on graham and his underlings and all of these other uh people i'm starting to move on to other figures because those are not as relevant anymore and there's other people that are kind of cropping up in this space and it's just sensationalist clickbait content anti-establishment archaeologists are all idiots and they don't know this like super special secret truth that i'm offering you it's very it's tantalizing it's a tantalizing narrative but it's well i think i think everything could be classified as a cult online there's a lot of things both political parties are absolute cults um different segments of religious knowledge or religions or cults basically sure um and these things have become religions where i i don't think it's ever going to be a cult but i don't think it's everyone man i think most people are genuinely interest interested in this stuff but the people that you see tweeting about it the loudest people online are are i agree with you the most toxic people and then when you see people like that you automatically want to lump everyone into it and say this is this big toxic cult when in reality it's a handful of people that are very loud online trying to get engagement sure but that's i mean you know we're in the heartland of scientology right we are we're gonna we got an e-meter right there we can do a technological exorcism on you right now i walked around by the headquarters yesterday i was like this is wild it's insane but i mean but you can say that like that that is obj like the biggest and most successful cult of the past century it is real it is right why why like they've they've they're the one cult that's been able to survive they've just mastered it but what i'm saying is that obviously they're always going to be people on the periphery right you're trying to lure in people on the periphery right that's why you you know all of the all of what's been going on exposing the you know the church of scientology is incredible and i can't believe they're still able to operate after what's come out but this is what you do right with with with all of these nascent cults you you have these cult leaders and they're trying to draw in people from the peripheries and this is this is reasonable this is how we you know and so that's why there's not enough people making debunking content right there's too many of these and they you know right there has to be enough content or a a roughly equal amount of content debunking these claims as there are the people that are generating them so yeah i i just think you know this all probably started as far as like the ancient archaeology angle of it i think um when joe rogan probably had graham hancock on over 10 years ago just over and i think that's kind of when the internet really exploded with this stuff i mean that's i think joe actually has said that that's like when his podcast really took off when he had graham hancock on and you know some of the things graham hancock is saying i'm not an expert in graham hancock or i have read one of his books maybe six years ago um um i'm not the kind of the type i'm not the person to debate whether he's right or wrong um but i think there's a genuine interest in this stuff a genuine human interest in this stuff um and clearly academics and archaeologists and egyptologists most mostly disagree with him um is fascinating whether he's whether he's whether there is a kernel of truth to what he's saying or not at least i don't think he's saying that he's saying that he's saying that he's saying at least the guy's traveling around to all these places saying all this stuff like he's not saying this is an absolute bona fide fact right right he's a tourist peddling sensationalist claims it's just not related and honest framing. Academics don't disagree. They know that he's wrong. And Graham is very careful about making very few falsifiable claims. He stays as vague as possible. And that was what was great about Flint debating Graham on Joe. Another thing I'll be clear about is I kind of dissented from the norm on Joe's podcast with Flint. I thought Graham body bagged. I mean, I'm sorry. I thought Flint body bagged Graham in that debate. That was my, because there's this phenomenon I'm sure you're aware of. When you watch things online, you kind of gaslight yourself by reading the comments because the comments sort of like have their own sort of conclusion they come to. And then some people even read the comments first and be like, oh, this must be what it's about. Then you watch the video in that context. Hence bot campaigns because they know that if they can shift the optics in the comment section, that might lead people to not even watch the content at all or, you know. Right. Right. So, so, I thought that was a great debate to see. I really learned a lot from it. And I thought Flint actually did a good job as insufferable as he, some people think he may be. I personally liked him. I mean, I don't like what's insufferable about providing a mountain of facts and empirical evidence to disprove a grifting fraud. Well, he's very toxic online. He's kind of, I mean, he's just as loud as Jimmy, but on the, in the complete opposite direction. Yeah. But these are people who have, you know, encouraged people to contact his place of work and try to get him fired. And like, there's just after that debate began this entire narrative of Flint is a liar. Flint is a liar. Joe said it on his show, had Graham on a bunch more times to talk about what a liar Flint is. And then all the other underlings, you know, repeating this narrative. It's just, it's just damage control. He humiliated Graham on Joe's show. That's what happened. You know what I mean? He just brought all the, he got, he got Graham to admit that there's no evidence for anything he says. And then he also brought empirical evidence against the existence of agriculture and all this stuff. And, and even got him to say, you know, I don't know, I don't know. I don't know. I don't want him to, to walk back and say, well, maybe it was just the idea of agriculture, which is meaningless, right? It just, he exposed how vapid these narratives really are. And Graham's very clever. He doesn't make that many falsifiable claims, but ultimately it's just whimsy, right? Dressed up as this bold anti-establishment research that flies in the face. You know, it's nuts. It's just a grifter making money. Yeah. One of the things that I've said before that I've thought about a lot, well, I was thinking about this a lot during that time when he did that podcast. And before we get into that, I was thinking about this a lot during that time when he did that podcast. And before I had Flint on the show is that when you are in that position that Graham Hancock was in, in the beginning, where you are sort of like the fringe outlier anti-establishment person, you feel like everyone's coming to get you. Everyone's trying to take you down. And you're kind of the one shining light in this sea of darkness, right? You can go so far. You can come full circle to being like the very thing that you were fighting against in the academy. Yeah. But a figure like Graham never truly was that figure. That's a narrative. It's an alluring narrative. Everyone wants Luke Skywalker versus the Death Star, right? That is the only way to get people to discredit an entire field of science with millions of experts that actually know what they're talking about, right? It has to have that bite to it. So Graham has always been a grifter. I mean, he started with like really ancient aliens on Mars kind of stuff. And then he kind of pulled it. Back to sound as reasonable as possible to kind of lure people in. Look, he speaks very well. And he has these interesting ideas. And he's not arrogant. He says, what if? But it's just all of it is absolutely baseless rhetoric to sell books. That's all it is. Do you think that people like him literally get into this stuff just to profit on it? Like say, hey, let's take this lie and let's just deceive people to make money? Or do you think that they're actually maybe interested in it and they believe that it could be true and they want to discuss? I mean, obviously, I think there's nuance. I think there are people that do do what I just described. Right. Billy Carson. But it's the same. It's the same narrative. He's just way more sensational with it, with the Anunnaki and Emerald Tablets and all this stuff. It's the same grift. Graham just tries to appear as reasonable as possible. Now, the degree to which you want to get into human psychology and how much a grifter is able to convince themselves that they are the hero that they present themselves as, I don't know. And it varies on a case by case basis. Well, here's the thing. Here's the thing about Graham. And without drilling down into too much detail, it's absolutely possible that human beings are a lot older than established science says right now, because the age keeps getting older. I've talked about this ad nauseum. We talked about it yesterday or two days ago, whatever the last podcast was, that the skull, the human skull found in China that is dated back to over a million years old, like they're evidently evidence keeps coming out that humans were on this planet for way starting out way earlier than we originally thought. One million year old human skull Unix on two discovered in who by China in the 1990s has been digitally reconstructed. Oh, this was found that long ago. Okay. But so like there's, there's like, it's, but you know, you realize that like hominid species have been around for millions of years. That doesn't make them homo sapiens. This was, this was a human. This was a homo sapien human, not a hominid. Similar to homo. Is that longi? Denisovans. This isn't the, is this the article Steve that we were talking about? I thought the article was more recent. Yeah, there it is. There's the BBC article. That was from 2025. So what, so read the first paragraph of this. Let's see what it says. A million year old human skull found in China suggests that our species homo sapiens began to emerge at least half a million years earlier than we thought. Researchers are claiming in a new study where is the new study? What does it say about the new study? Discovery published in the leading scientific journal science shocked research, the research team, which included scientists from a university in China and the UK's natural history museum. So it's a real study published in a scientific journal of a homo sapien skull. That's a million years old. So like, I don't, I don't see why it's controversial to, to be open to the possibility that humans could be way older than we thought. Right? Like science, science evolves all the time. But there's a huge difference between finding a homo sapiens specimen that's earlier than you thought, right? The, what is it? Jabella or Hood is a 300,000. That's what we, that was my impression of how old homo sapiens is. But that in no way signifies that there were some kind of a hyper advanced structure or all in our civilization or all of these other very outrageous claims, right? We know that hominids have been around for millions of years, very, you know, different species. So homo sapiens emerging earlier than, than we thought. Okay. I mean, I'm open to it. I don't know. I haven't seen that, but it doesn't, it doesn't, that doesn't in any way substantiate outrageous pseudo-archaeological claims. Right. Right. And there, and when it comes to like some of the ancient structures that Graham talks about like the ones in Indonesia, Turkey, Egypt, and even, you know, in the Stonehenge, it's, it's like, it, it is that there's a reason that it's one of the seven wonders of the world, right. Is because it's like, it's an almost seems like an impossible feat for ancient humans to be able to do. And, you know, that's why a lot of people, a huge subset of people in the world believe like they there's a, there's a logic gap there, right. There's like, how does this make sense? We don't know. Maybe we'll fill it in with God or maybe we'll fill it in with aliens. I don't know. Right. But like, it's like the conventional explanation for how it happened seems to be like the, you know, it, it doesn't seem to add up. It doesn't seem to make sense, which is why I think most people are so fascinated with this stuff and like to come up with all these crazy theories and ideas that may be bullshit. They may be bogus, but to be able to talk about them and discuss them. And do, you know, podcasts on them. I don't, I don't think it's dangerous in any way. Well, I don't know because, I mean, it depends. First of all, I don't know. So to go site by site again, I wasn't sure what we were going to talk about here because I debunk so many things. Pseudo-archeology is one blip. We do, you know, I'm talking about anti-vaxxers and creationists and climate change in ours and all these things. So, you know, I, I, I can't speak, uh, to specifics of each site, but to speak generally about rhetoric, you know, for, for an academic, for an archeologist to propose something about a particular site, that's academic science. There's no problem with that. And to have a discussion within the, within the scientific community that's happening all the time in every field, there's no problem with that. But the way that these grifters come at this, you know, oh, all the archeologists are closed minded and they're idiots and they don't know about this and they don't know about that. And they're denying this for whatever reason that poisons the public against the scientific community. Right. And that as well. It leads to enhanced vaccine hesitancy and all these other things, right? Because the public can't compartmentalize science, right. They don't really think about this is what this community is doing. This is what this community is doing. They just leave with this general sense of scientists are closed minded shills in the pocket of big, whatever, uh, right. Big archeology is insane term. Um, but that's, that's the narrative that, that is, that is peddled. And so what you get is a public that is increasingly distrustful towards science. When you get, you know, uh, you know, the public voting and administrations that put science deniers in positions of power and things like that. So, so ultimately what I want to say is that it is. it is harmful. Now you can go into individual examples of one person saying this or that, something might be defensible, but broadly speaking, it is, it's, it's, it is harmful. I'm not in my twenties anymore. Even though I've improved my workouts and my diet over the years, I've still noticed a drop in my energy and my motivation. And then one of my friends told me it sounded like a testosterone problem and told me he was using a natural pill. And that's what led me to Marsman. See men begin to see a drop in testosterone around age 30. And even though your body still makes it, most of it can get bound up by a protein called SHBG. So even less of it becomes available. Marsman is designed to help free up lock testosterone. So your body can better use what it already has. No synthetics, no needles, just natural ingredients like Tonkat Oli, Shilajit, vitamin D, zinc, and boron. And what I've noticed is more sustained drive throughout my life. I've been able to do a lot of things. I've been able to do a lot the day, way stronger workouts and sustained energy. It's nothing like caffeine jitters. It's like being switched on again. It's made in the USA. It's third-party tested and it comes with a 90-day money-back guarantee. And for a limited time, our listeners can get 50% off for life plus free shipping and three free gifts when you go to mengotomars.com and use the code Danny. That's M-E-N-G-O-T-O-M-A-R-S.com for 50% off and three free gifts when you use the code Danny at checkout. And it's also available on Amazon. After you purchase, they're going to ask them where you heard about them and please help support the show by telling them we sent you. Yeah. So you're saying by and large, over time, the public has become more distrustful of mainstream science. And I would say authority in general, the government. Simply by using the term mainstream science, it's illustrating my point. Academic science. What would be the correct word to say? Well, I mean, there's academic science and there's the private sector, but there's no mainstream science, right? There's science and there's. Right. There's pseudoscience, right? Right. Whoever is publishing science, whether it is academic or, you know, whether it's in the private sector, whatever it is, right, that's actual legitimate science. And then there's people who lie about science on podcasts, right? And they refer to it as mainstream science. Well, there's Hamilton Morris who does science and also does podcasts about, you know, scientific research that he does on psychedelics and stuff like that. He's not a mainstream scientist by any meaning of that word. Sure. That's fair. He synthesizes chemicals. That's totally fine. You can do that. He's an interesting case. So like a hobbyist turned, you know, scientist. But he's not, but he's not pushing any super outrageous claims. Yeah. I think, I think where it gets squirrely is when you have science and you have academic institutions and you have, that are all intertwined with governments. And then you have financial entanglements with all of that stuff. There's financial entanglements in every single aspect of science, whether it be climate science, whether it be vaccine science or, or pharmaceutical companies. And, um, But that's even, even, even geo, even like geopolitics type stuff. Like there's money and there's weird little financial incentives entwined into all of that stuff. And that's where it gets squirrely. And that's where it gets hard to figure out what the truth is. But that can also be used. Number one, that can be used as a scapegoat, right? Blah, blah, blah, in the pocket of big pharma. You just say that and people believe you. But number two, financial entanglements for the frauds that are pushing these narratives, right? They make money off of this stuff. Sure. People can make money off of questioning power if they have a podcast or they're selling advertising or, I mean, selling books, maybe. This idea that a scientist is in this incredible position of power or is doing something incredibly lucrative. The vast majority of scientists are not paid that well, right? They're just doing what they're doing because they love to do science and, and, and discover things, right? So it's this, this way of painting the scientific community as this cabal, you know, that's beholden to blah, blah, blah, whatever. It's a global scientific community operating in, you know, in academia, in the private sector, under many different countries, many different, you know, political apparatus. There's no way to, that, that is why the consensus of the global scientific community is what you go by at all times, right? Anything that is, that is contradicting the global scientific consensus, that's what you want to be skeptical about. Because can you get one scientist to lie? Absolutely, you can. Andrew Wakefield. Oh, wait, wait, hold on. Sorry, I don't mean to interrupt. Sure. I want to make sure I'm clear on this. You think anyone who is, who is questioning or skeptical of the global. Contradicting, yeah. Or of the global consensus. The global scientific consensus, yeah. What about that person? Should you be, you should. You should be very skeptical of that person, right? You, you should, they're, they are making claims that contradict the entire body of scientific knowledge. It doesn't 100% guarantee that they're wrong, but it's, they're very unlikely to be right. And especially if they're not scientists themselves, they're almost certainly not right. Oh, I see, I see what you're saying. So you can, you can, you can take someone's claims and go, all right, well, all of the science says no, but all right, say your thing. And 99% of the time they're trivially debunkable. Sometimes it's a little harder to debunk. You have to really dig into it. But the, the idea that, that, that you can, you know, you have scientists all over the world. There's no way to buy off millions of scientists in different countries, all these things. It doesn't make sense economically, right? You can buy off one scientist, maybe a handful. So you can get papers that are, you know, bought off by special interests. But ultimately like these are, you know, when you talk about climate sciences and things like that, these are, this is the fossil fuel industry that's trying to manufacture this stuff. Right. So again, it's, it's, it's, it's pretty easy to, to, to spot the motives with things like that, you know, then with individual grifters, it's just, it could be anything, right? Somebody is just trying to make a buck however they can, you know, but, so journalism by definition is being skeptical of power and being skeptical of the people in charge who are controlling things. That is the very definition of journalism. And it is it, so are you holding the, the people in power as your North star of truth? Do you, are you like defending? Scientists are not, are not in tremendous positions of power, right? They're just people doing a job. Right. And so this thread starts to evaporate when you say, well, this government made the scientists do the thing, whatever. Okay. Which government? We got these vaccine studies. This one's from Sweden. This one's from China. This one's from Argentina. This one's from like, which government are you talking about? The global, like the Illuminati government, like what are you saying? Scientific grants for that, that scientists, one of the biggest way scientists get funded is by grants from pharmaceutical companies. And I mean, we've had multiple in here. We had one two weeks ago was the most recent one who was a neuro, he was a neuroscientist working in Montreal, Canada, if I remember correctly. And it was in the nineties, I think it was 1994. He got a grant from Pfizer to test a neurotransmitter, some sort of drug for Alzheimer's. And he was testing the neurotransmitters. He was using PET scans to detect the chemical reaction in the brain to this drug. For, to see if it was effective or whatever. And in the grant agreement, he had to sign off that if the results were negative, he could not publish them. He could not make them public. The results were overwhelmingly negative. The thing, the drug was not effective at all for Alzheimer's. It wasn't reacting. I think it was acetylcholine is what the proxy was. He was looking for to see if it was reactive to this drug. And it wasn't. He asked if he could publish it. They said, yeah, he could. He said, no, you actually signed this documents agreeing that you wouldn't do it legally. So you're legally bound to not publish this. And they ended up bringing that drug to market and it probably made who knows billions of dollars. But like the point is these pharmaceutical companies, they spend I'd have to look into that though, because drugs get, don't get approved all the time, right? You have individual institutes, you have independent institutions that are, that are running clinical trials and drugs don't get approved all the time. So this, this narrative that, that pharma is just like every drug I want will go to market no matter how harmful it is. And I think that's harmful. It's just, you know, and I don't know the individual study that you're talking about. I agree with you. That's not, that's probably not true, but would you, would you agree that it does happen? I'm not sure. I mean, you'd have to give me an individual case. I mean, you just did, but I, you know, I'd have to look into it. I'd have to see whether this is just a story or, or what it is because there are like, this is part of the reason that it's so disastrous, what's happening under this administration, right? Under the guise of protecting public health, you just have a RFK just firing half of everybody at FDA, CDC, all these institutions, and all of these deregulations, right? It's actually the precise opposite of what he pretends to stand for, right? These institutions are there to protect us from the private sector and, and famously have, right? Thalidomide wasn't approved in America because of the FDA wouldn't approve it, you know, this kind of stuff. That's what these institutions are for. So, you know, what, what would a pharma company do? I mean, first of all, opening itself up to all these lawsuits or it's not like they've been fucked by lawsuits historically. It happens. I mean, and so it's just, I mean, there's more lawsuits against pharma. There's more money in settlements from pharmaceutical companies than any other industry, I think on the face of, in the history of human, humanity. Possibly. And if, and if, and if well deserved, then great. But the, the, this painting of pharma as this unbelievable boogeyman with all the money in the world, right? Do you know that the alt health industry is significantly larger than the pharma industry? The alt health history? The alt health, untested, unregulated supplement industry, right? No. Yeah. It's a trillion dollar industry. It makes more money than the pharmaceutical companies. More money than pharma. Yes. You got to find this, Steve. Yeah. I do know that it takes, and I've had multiple people like scientists, drug researchers on here that have had grants from pharmaceutical companies tell me that it takes between like 10 to 12 million dollars, or I'm sorry, 10 to 12 years to develop a drug with all the testing on rodents and all that stuff. It's very stringent. And it can cost a billion dollars. Yes. And only one in 10 drugs make it to market. Right. So they have a huge financial incentive to push those drugs out and to get those drugs out there in the marketplace. And, you know, famously there's billions and trillions of dollars of settlements from these pharmaceutical companies having to pay people out for killing people, injuring people, lying to people with their marketing, malpractice. I mean, I don't, I don't have to look, you don't have to look any farther than, you know, the opioid crisis. So, I mean, my point is like to default, to have that be your default, to want to protect or to fight for those people, you know, you like to want to be the, the, the bulldog that's attacking people who are attacking those billionaires and those, those trillion dollar companies who are, are literally only looking out for their bottom line. And, you know, they don't give a fuck about a middle-class person who can't afford a really fancy doctor who just has to go to their checkups every, you know, every six months or whatever, and then has to do the bare minimum and can't afford healthy food. They have to eat out. Like they don't give a fuck. It's the insurance companies and these pharmaceutical companies that are raking in trillions of fucking dollars, right? And they have immunity. This is why I'm trying to tell you about the all health industry, right? They're making more money and they're peddling lies and selling complete. So everything you're saying about testing and everything, these are products that are not tested on anything. It's not labeled as medicine, so they don't have to do anything. And there's all these, you know, so there's not only supplements that are actively harm people because they're not tested. They don't go through any clinical trials. There's no safeguards of any kind. So you want to talk about that one drug that slipped through clinical trials and some, you know, unforeseen, not that, you know, pharma went through the checks and balances here. Here we go. We did these clinical trials and something didn't show up and somebody got harmed. Okay. Well, lawsuit, great. Go for it. Get the money. But we're talking about an all health industry. All of these products are completely untested. They do measurable harm and they pull people away from legitimate medical attention that, you know, ivermectin would be, you know, although that, that is a real drug though, ivermectin craze would be a great example of that. So this is, what is this? Google's AI or whatever, summing it up the broader, this, this is what Google is saying. The broader global wellness industry, which includes alternative health, wellness, tourism, nutrition, and personal care is significantly larger than the pharmaceutical industry. Estimates place the global wellness market at over $6 trillion, which is several times larger than the estimated one to 2 trillion global pharma. That's the global pharma. So is this, this is not in the U S this is global massive market share the global wellness market. Okay. I mean, think about it. How, how many people do you know? Can you break this down by countries? Sorry, what were you saying? How many people do you know that are regularly taking tons of prescription drugs versus how many people do you know that follow a bunch of you know, health influencers and buy the supplements? Dude, everybody I know has been on fucking Adderall. Since they were like 12. Okay. And they were prescribed it there. There's some oversight on that. Yeah. I mean, Adderall, I think was probably over, over prescribed in the nineties. Yeah. I think that's a, I think that's a huge problem, man. Yeah. So this is what I'm saying. Like, you know, people, Oh, Dave pharma show, whatever. There are things that you can criticize pharma for. Right. And so sure. Sometimes they tried to influence doctors to prescribe off label, right. They'll say, well, this drug is for this, but it might work for this. Can you prescribe it for that too? Right. There's a little bit of that kind of oil. Going on and call it out. I don't care. Right. I'm not here. Like there's absolutely grifters in the alternative health. I like Grant Cardone, the fucking Scientologist, you know, I'm sure you're familiar with him. He brags about all of the jets. I mean, he's selling like hyperbaric chambers and cold plunges and he's calling it 10 X health. And like, it's just, it's just comical. This is what I'm saying is that this stuff has taken off because of the cartoonish degree to which people vilify pharma. And so look, you know, if I can come back and we can, like, do a really, really in-depth, give me all the cases you want to talk about. We're staying high level. We're not getting in the weeds. Totally. Yeah. But what I'm saying is there are things you can criticize pharma for, go for it. It's no problem. But the cartoonish villainization is what has, has propped up this enormous health wellness industry that is just full of grifters. I'm sure that's true. Complete snake oil that is actively harming people. Springtime means it's time to clean out your fridge of forgotten leftovers and old condiments. And it's time to restock those shelves with some refreshing selections from ButcherBox. For over a decade, ButcherBox has led the industry with meat and seafood that's antibiotic-free, hormone-free, and independently verified. Because when it comes to fueling your body, quality isn't extra, it's everything. Clean, whole protein means better support for strength, metabolism, and that steady all-day energy we're all chasing. ButcherBox sends over 100 premium protein choices like grass-fed beef, free-range organic chicken, crate-free pork, and wild beef. And it's time to restock those shelves with some refreshing selections from Everything is hormone and antibiotic-free, and it all meets the same strict requirements, whether it's filet mignon or chicken nuggets. I love being able to customize my box. I usually spring for the pork chops or the salmon, but sometimes when I'm feeling frisky, I'll throw in some chicken thighs for the week. And everything shows up frozen, vacuum-sealed, and ready to go. So no grocery store shenanigans. They're a certified B Corp, which means they care about how animals are raised, how the team is treated, and how they impact the planet. And they're a certified B Corp, which means they care about how animals are As an exclusive offer, new listeners can get their choice between chicken breasts or top sirloin for a year or ground beef for life, plus $20 off when you go to butcherbox.com slash Danny. That's right, your choice of chicken breasts or top sirloin for a year or ground beef for life, plus $20 off your first box and free shipping always. That's butcherbox.com slash Danny. And don't forget to use our link below so they know we sent you. Even the grifters themselves, right? Me and Dan Wilson did a debate against Pierre Corey and Steve Kirsch in New York. I watched that, bro. Yeah. And so one of them, Steve Kirsch, went blind in one eye because of a supplement that Peter McCullough, the spike detox supplement, this is a supplement that is completely untested. He took it and he went blind in one eye, and yet he's still on this anti-vaccine crusade, right? Pierre Corey, another guy, just made a boatload off ivermectin. Frontline doctors made a boatload off of ivermectin. And he's still on this anti-vaccine crusade, right? Saying this is this wonderful cure-all drug. You can't get COVID. Take it as a prescription every month, right? Every month, keep spending money. You'll get it. And just how many thousands and thousands of people died of COVID because they didn't get the critical care they needed, and then it was too late. That's the real villain. So criticize pharma for the things that it does. That's fine. And I'll do it with you. But this is the real villain right now in the health space. I think it's fuck both of them. I think we need to attack them both. I don't think- It's real drugs that save lives. That's true. But I'm also sure there's a subset of the people in the alternative health system are also selling shit that saves lives, right? The difference is one of them is not intertwangled with the United States government, right? How does that make it any. That's when you have grifters that are just selling snake oil. Why does it matter if they are or are not propped up by any government, right? They're just lying to make money. Well, it's because those guys, they get a. Shuttled into the public and they work with insurance companies and basically every run-of-the-mill family that goes in for a routine checkup gets prescribed these things. I mean, there's people that are in the pharmaceutical industry whose job is to take primary care physicians out to dinner, take them out to bars, take them out to strip clubs and befriend them and convince them to use their drug. I had a guy in here who was a sales rep for Viagra in the early 2000s and was doing that. He was a sales rep for Viagra. He was a sales rep for Viagra in the early 2000s. I had a guy in here who was a sales rep for Viagra in the early 2000s and was doing that job. And it's like, your job is to get them to prescribe more shit for more symptoms. You prescribe this for more symptoms and prescribe it more because they get these kickbacks. There's these kickbacks they get from the insurance companies. And if you really dig into it, it's insanely corrupt, man. And it's so fucked up that it's in our healthcare. It's baked into the healthcare system that is supposed to be taking care of everybody in the United States from every. Especially the people that are lower income, which really pisses me off. And the fact that the United States is literally, I think, the last or second to last on the list of health outcomes in the world of countries. To be clear, we do need to very strongly differentiate between medical science and the health insurance industry. The health insurance industry is rotten to the core. That's a very, very different thing. There's a difference between what is this drug? What does it do? Who can it help? And who gets it for free? These are very different things. And in America, the only industrialized nation to not have socialized medicine. That's an enormous problem. But you can see how these are contradictory lines of thinking, right? The health insurance industry is terrible because it disallows people from getting the medical attention and the drugs that they need, the ones that work, that actually work, the ones that some would criticize big pharma for producing in the first place, right? The health insurance industry, that's where you get the Luigi Mangione's. You get some vigilante justice going on. So I'm right there with you on the American health insurance industry. And that's horrible stuff that's going on. That's very different from the medical science and the chemistry, the molecular biology behind what is a drug, is it going to work? All the Hamilton horses that are working for these companies in their labs, trying to do their best, and I'm sure that's true. I'm sure that exists. They're trying to do their best to actually create good medicines. That is different from the executives sitting in the top of the fucking tower who are working with the insurance companies and the hospitals and trying to, they're just trying to grease the wheels of money and trying to make more profit and trying to, and lobby the shit out of every single congressman in our country. Yeah, get 10% more profit here. It's insane. Yeah, and I'm happy to see less of that however we can. But ultimately, it's just trying to add a little more profit on drugs that work, right? These are drugs that help people and save lives. They're trying to squeeze some more money out of it. And let's get rid of that corruption however we can. But the way you do that is with regulatory bodies that do their job, not with RFK, with firing. Everybody that's competent in every single, in all of these institutions. I don't know enough about the vaccine stuff. I haven't done a deep dive on it. I've had people on the show talk about it before, but I've never personally done a deep investigation of it, especially the COVID one. I don't understand it. It's too complex for me. My whole problem with all the COVID stuff was all the censorship and all of the mandate stuff. And basically, I'm not down with the idea of having to wake up in the morning, and turn on your TV to find out what your governor is telling you you're allowed to do today, including taking your kid to the park, or going to the beach, or whatever the fuck it is. I think that's totalitarian. I think that's a slippery slope. And I think once you give them that power, I don't think you ever get it back. Okay. I think it's a little bit of an exaggeration though. I mean, I don't know what it was in every state, but I live in California and there was never a moment where we couldn't go to a park or anything where proper socials. Distancing was happening. You know, how are all of these restrictions totalitarian? Is it totalitarian to say you can only drive on the right side of the street and not the left, right? There are guidelines in place to ensure public safety. When you have a pandemic, a global pandemic, that's killing a lot of people, what are you going to do? Nothing? Just let all the people convene in every manner imaginable and spread it and kill 10 times more people? I mean, something must be done. Yeah, I think 12 or maybe two dozen people were arrested in New Jersey for trying to go to a church service and a synagogue. I think it was either a synagogue or a church, I can't remember, but it might have been some sort of a temple. And the governor of New Jersey arrested them for trying to go to church. There was beaches here, the beaches here were shut down. You couldn't fucking go to the beach without getting arrested. That is totalitarian. No matter what your excuse is for doing it, it goes against the Constitution. It goes against the First Amendment in the church scenario. But it has nothing to do. So it's just religious people thinking that they're immune to a pandemic because God, which is ridiculous, and then they convene in large numbers, pass the virus around, and then go out and kill other people. You really can't see the other side of that? I can see the other side of it if I understand people were really afraid. Afraid of it in the beginning, they didn't know what it was. We didn't know if this was going to be like instant death when it touched you. I'm not religious by any sense of the word, but I understand and I respect that people have religions, they believe them, it brings sense of community to them, and they have the right, according to the Constitution of the First Amendment, to be able to practice their religion and to convene. What if your religion is to murder people, should be allowed to do that? Like with a gun, just go around and shooting people. No, of course you're not allowed to murder people. That's a reductio ad absurdum. But what I'm saying is that the broader good, the public health takes precedent over religious liberty, right? You're not free. Here's the thing. So with COVID response, doing absolutely nothing is insane. Forcing everyone to remain locked in a cubicle forever is insane. So what do you do? Something in the middle. So if you want to have a debate about individual states policies and exactly where it landed, you can have that debate. And I don't know what every state did. I know what California did. And to me, it seemed extremely reasonable. If you lost a business during that time, you have my sympathy. Absolutely. I mean, and you can have a debate was a little too much, not quite enough, whatever. But the idea that it's some kind of constitutional right for religious people to convene and spread a disease that will kill other people. How will it kill anyone else other than the people who were there? Because you get it and then you go out somewhere else and you give it to your family members. And then people were gathering during COVID in every state. Some people were responsible about it and saw very, very few people, maybe only a couple of close friends or something. And then there were very reckless people that changed absolutely nothing about their lifestyle. And those people killed other people. It's absolutely the case. Yeah. Millions of people died. I mean, what is this, Steve? This is about the alternative health industry. Pharma is 645 billion. Look at the difference in the US versus Germany. Wow. Japan. Number two is 99 billion. Pharma is much larger than alternative medicine. That is fucking crazy. Right. But it was a very restrictive list that you just provided, right? Like run of the mill supplements don't even fall into that if you're talking about naturopathy and stuff like that. So he typed in alternative medicine. Well, yeah, but look at what the list was of what was included there. It was very restrictive. What else should it have included? The entire supplement industry. Ask if this includes the supplement industry or the unregulated. But are all supplements herbal medicine? That's not for sure. No. So, look, you don't need to convince me that pharma makes a lot of money. It's a gigantic industry, but it's certainly not bigger than the alternative in the US, according to that. We haven't included supplements yet. But that's why I said it's a restrictive list. But yeah, I mean, money is money. So what is your position on censoring speech when it came to dissent on the whole COVID narrative and alternative medicines and stuff like that? I wasn't familiar with a lot of it. I mean, I don't think like, are you talking about like Twitter and stuff? Like were tweets deleted or something? Tweets deleted. YouTube. Certainly lots of YouTube channels were deleted of practicing physicians who were talking about treating COVID and offering advice on how to treat it and how to take care of it. There was lots of doctors who had treated thousands of patients themselves and had YouTube channels and were talking about what they were doing, what the results were. And they had their YouTube channel shut down. I personally had people on this show talking about it and had those episodes taken down and gotten channel strikes because of the reason YouTube gave me was medical misinformation. Yeah, they were professionals. They were professionals, academics. But there are professionals that engage in this. That's the problem is you have doctors that get into this grift, right? Paul American, Pierre Corey and Peter McCullough. And then it wasn't any of those guys. Avi Loeb. There are professionals that engage in grifting. So it's not always Billy Carson, some joker or whatever, right? You can have people in the highest echelon of academia that engage in grifting. Like everything that was labeled as medical misinformation was right. Now, the other question is, should it have been censored? That's a more delicate question. I don't know. I'm pretty neutral on it. I think it is for the public good that it got censored. But do we want that in general? I don't know. To me, I go the completely other way. I'm not really interested in what is censored or what is not censored or whatever it is. I am more interested in flooding the Internet with factual information that debunks all the grifters. That's what I want to do. That's what I want to see. Yeah, but what if you were getting censored for that? But I well, in what way? What if YouTube was demonetizing your content for attacking people that were talking about vaccines or attacking people that were talking about the pyramids? Well, that would really be shocking. Then we would have a situation where factual information is getting censored. Well, those people believe that their information is factual. But they don't. They're grifters. This is why you have to dig into it, right? You spend a lot of space on all health because they are professionals and everything they say, it requires a lot of investigation into primary scientific literature, right? There has to be content that does a deep dive on this stuff to show you, to illustrate. And you can pick any handful of these guys and I'll come back with a presentation to convince you that they're grifters, right? But can you see the third, fourth, fifth and sixth level domino effects of censoring content online based on maybe something? Do you see anything legitimate, maybe negative misinformation that could harm people? Do you see what can happen down the road with that? So, yeah, a couple of things. Number one, I do see that because then there's a lot of nuance, right? There are grifters that are perpetrating a grift. And then there are people who are echoing the grift because they fell for it. And then there's people, yeah, there's a lot of gradations of that. And where do you choose to stop? You know, that becomes very tricky. I'm under the impression that it's pretty selective. the people that are grifting, right? I don't know, but maybe not. said you got one episode pulled down or something like that we had multiple we had multiple okay but most of them were regarding the most of them were regarding the the medical stuff and the pandemic yeah i mean in the urgency of a global pandemic where millions of people are dying i don't know i mean it's it's it's hard to say um but yeah ultimately i'm not defending censorship right i i'm i'm i want to encourage the production and and more sharing more speech yeah yeah yeah yeah and the problem is that it it doesn't it it doesn't uh you know most professionals are not willing to take the time from their job and you know you you it takes weirdos like me right there i i'm a career science communicator and entrepreneur and there's very few people that have been able to make a living this way such that they have all of their time free to hunt down these people and and and and there's so few there's just not enough because there's thousands of these people in every single sector of science and technology um and every single one of them needs a counterpart that's debunking them so i'm trying to debunk 500 people at once which is why it's hard to retain you know every time i particularly in the medical realm there's so many papers so much stuff that you really have to dig into that it's impossible to keep all of it in the forefront of your mind at once yeah but when i'm doing that video i'm reading a lot of papers and i'm speaking with a lot of professionals i'm i'm you know very thoroughly exposing that individual and then i move on to another and then another and then another so and and i've seen my content move the needle a little bit and i've seen a lot of people move the needle a little bit on certain on certain figures which is what i want and which is what we need to see we need a lot more people doing that so i'm not here like let's silence everybody i'm just let's have the truth be louder than the frauds that's what i want yeah um and then also on the on the ivermectin stuff i had a woman which i'm just just just popping into my head uh mary bowden i've referred familiar familiar with her she worked at houston methodist hospital and her hospital that she worked at was the first hospital in the country to mandate the shots and she treated something like it was more than 6 000 patients for it she was a respiratory specialist and um yeah she treated over 6 000 people and this was starting before the shots came out and she was using all of the like the recommended treatment she was using a lot of monoclonal antibodies which she said were very effective she was very skeptical about the treatment and she was very skeptical about the ivermectin she did start using it um she did not see any negative effects for the ivermectin i think she said that she was combining it with heavy doses of steroids heavy doses of vitamin c and i think it was the steroids the vitamin c breath breathing breath work or something some sort of like breathing exercises this is her oh yeah yeah let's watch this real quick there's like she gives herself like a she'll do better than i do throw the throw the little cans on real quick oh yeah god damn it i'm all tied up over here just listen to like 30 seconds of this you're an ent she normally doesn't get involved anywhere close to the teen issue and guess what she is knee deep in this right so so mary i know we're like almost an hour into this podcast but let's give you like a brief introduction like your background right so i i went to stanford i'm an ent um and i kind of stumbled into i had patients coming to me because no one else would treat them and i'm an expert in respiratory diseases so it makes sense and because i didn't shut my doors people started coming to me and initially i used well i tried hydroxychloroquine but as soon as president trump mentioned it as an option it got shut down i mean literally the texas state board of pharmacy sent out a letter prohibiting us from prescribing it so then i moved on to monoclonal antibodies and those worked great people turned around very quickly and i get unlimited supply well then the government shut that down and that was right around same thing happened here when biden mandated the shots they shut down monoclonal antibodies it was all it was an orchestrated effort and so i started using ivermectin and i found that ivermectin worked i was a little nervous that it wouldn't because monoclonal antibodies worked so well uh but what i did find i found it it worked and so i treated over 6 000 patients when you see that high volume i mean that's something i'll never again experience in my career i mean usually i'll never experience that i see a wide variety of issues as an ent never had such a large volume of the same disease in such a short period of time and you become an expert in it and you know i started speaking out and of course i got i got ridiculed smeared cancelled i'm still fighting for my medical license so i put everything on the line to tell the truth and i think that brings us to another point is that you know all these people all these doctors she's fined tens of thousands of dollars they threatened to take her medical license and you know she was getting you know she wasn't invited to any dinner parties anymore in texas like she had nothing to gain from it but you know very convincing i understand convincing narrative it's whether it's a narrative or it's her actual experience i mean it's possible that she's telling the truth uh but i understand that like none of the scientific journals have published any sort of studies that say ivermectin is effective right they they none of them do i i listened to your interview with pierre corey um and i've listened to other interviews and that's what people seem to be frustrated by is that the there's no like placebo-controlled trials that say that it did work for it right they're always using very shady trials very you know small small cohort um no controls uh the first one was just like high like high dose in vitro which is not appalled to you know to a human system it just what the the kernel that they used and then and then expanded upon was was not legitimate and then mountained science is done after the fact because of the fervor that crops up to demonstrate conclusively that it is not effective both ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine and so all you can do all you can do against this mountain of science is performed all over the world all these different countries all over the place is just go big giant conspiracy pharma paid the blah blah blah whatever that's all you can do but what about people like her who treated over 6 000 patients and she did say that it worked in combination with vitamin c monoclonal antibodies steroids all that okay so what's the difference between that and ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine and hydroxychloroquine and it didn't work at all and other things worked you know i mean like that that's that's not how you do science right you don't go i gave them five things and they got better so this one must have worked right that's that's not how that's not how science works you know uh sure you have to do very rigorous trials where you control every single variable right you this is how you test drugs so do you ban ivermectin is that the answer well first of all absolutely not because it's a legitimate drug should she be allowed to give it to prescribe it to her patients i don't know how how bureaucratic stuff works but i definitely would look down on any doctor that was prescribing it for covet because it was shown to not work conclusively that anhydroxychloroquine and that is when those drugs enter the alt health space that is so that's what i what i wanted to say about that i mean she wasn't on like ivermectin's payroll or anything like that she didn't make it well okay first of all you don't know that right you have all of these you know for the frontline doctors these organizations i don't know who that person is i don't know what her affiliations are it's very easy to just prevent present yourself as the you know the underdog fighting the big bad system but all of these people so the earlier we're looking at the list of all health versus pharma yeah uh ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine are pharmaceutical drugs that have purpose right ivermectin great nobel prize winning drug that that eradicated a particular kind of parasite um has does all against covid but it's a great drug that has a purpose but then you when you take it and you're prescribing it for something that it does nothing against that's all health that's when you get into this alt health wellness space and you have all these doctors frontline doctors that are getting rich because they're telling people you don't do what the doc what the what the big bad government says i'll give you i'll send you this in the mail every month you give me 90 bucks or whatever and i'll send you this in the mail right that qualifies as alt health um and there are a lot of people who got really really rich yeah well that's shitty when you're starting a pyramid scheme on selling ivermectin you're you're not necessarily pyramid scheme but just whatever it is whatever sort of recurring these people are grifters it is it is it is yeah i would agree with you there but at the same time like again i can't i can't for a second bring myself to be able to defend companies like pfizer who are sponsoring every single news station and newscast that's telling you that we have to stay indoors you have to go get your shot do all this stuff by the way we're sponsored by pfizer uh but trust me even if they were paying us millions of dollars we would still tell you the truth if we thought the stuff was bad like get the out of here okay but stay indoors and and get a vaccine what's wrong with either of those things like what's what's bad about that messaging well the question is do you trust the media and do you trust the government do you trust and do you trust these trillion dollar corporations like if you look at history and you read history go look at the iraq war do we trust these people okay geopolitics is well it's the news it's the news is selling it to us sure sure but the the fact remains that money can't change uh the laws of physics or the laws of molecular biology and what what a disease it can't change what a pathogen is and how it kills you and what will cure it and what will defend right these are all realities of the natural world and this is what scientists seek to study so you can find immediate distortion you can find a special interest group you can find these things but ultimately what a disease is and what cures it is cannot be manipulated in that way right and you have scientists all over the world that are studying this stuff that's why again i'm going to keep bringing it back to this the consensus of the global scientific community is what you go by. When you have somebody that's contradicting that, you want to be skeptical of that person, right? So it becomes, ivermectin doesn't work against COVID, not because Pfizer said so. It's because all of the scientists all over the world say so, right? There's a big difference there. Amenita muscaria is the third most popular microdosed psychoactive in the U.S. with over 3 million people using it. That's more than LSD or DMT, but there's a wave of dangerous gas station fakes out there, so who knows how many people were cheated out of the real deal. Amantara is the complete opposite of those scams, which is why I only trust Amantara. I never would have even touched Amenita muscaria if it weren't for Amantara. They are the trusted Amenita supplier in the U.S., totally legal, no synthetics, and 55,000 happy customers. Small doses put you in a calm, focused, flow state type headspace, while medium doses are more like a jolly alcohol alternative, great for sleep, dreams, and some people even call it nature's wine. I think a few of these guys are the ones that are the most trusted in the U.S. most days after work, and it helps me forget about the stress of the day and be more engaged with my family. Imagine being in a stress-filled environment and not feeling triggered. That's what Amantara does for me. Amantara is the largest Amenita muscaria supplier in the U.S., totally legal, ethically sourced, and lab tested. They have the largest Amenita selection, from oils, capsules, to chocolates, and the raw caps. It's not just a store or a single product. These guys are helping pave the way for a new legal medicinal psychoactive mushroom in the U.S., and I'm really happy to be a part of it. Go to Amantara.com slash go slash DJ and use the code DJ22 for 22% off your first order. That's A-M-E-N-T-A-R-A.com slash go slash DJ. And don't forget to use the code DJ22 for 22% off your first order. I just question it when most of the scientists are paid by the pharmaceutical companies. But they're not. How do we know? I mean, most scientists I've talked to have gotten grants from pharmaceutical companies. We're talking about millions of scientists, right? We're talking about an unbelievable number. It doesn't make sense. Who pays them to study this stuff? Who pays them to study the drugs? I mean, all kinds of things. I mean, you'd have to identify an individual study, and we would find the source of the funding there. If you were to broad brush it, like by and large, most scientists, say there's a fucking billion scientists in the world that are studying, that are researching drugs, who pays them to do it? Whatever government they're working under. You think the government pays for it? I mean, largely government grants, yeah. Right. Maybe if it's a government or a country that has national or socialized medicine, right? But certainly not in the United States. United States medicines. No, still, yeah, still. I mean, a large percentage of grants are from the government. And I mean, we're talking about medical science in general and molecular biology in general, right? When you're looking at what viruses do and what bacteria do and what a drug does and what an antibody does and all these things, this is just general science, right? And so you can have clinical trials on a drug. That's very different from scientists who are just performing general research on pathogens and epidemiology and this kind of stuff. So yeah, a lot of government grants and there are private corporations that are also utilizing profits to do research. So money's coming from everywhere. I mean, it's very easy to just go money, money, money. Okay, money came from a thing. It's like, it's the number one common denominator with most of this stuff. And it doesn't have to be just like financial incentives. It can also be like personal vendettas. I heard you talk with Hamilton about this and I've heard it. He's talked with me about this on this podcast is there's like a really famous psilocybin study or MDMA study where there was this rich family who literally paid millions of dollars to buy podcasts and propaganda to sabotage this MDMA study and like the public perception of MDMA. It's very interesting because a bunch of people left comments saying that that was, that that was not true. And I didn't look into it further. So I'm not sure. Yeah, I don't know. I mean, there's a guy I've had on the show many times. He's a, he's a psychedelic, he's a journalist and he really, he follows all the psychedelic stuff. All the, he, he follows like every single psychedelic study, every, I mean, he's very skeptical of the whole industry. And he was a I don't think anyone, there's not too many people that are denying just by and large that psychedelics have no, have no therapeutic application. I think the vast majority of the scientific community is on board with that. The story was, the story was with this on this specific case was and they threatened to sue Hamilton over this because he exposed it was that there was this study that was going on with MDMA. And there was this guy who was really old. He was a Holocaust survivor. Some of the girls that were involved in this study, they were, they were, they were involved with this study, somehow met him and started giving him MDMA and he's like turned his life around. He was like in his late nineties and he was loving it. He was loving his girls. I'm sure they were like banging him or whatever. And they were also giving him MDMA. And he's like, fuck, I love this. You got how much money you guys want to sponsor your MDMA study. And the granddaughter of this guy was like, what the fuck? He's given these MDMA whores my, my, my inheritance. So she decided to take a bunch of her money to sabotage. Their stuff. So like, it's not like some big cabal. It's not some big organization that's just trying to make profit. It's just a personal vendetta, but like, it's about money at the end of the day. Yeah. And there are frauds within, you know, within the medical establishment as well. Andrew Wakefield's bribed half a million pounds to pen the Lancet study. Andrew Wakefield penned the 1990s Lancet study that, that, that started the whole vaccines, autism craze that will never go away. I don't know anything about that. Oh, it's a, it's a whole saga. I mean, he's like, you know, the, the most major figure in the anti-vax movement sort of catalyzed from the mid nineties, much of what is happening now. But that's what I'm saying. He was a doctor. He was a gastroenterologist. Like it's possible to, it's humans, it's society. There's people, there's politics, there's stuff going on at all times, right? There's money over here. There's money over there. That's just life. That's just reality. Sure. But that's human nature. Yeah. The problem is, and there's no, there's no problem in going this individual instance of fraud occurred. Let's expose that and let's dish out some justice there. The problem is when you have the all health space, just relentlessly spinning this overblown villainization of pharma while they are the one, while they are making enormous amounts of money, uh, peddling, peddling snake oil. I mean, it's that, that's the main take home message here. You know, I mean, this is going to have, it's going to happen. We know that you're going to get bad apples. It's like, would you rather have three news channels that are feeding you all your information and you can't get it from anywhere else? Or would you rather it be open season where everyone can go out and find information and you have to use your brain to figure out what's bullshit and what's good when the ladder is the situation that we have now. And unfortunately an unbelievable percentage of the media landscape is, is lies. Um, so yeah, it, it, it's a good point, right? Yeah. When you had three news channels, um, does that mean that there was, and it was very, very respectable fact-based journalism. It doesn't mean there's no propaganda, right? Of course there can be propaganda. That's there's a whole genocide happening over here that no one is talking about and you'll never know about it because it's not on the news. A hundred percent. That's absolutely was the case, you know, and now you can't hide a genocide. Everyone's got a phone and they're filming it and showing you, showing it to you, which I want to talk about. That is probably the most unifying thing in this country right now. Sure. Uh, what, what did you just have pulled up Steve for drug research? Where does the majority, what is it? Where does the majority of funding come from government grants, pharmaceutical companies or anything else? What would it say? It says that private, private money usually starts the research, but then pharmaceuticals take it over. Okay. Uh, for total in total dollar terms, the majority usually comes from pharmaceutical and biotech companies, not government grants in the U S CBO, whatever that is reported that the pharmaceutical industry spent 83 billion on research and development in 2019 and a national academics NCBI review says private industry and the sector or says private industry as a sector was the largest overall investor in biomedical research. So pharmaceutical companies invest in R and D to develop drugs, right? That's what that's right. Right. Exactly. Make drugs. That's the business. It's the business of making drugs. It takes a lot of money to make drugs. Right. Well, what was the question though? It was, is the question was what? Well, you were asking about where all the funding comes from for, for medical science and drug research. Oh, right. Obviously. Yeah. Okay. That question is in drug research. Obviously the money would come from the companies that are selling the drugs. I think what you wanted to talk about is where academic research is funding for academic research is coming from in anything that is tangential or pertains to the correct question would be, um, what academic scientists, how much, what percentage of funding for science in, you can't really lump it into like science. That's too broad. Yeah. If you're talking about science, you'd be talking about for this kind of stuff. Even that is difficult. If you're just talking about medical science in general or something that would be medical science. That's a good one. I mean, I don't know. It's hard to say, but I mean, obviously, I mean, it's, it's very, very broad, right? And you'd also have to narrow it down to the U S medical science in the U S but science is, that's the thing about academic science is that much or most of academic science is just let's figure shit out. How does thing, how do things work? What is this made of? What does it - Right, the point of academic science, which is why it's so tragic that, funding for science is being slashed under this administration is you are it's scientists that want to figure figure stuff out and know how everything works and and find cool new application you know like they're doing the the foundational work that then others can go in industry and say well this they just figured out how to that there's this material what what can we do with this material and we can make this thing or whatever that's what's incredible about academic science right when you're in the private sector everything's obviously very profit oriented and so to sacrifice academic science which is what we're seeing seeing right now um you're you're losing that foundational layer of like just well what you know what happens if we try this or you know what what's this thing all about it's the the true exploratory science is largely happening in academia you find anything steve do you type in medical science oh it's still searching chat he's going slow for us yeah and um you know just again some of the history that some of the history of america and like the hit this the science that has been done in america for nefarious reasons and nefarious terms it's once you learn about that and you're exposed to that it's really hard to get that out of your head you know and that that might be human nature you're going to go to that one probably maybe tuskegee is one maybe um operation paper clip is another one maybe uh the manhattan project is a good good example of top the top scientists in the world including nazi ones create a bomb and kill people with it i mean right like that's that's the goal here is to kill people but but yeah no i mean and look you can't broad brush everything with that obviously but it's like when you're when you learn about all this stuff it's overwhelming yeah but there so there's a couple things here so number one we do want to differentiate between the the veracity of science and what people do with it so there are those in in that space that want to call and call into question the validity of science there's nothing wrong with the validity of the science that made the bomb that's why the bomb worked right so they figured out a bunch of physics yeah and then they made a bomb with it that's the i'm not saying whether it's valid or not i'm just questioning the motive sure sure sure but no but there are a lot of people who just you know all you know physicists are all it's all fake and all this stuff right so that's people that think nukes are fake that thinks they are there aren't real you know that are you aware of that one you gotta check that one out there's just at this point nothing surprises me on the internet but but then so putting that aside just yeah people do bad things in the world there are people that do bad things and there are people who use science to do bad things and i mean all we can do is point out all of these instances and uh where malfeasance is occurring and you know shine a spotlight on it you know try you know uh you know try to educate people on what has happened in the past and then try to empower regular regulatory bodies to minimize that happening in in the future right that's why we need a robust fda we need a robust we need these institutions to be able to do their job um you know we have this we need these institutions to be able to do their job um you know we need these institutions to be able to do their job and that is unfortunately how how the world works he saw it's a it's a marriage yeah well uh it's a very one-sided look at trump's cabinet look at all the ai people look at peter teal all these people that are maniac and you know uh alex carp talking about dropping fentanyl laced urine on his enemies like this is a these are the people that are getting all this money like yeah billions of dollars from the us government and like literally probably mostly responsible for getting him in power grooming jd vance like all this crazy stuff yeah and and and of the epa in the in the pocket of you know fossil fuel lobby like just you have people being put at the heads of institutions that are antithetical to the purpose of the institution right so this is why right it's rotten to its core it's it's rotten to its core and that's why like government bad government bad government bad okay we have the private sector right right now the seesaws that the private sector has undue influence on on the government so you have you know a lot of the a lot of the anti-establishment narratives going on right now are very like pro private sector right the government sucks academia is communism all this stuff we need to give all the money to elon musk because he's a brilliant man that knows what to do in the meantime that's the point of doge is to go in and just dismantle all the really anybody that can you see that oh yeah people so so the so the the propaganda that is directly from the oligarchy is of this flavor right uh academic institutions are woke indoctrination camps and all the blah blah blah and you know everybody sucks there and don't go to college and everything from a college sucks so it's very pro-private sector you don't go to college and everything from a college sucks so it's very pro-private sector right it's very deliberate right that's why that's why we're seeing this movement towards dismantling regulatory bodies and giving more and more and more power and influence to the private sector so you know that's not i'm not saying government good right there there's a you don't want a totalitarian government that that wreaks havoc on the private sector but right now it's not the case right we have the other situation where the private sector has too much influence on government or you can buy politicians and make them you know so and they're also using their influence to trade stocks because they know what's going to happen they know the laws that are going to change is the policies that are going to change and and they're making the rules they can predict the future i mean similar to like you see with some of this crazy insider trading on this straight-ahore moves right now sure yeah i know very little about it but i instantly believe everything that you're saying but i mean so it's a tricky situation right because governments have to exist we need governments as a society as a civilization but the trick is you know when you see an administration that is appointing all these people to these cabinet posts right that's it takes a very large grassroots political movement to number one recognize the problem right anybody who can't see that rfk is a nightmare that's very problematic right that society can't can't you can't unanimously agree that rfk is a nightmare i don't see how he's a nightmare okay he's completely 100 antithetical to public health everything about him he is if one of those insane tick tock wellness urs became the head of hhs right that's that's that's what he is right so he's not a tick tock influencer he's not suing public health people for for decades no he yeah is one of his main sources or his main source of income is is lawsuits he gets finders fees for lawsuits but none of those lawsuits actually demonstrate harm from vaccines or anything they're all just well not just vaccines but also um glyphosate right wasn't there a guy he rolled right over for monsanto he's deregulating all these he he he he waves this flag of like i'm a champion of the people he absolutely is actually doing the opposite he's dear i mean not only is he firing everybody from all these institutions cdc and fba fda that have any firing everybody i mean not everybody but i mean yeah like like in thousands upon thousands maybe he's just like fumigating all the corruption out of it no he's no he's making it corrupt by fumigating out all the legitimate scientists yeah but how do you know how do you know he's not feeling how do you know he's not getting the corruption out of there because the output of these institutions is now exclusively medical misinformation information right that's what's happening now is you have you have never before had medical misinformation of this degree coming out of official state channels like which one never happened before like which one cdc cdc is no longer what is the cdc saying that's medical information rfk uh rfk tells trump i'm going to figure out the cause of autism because that's what's going to happen and then he goes on and say it's tylenol we figured out it's tylenol all this crap you know is that not true no of course it's not true right and then he had to we know how do we know it's not true plenty of studies have been done and then more after this uh accusation and then they got sued of course by by uh by by the makers of tyler of course they did so it's just like it it's a it's a non-stop circus sideshow of a guy who definitely has no idea what he's talking about i mean everything the guy said i mean he's like an hiv denialist uh you know all like really insane stuff we've never seen this before uh in in hhs or in and you know and nih and then jay badachari is right behind him uh also uh just complete fraud and so what you have you have stacking you you have all these institutions being stacked with loyalists that are running this the the narrative of this administration um and we need to the the core issue is getting the public aware that that is what is happening because then you can vote people out of office and then you can vote people into office that will put credible people at the helm of these institutions and you can very slowly start to rehabilitate uh this what did you find what are you looking for he's an hiv denialist he he's an hiv well of course at google's going to say this bro what did he actually say about it oh my god that is unreadable i mean so okay what is that claims on hiv aids causation in his 2021 book in the real the real anthony fauci and other public statements kennedy has argued that aids is not exclusively caused by hiv he has asserted that his initial aids epidemic was linked to the use of poppers uh in the gay community rather than the virus so he's saying it's aids is not the exclusive cause which that makes him an hiv denialist of course it does hiv is uh causes aids right well he's not denying that hiv also causes aids he's saying it's not the exclusive cause okay but what he's saying is absolutely insane and it doesn't make any sense at face value anyway right it is it is a is it is a disease caused by a virus caused by the hiv virus that's what it is right this is well known but he's saying it's also other things right but but how do you know that it's not because it's caused by virus it's a viral disease have you talked to aids experts on this dude come on man every like this is such a laughing stock talking point right we look at where we don't know jack about a look at where we have come with aids treatment why do you think that whereas aids was a death sentence in the 80s and 90s that now it is not that through the use of various therapeutics it's very right because we know what how it's caused we we have drugs that target every single step in the replication cycle of the virus that that uh you know are inhibitors of this step and this step we understand very very well this is what i'm talking about when you say when you So what's alarming is what you just did, I want everyone listening to not do that, right? What you have to have is this intense skepticism. When somebody like RFK says something like that, poppers cause AIDS. This is insane because, and if you don't know a lot about AIDS, but you can look into it, right? You can look into what these drugs do, how they affect the replicative cycle of the virus, how well we understand HIV and AIDS. And that's why we are able to treat it so effectively. I think that you should be skeptical of everything. I think that anyone who's making the rules, anyone who is in charge, the principal of your school or the people that are making the laws in your country, you should absolutely hold their feet to the fire and question what they're doing and try to hold them accountable for things. Whether that be the people who. Who got us into the pandemic or the people who are claiming whether true or not to get us out of some sort of fucked up system that we've been in for 50, 60 years. That's fine. And I think the problem here is, which is human nature, people see evidence of big bad guy right here, new guy comes in, he must be the savior. It's binary. Well, the reality of it is your savior that may be coming in, there may be. There may be some questionable things, there may be some fucking corruption in there too. So you can't just automatically ignore all skepticism for the newcomer that's coming in. But you're also immaculately describing whatever jerk was on Joe Rogan last week, right? What you just described is exactly what I want people to do to the person feeding them these narratives on whatever podcast they're watching, right? Approach that person with skepticism. What do you mean jerk that was on Joe Rogan? What do you mean? I'm saying whatever fraud was on Joe Rogan last week, telling them. In this narrative about COVID or ivermectin or whatever it is, right? Approach that person with extreme skepticism. Everybody you should approach with extreme skepticism. Yeah, I mean, when you approach the entire body of scientific knowledge with skepticism, I mean, you can do that if you want. But then what you're inevitably doing is you start learning science, right? If you're like, how does AIDS work? Great. How does AIDS work? Everybody Google that and learn how AIDS works. And then you will see that what RFK said is insane, right? So, fine. I mean, I want to encourage. If you come to learning. Learning from a position of skepticism, fine. I don't care. Whether you're like, I want to see how AIDS works or whether you're like, I bet it's not true. Let me learn it. You know, whatever. Learning is learning. But the true skepticism should be applied to whatever institution you're talking about. But also, whoever is feeding you these narratives, these just. At this point, it's such a trope, the anti-establishment narrative. You have the big, bad, whatever, fill in the blank. I'm the truth teller on the podcast that's whistleblowing or whatever it is. The people that are making these rounds on the podcast. The people that are making these rounds on the podcast, right? You have to scrutinize what they're saying. You have to follow up. You have to look at. Of course. And so. Of course. Yeah. But why do you pick on Joe Rogan so much? Because he just almost exclusively platforms frauds, you know? Exclusively? Anytime we're talking about in like with medical stuff and like with the pseudo-archaeology stuff, right? He just very, very, very heavily leans in that direction. I think he just talks to people that he's really interested in genuinely. I don't think. I don't think he's trying to deceive anybody. I mean, I don't. I probably don't think that, but. There's no way. But he may not, but it doesn't matter because. He doesn't have anyone telling him who to have on a show. Like he does it all himself. Sure. But he likes these stories, right? He likes these stories of big, bad, whatever. And I'm telling. I'm whistleblowing. He just likes that narrative. You're whistleblowing? No, the guest is whistleblowing. Oh, the guest is whistleblowing. The guest is whistleblowing. Oh, I see what you're saying. Right? He has on somebody that's like the big, bad establishment. And I have the super secret awesome truth, right? He just, anyone who presents that narrative, he is implicit. He is inherently biased towards that narrative. And so, you know, he was fucked by, and he was smeared by CNN during the whole COVID thing when they put him on there and they like photoshopped and made him yellow and said, look at this guy. He's taking horse dewormer. When he literally said, he goes, I took vitamin C, NAD, monoclonal antibodies, ivermectin, and a laundry list of other things. And he's like, it's like they were upset that he, that he did well. And then they had Jay Bhattacharya come on his show, like a couple of weeks later, who was like the head scientist at CNN or whatever. He goes, and you know, you should get your COVID shot, Joe. He's like, no, why? He's like, I just had COVID and recovered last week. I have natural immunity. And then Jay goes, oh yeah, I guess you got a good point. Well, I don't, you know, like, well, Jay also is a massive fraud, but not for, for, for suggesting that people get vaccinated. But yeah, so, but I don't, yeah, they're like horse dewormer. I mean, it is that, but it is also used for animals. It's used for, it's used for animals. It's all, it's, it's used for humans for a very particular parasite. So I mean, billions of uses on humans, not billions of use. No, essentially mainly this one use of, of this, of this particular parasite. But it's been used billions of times, like since it came out. Sure. But the, but so the other side of this is that many, many, many people died because they were convinced that ivermectin cured COVID, which it does not. And the, the reason that this narrative gained traction is through podcasts, primarily through Joe Rogan. A few others, Brett Weinstein was pushing this crap as well. Like a bunch of people were in the podcast space. We're pushing this narrative and people died because of it. So, okay. Like the thing of like, they Photoshopped his face. I mean, yeah, I think, yeah, maybe he didn't look that way. I don't know. I don't know why they perpetually lied through the whole thing. Okay. So, so they're doing a clickbait thing too. But, you know, I mean, the media landscape has a lot of clickbait, but the difference is not sponsored. He's sponsored by people, but he's not sponsored by Pfizer. Sure. That's fine. Did you see the? There's a montage of every single news station brought to you by Pfizer. Like there's montages of it. I've seen it. No, but that's, that's fine. It's crazy. Joe is, Joe is sponsored by nobody and yet is constantly pushing disinformation. Not himself deliberately, but through, through his guests. Right. So who, this is the problem. He's an independent journalist is what he is. He's having people on who he thinks he's reading books. He's listening to podcasts and he's doing like five podcasts a week. This is it. Watch. This, I mean, you don't need to convince me. It's fine. This letter report brought to you by Pfizer. Today's countdown to the Royal wedding is brought to you by Pfizer. And now a CBS sports update brought to you by Pfizer. Meet the press data download brought to you by Pfizer. This portion of CBS this morning sponsored by Pfizer on how to find the hidden sugars in the American family diet sponsored by Pfizer. Making a difference brought to you by Pfizer CNN tonight brought to you by Pfizer. Early start. Brought to you by Pfizer Friday night on Aaron Burnett out front brought to you by Pfizer this week with George Stephanopoulos is brought to you by Pfizer. I mean, it's comical, it's comical. Look, Pfizer is a brand and they want brand recognition and they sponsor stuff. In the middle of pandemic, pushing out a vaccine that's going to be mandated to everyone or else you lose your job. Well, okay, so how, okay, we can get off this topic. No, we'll come back to that because I just want to finish the thing I was saying brought to you by Pfizer does not equal lie and not brought to you by Pfizer does not equal truth. Sure. That's the main thing I want to say. So podcasts in particular, Joe's are a vehicle by which enormous amounts of disinformation spread high volume very rapidly all over the place. And Joe has these people on every week that's part one and he should, I should he, what do you mean he should, he should, he should have frauds that he should, it doesn't, that's not the point. The point is he should have as many people on as he thinks as possibly as many interesting people on as possible and as many as he wants. He should have as many people on as he thinks as possibly as possible and as many as he wants. It's not his job. Are they interesting? I mean, is a grifter interesting? It's not his job to attribute motive to that person. His job is to do, is to make money. Like he's just making money on his show and he's has an unbelievably large net worth to show for it. Um, you can, he can do whatever he wants, right? He's, he's a free agent. And you should be able to, and there's no, there should not be any limits on that stuff. You should be able to, there's, I'm not saying, look, the point is there's not, it's not about, he shouldn't get to have a show or this per, you know, that person, whatever. Um, it's about having a media landscape where, and you know, this, you had on Bart Sabrell and I feel like you. With Charlie Duke. With Charlie Duke. And so like the first, so I did two on Bart Sabrell, two videos. Um, and the second one, I used your two episodes. So you had on, you had him the first episode. It seemed like you kind of bought it. A little bit. Yeah. And then the second time, unfortunately, Charlie was not prepared to do anything. Uh, but he's, I think Bart still lost me on that one though. That's what I'm saying is that you had done a little bit of work in the interim and you nailed them on some stuff with the shadows and stuff. And so I think that you realize he's a fraud. I think that hopefully your viewers realize that he's a fraud. Um, then I think you had on a everyday astronaut and you talked about it more, I believe. So, so that if Joe Rogan did that, I wouldn't have a problem with that. That's why I agreed to be here because I feel like you. You are what Joe thinks he is. I think that that's what you're trying to lean into, or at least that's my impression. So I I'm here to commend that and try to be part of it. I would have never done this if it wasn't for Joe Rogan, like I would have never create a podcast if it wasn't for him. I think everyone was a podcast can say that. Enormously and, and, and I've listened to Joe Rogan episodes back in the day when he used to have just comedians on and interesting people. And, uh, you know, when I was in a tour van a lot, I would listen to him. I think like 80% of his, of his library is comedians still like he has more comedians on than anyone still like eventually. Recently. Okay. Every once in a while, he has like some scientists on that, you know, he's had a lot of climate change scientists on. He's had a lot of, um, immunologists and, and all kinds of, I mean, there's no topic that he hasn't covered, but like going back to your point about the moon and Bart Sobrell. Like I've changed my mind on things multiple times. I've gone back and forth. Just the other day, two days ago. Have you ever seen these? These are pre-dynastic Egyptian vases. So me and Flint Dibble were talking about this when he was on my show. And I pressured him on his. I thought he was full of shit. Because these are granite vases that were measured in light scanners at aerospace companies. This is Ben's stuff, right? This is Ben Van Kirkwood first brought this stuff to me. So here's the idea behind these is they're pre-dynastic. Back in the day, like 4,000 years ago, when the Egyptians were using copper tools and stone chisels, or yeah, stone and copper tools to create and craft and do hieroglyphics and build everything. So these things, which were dated to the same time, were made of granite, one of the hardest stones that exists. And when they were measured with the most precise measuring equipment known to man, it found out they were so precise, the only way we could make them today was on a CNC machine. So it's like, how do we have this computer precision with granite, the hardest stone known to man, one of the below diamond, but dated to 4,000 years ago, it doesn't add up to anything. And I was convinced that like, there's something wrong. There's a huge gap here. Like, how do we get a fucking academic archeologist from Egypt on here to address this stuff with someone like Ben and get to the bottom of this? And lots of people, Chris Dunn, he wrote an amazing book that I really, really enjoyed called The Giza Power Plant. He's an engineer, an aerospace engineer who discovered the pyramids in the 80s, rather. And he looked at the interior layout and said, this looks like a machine to me. This looks like a mechanical thing that has some sort of a, it looks like it's built to perform a function rather than a funerary tomb. So he wrote a book about it. And he also talked about the vases when he came on. He brought me that one, that 3D print. So it's like, what Ben was trying to say in his videos is like, well, this must be evidence for ancient machining or some sort of advanced ancient technology. I know you're very aware of this. So I'm just trying to describe it for people who don't know. Advanced ancient technology that can be attributed to the Egyptians if they had stone tools and copper chisels, right? So there's people that have like spent hundreds of thousands of dollars buying these on the antiquities markets. And they were like a huge anomaly to me. Like almost, just much if not more than the pyramids themselves. I had a guy on just the other day who was a nuclear engineer who was fascinated by this. He got into Ben's work early on, like found his YouTube channel, was fascinated by it. And he like made this his life. He started studying them, like measuring them, going to museums and measuring the ones that were in the museums. He measured the ones that were in the private collections. And he also measured ones that were modern recreations, like that he knew for a fact. Were made on like CNC machines and like laser cutters and stuff like that. And what he found was that all of the super precise ones that were really like accurate and had to have done on a CNC machine were modern. The vast majority, like he laid it all out on a graph. - Yeah. - And he convinced himself and me. - That the whole narrative was bullshit. That it was all bullshit. Like, I don't think that these people know this, or I'm sure a lot of them are going to push back against it and they're gonna ignore it. And they're gonna deny it when it gets in their face. - Because you're emotionally invested now in this fantastical claim and it props up all of these wonderful, all the ancient super advanced civilization, all this, right? This is what- - But Max, literally Max Zamelov came up. He showed us the evidence. He put it all on a graph, man. And all the super precise ones were modern recreations. He even paid to have them. He paid to have a modern recreation done by a company in China. And it was like very similar to the ones that all these people had that they said were ancient. So it's like, now the evidence is in the other court. Like I can't fucking say these things are ancient anymore until I see more evidence that goes to the contrary. - So a couple of things. Number one, I applaud you for that. Number two, if every podcast in this space operated as you described, then we, I wouldn't be saying anything about it. And we wouldn't have such water. Widespread science denial as we do today, right? Joe doesn't do that. Very rarely, right? He'll have Flint on- - He did it with Flint. - Yeah, well, he did it with Flint. And then after the fact started this giant smear campaign, Flint is a liar or whatever, and then never had him back on and then just had fraud after fraud, after fraud, right? Pseudo-archeology spaces thrived on Rogan first. But so look, once again, like you, you know, you did that. Right, you had, this guy says this, this guy says this, you're giving equal attention to, you know, you're not the one that has to be the arbiter of what's true. Right, you hear people making claims. So I want to encourage that. And it's very important, especially for people like you to do that because you have in the past have had these people on. And I think that a lot of your viewers put a lot of stock in some of these figures. And so for you to have someone on that's debunking this narrative, this claim, that ends up being very, because you can have it on a lot of different, you know, somebody can write a paper about it. People are not going to read the paper, the people don't read scientific journals. Right. It has to, like, this is what the podcast landscape has to transform into is having credible people on that. And it's hard because you don't let, you know, I said Avi Loeb earlier, he's a Harvard professor. How do you know he's a grifter? Right. Well, he is, you know, Harvard professor can be a grifter. Surprise, surprise, you know, it happens, it does happen. And so in that case, right, you know, and hopefully maybe you'll have someone on that'll debunk everything that Avi says. - Well, we had, what's his name on? What was the gentleman from MIT? - Jim Gates. - Jim Gates, you heard him? He's great. He, anyways, he's very, very well respected. He knew, he knew Fermi, I think, Enrico Fermi. He knew Stephen Hawking, like more than like the most legendary MIT physicist. But those, those, those guys are hard to get. - They are hard to get. So that's, that's the other tricky part is that the podcasting landscape has become this like alternate universe of outlandish claims that academia has traditionally just ignored. - Right. - They're just like, there's crazy people saying crazy things. It doesn't affect me. I don't care. And I'm not going to deal with it. And so most academics have traditionally been unwilling to do, so me, I'm not an academic. I live in this space, right? I'm, I'm some guy making videos at home. And so this is, these are the narratives that I deal with every day and that I'm, so I, for me to come here, it's, it's not weird. But, you know, I think that I'm finally starting to see a change within, within the scientific community because they're realizing how severely public perception of science affects their ability to do science because they're voting administrations into power that then slash funding for science. And now all of a sudden, all right, they have all of their grants taken away. They can't do science anymore. So I'm seeing a little bit of a, the stirrings of a fervor among scientists and a little bit more willingness to, you know, utilize these platforms to, to, to speak out. So I'm hoping that you, if you can kind of lead the way in, in, in a certain regard in this way, and many other podcasts hopefully will try to be this way, be, you know, try to get, you know, and the more academics that do it, that traditionally haven't done it, you know, not Avi Loebert, he's dying to, but, but people who wouldn't otherwise that are going to give you factual information to discredit whatever RFK they said this week, because every week he's saying something insane. We need that. We need more of that in this podcasting space. That's, that's where it has to happen. - Yeah. We need to see more debates, more people get together with opposing ideologies or opposing viewpoints on things. And I try, we try our best to do that. It's not easy to do. - Yeah. And the other, so, I mean, I think a lot of academics are not used to like a combative environment and I mean, it's like academia can be combative in that everybody has different ideas. That's one thing that I think a lot of people don't understand is that they're, they're, there exists debate within academia. It's just that you have these opposing ideas. You know, the dark matter is this dark matter is that, well you publish papers, right? You do research and you publish papers. These are the results that I got that, which might, you know, perhaps this dark matter candidate is no longer. - And also some of the smartest people aren't the best communicators. - That's true, right? - And some of the best communicators can be the dumbest motherfuckers I've ever met. - That's can also be true. So it's just a situation we're here, 2026. We have a situation where very slowly over the past decade or so this alternate reality has been cultivated in the podcast space where it's just sort of these very specific charlatans just make the rounds and conjure this other reality where it's, you know, the big, bad academic sites. You can't listen to them. We have this super cool truth. And the academics have up until this point, just kind of allowed it to happen. And just like, well, we don't care what they say. You know, they're just, it's some lunatic shouting on a street corner. Well, it's not a lunatic shouting on the street corner. Now it's the fucking head of the HHS. We've had this problem where coffee was a gamble. Some mornings it helped other mornings. I was jittery over-stimulated and crashing out by noon. I love the ritual of coffee, but not always the extremeness of it. And that's what led me to Mudwater. Their new low caffeine coffee blend has been a game changer. It's made with organic Arabica coffee, Swiss water, decaf, L-theanine and functional mushrooms like lion's mane and cordyceps. So you still get that real coffee taste, but with calmer, steadier energy and no jitters. And if you want something even gentler, They still have their original blend with cacao, chai, turmeric, and mushrooms. Great for mornings when you want focus without that heavy hit of caffeine. Everything is USDA organic, non-GMO, gluten-free, vegan, kosher, with zero sugar or sweeteners added. For me, it's just a smoother start to the day. Clearer focus, no roller coaster, and it's the perfect balance. Ready to make the switch to cleaner energy? Head on over to mudwater.com and grab your starter kit today. And right now, our listeners are getting an exclusive deal, up to 43% off your entire order, plus free shipping and a free rechargeable frother when you use my code DANNYJONES at checkout. That's right, up to 43% off when you use the code DANNYJONES at M-U-D-W-T-R.com. After you purchase, they're going to ask where you found them, and please help support the show and let them know we sent you. Let me ask you this. Sorry to change the subject. Has there ever been a conspiracy theory that you turned around on, did a 180 on, that you made a conspiracy theory that you turned around on, did a 180 on, that you made a conspiracy theory maybe something like this that you absolutely thought was bullshit, maybe made a video attacking, and then didn't, and turned around on it? I don't, I can't think of one. Nothing? Nothing. I mean, because- Not even Epstein? Well, but that's, I mean, I never doubted what Epstein was. I mean, two years ago, people would have been like, there's no way they're trafficking and eating kids. And now there's emails that prove it, basically. Yeah. I mean, I don't know the precise details, but I never doubted. I mean, I think part of it is just that I've been- Get out of here. Well, I think that I've always just been, with Epstein and like Mossad ties and stuff, like I've been, you know, anti-Zionist for a very, very long time. So I- You're Italian, right? Yeah. But my wife is Palestinian and I have a, you know, large extended Palestinian family. So I just kind of, I mean, not that, you know, I was becoming aware of Israel prior to meeting her, but then, you know, over the past, I just, it's been a long process of like- Is she like born there? She was not. She was born in Chicago, but her parents, they fled in the seventies. So it's just, I've known what Israel is for a long time. And so a figure like Epstein, like, it's just, I never really doubted that. I'm more in the science space where it's like, I can pretty easily sniff out when something is scientifically inaccurate and then also the motivations behind it. Sometimes I have to dig into the literature a little bit, but usually I can tell, oh, this is a Christian propaganda mill, right? That's what's going on there. But with- With that stuff, with geopolitics, I don't think I ever really doubted a lot of that stuff. I know how horrific certain people are and how horrific certain nations are and how horrific the, you know, a very large percentage of the American government is. That was never something I doubted. So, yeah. Yeah. I mean, but like one of the craziest conspiracies that people were getting made fun of for is like the whole like global banker cabal, you know, that controls the world there's this globalist elite economy that goes to the trilateral commission and Bill Gates and Bezos and Peter Thiel are going there and they're, they're, they're doing deals on arms trafficking and child human trafficking and all this stuff. And like, they really control the world. They really control the government. And it's like, you know, at some level, there's a certain level of society that just like brushes those people off. Like these people are insane. And then you have like, depending on how it's worded and who knows how much gaslighting is involved when it comes to the U S government. To, because like, you know, like there's no way you can tell me that the U S government hasn't predicted what's going to happen when they hide all this information and don't tell us the truth about things like hiding all the shit about the Charlie Kirk thing, not saying a word, hiding all the stuff about the Trump assassination, not saying a word about that guy. That thing is just tied up. We don't hear anything about it, nor does he say anything about it. So many things like this where you don't give any answers, no conclusive answers. And then the Epstein files, all this Epstein file is out, all these emails, all these people, these billionaires that run these huge corporations in the U S and other countries are implicated in all this horrific shit. And the FBI says, number one, first of all, they say, I mean, if you want to really rewind it, if you elect me, I'm going to release the Epstein files. Now it's a democratic hoax. They don't exist. And then, and then here's half of them, the half that I'm not in. And then here it is, the Dow's up 50,000 or whatever. And then, you know, here they are, but we're also, and by the way, I don't give the fucking, Democrats that are as much as I fuck can't stand Pam Bondi or a cash Patel. I don't give the democratic people that are attacking her any credit because they didn't do jack shit when they were in power. And when Biden was president, when Clinton was president, when Obama was president, nothing was done. That shit was covered up the whole fucking time. It's just a political, it's just politically advantageous to them right now. So yeah, they give it, they drop all that crazy, horrendous shit on us and they don't give us any explanation. What was your conclusion? Oh, blow up the internet. Yeah. Just nuke the internet and let everybody freak out. Exactly. Yeah. I don't know. I mean, look, I don't need any convincing that there are evil people in power that do evil things. Like that's, it's just categorically different, right? I deal in the space of people who are, who are spreading disinformation that is scientifically untrue, right? That's the thing about like with something like Epstein files or whatever, like all of these people did all these things. I don't like, was there a camera? I don't know, but that's very, there were cameras in every single house. So let's see the, like we, like the, the, the great thing about science is that it's empirical. Anybody can test anything. What does a pathogen do? What does a drug do? What, how does this law of physics work? What is that made out of? Anybody can test it and find out for themselves. That's what's awesome about science. And that's what, that's what makes, uh, like science denial debunking fairly accessible to someone like me. Um, is it's just a 90% of it is just fumbling basic science. Um, and I can use very basic principles in physics and chemistry and et cetera, to, to, to debunk it when it comes to what the government is doing. I don't know, man, I don't know what they're doing. They're doing bad stuff. Yes, of course they are. Yeah. Yeah. They're, they're, they're two different spheres. I don't make political content. Uh, people have complained that my content has gotten too political lately, but it's inevitable because you have people who politicize science. So in order to, in order to de-politicize science, I have to talk about the political motives of people who are politicizing science. And that's Trump's that's RFKs, HHS all up and down. Right. So in order to defend the scientific community and the, and scientific truth from politicians, right, you have to mention them and talk about their motives and everything like that. But, uh, in terms of, yeah, just, I, I wasn't, I never doubted the Epstein stuff or, uh, the, or the sod link. I mean, people, yeah, people, I mean, and I mentioned it like offhand in a reaction video, maybe I've talked about Epstein was misguided and I'll get like, I will get a little bit of that. Like Dave, there's no evidence for that. I don't know. I have you ever done a video a debate with, um, professor Jang? No, I did a reaction video on him. So that, that guy's nuts. Uh, yeah. And so similar background, similar start, similar start to you, right? I suppose he's a high school teacher. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I taught at a university, but, uh, yeah, but he does the whole whiteboard thing and all that. Yeah. Yeah. He's, it's like a fake school or I don't know what's going on there. It's super, it's so fun. I get sucked in. Yeah. It just, he just fucking holds. I watched those videos and it's just got me in a stranglehold. I can't stop watching it, dude. But the thing with that guy, so I did a reaction video and I got a little bit crucified in the comments because I did one. So he, I looked at his catalog and a bunch of it is about science, which is my wheelhouse. And I'm also the most boring titles ever. Yeah. Like no clickbait. Yeah. But it's also insane. I mean, when he talks about science, it's insane. He has no idea what he's talking about. It's crazy. And so I was like, Oh, okay. I'm I'll react to one of these science videos. But at the front of it, I reacted to, he went on breaking points and it was And so I, I was just like, well, let's react to this one first disclaimer. I don't know much about geopolitics. Uh, so I may or may not have anything to say. And he kept it really, really tame on that one. He didn't say anything outrageous except for at the end, he was like Illuminati, whatever the, you know, but he, he kind of just regurgitated some stuff about straight a whore moves and stuff that he'd like heard from other things that he didn't say anything that weird. And so I got to the end. I was like, all right, whatever. So now let's watch the science one. And just, I just eviscerated, he was just trying to talk about cosmology and evolution and just had no idea what to say. But so many people just watched like the first five minutes of me reacting to him on breaking points. And we're like, Dave doesn't know anything. Cause I, I mean, I said a naive thing. I said something because he said, uh, you know, Iran will beat America. It will destroy the American, uh, um, uh, you know, American empire or whatever. And I was like, well, that's insane. They're not going to destroy America, but it just has these vague, you know, Iran will win. So I was like, oh, well that's silly. I said something that wasn't phrased properly. Like America can't lose. Or that does it. It's not about winning. It's about winning. It's not about winning and lose. It's not like two armies and one remains at the end. It's, it's not like a clear cut thing. No, it's not a winner and a loser. Yeah. So I said something a little bit naive and I kind of got crucified in the, in the section, in the comment section, but then it went on to like an hour of me reacting to him fumbling high school level science principles. And I was just like, why does anybody believe this guy? Like he's just spewing a lot of the stuff that he does say though, about the geopolitical implications of like what's going on in the relationships between countries, especially with this Iran war is very accurate. Yeah. But I think that some, whatever he's saying, he's saying that's accurate. It's pretty trivial that you can just get off. Maybe. Yeah. I'm sure you can learn it from anybody else, but I like learning it from him. I think it's fine. I mean, it gets like, here, here's another thing. People like him and people like even Graham Hancock or, or any of these people, like it's happened to me where even if these people, whoever you want to say it is say they're like the worst liars in the to a topic where like, I really thought like, this is so fascinating. This is so crazy. Aliens built the pyramids. Holy shit. Now I want to go, I want to keep drilling down and drilling down and drilling down. And eventually I'll get to where I got on these fucking Egyptian bases. Like, oh my God. But now I've like, I've learned so much along the way. Yeah. It's like, it's, it was the catalyst that kind of got me into things. A couple of things. Not everyone's like you. Number two, you're incentivized to seek out the information because you have a podcast and you're going to bring all kinds of different guests on. There, there's absolutely nothing wrong with what you just said, right? You got, you got hooked by something. You investigated further, found that the thing that hooked you was not true. And then, you know, maybe found some passion for something. And now maybe you'll listen to more legitimate sources of information. The overwhelming majority of the populace that is tuning into these podcasts does not have that level of self-reflection, that level of intellectual responsibility. So we are seeing science denial becoming more and more mainstream. And it's largely the podcast space, not exclusively, but largely the podcast space that is responsible for that. So I, again, that's why I'm here. I commend you for, for doing that. And I want to help and be part of that, right. Help in whatever tiny way I can to steer the podcasting space towards, um, that kind of approach to truth. Yeah. Um, what is your take on UFOs? Yeah, this is what I get that requested because my viewers know that I debunk everything and I haven't done this one yet. I, because it's such a hornet's nest, right? The pseudo archeology thing is a hornet's nest. And eventually I was like, fuck it. I'm going to poke this hornet nest. And it just, all the bees came at me. Um, but now I'm going down the roster one by one. The UFO one is a hall of mirrors. Yeah. To answer your question very briefly, I don't buy any of it. I don't think aliens have ever been here. Uh, I, all of it is bullshit to me, but yeah, but I have not yet begun the process of digging deeply into it and talking to a lot of people and reading a lot of stuff. He's like, dude, Bob Lazar on Joe Rogan, you got to debunk this guy. And I'm like, I have my little list of like what I'm doing right now. And I'm like, dude, I'm like six debunks deep. Like I don't have time. There's factions inside the UFO community that fucking war gets to each other. It's just so like, I I'm on purpose delaying it. Like I don't feel like doing it yet. It's so much, bro. It'll take up so much of your time. Yeah. But you also learn a lot. It's a fun topic. What, what, what has been like the, has there been anything that you've seen or listened to that has been. Like something that's been like more compelling than others that you've, that you maybe would consider. Like what about the New York times article that came out in 2014 about the Tic-Tac UFOs that the Navy pilots were seeing? I mean, a lot of it is, I mean, and it's lent credence by being in those publications. Um, but all it takes is the same publication that sold us the Iraq war. Sure. Exactly. So, so is it more credence or not? And what, what is the, what is the motive of the American government in having Senate hearings about these things? Like what is happening? Like, why are we doing this? Um, no, I think that I just looked at some videos of people recreating that, you know, there's like a transparency and a window and they go like that really fast. And I don't know, uh, Mick West is a great guy to have on. If you want somebody that'll debunk all this stuff for you. Um, he's kind of the premier UAP debunker guy. Um, I just haven't, it's just, I'm dealing with like, like I started with flat earthers, got bored of that really fast. Then creationism and anti-vax, like the, the, like there are certain spheres that I, like you, I could spend my entire life debunking creationists or like I could spend my entire life debunking one thing. There's just so many charlatans in there. So I choose to spread myself very thin. Um, I've become a generalist at this point and I really go after as much as I can, whatever I think is very damaging to the public at any given time. Um, but I just can't, I can't do it all. Like there's, can you explain to me creationists? I'm not familiar with this one. Um, I mean, I'm generally kind of vaguely familiar with it, but I mean, God made all the life exactly as God, you know, I mean, biblical creationists are like, you know, Adam and Eve and you know, you have young earth creationists that are like the earth is 6,000 years old and God went poof and here's all the animals and the humans here's Adam and Eve and whatever. Uh, then there's creationists that try to be slightly more compatible with science. So you have like old age, old earth creationists that are like, well, I think that a Genesis has an element of allegory and a day can be a million years or, you know, whatever it is. Um, but ultimately all of it is science denial. And then it is weaponized science denial when you have, uh, Christian propaganda mills. Uh, one of them is called the discovery Institute that I've been, that I am well known for, for debunking quite voraciously. Um, a Christian propaganda mill. Yeah. What are, what are they actually like? Is it a website or like a podcast? I mean, it's an Institute in, in, in Seattle and it's very well funded by Christian nationalists and they, um, try to appear as academic as possible. Like it's a think tank or like they actually do research, which of course they don't. Um, and it is populated by people who have at one point been legitimate academics, but now they are, you know, they, they might have a PhD in something tangential to what they're talking about, but their entire job is to go through the primary scientific literature in biology, uh, anthropology, you know, any number of, uh, fields, uh, distort it like crazy and try to convince the public that there's a debate between evolution and creation happening in the, in the, uh, in the, in the within the scientific community. And here's these scholars that, that are dubious of evolution. It's all just a bunch of, uh, it's, it's an attempt to erode the separation of church and state, um, by, uh, by planting doubt in science such that religion ought to be taught in public science classes, uh, in, in school, uh, alongside legitimate science. And then from there you go, you know, it's, um, handmaid's tale stuff. Dude, one of the craziest things to me is this marriage of this, like this new surge of Christian, uh, nationalism in the military, and it's tied to Israel. That's freaky to me. And I watched a couple of documentaries. I watched a vice doc, an old vice documentary about like the, the evangelical lobby in the U S which is also, I think bigger than the fucking, uh, the Jewish lobby or the Israel lobby. Well, there, I mean, there's a lot of overlap, but they're all tied in to get, they're all the same thing, right? Because the, the, the Jewish lobby or the Israel lobby has like made them a part of them, their team somehow. And they're all advocating for the same thing for like Islamic age in, in Israel. And I like to bring the diaspora back to Israel and to control the United States. Right. And it's certainly what they're doing. And it's, and it's, it's hard to decipher how much of it is, is rhetoric to entrance a highly religious general public versus what they're actually doing. I mean, it's scarily, I think maybe they really do believe all that. I think some of them do. I think so. I mean, there's clearly some of them that don't, but I think there's a huge majority of them who do. But it's very clear. I mean, you have a guy like Ted Cruz that'll just outright admit, like I'm, the purpose is to protect Israel. It's like, what are you doing? This is like sedition. Like this is treasonous. Dude, I couldn't believe that was real when I was listening to it. You have American politicians admitting we have to protect Israel, serve Israel. That's his number one issue. That's why he got into Congress was to push the goals of Israel. Like, how is that? How, how is that real, dude? I don't, I don't get it. Yeah. So yeah, the history. Did you see the one that Tucker did with Mike Huckabee? Yeah. They can have it all, which by the way, they are doing. They're using the Iran war to distract us while they annex Southern Lebanon. Million people displaced. That, that shit is Israel now. And Gaza, I mean, Gaza is a foregone conclusion. That is Israel. And, you know, Trump will get his hotel on the new Riviera. There was a new thing that came out this morning. Let me text it to you real quick, Steve, because we can pull it up. This was, I guess, I think this was put out by the Israeli government. This is a tweet. I'm forwarding to you. And they listed, I don't know if you saw this, they listed the top like 20 anti-Semites in the U.S. I'm not top 20, but I'm on that list. I was, I was anti-Semite of the week and. Were you really? Yeah, yeah, yeah. Anti-Semite of the year was Ms. Rachel. Who put you, I saw that, Ms. Rachel of all people. It's a way to tank your credibility by going after Ms. Rachel, the sweetest angel. Idiots. I mean, they just, I think that the, the problem is that, not the problem, the good thing is that public opinion. Vandal Zarian is number one anti-Semitic influence. Well, yeah, he talks a lot about Israel. I mean, he said, say what you want about him, but he posted a tweet that said, he said, I am not, he goes, I'm not for a two-state solution. He says, Palestine should be all of Israel. Yeah. And I agree with him. I don't like it. It shouldn't be a controversial statement. You know? Yeah. You, you can. Look at, look who's number two. Number two is. Greta Thurnberg. Well, of course, yeah. Just, any, any activist must be smeared. Yeah. I got stop anti, stop, stop antisemitism.org is an organization that tries to ruin the lives of anybody who speaks up for Palestine. If you're. I didn't know you talked about this a lot. So I didn't for a long time because I make science content, but it, it, it creeps in, right? When you're talking about the Trump administration or whatever administration's in power, I mean, and then, you know, obviously it just, it crept in, in, in, in certain ways. And then now my viewers know that I'm, you know, staunchly. What is that on the right? Sorry to interrupt you. Dude. It's okay to have, what is that? Is that real? Poland, MP, Conrad Berkowitz openly called Israel, the new third Reich. Uh, no. Hinkle is, uh. Is that a real picture? Did he really hold that flag up like that? I think his Hinkle is a, is a, not a reliable source of information. So, so copy and paste Poland, MP, Conrad, that name copy and paste that into the search on, oh, it's a screenshot. I don't know. But, um, no, I, I also, what I was doing is right after October 7th on Twitter, I was voraciously combating uh zionist propaganda because in the beginning of the uh in the beginning of this you know what is still ongoing the ongoing genocide there was just this unbelievable wave of propaganda i don't know if you remember when they were first bombing all the hospitals and everything it was just like hamas is there hamas is there no they're just bombing hospitals and they would go you know there was a al-shifa hospital was supposed to be they had this um this this cgi like it's the ultimate hamas base underground all these things they go in there they delay it for like five hours they go in there's like a couple of guns over there there's a uh they say here's a list of terrorists it was a calendar like it was like just the most embarrassing like the propaganda was so embarrassing that like even like cnn stopped running israeli propaganda like they were just the the media landscape was starting to like jump ship a little bit and so you just had all these influencers on twitter that were just non-stop 24 7 pushing this propaganda to kind of like massage like manufacture consent for genocide essentially and i mean it did it did largely backfire just because of how many people how many people you like it's if you really want to see it you'll see it you'll go and you'll follow goss and journalists and you'll see the carnage and you'll see what's really happening um and so i was really for the first like four months of the of the conflict i was ever spending way too much time and like losing my mind and crying every day of just like you know combating this stuff and so uh they kind of dog piled me on a dog piled on me and got my account terminated and i was like oh my god i'm going to get arrested and um on what on twitter twitter yeah uh and so that's how i got stomping the the anti-semitic of the week i was uh alongside yeah it's good alongside it just what they would do it's it's an organization that any like especially if you were like a medical professional they would dox the hell out of you call your place of employment pressure so much pressure fire them and yeah yeah very similar yeah see that that's the most that's the most insane thing is how the united or how the israeli government is trying to box in all jewish people into their government narrative and trying to say anyone that criticizes the israeli government is criticizing jews right right that's like it's a brilliant that's like associating me and you with dick cheney and george bush yeah it's a it's a brilliant tactic and kind of the only tactic they had available to them but it just backfired spectacularly um the word anti-semitism doesn't even mean anything anymore because which is a shame because anti-semitism does exist sure but now when somebody says that word you have to go do you mean anti-semitism or anti-semitism right what do you mean right because i'm an anti-semite because i protest genocide right so right because you're against killing little innocent little killing babies yeah so what is this the video steve the mp of poland seven hours ago polish mp sparks fury after displaying israel flag with the parliament okay this is in the polish the new third reich and its flag should look exactly like this israel's attacks in the middle east are already being felt by poles through fuel prices but how are they felt by children whose deaths already numbered dozens of times more than during the entire war in ukraine well like this jews are using a banned phosphorus bomb that consumes oxygen from the air and leads to death by suffocation moreover the smoke from this bomb enters the lungs and burns them from the inside they suffocate and burn from the inside at the same time tens of thousands of women and children are being killed by the bomb in the middle east israel's attack on children but if a child is lucky enough not to suffocate white phosphorus sticks to the cheek or to the hand and burns through the tissue down to the bone it cannot be extinct did he really hold up that flag the cheek is cut off and the hand is amputated israel is committing genocide i mean it's an apt comparison it is zionist genocide before our eyes with particular no netanyahu and israelism they are hitler they are terrorists there's really no difference um yeah it's war crimes all day and uh the endless victim complex you know yeah man it's insane dude but uh and i like i said earlier i think this is an interesting topic because it's the one thing i think can unify everybody it is unifying especially young people in america right now i think they they are all aware of this insane corruption of israel israeli influence in the united states government with people like ted cruz and all this and you know shockingly enough you know we have this this establishment media right wing personality tucker carlson who's doing the biggest job of exposing all of it it's kind of crazy it's kind of crazy i don't know exactly what motivated tucker to like be so because on every other topic it's just non-stop garbage out of his mouth but it's well he's a he's a he's a very hardcore christian yeah but he he says he says i don't believe in having a theocracy he believes in separation of church and state um i mean he looks at most things through a lens but he he does call out his own like he's literally like he's apologized and said that he was wrong about selling the iran war he believed everything he believed all the propaganda and sold it on fox the whole iran war until he said he went there in 2003 and saw what was going on and he's like oh my god this is complete and utter and then he stopped doing it and he started going against the narrative on that so i don't know yeah to me i mean it seems like he's being very genuine because what he's doing is like i think it's uniting more americans than it's dividing i think it's dividing more americans than it's dividing i think it's dividing more americans the it's the i mean box and cnn's are doing the most dividing and it's only really effective on the older the boomers i mean the right wing is largely flipping yeah i mean yeah like the next president the next president's not going to be able to run without addressing this i feel like the the younger generations are going to hold the them accountable right and like i don't think anyone i don't even think anyone believes that a president's going to change anything in this country anymore like we've seen so many presidents just do the same things the same bullshit the same wars it's probably the single thread that unites all of american foreign policy under every administration since we've been alive uh or and or longer yeah i i don't really know i i think that's part of the thing is that everybody can kind of sense this unbelievable um corruption and and uh and destruction and it's very easy to channel that rage and point it at other things right not to bring it back to all the grifters i mean i want to keep talking about this too but it's very easy to channel that rage and point it at other things right not to bring it back to all the grifters i mean i want to keep talking about this too but it's very easy to go uh evil power bad man thing me underdog listen to me right that's kind of because we're all experiencing this we're all very frustrated right how do we stop our how do i stop my tax dollars from going to my government murdering people i don't like that i don't i want it to stop and i don't know how to do it i don't know what to do you know um and so that frustration is very easy to channel uh yeah into other things and it's i think in no matter what what part of society you're looking at i think a pattern that i've recognized that is probably accurate is that psychopaths typically gather around the top yeah of anything they're usually at the top level of most things unfortunately that is true the type of person that that you have to lust for power to get it in this kind of you gotta be willing to cut any landscape yeah any throat to get there yeah to climb that ladder yeah i don't know yeah my transitioning into adulthood was was a bit of a disillusionment disillusioning experience i think when you when you come of age and and realize that um who is in power and how unlikely it is to change just by virtue of the power dynamic and i don't know i'm a big mom donnie fan let's let's keep let's keep that going i love mom donnie who doesn't like mom donnie you know a lot of people don't like mom donnie well for very bad reasons i you know i him and trump got along great i think trump loved him trump was fucking smiling i've ever seen i that number one trump just wants everyone to like him and number two he's just you know can recognize ain't doing a very good job grassroots yeah but uh i it's it's hard to not recognize the fervor surrounding mom donnie and like want to be want to like bask in the in the fl in that flame and and like try to channel that uh so i don't know i i that he he's i i hope we see more figures like him yeah i'm skeptical of any people that are really young getting into the industry i think into politics like that who speak so confidently and like they know shit like maybe he's good maybe he's not i don't know a lot about him i mean i know like a very high level about it um but there's a guy who's running for the fucking governor of florida fishback is his last name he's like 30 years old maybe and he's an immigrant from columbia and like he's like the first thing i want to do is i'm gonna abolish all foreign ties to israel we're not going to take any israeli money or any part of the u.s government or else you're out or any part of the florida government or you're out got my vote and and his other one is he wants to do an instant moratorium on any immigration cut off all immigration even though he immigrated here from columbia and the other one is he wants to do a 50 syntax on only fans because of his religious thing and like i have a weird sort of like who are just doing like basket weaving or something they're just like what about me right right yeah go to patreon sell your ass um i just have this i don't know i have like an allergic reaction to people who are so young and there's no way he can have that much experience in the world maybe i'm wrong well but like when i was his age i was such a fucking moron yeah but how much experience do you need to know that genocide is bad like not that much i mean like i think that it doesn't and trump has proven that you like that you can be president with zero governor of a fucking state at that age yeah i mean look i don't know i don't know maybe i'm wrong i don't know i don't know i know nothing about this guy i don't know the first time i've ever hearing about just speaking very generally yeah i think young people are less likely to be corrupt and are and and are more likely to run for legitimate reasons just trying to combat corruption because somebody's got to do it like america's just continuing in this direction that is going to i don't know what's going to happen i mean we're we're becoming more and more authoritarian uh under trump and it's just i don't know where that leads um and so people need to get young people need to get into government and you could got to go on a case by case basis right i'm not saying anyone who's under 30 or under 40 is going to be great for the job but um they're less likely to be beholden to special interests they're less likely to you know i don't know that's how i see it what is your take or your view on um the government government surveillance on american citizens it's terrifying so you're not pro that no okay good absolutely not um this and i do a lot of uh stuff with peter you know teal and palantir this is coming from and um he is so you're you're you're a snowden fan you're not yeah sure yeah i'm a snowden fan okay um and so uh what i was saying earlier way kind of at the beginning of when we were talking about like oligarchy promoted um yeah rhetoric right it's all so teal teal pays eric weinstein and i imagine probably brett as well but um like that that's the angle yeah what does eric do for teal he's like the financial something for him managing director oh managing director of field capital interesting eric's job is to go is to spew horseshit on podcasts that that's what eric's job is like eric's job is to manipulate public perception of you think that's his job yes that is his job he gets paid to do that he's doing it yeah that's what he's doing that's all he does he doesn't do anything else what do you think about lex friedman lex is uh he reached out to me once because he wanted me to debate there's this uh this particular creationist chemist that i have um kind of taken through the ringer and he wanted to show and i was like okay yeah i'll do and then it kind of fizzled out um i've heard a lot of stuff about just like he has no affiliation with mit like that stuff i don't know that kind of thing i mean yeah lex is kind of just platforming elon musk and like you know a lot of these i don't know uh yeah the the surveillance thing yeah that's that's one of the most insane things because there's something just came out i think yesterday where uh mike johnson literally did a 180 on all that stuff where now they're like ushering in all these new uh surveillance things for like these tech companies where they can actually like surveil us and track the social media stuff and like i think with that find out exactly what that was because i remember glenn greenwald did an interview with mike johnson before he was elected and he was saying how government surveillance keeps him up at night he loses sleep over that and that he wants to fight against it i'm terrified about it and now he's out here fucking promoting it yeah my fear is and the thing is that i see us moving this way already right i see like trump's gestapo in the streets and things um a situation where you have all of our dna through ancestry.com or whatever those things you have deep fakes you have ai you have all of these things if you have a totalitarian police state such that any dissident can be framed for any crime and be jailed immediately right that's i feel like that is what certain people want to do and i think that's what i want and i feel like we are inching in that direction right uh and i'm very very scared of that yes me too i think that's certainly what people like peter teal want yes they want to have the ultimate control and i feel like i mean just based on some of his emails i mean he has so many goddamn emails with jeffrey epstein it's insane um and like looking at some of those and like seeing how he communicates and like i don't know how much attention you paid to it but he was like very like there was like a uh a 20 paragraph list of all the foods that he could and couldn't eat that was sent to like jeffrey epstein and for their ships how often he's there they need to have a special he's like a hypochondriac he's like super paranoid like hyper hyper paranoid of everything yeah from his own health to external and that okay here's the surveillance thing the fisa surveillance vote sparks fierce debate as congress splits on warrantless monitoring donald trump says he's working very hard with white house republicans to expend section extend section 702 without changes what does that actually mean when did this get published by the way it's like a day ago okay um a controversial law that grants u.s government sweeping powers for warrantless surveillance is set to expire next week replacing it has inspired fierce debate within the white house and congress including a scheduled vote uh i said a scheduled vote cancelled the day of um a coalition of professional progressive democrats and far-right republicans is pushing for reform on section 702 of the foreign intelligence surveillance act but they face strong bipartisan position from lawmakers advocating for an 18-month renewal with no changes in line with donald trump's demands house gop leaders delayed the vote on a clean extension of the section 702 on wednesday after the chamber ruled committee a chamber's rules committee approved the measure on tuesday night so what are they going to do go to the bottom uh go down surveillance surveillance under section 702 can continue through mark 2027 even if congress does not extend the law by then because it operates through year-long certifications approved blah blah blah blah okay so there's a fight within congress whether whether or not to renew this warrantless law or not to renew this warrantless surveillance on u.s citizens that's crazy it's terrifying that's crazy especially when all the people on the on both sides literally like ran on getting rid of this stuff because nobody wants it yeah well the citizenry certain doesn't doesn't want it it's about how well you can manipulate people i mean it's that's why all the rhetoric has to be about uh and you know not to bring it back to zionism but a lot of what is this this is being used for is to um people who speak out against israel on you know you have people that are that have valid visas that are being abducted and deported and something based on and i mean that's not any like high-tech monitoring but you know if this is what they're doing with social media activity what do you think they're going to be doing with when they're monitoring text messages and things like that yeah um yeah look man at the end of the day no matter what our beliefs are me and you are both american citizens who both have kids in this country and we want our kids to be healthy safe to thrive and whatever drafted into the military not drafted into the military not to go die for israel yeah um and to have to have good lives and i think that's a huge thing that that we have in common and i think it's like super important that any elected officials in the united states that run the united states government they shouldn't have dual loyalty to another country they shouldn't have two passports they should have one passport they shouldn't have a get out of jail free card in case everything collapses here in fact they're trying to make it illegal for citizens to be dual citizens for citizens to be dual oh oh for so yeah like we like if you're american you can't have it i'm working on getting my italian citizenship right now because i i want that like if we get to that totalitarian police state i'm out of here you know what i mean uh so right right well that's i don't know how i feel about that that's probably not great but certainly if you're in the government you shouldn't and you're making the laws in this country and you're dictating how people should live how people's lives should yeah be run yeah i think that it's what this conflict has done is it just has brought it to the forefront you now have the vast majority of the public going why are we sending billions of dollars to israel every year why are we doing this right why and it it unfortunately i mean like i will give credit where credit is due tucker carlson like has this very loyal right-wing following that um traditionally would kind of just go along with you and i've never seen i've never seen in my lifetime for as long as i've been paying attention to politics uh i've never seen such a vast amount of people flip on their support for a president like i've seen so many people who supported trump hardcore in this last election that have done a complete 180 on him yeah which is i never saw that on obama when he started carpet bombing yemen that's true yeah yeah no i i because it wasn't talked about as much i mean yeah if you don't watch fox news anyway right or but the thing is you know they like right the right wing also want uh endorses that pup that foreign policy so right there wasn't even that much impetus to to talk about it i mean you could i guess i don't remember yeah i didn't watch fox news i don't know what they were saying i think it's the combination of all this this exposure of the israel conflict and the israel lobby combined with the epstein files which is like the epstein files is another thing i don't understand why are people in the street marching and protesting against this yeah yeah they're they're just relying on trying to you know get the next news cycle like just desperately move on and but yeah with israel it's we're not moving on because they're they're like it's ongoing right they are now trying to take over lebanon they're like it's just they're trying to expand i mean it's very very obvious what's going on you know i don't know i i i wish it's just funny because like this now this is just a like i don't have any expertise in all of the politics that we've been talking about i'm passionate about being anti-israel um but uh you know i'd love to to like dig into a particular anti-science charlatan or something, you know, be very prepared. But yeah. We should do a debate. We should set up a debate with someone. What topic do you think you'd be most confident in debating? I mean, well, okay. Flat Earth, but nobody cares about that. Flat Earth, yeah. I have one friend who does always like, he's shoving shit in my face every time I see him. He's like, look at this, look at this. This is the fucking map. Yeah. But create, yeah. It's like, what's the point? Why do we waste all this money on rockets then? What's the point? It's such a waste of money. Literally no reason. Yeah. To keep the deception alive. Yeah. That's the dumbest one. I've debated a few Flat Earthers. I've debated some creationists. So that's a whole thing. I don't know who, I mean, it's hard to say. I mean, the problem is that anyone that I would debate, it's not really a debate, right? It's just me doing my best job to expose a charlatan in real time. Because the things that I debate, there's very little debate with scientific topics, right? There's debate that's going on within the scientific community and people publish different papers that propose different ideas. There's debate that's going on within the scientific community and people publish different ideas and then maybe invalidate another idea. And so there's, you know, there's, there's that going on. But when you have there, when you have these debates in, in the public discourse, it's science versus pseudoscience. That's almost invariably the case. So it's not even any more about bringing the science to the table. It's also about disarming the rhetoric, disarming the tactics of the person that is lying. But I, but I have done that. I I'm, I'm pretty, um, confrontational and combative. So I do better than most academics in a, in a debate scenario. So, so I do it when I find that it is, uh, something that, um, that I think is going to, you know, push the needle in a direction. If I can show everyone this, this person's a fraud, this person is lying, um, and demonstrate it in real time. So, yeah, maybe we can set something up like on the whole, uh, vaccine topic. But the problem is no one will see it on YouTube. Well, that's not true. I mean, I, me and Dan Wilson did one with Pierre, Corey and Steve. That is true. That is true. But for some reason, I read it deeply, but it did occur. I, I loved that. I loved that. I learned a lot on that. And it's amazing to see, it's amazing to see the push and pull between you guys and see how certain people react, see people, you know, it's really telling when you see somebody lose their cool. Right. And I appreciated that you guys did that. And it was, I agreed with each side at different points. And I thought it was very illuminating to, to see that. I wish more people would see it, but unfortunately on, on this channel, for some reason, there's something that happens whenever we do this, the vaccine topic, uh, the videos never go anywhere or they get in trouble. They get flagged for some reason. That's very fishy because there is an, there's a mountain of monetized content, both from anti-vaxxers and debunkers. I agree with you. So do you have like a partner manager at YouTube or I have had many partner managers at YouTube. We kind of, I've I do have one right now. Um, so there's two topics that I've, I've been, um, had videos nuked off YouTube for, and it's the UFO topic and then, and then the vaccine topic. And I, I had a phone call with a guy, uh, one of my original partner managers who had like put me up to the boss partner manager or whatever about a video I did on UFOs about this guy, who's a UFO, allegedly a UFO abductee. Um, and it was like going crazy viral for the first few weeks. And it was at maybe like 900,000 views by like, I don't know, maybe like seven or maybe like 12 days into it. And I was watching it every day, watching it climb, watching it climb. And then on Christmas Eve, it went from getting like 20,000 views an hour, got throttled to two views an hour. And I looked at all the data or whatever and saw that like all of a sudden it was getting no reach. And then I was going on YouTube and typing in like the name of the guy to see where it was ranking with everything else. And it was always at the top, always at the top, always at the top. And then that day where it dropped, I would search him and then I couldn't, I could scroll for fucking days and I would never find it. I would, I could even search Danny Jones podcast, this guy's name, nothing. I would find fucking history channel videos. There was even a video that somebody did where they ripped the podcast and did commentary on it. That was coming up. That's like the fifth one down. So I called this guy from YouTube and I was talking to him about it and he's like, all right, let me look, blah, blah, blah. Okay. I don't see any red flags on your account. You didn't, this video did not violate any terms of service. He goes, I've it's above my pay grade. It's the floor above me basically is what he said. So whatever the fuck that means. Yeah. I mean, the algorithm can turn on a dime, but it's weird that, that the precise, that the search result wouldn't show it, right. It should just be unbiased matching keywords to pull it up. Yeah, totally. Yeah. I don't know. I've had, I've had some funny stuff like that. I've never had it quite that bad, but it definitely, yeah, there's stuff that definitely appears to get throttled. And then I'll also, sometimes it's a little bit, um, when you violate terms of service, like actually the first Bart Sabrell one that I did just because I showed footage of buzz punching him in the face, it got, uh, copyrighted age restricted for that. Really? Yeah. Whereas part two, I show the same clip. Like I actually keep cutting to buzz punching him in the face. Cause it's so funny. And I use it as like a palate cleanser in between like his talking points and that one didn't get age restricted. And I show it more times than in the first one. Um, I don't know. It's, it's very, it's yeah. It's, it is tempting to go conspiratorial with it. And I, and it may or may not be true. I don't really know. Uh, I know the algorithm is funny and not everyone really fully knows how it works, but it should be transparent how it works. Um, but you know, end of the day, bro, it was really nice to meet you and talk to you as well. Whether we, uh, agree, I think we agree on probably most things we don't. And I'm sure I could convince you on the rest. Yeah. Right. My goal is to just turn to turn you around on one of my conspiracy theories. We got to get you in here to debate. Fucking, uh, who knows we'll find someone. Um, but my friend Julian Dory has a great theory that is very relevant to this is called the, he calls it the Wawa theory. He lives in New Jersey. He says, you go online, you go on Twitter and YouTube and you find all these people screaming at each other, calling each other names over, you know, what fucking political party they like better. And he goes, then I walk outside and I go to Wawa and I see the girl with the fucking nose ring and the purple hair holding the door for the guy with the mouth. It's not like that in real life, bro. People don't really act like that towards each other. And you got to fucking go outside and touch grass. Sometimes there's a lot of truth to that. There's a lot of truth to that. Yeah. But ultimately the, the direction the government goes depends on voting behavior and that is influenced by the online side guys. So a little bit of both. Yeah. The internet definitely throws fuel on it. Yeah. Thanks again, man. I really appreciate it. Tell people where they can find you, all your, all your stuff on social media. Professor Dave explains. Perfect. That'll do it. Cool. We'll link it all below. We have Patreon questions. We have a lot of questions. We have a lot of questions for him. Oh yes, we do. We have a Patreon questions for you. We'll do this after the podcast. All right. That's all. Okay. Good night folks.