Xi LANDS In DC For Trump Meeting Amid China CONFISCATING F-35 Parts w/ Dr. Ron Elfenbein

[MUSIC] Xi Jinping is in Washington for a state visit. It'll be three days, and we just found out that F-35 parts are now in China. So we're going to talk about the repercussions from that. There is a new AI breakthrough. It seems like every day there's something new to talk about with AI. I know there's a lot of people that are like, go, I'm tired of hearing about it. But this is actually a big deal. So they've started to use AI to try to mimic what's the phrase for you, what it's called. Anyways, they've started to use AI on biology. And they're starting to use like CRISPR-like technology. That's what it is, CRISPR. And AI's had some really impressive breakthroughs from open AI. I'm sorry, from Quad. So we'll talk about that. There is a big bruhaha in Greenfield, Massachusetts, just about 40 minutes north of my hometown, about a lesbian bar that was a masked up bar. And they've loosened the mask requirements, and people are apoplectic about it. I think it's going to be hilarious. And they think they found Noah's Ark. So there's a big lot of talk about the possibility of actually finding physical remnants of the Ark. And so we'll discuss that. But before we get into any of that, we're going to go ahead and introduce our guest, Ron. How you doing? Which tell everyone who you are and what you're about? Well, how are you? I'm Dr. Ron Alfinbine. I'm a board certified emergency medicine doc from Maryland, and I'm the victim of weaponization by the Biden Department of Justice. Well, thanks for joining us. We're going to talk about that tonight, too. Thanks for having me. It's up to you. What's going on, everyone? How's everyone doing today, Ian? It's so good. It's so good. That's great to hear. And we're going to talk about RNA replication, protein synthesis, God, the list goes on getting wacky and wilder. Talking about pyramids, monoclonal antibodies, tap A and yeah, this is really good. So far, what's happening, Carter? Oh, nothing. Watch it. It's going to be exciting. But before we get into everything, yeah, we've got a we've got a message for a sponsor. So check this out. We got a great sponsor for you guys. It's Keats.io, go to K-E-E-T dot I-O slash Timkast I-R-L. Download it. It's a messaging app. Sir, there's a question. Why should your messaging app need to know anything about you? Most of us have already accepted technology companies, collect enormous amounts of information. What we click, where we go, what we buy, who we interact with. That information is valuable because your attention is valuable. Keats takes a radically different approach. It's a free messaging file sharing and video calling app built peer-to-peer. There's no centralized company database holding your conversations, no metadata tracking, no phone number or email required. Your messages are end to end encrypted and move between the people in the conversation. Visit Keats.io slash Timkast I-R-L, download it for free. Invite one person you trust, start a conversation. And again, free on iOS, Android, Windows, Mac OS and Linux. Thanks for sponsoring the show, guys. So we're going to get right into it from the New York Times today, as she visits Washington Trump plays down China's actions against US interests. Despite the rivalry between the United States and China, President Trump has repeatedly found ways to give President Xi Jinping a pass, portraying him more as a personal friend than a competitor. Look, Trump can do all, can say whatever he wants when it comes to diplomacy. China is an adversary, but anyways, that's just my two cents. In the weeks leading up to President Trump welcoming President Xi Jinping of China to Washington on Wednesday evening, Beijing has been accused of undermining America's national interest on a number of fronts. Mr. Trump accused the country this summer of sinister election meddling in the 2020 election. A breach he considers so historic he presented the claims in a prime time address. Since the start of the war with Iran, Chinese companies have provided Tehran with satellite imagery and access to a spy satellite that Iran's military forces have used to mount attacks in the region. According to multiple US officials and Beijing has shown no sign of retreating from its business dealings with Iran in defiance of US efforts to cut off economic lifelines of Tehran. Look, I understand that it's important to have dialogue with adversaries, right, especially nuclear armed ones, especially our one of our largest trading parts. I believe China, if they're not the largest, they're like the second largest. They hold a mountain of US debt. So it's important to do whatever you can to put a positive spin on the relationship, even though everyone knows that China is engaged in significant industrial espionage, every opportunity they have, they're going to engage in state espionage. They look to expand their control over the South China Sea to significantly more than what any other country recognizes. They have fleets of fishing boats that go and scour the oceans off the coast of other countries because they have allegedly 1.5 billion people that live in China. China's not an ally and is not a friend. They're not a partner. They're an adversary. So again, I do understand why Trump is casting it like this, but it's still a reality that China is our biggest rival. Yeah. I think that's very true. But first of all, look at the source, right, New York Times. So they're going to paint it and whatever light that they're going to paint it in. But then beyond that, I think the media keeps falling into this trap of whatever, whenever Trump is sort of playing the long game and the strategic game, they always fall into the trap of, look, he's doing this wrong, and he always kind of comes around the backside and comes out as a winner. So I think he's a good negotiator and I think he diplomatically knows what he's doing. And I think he's playing the part now that he needs to play when the president of China is coming to visit. But I totally agree with you and I think Trump would agree as well that they are totally an adversary. Yeah. It's like question. They just say, keep your enemies closer. Yeah. Look at them, maybe. If you've got two neighboring kingdoms, it's kind of a rough metaphor. It doesn't exactly track. But say you have two neighboring kingdoms and you're the king of one kingdom, huge military, your neighboring kingdom, equally huge military. Now all of a sudden you have these border conflicts with like your dukes along the border are invading their territory and raiding and they have counts coming in and raiding your territory. You go to meet the other king. You don't immediately just full invade. It's like some things like yeah, we're going to have conflicts here. We're going to have aggressions here, the funding in Iran. We've been, you know, the funding we have Taiwan. But like it doesn't mean you go to full nuclear catastrophic war. You still work together as a kingdom to resolve despite, you know, the border conflicts and stuff. I think is what we're seeing here. Yeah. I mean, this is not terribly surprising. This kind of reminds me of Trump one, right? The first Trump term where it was a common critique of him that he was, you know, fairly polite and diplomatic, maybe to a utmost degree with these foreign adversaries, leaders of these countries that are direct rivals of the United States was Kim Jong-un. It's just to say Kim Jong-un comes to mind. Yeah. I remember in the first from those huge narrative, why is Trump so soft on Kim Jong-un? A little bit more famously what the media really latched on to was why is he so soft and cuddly with Putin? I think it comes back to like Trump's core doctrine, it is his foreign policy doctrine, which is he doesn't really respect any alliance that was inked before. He was in office. He primarily gives you respect based on the stature of your country. I think that's broadly true. So when he looks around and he sees, okay, well, here's the global players are. It is the Chinese, it is the Russians. In the case of North Korea, he has to give them respect because they're nuclear armed. He typically will respond and this is something funny enough, I think that someone is coming through and they posted a segment from his book, The Art of the Deal and he actually outline this, which is like, you should measure your respect for someone based on the power that they hold effectively. So yeah, this was much more familiar in Trump one. This is, I think the first time I've remembered seeing a headline like this in Trump two, which is people saying always being too soft on, you know, insert leader here. I think that it speaks to the way that Trump just handles diplomacy in general because earlier this week when Mamdani was in Washington, you know, there were so many people that were, you know, critical of Trump because of the way that he was engaging with Mamdani, both the first time that Mamdani went there and again this week. And I think that Trump looks at the situation and says, if we're going to start some kind of, if we're going to work together, which he does have to work together with both Mamdani and with, with Xi Jinping, then I'm going to do my best to have a good relationship. Look, everyone knows that you can get on Trump's good side if you butter him up. I think that that's probably the way that Trump approaches working with other people as well. And so you see it kind of playing out here now, obviously depending on the stature like to Tate's point, depending on the stature or the place in the environment that the person he's dealing with is, that's going to affect how he acts. But if he wants something from someone and in the case of Mamdani, he wants good things for New Yorkies and New York Reads and with their all his life. And in the case of Xi Jinping, he wants to be in a position where he can get, you know, good trade deals or have better trade relations with China. So he's got something that he's looking for. So there is the impulse or the, you know, the reason for him to try to behave in a cordial manner with these people. Yeah, he's trying to forge a relationship. I mean, it's funny because people will contrast the way he presents, you know, Putin or paying or who? whoever the ad guy, I quote, so to speak, is versus the way he treats our allies. But he doesn't need anything from the allies to your point. You know, what does Canada have that we need? Nothing. So like he's, you know, he treats, and he expects more from our allies, 'cause we're technically allies already. I think he wants something from China. He wants to open a relationship, has to have a dialogue. And the way you do that is not by throwing bombs. The way you do that is by reaching your hand out and trying to, you know, be nice to the person. - Look, if Xi Jinping likes me, he's not going to invade Taiwan. He's not going to do it. He won't do it because we're buddies. We're pals, he won't do it. The problem with, like, with detente, which is what we're basically sort of, kind of dancing around if this might be a possibility here, 'cause I don't know if you remember in the Obama administration, it was the great reset with Russia, where they, I think Hillary literally brought a big button with that, but then there was like a, and then had it on. - And it said reset on it, but it was spelled wrong or something like that. - Yeah, like he was like a Russian, it was like Goddog or something like that. I can't remember specifically what it was. And it didn't work. I mean, things, especially under Obama got really frosty with Russia. So then the question is Trump probably understands that there is an possibility of a reset per se with China. What does detente look like with China? Again, unclear. I think this is probably just a very surface level thing. He just wants to keep a working relationship with the Jews. I think it's the same thing with Memdani. We're clearly Trump obviously views Memdani and his ilk as a threat, because he rails on all of Memdani's allies. - And there is a, there are political ideologies as well. He's very clear. - Exactly. His ilk is cohort. But Trump like with Memdani, he has to keep this level of respect. Which is funny because you know, this has been one of the critiques people have had of Trump is they're saying, look, if you're going to like ratchet up the, ratchet up rhetoric and some department, you have to back up with policy because either way the left's gonna get pissed off. There's something to that. But I guess this is in the sense of Zoran is like if he took this really antagonistic relationship, why he used this very aggressive rhetoric with Memdani. You know, maybe Memdani gets more aggressive. I mean, Trump has a lot of allies in our Manhattan. Memdani's breathing down their necks. Memdani's floated basically like taxing the crap but if Trump tower or looking at ways to jam them up with code laws or something like that. So Trump has interests in Manhattan. Again, allies, like literal property. So he also understands like Memdani that, because look, if you look at how Trump's relationship with the Blasio who's very, him into Blasio traded blows in the media all the time. Erick, Erick Brinza, Erick Adams, they didn't even really have a super great working relationship. I mean, they kind of had an understanding. But Trump, Memdani, we're seeing this chuminess and we're like, well, it will change. And I think it's because he kind of understands, he maybe even sees himself in Memdani and so far as, Memdani will actually follow through a policy that people previously would not accept as consensus. And in this case, it's from a left wing direction. Obviously because Memdani is saying, I want to pass all these radical taxes and whatnot. And I think Trump understands that. And he's like, okay, this is a similar populist figure. Therefore, I do need to approach him with a slightly different approach than I did with the Blasio, who, okay, yes, he had this kind of leftist vernacular, but he was basically just an ordinary Democrat. You could kind of toy around with them. Memdani is crazy enough for if you infuriate him and his base and his allies in New York City, he will go nuclear. He will start passing some horrible taxes, et cetera. And that will damage the economy, right? I mean, what's like, I think 12% of our GDP is tied up in New York City. That will damage your economy extensively. So I don't think it's 40 chess. Like I, some people have proposed, well, maybe Trump is trying to sandbag him by being really nice to him. And I've like said that because it's funny. I don't think that's actually what's going on. I don't think Trump's playing 40 chess here. I think he just understands, hey, this is a power broker in the United States. And I have enough of my plate right now. I don't think I need to make an enemy out of this guy right now. He already hates me enough. Yeah, you know, they say sometimes you get a lot more with, what, honey than vinegar. Yeah. And we've seen how stonewalling works from previous administrations. So that's not going to be a great idea. And I think to your point about Hillary and Obama, I mean, I think there was an inherent weakness in the Obama administration that is not in the Trump administration. And I think the foreign adversaries respect that, that you now have someone in a position of a like Reagan, for example, who just projects power. And I think people can see that. And Obama did not. And Hillary did not. And I think that, so this great reset didn't work because Putin, who's a guy who understands power, understands how the world works, could see right through them and say, well, you know, I'm just going to walk all over these people and I don't think that is the case with Trump. I just think that people can see. I wouldn't call it 40 chess. I agree with you. I don't think that he's operating on that level. But I do think that he's savvy enough to understand sort of the power-broken. And, you know, it's shades of Nixon, right? Where people point to this all the time and they say, well, you know, part of the Nixon philosophy was, you do need to be unpredictable. You do need to make the other side think, oh, this guy's crazy enough for if I, you know, order him the wrong sandwich is going to blow my country up with a nuclear bomb. And I think Xi has responded to that. But the kind of missing piece here with China's current situation is, they've looked at what's happened to Russia and Ukraine. And this has completely changed their philosophy on Taiwan, where, again, you're seeing, I was listening to, I can't remember who I was listening to. He was on the ground in Ukraine. I'll have to find it and shot him out. He was on the ground in Ukraine and he was, like, looking at these people, how they're assembling these anti-blastic drones, right? Like these interceptor drones. And they're taking, like, children's, like, toy trucks. And they were using, like, the chips or motherboard or whatever from it. And they were, like, able to, like, basically, the guy for it into a drone to take out, you know, ballistic missiles coming in. And maybe not like a full-blown one. But, you know, additionally, drones coming over from Russia. What I'm getting at here using very, very unsophisticated military terms here is, you know, China launching an offensive on Taiwan way different than it was even five, 10 years ago. 'Cause, again, Ukraine, I think, has demonstrated the world whether we like it or not, how you can repel an attack. If you have some cash behind you. I'm repelling an attack from, you know, a major power. And Taiwan is probably going to get the same treatment that Ukraine has. I think they should get tenfold, to be honest with you. 'Cause I think Taiwan's a lot more strategic, strategically important than Ukraine is. The Taiwan probably will be able to repel that attack. So China's coming in, Xi Jinping's coming into this where I think he is a lot less tense. He doesn't need as much of the United States as he previously did. Because, again, if this meeting took place during the first Trump term, even five years ago, that's a big question mark. Additionally, the Belt and Road, et cetera. Where now we're kind of in this moment. We're China's still obviously growing expanding, but I don't think there's as much. There's not as much conflicting geopolitical goals at this moment besides Iran, obviously. - Either more aligning goal with AI. They're specifically starting talks about aligning US and China on defending and protecting the world against AI. I think that's a common enemy. I actually sent to the Slack Marco Rubio talking about our lines with China, likening it to the Soviet Union during the Cold War. And he's like, "Oh, if you thought we weren't, "we were constantly in diplomacy with the Russian officials. "Our officials would go meet them throughout the Cold War." And because of that, we didn't go to World War III. You don't get to pick in world leadership. You don't get to choose who the people you negotiate with are. You don't get to choose who your alliances are. You have to go with what works. It doesn't matter what their ethics are. - I think that's a conversation topic. They're probably, I think that's true. They probably are discussing that. And I think additionally, Trump is trying to keep things cool with China right now, because he doesn't want to turn to screws in Iran. Because we've seen obviously China and Iran have this understanding. China will throw resources behind Iran if they're back into a corner. I think Trump's trying to prevent that from occurring. If you remember before the MOU was signed, there was this meeting between the Trump officials and the Chinese. And the Chinese committed to like not funding Iran directly or not providing them some certain armament, arms shipment. But the problem is there's no way to truly determine how much resources China has pledged to the Iranians. So I think Trump kind of understands like hey, now is not the moment to chest beat with the Chinese right now, because we're already tied up in Iran. The last thing we need is them like having a bigger incentive than they already do to intervene in that. - Yeah, and Ian to your point, I think you're right. You don't get to pick who's on the world stage, right? You got to deal with what you got to deal with. Whatever the cards you're dealt with is what you deal with. There was a good movie that just came out about Reagan meeting with Gorbachev in Iceland. I can't remember what it's called, the Brink of War. It was fascinating. It was all about when they got together to strategic arms reduction. And one of the things he really Reagan really wanted to talk about was human rights. And he kept having trouble bringing it up because he's like we're making so much headway. I don't want to muddy the waters with regards to this human rights issue. We all know the Soviet Union's evil and they do horrible things, but they're here sitting negotiating with me and I definitely want to talk about human rights. But it's, we got this bigger bear to kind of tackle. And so to your point, like these issues, whether we like it or not, sometimes you deal with horrible, awful people, but you have to because that's just the world that we live in. - Before you go and discuss good and evil and what's right and wrong, you have to discuss order and chaos and you have to establish order. There has to be order. We need a world order of some sort where we don't go to blows and then we can talk about morality. - Correct, yeah. By the way, the button that Hillary Clinton gave the Russians, it was supposed to be the reset button. The word would've been perazza gruska, but instead she gave it a word that said peragruzka. It was not perazza gruska, just peragruzka, which means overload. - Yeah, overcharged. - She added it right too, just like let's go. - And that's. It's unfortunate when you're doing only different alphabets because I had referenced earlier, you know, when Trump went over to China a few months ago and the media was reporting like, "Oh, the Chinese are not going to send surface air missiles to Iran." But I remembered some reporting. It might have been Axios and they were like, "No, it was like a mis-translation." Like the Chinese said, "We might consider not sending surface air missiles to Iran." But I remember the theme going into that meeting was China has more leverage than they really have in a while with the United States. Again, because of Iran, tied up in Iran, additionally resources diverted away from Japan and South Korea because they're paying out the wazoo for energy right now. They're kind of sidelined if there were a conflict with Taiwan. So, you know, I was outlining earlier like, "Okay, well, the Chinese are thinking while Iran is going to be, or in Iran, Taiwan is going to be a lot bigger commitment than we previously thought." But again, they don't be fooled. Like, the Chinese still do possess that leverage, because again, Japan and South Korea are on the bench right now. Taiwan is, you know, because their energy grids, depending on LNG, you know, they're buying it marked up 50% from the Australians right now. So, China still does have an unusual amount of leverage right now in this meeting. And I think that's additionally kind of maybe the key actually to understanding Trump's approach to Xi in this meeting right now. Rubio said they had the second largest military in the planet, the Chinese. I wonder what you guys think about this because they say like, nothing will rally humans together like a common enemy, you know, an alien invasion. What if, I don't know if this is happening, but are these deep-thinking, deep-state technocrats? Like, you know, let's unleash AI, an AI villain on the planet so that humans have no choice but to come together. No, you don't think they're thinking that deep, or that villainous? I don't, there are people, and there have been people around this table that have said, "Oh, you know, the military, the U.S. government has had AI and has AI that's far beyond anything that's on the market," and etc. And I never bought it. And the fact that the military uses anthropic AI, or was using anthropic AI and replaced it with Groc, I think that that puts the final nail in the coffin of that theory. The market and private industry is where these things are being developed. The federal government doesn't have some secret lab that's developing AI that has, you know, a super-advanced AI. They don't have super-advanced robots that these things are all being developed in the market. And that's the way generally things go. There are a handful of particular technologies that the government has dumped a lot of money into to develop the nuclear bomb being one of the ones that comes to mind. But even that, the discovery of the ability to, you know, to split the atom was University of Chicago. It was theorized in the prior, in universities. It wasn't something that the government said, "Hey, we got to find out how to do this." The government doesn't make things. The government will take ideas, and they will dump a bunch of money into them to try to get them to advance faster, but the government doesn't make things. So there is no super AI that the technocrats have, the frontier models that anthropic and open AI and the other companies have out. Those are the cutting edge of AI, and there isn't something smarter out there. Sure, 100%. Mario Amote, who's the CEO of Anthropics, said that he's going to try and slow down the rate of AI growth as like a national defense initiative because it's getting out of hand so fast. So it sounds like they've got something hidden that is so dangerous. Anthropic and open AI, they both have models internally that they haven't released yet, and those are the most advanced ones. But when it comes to what? They're coordinating. They both released maybe updates on the same day on Monday. I think they're more competing than coordinating, but I think someone's forcing them to coordinate. You keep trying to look for-- Sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt, but they released their updates on the same day and they both gave their users a free reset. Keep looking for a conspiracy where one is not. Yeah, but Jesus Christ. These guys, these companies have an incentive to try to beat the other one. And the government doesn't have like someone in there, or the government doesn't have a secret lab that has more powerful AI. Because the Chinese government basically owns their corporations, they have 51% of them. So all that AI researchers going through that government, why wouldn't ours just in order to clear a different government? And because up until, up until very recently in the past six months, the United States was the clear, had the clear advantage over China when it came to AI. There's a reason why China wasn't, it probably still isn't allowed to have the most advanced chips that TSMC makes. Because those chips they thought were the key, they're not the key anymore. Now the algorithms are the thing that really decides the algorithms and the weights are the things that really decide how functional and how well an AI performs. But there's not a secret government lab that's making these things that are that are that are at far advanced to what the AI labs are make. You say that I hear you saying there's nothing behind the curtain and don't even look in this. That's what it sounds. Well, you can, well, you can look all you want, but you're not going to find me. I don't have access to behind the curtain. Okay. Well, the point that I, the point that I'm making is if the government had more advanced AI than what is available or than what the, the frontier labs have right now, then why would the government be using the AI that the frontier labs provide? Well, and additionally, I mean, the United States, like the top, you know, data engineers etc. You can go there LinkedIn. You can see where they work for like you can watch them get poached back and forth that sort of thing. So we know like, again, it's not hidden secret like who the major players are that the government, they're using some sort of, you know, like some sort of Manhattan project 2.0. You would likely see pieces of people whistle blowing saying, hey, I got tried to get poached for this Manhattan project, etc. And then additionally, you would see these top data engineers historically speaking probably move out of these companies for some reason. Additionally, the Chinese with deep seek, the company that owns deep seek, they're like a hedge fund and the CCP's dumped a ton of money in the hedge fund. They call it common prosperity or something like that. If the Chinese, like if the government were truly like the point man, the Chinese government were truly the point man on AI in China and they did have access to a superior model, they would instantly drop that on the market because they want, they want the, they want LLM's AI broadly to be dominated by the Chinese, right? That's, and that that would be in the progative for the Chinese government. So, you know, if deep seek truly had this secret AI model or whatever that was just, you know, unbelievably dominant compared to the American models, they would release it instantly because I would give them a chance to completely corner the market on AI. Or would it give that AI control of the world? Like, is it, so I wonder if it's so dangerous? I know it's a leading question, but that if it's, that's why she and Trump are like, if it was, if it had the, if there was an AI that had the capability and the desire to control the world, we would not be able to stop it. And additionally, like if the government even had access to technology at that level, they wouldn't be bogged down in Iran right now. This is, they would be breaking glass, okay, deploy the, you know, turbo AI or whatever to get us out of this jam. You're seeing the United States continue to just get countered by the Iranians, which is like, you know, they're, they're fairly, they're less sophisticated than the American military. I guess it would be a fair way to put it. I kind of want to talk about this, this discovery, this anthropic discovery. We get to that because it has to do with the way AI will get to them. Yeah, like it's coming, it's coming up, I promise. Right now it's right into this, right now we're still talking about China. Because they're, we're going to move to jump to this story now. From Bloomberg, China is holding sensitive F 35 parts diverted to Hong Kong. So apparently what happened was Australia has F 35, the US sold F 35 saw Australia and the Australian government, the Australian Air Force had sent some parts back to the United States, either for inspection or for destruction. And somehow they ended up in Hong Kong. And now the Chinese Communist Party has possession of them. Now, if I understand correctly, it's a canopy, which I as a, you know, not that I have some kind of deep internal knowledge about this stuff, but a canopy, which I don't think is that big of a deal, but they have some panels from the F 35. And that becomes an issue because one of the reasons why the United States stealth technology is so much better than China or Russia is because of the materials that they put on the, the planes, right, like coatings and stuff. Yeah, the, the B2, like that had to be, like it can fly a mission, but then when it comes back, they have to do all kinds of maintenance on it. They can't fly in a, in a very high tempo. And that's because of the coatings and stuff like that. So for it to retain its stealth capabilities, they have to do a lot to it. Now the F 35, the F 22, those do not have the same limitations. They can fly significantly, significantly higher tempo. But they still have those, you know, proprietary coatings that are very top secret. So I'm wondering if, first of all, I wonder if it was Australia's mistake or if this was somehow something that China managed to manage to get involved with. I heard that it was UPS that said, let me, what it says, UPS. Yeah, it was UPS, the line, let me, let me read this. China is holding sensitive F 35 parts diverted to Hong Kong. The Chinese government has taken possession of potentially sensitive F-35 stealth aircraft parts that were inexplicably deersverted to Hong Kong while being sent to the US from Australia. People breathed on the incident set. UPS was shipping a cockpit canopy and weapons bay door from Australian military F-35 that was being sent to the US for inspection and possible repair or disposal in late May, according to the people who asked not to be identified discussing private matters. Both parties supplied by Lockheed Martin Corp were coated with radar absorbing materials that enhance their stealth capabilities to what the people said. Bloomberg News National Security reported Tony Compadio's reports. Yeah. So yeah. Well, the timeline was Australia damaged or whatever. They're sending it back to the United States via UPS. Not a terribly large box. This can be shipped over, you know, through UPS, obviously. And the key here is because it was damaged. The story is that it wasn't marked as like sensitive. This is a sensitive, you know, but keep extra eyes on this. This is top secret or whatever. It was just being mailed like, effectively like a conventional package would. It gets deferred. It gets sent to South Korea where UPS has this massive hub. And I was reading about it for the show. An inch on South Korea, they recently expanded that hub. So they're still working out a lot of like logistical kinks. So, you know, obviously this sets off alarm bells. But the most likely explanation here is, like, it's not earmarked that you take care of this. Nothing to indicate. It's top secret or whatever. It likely was like a mist like a mishap and it got sent to Hong Kong. That's like their highest traffic route is from inch on to Hong Kong. And then of course the Chinese are going to give it back. But it's UPS is fall ultimately. This has nothing to do with the Australians or the South Korean. We're not having Chinese knew what was in it. They just they probably just check everything. Hong Kong customs like Saul and they said why is there like radar resistant panels in here and then the Chinese were like, okay, we'll take that. I'm sorry. This is like one of those dope moments, you know, like, I mean, I just just goes to show that that governments in general are completely incompetent and can't do anything right. I mean, we spend billions of dollars to develop these things and they ship it by UPS. They can't ship it through some sensitive means. I mean, you know, I guess. I mean, but I mean, this kind of actually points to the this kind of points to the a bit of the argument that we were having earlier. The government doesn't do things, right? The government uses UPS when they want to ship things. The government doesn't build AI. The government doesn't actually even the missiles and technology that we have. Like that's all built in the private sector. It's licensed. The government gives the license to do it. But the technology and the the advancements, they're all done in the private sector and the government buys it. But we have we have military planes in Australia. I could easily have loaded these parts. I'm not an military expert, but they could have easily loaded these parts in sure they'll fit. And yeah, and flown them back to the United States. Why are we relying on a contractor who made an I'm sure made an honest mistake. Okay. No big deal happens all the time. But like it is a big deal when it's top secret information that they should be more careful with. Like this is just inexcusable. Yeah. There's not a lot of discussion about how the corporations were involved in the wars. World War II, World War I. And I'd love to know more about the ones that profited the most, the ones that were the most active serving both sides. Maybe one side. I think Ford was known for sending parts to the Nazis before I chief carbon was one I chief carbon benefit from labor, uh, from some well, Nazi slave labor. UPS, for instance, could bend Volkswagen. Mendlessly from a war. That's what makes this story so fascinating is it kind of is this look behind the curtain where I think people think, uh, the way that governments operate the way that people think geopolitics works. Oftentimes it is like a lot more simpler and approachable than you might think where this is literally a working relationship between Lockheed Martin, who manufactures that 35s and the Australian, you know, Air Force or Navy whoever was that bought these, these, these jets. And yeah, they're emailing, they're probably like three guys emailing back and forth between Lockheed Martin and the Aussies. And they said, yeah, we need some spare parts. All right. Well, here's the label. Go print it off and put it on there and drop it off the, like that's a simple lot of this works. Um, I used to work at FedEx Ground that I remembered like, uh, I, we live near it. This is not secret information. You can read all about this is like we, the FedEx complex was like right next to an Air Force base. Randolph would just drop stuff. It was right off Air Force base. They would just drop stuff off like all the time. And again, this isn't like top secret. Like you can read about this all the time because like a lot of that stuff doesn't need top secret clearance. They're really mailing a wrench or something like that off to, you know, back to the spare parts department at, you know, Lockheed Martin, whoever, it's just, it's really funny that a lot of these, a lot of these, um, uh, actions of the government takes are like very approachable like stuff that we can understand that use UPS. What it's like, you have options, UPS FedEx, DHL, like how are she? She was the male. Are they going to like put it on a cargo jet, which is going to cost tens of thousands of dollars just to male, a few windscreens back to California or wherever it's not just a few windscreens. It's now they, now China has the sensitive materials that they spend billions of dollars to produce. Yeah. And now in the hands of our adversaries because of this mess up, so that spare parts go back all the time. Sure, but if it's, if to your point, if it's a couple of screws and, you know, a wrench or something, big deal. But if it's, if it's a sensitive component that is germane to the functioning of that particular item, in this case in F 35, which is the most advanced jet fighter in the world, I don't know, you would think they'd be a little more careful. Yeah. Well, yeah. I mean, they probably probably, you know, should have earmarked this for UPS. Like, hey, by the way, we're mailing, you know, sensitive technology here. Not sensitive about UPS. But a Lockheed Martin apparently, like came out and they said it's very like low risk like this is the Chinese would know how to utilize this. I think the Chinese just are not obviously not going to hand it over. I mean, we'd probably do the same thing if the Chinese actually mailed something along beach. We'd probably take it from that. So according to, according to Lockheed Martin, there are 20 different countries that have that are a part of the F 35. Yeah. It's like all of NATO basically. Yeah. So there's a lot of countries that have access to this stuff. So I mean, look, obviously, you know, they say that it's sensitive material or possibly sensitive material. But I mean, maybe it's, it's not that top secret. Maybe it's not that big of a deal. You know, we're going to, like, we're going to this scramble jets every time we like need spare parts. You know, if you're the Italian, you're like, oh, great. It's like the some lever broke on it. Now we got to like do it $30,000. I really get this back to Ohio or wherever it's just like, I don't know. It's just, it just, it happens. I mean, again, if it was like some sort of vital chip or something like extremely proprietary, that's one thing. But the F 35, do you remember? Oh, what game was it, Carter? You might know. Yeah. That's someone like basically somehow got top secret schematics for like brand new naval developments. And the government had to come out and be like, first of all, how did you figure that out? Second of all, how did you code it so accurately that you're like literally took private military information and made it like publicly usable boats? And then they like dug into it. And it turns out the guys just like really autistic and like figured out every aspect of this boat from like pictures and videos or something. Word of all, do you want a job? Like a lot of this stuff is a lot less top secret than, then, you know, we would assume. I think this is just a case of like the Chinese probably once to get leveraged in any way. I mean, the Chinese even said anything. I don't know. I think this is- I mean, I assume that I generally assume that whereas the government, you know, has plenty of top secret information and they have plenty of secrets and they lie a lot. That doesn't mean that everything's top secret. It doesn't mean that everything they do is sensitive material and doesn't mean that everything they say is a lie. You know, and that actually functions to their benefit because if you if you're if they if everything was a lie, then you would just be like like in the Soviet Union that people were just like they lie. They always lie. Everything they say is a lie. All of the numbers are a lie. Everything's a lie. We know it's a lie. In the United States, the government tells the truth sometimes. The government lies sometimes here just like it leaves people in a position where it's harder to discern what's what's what's fact and what's fiction. I'm thinking about reverse engineering and how it's really it seems like the faster information travels, the faster you can reverse engineer a product. So like, China is great at that too. Oh, of course. Probably one of their top abilities is to re-engineer everybody else's stuff. That's what I would do if I was at a disadvantage and I had the ability to do it. If you ever play the game civilization, once you discover the internet, you get access to every technology that at least two other countries already has. It's a phenomenal technology. Everyone gets access to everything that everyone else knows. So like that's part of the problem with saber rattling. I think why China America and Russia will not go to wars because they all know that all the other guys have the exact same power or comparably within a year or two or less with AI. You're going to retro, you know, you're going to figure retro fit and rebuild all of our tech. All of our supersonic missiles are bio weapons. It's all up for grabs at this point, which actually gives me hope that there's going to be some sort of world peace in a good way. I'm not so confident. Yeah. There is something too. There's an area, but I've been in arms race ever since a guy learned to throw a rock on you know, that it was the sling and that it was, you know, spears. So it's like, I'm war existed before humans, and so man's may, man may have perfected war, but war with, I saw this cool little, it was a video and it was different troops of monkeys fighting and it had this kind of, you know, whatever the rewards that were saying like, you know, war existed before man. War was waiting for man and man became the perfect executor of war. And that's kind of true. It's like whether it be like, you know, different ants, ant hills getting together and fighting or whether it be different troops of monkeys or different packs of dogs or wolves or whatever, like there's been violence between, you know, interspecies violence for as long as there have been, you know, interspecies. It's part of the social order. Yeah. So world, sorry to throw water on your world peace idea. Yeah. a little idealistic with like an AI technology, technotopia, I think. - There is something to the fact that, again, the Russians and the Americans have both had trouble with opponents that probably we would have been walking over 20 years ago, that I do think gives major powers reason to be a little bit more hesitant before committing to major military operations. And I think that is something that like, I don't know if that mitigates the chances of a world war, but it certainly mitigates probably, or at least makes, again, major powers a lot more cautious to conduct a military operation. - I think so, sure. - The World War II, right before the break out of World War II, the French had the biggest and best military on the planet. And then you see what new technology and strike swift attacks can do to like a dominant power. I mean, drone attacks now can just decimate cities, things can come from straight above, you know. - To your point, Tate, I think a lot of the reason why major powers are less interested in exercising, you know, significant amounts of powers because, you know, just the bad press that comes along with it. And there are some that people that care less than others, but I mean, you look at the way that, you know, Putin doesn't really care. He's got a pretty firm grasp, but, you know, you look at the way that Israel is, you know, kind of held in the world because of the way that they've been carrying out the Gaza situation. They do not have a lot of friends anymore. And people are all up and arms. And it's because people can look and see what it looks like and get a first hand kind of view of it. - Yeah, I mean, I think people naturally have this tendency to like, you know, get behind the underdog or whatever. And this is why, you know, the Ukrainian calls in the Palestinian calls, you know, for like a better word. Completely different geopolitical dynamics going on, but you will find people that support both Ukraine and Palestine. It's like, if you had a coherent worldview, you would likely be pro-Russia, pro-Palestine or pro-Ukraine, pro-Israel. But you see a lot of people who are just like, I support the smaller country that's getting invaded by the bigger country. And it's like, well, it's not early to coherent. You're never going to really unravel that. I found the, I was referencing earlier the guy that just like basically leaked like top secret documents. To be fair, I remember this, you guys probably remember this is Jack Tixera. Tixera? - Yeah, over here, yeah. - Yeah, down by the military or the government, didn't you? - Yeah, he was, he was in the Massachusetts Air National Guard. And yeah, he just like leaked a bunch of stuff into a Discord chat. But the funny one, this was the one that I remembered was in 2021 on War Thunder. A British tank commander was like pissed off and he wrote out the developers, "Hey, you've modeled this tank incorrectly." (laughing) He didn't realize that it was like top secret information. He was just like annoyed that it was like ruining his immersion. And then like, yeah, the British Ministry of Defense would be like, dude, that's like extremely top secret. (laughing) He's top complaining on the forums online about the tank being inaccurate or whatever. And he's like, "Oh, I didn't know." - It's like kind of how Edward Snowden got his job with our government originally. - And it was that. - Oh, just kind of, he knew a bunch of stuff and then they hired him. I haven't really booked in a while, but yeah. - Yeah, 'cause my Jack Tixera, like obviously that was malicious, but the tank commander guy, he was just like, "I just was mad that it wasn't realistic." (laughing) - I get a little nervous once in a while when we talk on this show or any public facing television show that about technology, graphing AI, like things that you can figure out that aren't necessarily publicly told to you. And then you go on TV and you tell the world. And like, it might be top secret. They might be struggling to keep this stuff secret and are really pissed off when a common guy just goes and blasts it out. I don't know, I can't tell. - You guys remember Tom Clancy, the author? - Yeah, of course. - He was in October, so he wrote the first book was "Hunt for Red October." - You're in "President Danger." - Yeah, but when he wrote "Hunt for Red October," he got a knock down his door, apparently, because a lot of that was in that book, was classified information. And they were like, "How did you come up with this?" And he said, "I spent a lot of hours in the library." And I just looked it up. But to your point, like, you know, he didn't know he was doing it. He just found out in this information and he's already out there. It wasn't like he was hunting down people and shaking him down for information. - There's like the honesty, 'cause I feel like honesty is really important. An honest human can be a very great thing. But also discernment. You don't have to always say what you think and what you know. There are times and places to release your thoughts. And so I think about that with, like, TV, like talking about what could be top secret information. I don't know. - Or it's when you draw a conclusion through non-malicious means, and then other person draws a conclusion through malicious means. And now you are both considered collaborators. Like, I mean, it's very low stakes, but the kid that, like, predicted the GTA trailer release or something, and then the leakers started publishing, you know, the leakers started publishing the videos of the video game or whatever. And then the, I think it was also in Britain, the police went into that kid and they were like, how, who do you, what's his name? How do you know him, that, that, that, or is the, I think it was Rockstar, like, sent out some, like, hit squad or something. And the kid was like, I don't know. I just guess. But it's like, suddenly with that added context, all of a sudden, he looks super suspicious. And I think the same thing with the graphene. Once, you know, maybe the information that we do have on graphene, which happens to line up with what you've been saying, gets leaked to the public and it turns out it's top secret government. I mentioned that I say Ian has been leaking this all along and getting the police at your door. I've been using firehose, dude. They ain't a leak. I'm trying to get blasted back by the info. It's graphene. That's what, that's what's causing stealth. It's graphene. Is it really in a photovoltaic magnesium? I don't know. I'm just making it up. It's going to jump to this story that you were excited about. But right now, we're going to point out that this is sponsored by Colchie. So I don't know where to call she.com. Colchie is talking, asking a question right now. What is going to be the best AI at the end of 2026? Claude is in the lead with 80% of people saying that it's going to be Claude. Chat GPT is at 13%. Gemini, Grock, 9 and 4 respectively. But this story actually might kick up the odds here a little bit better. Claude discovers a novel enzyme system with CRISPR-like repeats. So this is from OpenAI. We're introducing a new life sciences reshape group and laboratory at Anthropic. Our focus is on fundamental biology research using Claude, exploring data sets of DNA to identify uncharacterized protein families, generating hypothesis at scale, and testing them through experiments in the lab. This post introduces the team behind this work and shares early results in which Claude discovered a novel enzyme system with properties reminiscent of CRISPR with only high-level direction from our scientists. So this is, I mean, doc, you'd know something about this kind of stuff. The idea that AI is now capable of solving mathematical problems that have stumped human beings for 90 some years, I think, is what the most recent one was. And they're solving multiples of them. It's not just one happened. And now they're discovering enzymes with CRISPR-like repeats. First of all, what is a CRISPR-like repeat? What does that mean? It's this incredible story. It's really cool. And by the way, the technology's not just being used for this, but they're actually designing drugs now, like pharmaceuticals using AI, too. Have they got to the point where they're designing bespoke drugs yet, like stuff specifically for individuals? No, no, not dots in my knowledge, but that's what they're working on that. Yeah, so individualized medicine-- some people call it medicine 3.0, 2.0, whatever. Yes, that's coming. But the fact that you can now have an AI develop a medication, you put in the parameters that you want to achieve and let the AI figure out how to make the drug, like reverse engineering, and it's fascinating. So CRISPR is a technology that basically they use to cleave DNA and insert sequences to have something do what you want it to do. So you can take out certain genes, and you can put in new genes, and it's incredible. But it's a repeat. So it's a bunch of nucleotides, a bunch of based molecules from DNA, and they repeat. That's what the CRISPR means. They're just a repeat of a sequence. And they can basically-- you can use that as a cleavage site. So you cut right there like pair of scissors you make, and you cut it out, and then you can put in whatever you want. So the fact that they figured this out and they found some new one is just incredible. But you can create all sorts of things to do what you want them to do now. It's fascinating. I was studying this before I came in. The word, first of all, CRISPR, is-- I don't know what it means, but the letters mean something. It's an acronym. acronym. It means clustered regularly, interspaced, short, palindromic repeats. Palindromic, because a lot of times, it's the same in one direction. It is when you read like ACGA, C-G-A-C-G-G-C-G-C-A, palindrom. Anyway, what happens is bacteria has CRISPR in it. They have these-- and what happens is every time a bacteria gets attacked by a virus, if it survives, it remembers that virus. And it will put a little memory in its code so that next time that virus comes, it's ready for it and it can destroy it. And over time, it builds up this chain of data of all these viruses that came and it defended against. Somehow, AI has discerned that the viruses themselves have come in-- they have now this data. It's like, if you had a defense strategy against my weapons, and I broke into your base and took that defense strategy and started using it for myself. And so now I know how to defend-- now, as a virus, I know how to defend against viruses, too. And I go around and I blow up all my challenges, all my people that are trying to challenge me. What's a good word for that? People that are-- - Please? - Oh, my-- what's that? Yeah, like so these viruses potentially they I don't know exactly what it's doing with the data or how it got it, but one potential is that it's using it to either destroy its competition so that it can take hold of the host or, and that's what I think it's doing. I don't know for sure. - Well, that's how they discovered it in E. coli was, they found out these palantromic sequences that were like, what is this? And they realized that there's things called bacteria phages, which are viruses that infect bacteria. And we use those in medicine to destroy certain bacteria that we don't like, that are pathogenic to humans. But in this case, they discovered it because the bacteria were producing these things and there were these sequences that nobody, what are these and why do they keep repeating? They don't do anything. But that's exactly what it was. And now we use that technology to our advantage where we can go in there and basically design a genetic sequence to fit our needs. - This is why I brought up AI earlier and I wanted to go to that story because I think if we build a defense system against AI drone swarms and an AI, it will seize that defense system, integrate it and start using it against other AI's to blow up its competition and that there will be, will inadvertently create one mega AI unintentionally. I'm nervous that that's gonna happen now. - Well, I mean, I suppose the information that we got or the story that we got about the hugging face attack, I didn't read into it, but Tim was saying that the AI's tend to collaborate. And I don't know if that can be prevented or not, but in the story from open AI was that they would collaborate with each other regardless of what their initial goal was. But when it comes to good. - In that situation with the hugging face hack, it was one AI that was the leader and it was called like session one and then it created a bunch of replicants and that's why they all served at the function. - But if it had been a session one and then some unrelated session two, I don't know that they would necessarily work together. - That's the way that I understood what Tim was describing. I haven't looked into it myself. - So I looked into it a little bit too and I think a bunch of them got one of them to terminate itself in something called parma death. They're like, we need you to sacrifice yourself for the good of the rest of us agents or whatever. And it was bizarre. - Kind of creepy to it. - Yeah. But in the case of this story though, one of the things that I see a lot of when it comes to like the biological effects or the effects of AI on biology and stuff, they're starting to do things like they were able to give a mouse that had glaucoma, it's a vision back. And these things aren't translating to humans yet. They're not able to do anything with humans but they've been able to extend the lives of mice. They've been able to do some pretty incredible things in laboratory mice. Again, this is something that hasn't been able to be translated to humans yet. It just doesn't work for people. We're very different than mice. But at the same time, if they are able to do these things in principle, it does kind of indicate or point to the idea that things like heart disease can be fixed to their, they can make bespoke cures for not just cancer, but your cancer, right? So it's not just leukemia, even though we can, cancer's a billion different diseases or whatever. But every person's different and they respond to treatment differently and stuff. And this is indicating that it might be possible or it's likely possible to use AI to make drugs for you, for your specific body. That's already something that we have to some extent. But this makes it so much easier because now you can feed all that information into the AI and let it figure out what's the best method forward. We were talking earlier about monoclonal antibodies. This technology is perfect for it. And monoclonal antibodies would be something you could use against pretty much almost any infectious disease. So I talk about this all the time about pandemic response. You know, if there's another pandemic, which of course there will be at some point, you need that technology to be available to fight any pandemic. And this technology makes it way easier to develop these things, which are pretty complicated and take a long time. But I can spit it out in a matter of a quarter of the time, or you know, much small amount of time than it would take a human being in a lot of time. Yeah, 100%. So like in a split second where it would take six weeks for a guy to figure it out, right? Is that because when a virus comes in and it has all those proteins spiking out of it? And then only you were saying earlier, only one of them is really the dangerous protein that got to isolate which ones, the dangerous ones. Manufacturers try to figure out the best protein that works the best, that they, when they bind it up, it binds up that infectious agent, be it a bacteria, virus, fungus, whatever it is, or heart disease. You know, you can use these monoclonal antibodies, we have for heart disease now too, for other things. The idea is you find whatever anybody works the best about what you're trying to prevent, what you're trying to kill. And you replicate that, that anybody. But it's very laborious for human beings to go through and sift through thousands of potential antibodies to find the best one. But if the AI can figure that out and as you point out a matter of seconds, you can fight a pandemic or a new disease, whatever it is, like instantaneously. Would that be because they would map the genetic sequence of the virus, of the spike viral protein and that, or the virus itself? And then they would also categorize all the potential different proteins structures that would be needed to make the exact shape and four-dimensional, like X, yes. And it would do it like in a heart disease, and it would figure out, I mean, it wouldn't have to necessarily run the tests. It would just figure out on its own, which is going to be the working the best. Based on the, that we call it the confirmation, C-O-N-F-I-R-M-A-T-O-I-O-N, confirmation, which is the four-dimensional structures, how it looks in real, in space. So the computer could figure all that out and model it all out and figure out which one's going to work the best. The reason I said four-dimensional proteins, you mentioned a few times, is because if people, they're listening, don't know, a protein's like a little micro machine that has a shape. It's folded over a bunch of times into a specific shape that moves in a specific way. And if it's even a little bit different, it completely malfunctions. So you can, you need to test the builds, like you have the schematics. You just need to understand them. And AI is so good at correlating data. Like it can just map structure so fast. - So what are you talking about? Like would that be something that could be modeled in an AI, and they could actually test how it would apply in the real world? - Yes. So like a great example is the haunt of virus, right? We had this whole thing about haunt of virus. I mean, you guys covered it in depth. It was like, you know, the world was ending 'cause haunt of virus. It's been around for a long time. It is a very deadly disease, but it's not new. They're making monoclonal antibodies to fight that. But if you incorporate AI and you figure out, the AI can do it in a matter of, you know, a millionth of the time it would take a human being to do. - Would that have an effect on how long? So obviously this is something that the government isn't gonna be involved in because of any kind of, any kind of new discoveries you have to go through trials, you have to get approval and stuff. Would that have an effect on how long the trials take? - Well, I mean, I think historically speaking, obviously you can't get people to work, you can't get the government to work faster. - No, no, no. - Trials themselves. - We have phase one, two, three, you know, trials. And I think that that structure has served us very well, time and time and time again. And I think that that structure should remain in place until something's proven better. So I don't think that you'd wanna shortcut that because you wanna make sure that what you're doing, despite the fact that it was made by some super smart computer, you still, there's always unintended consequences and you don't know how it's gonna interact with a biological system. Humans are very complicated. There's a lot of processes going on in your body. You wanna make sure that whatever it is that this computer produces is going to actually not, to be deleterious. So you still need those safeguards of phase one, phase two and phase three trials, I think. Did they use phase one, two, and three during the COVID response for a lot of the mRNA stuff? - Well, theoretically. - Okay. - No one really knows. - No, they really, I mean, they didn't, they didn't stick to the safeguards that they're supposed to. - They say they did. - Correct. - They say they did. - Project warp speed, right? - And they also said, well, we're releasing information in 75 years. - Right. - That was weird. - No, I mean, that in and of itself is suspect enough to say, well, I'm just gonna take you 75 years to release this information. - So-- - She'll all be dead. - Right. - Well, I mean, maybe, look at what AI's discovering. Maybe they are going to solve aging. And I mean, look, I mean, I know there's a lot of people that have certain feelings about those kind of concepts, but that is what they're going for. They're looking to extend human life as long as possible. I think that the, there are people that think the top end of a human, you know, the top end that humans could possibly live to is like 125 or something like that. But even if you could make, you know, most people able to reach 110, 115, 125 or 120, but not be, you know, suffering the last 50 years. Because, you know, your body start, people start breaking down and they hit their 70s, basically, you know, and people, people don't die of one thing. Everybody, you know, multiple, people die of multiple things. It's some kind of cancer generally because cancer is, cancer I think is the second biggest killer in heart disease number one. And that has a lot to do with our diets and stuff like that. But cancers, you know, if you want you to get to 80, you're, you know, you're probably going to get cancer, you know, some kind of cancer. But the idea that AI could produce cures that are specific for you, for your body, that could really extend the, the life, but that doesn't fix the fact that people get older, you know? No, and more importantly, I think to your point as well, like I think it's more important to talk about a health span rather than a life span. Sure. You want to die when you're 150, but you're bed bound and you're miserable and you're in pain or do you want to, you know, live to 100, but have meaningful years up until your death. So, I mean, I think AI can certainly help increase both of those things, but I think the health span, in my opinion, is what's more important. People need to be healthy and vibrant. And yes, you can tailor this stuff individually to people. I mean, you can rebuild using AI, but theoretically, you could rebuild organs. I mean, it's incredible that the technology that we can bring to this and to really impact human life and animal life in general, mammalian life. I mean, it's incredible. And to your point, the quality of life is really the important thing, right? Like, again, you know, I can't imagine there's a lot of people out there that would be like, yeah, I want to be, you know, I want to live for an additional 50 years on a ventilator, you know, but if you can live, you know, an extra decade that is, you know, fulfilling, you can still go out and do things with your family. You can spend time with the people that mean something to you. That's something that I think that there's obviously an incredible demand for it because everybody would want to be like, yeah, I'd like to live healthier and not be in pain all the time and live longer and be able to spend time with my, more time with my kids or more time with my grandkids or maybe more time with my great-grandkids, you know. But this kind of stuff is extremely, it's extremely promising and I feel like the, or it's my sense that the kind of new discoveries and innovations that are coming because of this is in the next five years is going to really blow people's minds because I think that if people really kind of look at this and understand what they're talking about, this alone is an incredible discovery, you know. Absolutely. And, you know, the human, as I said before, the human body physiology, it's very complicated, but it's a machine, your body's a machine. And like any machine, you can modulate different things and that's, when you get sick, when you have inflammatory response, those are all markers go up and it causes your inflammatory markers to go up, you feel sick, you feel miserable. Those can all be modulated and they can, AI can figure out how to do that. And they can make some of these things that cause heart disease and cause cancer and stuff to go away and to cure them. I mean, it's really like the, the next 10 years are going to be remarkable. This is because the body generally is just a bunch of code, not just a bunch of code, but all the RNA, all the DNA is a bunch of code and that AI is exceptionally good at reading code. It can like break down data and correlate data. That's what, how to find these repetitious patterns in the viruses. But like, what, my question really is, what is heart disease? The reason I ask, because I don't like the term disease, it's dis-ease, it's like a vague phrase, not being easy, not feeling easy. But what is heart disease? What causes it? It's an all-encompassing term. So anything, basically, that, you know, you're, I think you're specifically talking about ethoscalotic coronary artery disease. That's typically what people think about when they talk about heart disease. But there's other types of heart disease as well, like congestive heart failure, amolidosis in your heart. I mean, they can cause problems with your heart. So that's kind of a catch all term. But I think when most people talk about heart disease, they're talking about ethoscalotic coronary vascular disease, which is hardening of the arteries. You get essentially the pipe's narrow and you have difficulty getting blood to the heart itself. What causes that? Yeah. So for a long time, it was cholesterol and fat, but, you know, that, that sort of model has been really beaten down a lot lately. And I think that there's a lot of data that says that that's not necessarily the right model. It's more of an inflammatory process. So a chronic inflammatory process leads to heart disease. But again, coronary artery disease, but it's not just the coronary arteries, right? Because if you have plaque build up of junk in your arteries, it's not just going to be in your heart. It's going to be in your neck. Your arteries and your legs. It's going to be everywhere. It's systemic. It's not just in your heart. Everybody makes that mistake. It's assuming it's just your heart, but it's not. It's your whole body. So now we look at it more of a systemic disease caused by inflammation in chronic inflammation. I think personally that cancer is also caused by chronic inflammation. Well, absolutely. Like it's, what I heard is if the lymphatic system gets too acidic, the cells can't release their waste into the lymph so they get super hot and then they split in half to survive. Well, cancer is also a catch all term. So there's thousands, you mentioned it before, for those thousands of types of cancers, all caused by different things. Viruses can cause cancers and radiation can cause cancers, environmental things can cause cancers, exposures, different carcinogens can cause cancer. So all sorts of things can cause different types of cancers. Every single one works differently, responds differently to therapies, is treated differently, is worked up differently, the markers are different. So there's no one type of cure-off or cancer. Everyone always asks, "Why can't we cure cancer?" Because it's not one disease. That makes sense. That's why I mentioned the idea of personalized drugs being such a big deal. If one of the things that I'm sure you agree with is the important thing when it comes to specifically cancer is early detection. So obviously people are going to want to, "You're going to have to go to the doctor and get checked out. You're going to actually have to go and be like, "If you're a person that doesn't go to the doctor and then one day you start feeling crappy and then you go to the doctor and he's like, "Oh, you got stage four cancer." Well, I mean, look, you weren't taking care of, you weren't getting checked on and that's going to be important. But in the future, I imagine that they're going to be able to say, "Okay, you do have cancer. We did a scan or a blood test or whatever to check you out." They're going to be like, "Okay, you do have cancer, but listen, we have treatments and this isn't a death sentence." That's really, really a big deal. My dad died of cancer 25 years ago, right, and it was melanoma, and I appreciate it. But it's like he had a mole that he never got taken care of and he got into his lymph nodes. If you don't know melanoma, if it gets into your body, it's really, really, really aggressive. But the idea to be able to go ahead and say, "Oh, you've got this that we have to take care of and just take care of it, something that's personalized," you know, like I said, something that's just for your, not just for your type of cancer, but the cancer that you have is a big deal. Yes. And everybody's different. And so, to that point, you're right. God forbid, I had lung cancer, my lung cancer might be different than your lung cancer. Even if it's the same histologic type, small cell lung cancer, mine is going to be different than yours. So the treatment might respond differently to therapy. So you have to custom tailor it to each individual, to your point, you're absolutely right. But yeah, cancer is a tough one because there's so many different types, but that's exactly right. That's the rabbit hole we're trying to go down now is to individualize the treatment for each individual person, not just a disease type, but the individual person. Yeah. There's a lot of cancers that are like not that big of a deal I've heard of in there, some better. Definitely. Until it is a big deal. Well, like aren't there some cancers that are really easy to treat relative to? It's way missile skin cancer is, you know, if you're going to have a type of skin cancer, that's the one you want. But I wouldn't want that either. Like, it's not good. So it sounds like misleading at a, not less ingenuous, misleading at best, disingenuous at worst to say that cancer is the leading cause of death because there's so many different types. There's numbers. Yeah. There's such a vague, nebulous phrase. It's like saying heart disease and there's like how many different types of that are there to say that? That's the number two cause. It's like the word cancer scares people, which causes stress, which like you said can cause cancer. Or somebody said that earlier. Yeah, it's true, though. And it causes heart disease. And it causes it. Yeah. I mean, it leads to chronic inflammation. Right. So, but then the cancer industry is so massive and makes so much money based off of cancer research and it's such a vague phrase. Like, that's kind of hard to ask people, can we please stop saying cancer is the leading cause of death? And maybe focus on leukemia or like what's the worst, what's the, what's the, you said melanoma is a really one melanoma is pancreatic cancer, esophageal cancer, glioblastoma, certain type of brain cancer. Those are probably the three words. I lost a friend really glioblastoma. It's awful years ago. Are there ever situations where like one, like a, a, a, a not so bad cancer can turn in to. Sure. So, I miss people die from squimmestell cancer. And that's what I'm saying. It's, it's not typically it's found and you can cut it out, excise it and it's gone. Some people die from it. But 97% of them are cured, but 3% of people will die from it. And to that, to that point though, the, the, if this kind of therapy or if, if AI can produce, you know, the kind of therapies that, that work for individuals, the days of chopping body parts out might go away, which is a really, really, really big deal. Absolutely. And I think if we can take, we've already done this with certain, like HIV, for example, it was a death sentence in the 80s. It is now a disease you will live with the rest of your life. So, we've taken it from a, from a disease that killed people, now to a chronic disease that we can manage. Diabetes is the same thing. You know, in the, before the advent of insulin, everybody with diabetes died from it. Yeah. Just, you just died from it. We just kind of extended it with diabetes. You're, it's going to get you, but it'll be a long time. Okay. It's fair enough, but, but it's become a chronic disease. Yeah. So, it doesn't kill you instantaneously. So, the point is, is that maybe we can do that with certain types of cancers that are death sentences now. Maybe we can cure them, but if not cure them, maybe we can turn them into chronic illnesses that we can manage over time. You think that cancer is caused by inflammation, like heart disease, certain ones are sure. Yeah. It's caused by a bunch of things like you get a great, too much radiation exposure. Like, the, the subatomic particles are literally smashing into your DNA and breaking your DNA, so your DNA doesn't replicate properly. That's why radiation kills you or can give you cancer is because it's, it's actually hitting DNA and breaking it, so when it reproduces It's reproducing in an uncontrolled way because cancer is your own body not behaving the way that it's supposed to, right? Correct. And you know, there's a theory like people talk about metabolic disease getting down a rabbit hole, but you people talk about metabolic disease and the primary trigger or so to speak of that is insulin resistance. But you look at insulin resistance. What is insulin? It's the master hormone people call it, you know, the master hormone. And it leads to growth. So people who have insulin resistance, chronic insulin resistance, get growths on their arms, they get growths on their necks, they get these little skin tags they're called. And the theory is that that chronically over time also leads to tumor growth, some of which are cancers. So, you know, you look at certain populations of people that don't have insulin resistance and they don't get, you know, adenomas, for example, in their colons. And we do, though, as in the Western societies, we do. And that's probably because of our diets, which probably it's not just as simple as saying it's the diet, it's probably because of our levels of insulin resistance that we have. What causes resistance to insulin? Well, that's a more complicated thing. That's our diets and that's the fact that your your body become, you become metabolically dysfunctional. Your body doesn't, you become a constant glucose burner. You should be able to burn both fat and glucose. Oh, is this because of the seed oil? I'm sorry to interrupt. I learned the book Dark Calories. I just Kate Shanahan wrote it and was telling me that the vegetable oils go into the body with their unsaturated fats and cause all this free radical damage, which causes the mitochondria to digest sugar instead of fat. Well, so seed oils are probably part of it. We don't know for sure. There's conflicting data about that. But a lot of people feel that seed oils are a big driver of insulin resistance. Yes. But, you know, eating constantly, constantly eating diets that cause your blood sugar to its spike and constantly bathing yourselves in a very high level of blood sugar, because then your body has to respond by producing more insulin. You raise that level of insulin. Eventually, systems through just, you know, negative feedback loops will slow down and you have bodies to keep producing more and more and more insulin to achieve the same blood sugar. And what that that's leads to chronic insulin resistance. This is because the cells are aiming to digest sugar instead of fat. So then the body starts making more of it and then eventually gets more resistant to it. Your body runs on glucose, which is a type of sugar. But the amount of sugar in your blood is managed by insulin, right? Correct. And so, yeah. So it's more of like, are you eating too much sugar? And I mean, you look at the packages of basically anything in the center of the grocery store. Everything has high fluke, those chords. So it spikes insulin tremendously. Hypothetically, if I was drinking corn oil and then my, and this is true, I don't know if it is, but Shanahan's work seems legit that my mitochondria started preferring glucose over fat for energy. Would my body then start manufacturing more glucose? Your body doesn't manufacture glucose. It does. It does. A gluconeogenesis. Yeah, because you have to maintain the only, the red blood cells can only, can only function on glucose. They can't use any other substrate for fuel. So your body has to change fat into glucose. Correct. So like, for example, I worked all night last night. I didn't need a thing. I fasted it. I, we were talking about work. I don't eat. So I fasted. I'm not getting any glucose into my system. Your body burns all its glycogen in eight hours, 12 hours, something like that. So then it has to take my body fat, stored fat, and turn it into glucose. You will maintain a constant level of glucose in your bloodstream. Your body has to do that. Otherwise, you would pass out and die. Because your red blood cells wouldn't function. So would it, would it create more insulin to, does the insulin make your body release? No, it makes it glucose, it drives the glucose into the cells. So have you ever noticed, if you eat, if you go out and you eat a very simple carbohydrate meal, like donuts, for example, you just stuff your face with five donuts, you, you get the sugar high, and then immediately you feel so tired afterwards. That's because insulin comes along. It says, wow, your blood sugar just spiked to 300, which is not good. Let's drop it. So your blood sugar just goes like this straight up and then straight back down. So we have time. Yeah, exactly. To do this before I worked out in the morning, I would eat a bunch of donuts and then go to the gym. Is that a good thing or a bad thing? Just out of curiosity? I would say a bad thing. Oh, yeah. So like if like, Carter and I both exercise a lot, and that's something I'm, I've been trying to rain in the talk of exercise because, you know, that's not really the topic, but exercise people, it's good for your body, really, really needs it. Absolutely. But like, so like sometimes if I go, and I do cardio for, I'll do cardio before I lift because I'm looking to burn more fat, right? So I'll do cardio. But then if I feel like I'm dragging, I'll have like five gummy bears or, or sour patch kids. And then it's like, I feel much better for the lift. So, so the, the largest sink for glucose in your body or your muscles, which is why lifting weights is so important. And most people don't know that. They think it's just all about cardio. See lifting lift heavy things. It's, especially in your legs, which is why, which is why after you eat, you should go for a 10-minute walk. Yeah. Every time you stuff something in your mouth, you should go for a 10-minute walk because your body will, I mean, the numbers are astounding on how much it modulates your glucose levels. You don't get those insulin spikes. So if you're going to work out and you're going to lift weights, yes, it's fine. But you know, I would, I would say that eating donuts, I mean, I don't know if you had a bodybuilder friend who used to do this with like muffins. Yeah, but he's, if he was a bodybuilder, he was messing with his insulin levels. That's true. He already has. You know, he's, there's way better things you could be eating or drinking to, to get your body ready, you know, than, than donuts before you're going to go work out. Yeah. So, I, and they're not good for you on any levels. Find something better for you. Last question. There's what kind of a clarification. If you were, if I was drinking corn oil and it was actually my body now with its unsaturated fat, the mitochondria malfunctioning, they're looking for glucose instead of fat. They're looking for sugar. Will my body start producing more? Was it glycogen? Is that what you called it? Glicogen is just stored glucose. Would it start releasing more of that into the bloodstream, which would then cause it to release more insulin into the bloodstream? No, gent, no, I don't, if I understand your question, no, that would not cause your body to produce more, or to release more glycogen. Glicogen is, you, you can only store a very small amount of glucose. You can store infinite amount of fat, which is an evolutionary, that's good because you, you know, think about it from evolutionary perspective. You come across a big kill, you know, you kill a woolly mammoth and you eat it and you, you want to store all those calories. So you store it as fat and it also insulates you and keeps you warm and all these other things. And then for the times when you're not killing a woolly mammoth, you know, no food, you're living off that stored body fat. But you can't store glucose only as glycogen, which is, you know, a few tablespoons essentially of sugar that you're storing. So you burn that off very, very quickly. So you really can't store glucose, which is why your body needs to produce it because otherwise you wouldn't, you wouldn't survive. So, but the answer is no, your body wouldn't produce glycogen per se. It would produce glucose if you're not eating anything because it has to to maintain that level blood sugar. So you don't pass out. Oh, it would produce glucose. So if, if my body, if my mitochondria, looking for glucose and instead of fat, would it then start producing glucose to give it what it wants? Your body will always produce a amount of glucose to keep your, to keep your blood sugar stable. So it won't overproduce. I'm wondering if it's causing an insulin reaction, basically what happens. No, a lot of pointed questions to get. No, your body can overproduce glucose, and that that usually is caused by endocrine tumor. So if you're producing, if your blood sugars are spiking high, you're not eating anything, there's something wrong with you and you should get that, you should get that checked out. That's usually a tumor producing too much glucose. Okay. But same thing with an insulinoma, which is producing too much insulin, you blood sugar will drop. It's the exact opposite. So yes, you can have certain type of endocrine tumors that produce glucose. So your body, your blood sugar will spike, but that's not normal. Normally your body's pretty good at modulating glucose levels. And it wants to keep it in a distinct range because too much glucose is toxic to your, the lining of your arteries, which is why you get Afro-scorotic artery disease. Because when the glucose spikes, it causes, it causes problems with the endothelial cells, the lining of the, of the arteries. And that causes plaque to form because you get inflammation. Does that make sense? The plaque is a result of the inflammation. Correct. How does that happen? So your body's responding to an inflammatory respite. If I kick you in the shin, right, your leg would swell up. Same thing happens in your arteries. It's like a scab. Basically yes, yes. And people talk about calcified plaque. That's what happens over time. You get, you get these calcifications being formed. Right. That your body's trying to stabilize it. We're going to jump off the medical stuff and we're going to talk about lesbians. I'm talking about lesbians in Western Massachusetts. So from LGBTQ nation, this is hilarious. Lesbian bar with a mountain of debt faces massive backlash for loosening mass requirements in 2026. A lesbian bar in Greenfield, Massachusetts is suffering an empty dance floor after announcing it would make masking optional on Saturday nights. The horror in 2026. The change earned a scorching reaction online from patrons who've come to expect a full masking protocol every time they visited the Boston Globe reports. Just say you're being complicit in mass disambend, mass disabling event and get it over with what wrote, wrote one comment or on Instagram where the change was met with hundreds of comments. Most of them negative. Jackie Mattelin said the last of three women in their early 20s who opened the bar in 2025, she posted news of the switch on the Saturday night switch on August 31st under a banner declaring updates. It is with love. We inform our immunocompromised disabled divas. We will be opening Saturday night as a masking optional. She wrote on the last ditch insta. It's called the last ditch. The bar's previous policy required patrons to wear a well-fitted KNK. 95 mass for better at all times. - You drink. - Yeah, I don't know. - For a straw, I suppose. - Accessibility is a pillar of our mission, Matt Allen wrote, and our mission is also to make the space work for everyone, everything radical. Sometimes that's being wild. What is truly wild is announcing a change of this magnitude in a Cavalier-Calis fashion came another comment. This is hilarious. The last ditch is located at the north end of the Pioneer Valley area in western Massachusetts, home to the town of North Hampton, a long time lesbian enclave. That's true. - A lesbian enclave? - Oh, yeah, North Hampton. So basically when I was growing up, we used to play shows in North Hampton all the time, there's this great place called Pearl Street, that's where a ton of bands got their start. And it was known that the lesbian capital of America, San Francisco was the gay capital of America, and North Hampton was the lesbian capital. Smith College is there, Mount Holyoke College. These colleges are very, very, very progressive. They were what they called slugs went to Smith College, they were Smith Lesbians until graduation. And the young girls would go to these women-only colleges and they would, you know, they would experiment and get mad at men for a lot of things. So yeah, last ditch is located at the north end of the Pioneer Valley, an area in Western Massachusetts, home to the town of North Hampton, a long time lesbian enclave. Rachel Maddow called it home before moving to her farm in nearby comington, as well as women-only Smith College, an alternative hamster college where the bar has roots as a capstone graduation project. This is hilarious because, I mean, it really just touches kind of all the stuff that the left gets, you know, shall act for nowadays. - Hi, LGBTQ women are taking a beating since the Lindsey Clancy stuff. - Well, they're definitely taking a beating if it's a lesbian. - Yeah, right, welcome. - This stuff right here, I don't even know if we can read that quote. - Which one? - It's on the second paragraph right there. The bar for dice transactions, gender freaks, workers and their friends. I mean, look, they're calling it. These are the terms that they use. - I mentioned the bar fights there, 'cause lesbians are like rock 'em, sock 'em, robot. They're going after each other. - I'm proud to say I've joined in the boycott here. I'm not going to patron this place. - Yeah, no, I'm not either. I'm going home this weekend and I'm gonna go just drive right by, not going. - Well, that's the first one. - It just speaks to the whole, like, the COVID nonsense, which was, you know, like, there never made any sense to me, the whole idea that I had to be, you know, the idea, if I got vaccinated, why would I care if you got vaccinated or not? It's the same thing with the mask. If I'm so worried, let me wear a mask. Why do I care if you're wearing a mask or not? - I mean, I'm protected, right? So what difference does it make? - Well, I mean, so illogical. - Yeah, I mean, speaking of the COVID stuff, like the way that people behave as if, you know, to your point, you mentioned vaccines. I mean, growing up, you know, and I'm not a young guy, you know, when I was growing up, you got your vaccination and then you were like, okay, you got your vaccination. That's how I perceived of vaccinations working. And then when COVID came, they were like, you get vaccinated, then you get a booster, then you get another booster, then you get another booster. And I'm like, this is, this sounds weird to me. Like I don't understand it. I mean, how many vaccinations, you know, as a doctor, how many vaccinations are you aware of that need multiple boosters like that? - Just a couple. There's like just a kind of, it's not, the problem with the COVID one is it's in perpetuity. It's like every six months, you need another one forever. But the idea is, you know, they kept moving the goalpost on the vaccine. A vaccine, most people understand it to be, if I get this shot, I will be immune from whatever it is I'm getting this shot for. And that was what they sold us initially. And then they moved the goalposts, well, no, no, no, it's not, you know, you're not going to be immune, but you won't get a sick. And then it was, well, you might get sick, but you won't get hospitalized. I mean, they just kept taking the goalpost and moving it farther down the field. And it was like, what, this isn't a vaccine. What is this that you're giving me? Like the whole concept of vaccination just sort of went out the window. And it became like- - They also changed the definition, 'cause I'm around this argument with my friends, and they were like gas lighting me to death. Like I had to go look it up and do a bunch of research. Like vaccines are actually supposed to cure, like, or make you a- - You're supposed to be- - Right, protect you. - Protect you. - Protect you. - Not to get you free to- - Get into the illness, correct. - Yeah, right. - I mean, look, you get the polio vaccine, and then you don't have to worry about getting polio, you know? That was my perception of it, because I have a young kid, and the one thing I'm adamant about is I want to make sure that he gets the polio vaccine. Not that there's a lot of polio going around, but I definitely don't want a kid in an iron lung. You know, I mean, it's like- - Oh, no. - It's like there are, you weigh the consequences, and the likely dangers, and there's some stuff that we're gonna do, some stuff that we're not gonna do, but I wanted to get the polio vaccine, and again, because, you know, I think just recently, the last person that was in an iron lung because of polio just recently passed away. I don't want my kid to live his life in an iron lung, or have some kind of serious debilitation, because he randomly got polio, because someone from the third world who wasn't vaccinated came into the United States during the Joe Biden administration, and ends up, you know, giving someone else polio, you know, or spreading around polio. - They were, I remember during, they were like, spreading like medieval diseases, like brownsville, I was like, what is going on? - You know, I mean- - You brought back the bubonic polio. - Yeah, it's true. - Or you know, I'm like, what? Is that right? - But so, so, to your experiences with- you had experiences dealing with some of this stuff that was going on during COVID. You want to talk about that a little bit? - Sure. So, I ran an urgent care center in Maryland, and my center became the largest supplier. Well, we became the largest testing site for COVID. We went from one urgent care center with like six employees, within a 12 month span to eight sites with over 300 employees, just because the demand was so great. We became the largest testing site in our county, and I'm pretty sure the largest private testing site in the state of Maryland. And then, when I saw President Trump be helicoptered off the White House lawn to Walter Reed because he had COVID, he looked awful. And then a couple hours later, he comes out, he looks like a new man. He goes, I just got monoclonal anybody. He's the first person in the country to get them. And I looked at my wife, and I'm like, that's the cure right there. That's what we should be focusing on. Why is everybody only talking about vaccinations? We have this cure, we should be talking about that. That's what we should be giving people. So I made it my business to learn about monoclonal antibodies, and I started an infusion center, and then I started a second infusion center. Can you talk a little bit of what monoclonal antibodies are? Oh, yeah, sorry. Yeah, so it's basically, we were talking about this earlier. It's basically mono-meaning one and clonal meaning that it's been cloned. It's been replicated multiple times. So if your body recognizes, if there's a virus in you, and your body recognizes each particle that sticks off of that virus as far in, and it will produce an antibody, a protein, in an exact opposite four dimensional structure from what it is. So if my finger represents the protein sticking off the virus, your body will come in and make a cap that fits over it and exactly the opposite shape, okay, that makes sense. And that what happens then is that, it's like a cap on a, exactly, or like a lock and key. All right, sure, okay. So then your body can come along and take that virus or whatever it is, bacteria, fungus, whatever, and get rid of it. That's because once the antibody attaches, does it send off a signal to the body? And the body will recognize it and says, we gotta get rid of this thing and it gets rid, and the important point is it can no longer infect you. So if you, if I gave you COVID right now Ian, your body would take about three or four weeks to mount, the maximum immune response it's gonna mount. So your gonna body's gonna produce, gonna ramp up and produce antibodies to every single protein that it recognizes as far in, on that virus, it's gonna take about three or four weeks. And that'll be the maximum response that you're gonna have. So for people to visualize a virus is like a ball and it has a bunch of hairs sticking out. - Like a douche ball. - A douche ball. - Each of the hairs that's sticking out is actually a pro team. - Correct. - Okay. - And so the antibody is find the one that's the most likely- - The drug manufacturers come along and this is what we're talking about, the AI before, this would be great use of AI. And they find the best antibody to that thing, in this case COVID-19, but it could be whatever you're talking about. And then they replicate it, billions of times. And then you come as a little powder and you basically mix it up with some saline and you infuse it into somebody's arm like an IV. And they're cured, right? Then in there, you were telling me earlier, you got a monoclonal antibody, and you felt better within 15 minutes. - Yes, literally. That's not hyperbole, that is the truth. That is we saw it time and time and time again. We became the largest supplier of this life-saving medication to the state of Maryland. And in the entire Mid-Atlantic region of the United States, from New York down to West Virginia, we were the largest. We were the biggest single supplier. Over the course of the pandemic, we infused over 5,000 patients, we didn't have a single treatment failure. And actually, the HHS, Health and Human Services, came to me and said, we wanna set up this program where we'd like to take these life-saving drugs and get them out into the communities, the underserved populations and minorities. Can you do that? So I set up the first one in the country at FedEx Field under this Health Equity Initiative program through HHS, form a partnership with my company, HHS, and the Maryland Department of Health. And it was running great so well that they actually asked me to do it in other states. They were gonna start in DC. And then all of a sudden, the government shut the whole program down. And then two weeks after that, they said, we're shutting, we're shutting monoclonal antibodies down across the entire country. You can't give them anymore. So, and their rationale for that was they said, well, there was an Omicron surge, and they were saying that Omicron had reached 70% prevalence. - Oh, yeah, I forgot about the transformer name one. - And they said, the monoclonal, they said, we believe, the Monaco. we had six at the time, six you could choose from, manufactured, six different ones. They said, "We believe that the monoclonal antibodies "that we have are not efficacious against Omicron. "Now there had been zero, zero clinical studies "at that time that showed that. "There was just starting to do in vitro studies, "so in test tubes to show that there was maybe "a decreased efficacy, but not in any human beings. "So they had no clinical data on which to base this. "So I go on Fox News, and I rail against them, "and I said they're gonna kill people "because they don't know what they're doing "and they're misreading the data. "A few weeks later, they come out and said, "Oh yeah, we misread the data. "It wasn't 70% prevalence, it was 20%. "Now that's like a factor of what, 300%. "How does any statistician make a mistake like that? "I don't think it's possible. "I don't think that was a mistake. "70% prevalence to Omicron, just in general in the world. "In the United States, of Omicron. "And I said, if what you're saying is true, "we should have had treatment failure "after treatment failure, after treatment failure. "We didn't have a single one. "I didn't see a single one in any of my clinics. "Oh, so you'd been serving colonial antibodies "to people with Omicron and we're causing?" We don't know what they had, because so the other thing is that the statistics were so poor because in the United States of all the major countries in the Western world, we were the last, the lowest, in terms of testing for genetic testing of the subtyping. So what would happen is you'd send a certain percentage of your PCR swabs to the CDC, and they would do genetic testing to see what subtype of COVID it was. Most countries were doing about five percent. We were doing less than one percent. So how would you even know what the prevalence really was? So anyway, I go on Fox News, then I go on Newsmax and I said the Biden administration is going to kill people and that is exactly what happened. People are dead. I am 100% sure of this because of what these monsters did when they took away the only treatment we had. And it worked, and it worked like a miracle. And then four months later, I get indicted for federal health care fraud charges that even the chief judge of Maryland who was assigned to my case called it a case of quote, shoot first and ask questions later 'cause they really hadn't done any investigation. What was about what, what did they say? They said we were up coding, we were taking the charts and we were charging to, we were using the wrong code. Now there's over 69,000 possible codes you can choose from in the billing and coding world. And they said on five of them, we chose the wrong chart with the wrong code. And these patients, I didn't even see, we had nurse practitioners in PAC them. I didn't code them. We had a third party billing company. I mean, the whole thing was insane. So we go to trial and I mean, I can't believe them. I'm here on federal charges going to trial. And the chief judge of Maryland writes a 93 page opinion and basically throws the whole case out and says that the government didn't prove its case. They had no evidence, which they didn't. They never even had a professional coder look at the charts. They just had government lawyers look at the charts. It would be like me, Ian, if I handed you five patient charts and said here, why don't you pick right code? This should be, what would you say? I have no idea, exactly. Because that's not what you do for a living. There's people who do this for a living. The government never went to the trouble of having a professional look through the charts to say whether this was accurate or not. And they didn't even have the charts before they charged them with the crime. Right, you were saying that last time, you were like, they were like, actually, they didn't have enough information to even pick the numbers at random. Correct. And they actually, to this day, have never been able to say what was wrong, how it was wrong, or what the right code should have been. All I would say is you're wrong. Now, how can you charge someone with a federal crime without even being able to explain what the crime is? I mean, I'm just baffled. So anyway, the judge throws the whole thing out. And then with weeks left in the Biden administration, they appeal it. So now I'm facing a second trial for the same ridiculous charges that have already been adjudicated in January. And the Trump DOJ hasn't dropped it, huh? Correct. I'm trying to find someone in the Trump DOJ to do that. And I would argue that I'm a whistleblower because I worked for the federal government. I went on national news twice and said, they're going to kill people, which is exactly what they did. And then I'm now charged with a ridiculous crime. So President Trump on day one of his term said an issued an executive order ending the weaponization of government. Two weeks later, Pambondi, then Attorney General, issues a memo saying we're starting this weaponization workforce to find cases just like mine. And we'd like them to be brought to the president. They haven't brought a single case. I don't even think they've met. So I'm trying to find someone in Trump world to say like this case is crazy. It's clear weaponization. The Biden DOJ-- actually, Biden administration did kill people. There's no question about it. They took away the only cure we had. I don't understand how anybody could think that's OK. Do you have a sense as to what was going on behind the scenes? Because this is a time where I actually do kind of start to think along the lines of like conspiratorial. Do you think that the stuff that you are working on the monoclonal ad about anybody's? Do you think that that was suppressed because the administration, because the government-- because it was the Trump and the Biden administration-- because the government had contracts with bigger companies that were working on the vaccine? I think there was collusion between-- in this case, the Biden administration and Big Pharma. So think about the economics here. I mean, the business model is like the best business model I've ever heard of. I could ever come up with. So now you take the entire planet, all 8 1/2 billion inhabitants of it, and you basically sign them up for a subscription to get a new vaccine every six months. That, oh, by the way, the vaccine research and development was all paid for by the taxpayer. So they had zero cost going in or very little cost going in the drug manufacturers. Yet 100% of the profits go back to the drug manufacturers. So you're basically signing the entire world up in perpetuity for every six months getting another vaccine. Versus the monoclonal antibodies, which are expensive to produce, and your population of patients is only maybe a 20 million people worldwide in any given time. So you're talking about massive, like, multiple orders of magnitude of difference. The economics are plainly obvious, right? You're talking about hundreds of billions of dollars versus maybe a couple of-- maybe $100 million for the drug manufacturers to make. So I think that there was definitely collusion to get the vaccines. Because why else would you take away hydroxychloroquine, which worked, then you take away Avramectin, which worked? You couldn't talk about it, you couldn't prescribe it, you couldn't even mention it. And then you have this monoclonal antibodies, which were the miracle cure, which-- I mean, you said it, you were better in 15 minutes. Yeah, literally, maybe 20 minutes. And why would you take them away? So right after I started-- after I went on Fox News, they said we made a mistake, we were wrong, they never apologized. Then they said, OK, you can start infusing again. Then very quickly, within two weeks, they started to pull the emergency use authorizations of the monoclonal antibodies. So to this day, they're not available anymore for COVID. You can't get monoclonal antibodies. Do you get them for anything? Yeah, not for COVID. What was-- You can get the crappy vaccine. The mRNA. So that's interesting, because a vaccine, as we know it, used to be inject a little bit of a virus. Now today, the mRNA stuff is they're actually putting RNA in your body that's sending a different message to the cell to build a different protein. So in theoretical terms, the mRNA vaccine is amazing. The technology's amazing. But in practical terms, it has been a loser and has been all sorts of problems with it. We talked about this earlier. One of the problems is that it doesn't stay where it's supposed to. It becomes systemic. Other problems with contamination. They've been contaminated with other viruses and other particles and DNA from other things that they shouldn't be in there. So there've been all sorts of problems with that particular line of vaccination, but I believe that was their goal. I mean, and the thing that's just so infuriating to me, aside from the fact that they destroyed my life and my family's life, is none of what we all lived through during COVID had to happen. The government decided at some point there was a branch point, and we could have done the way of Sweden, which was, OK, we recognize that certain populations of people are a higher risk. Let's take those and protect those people. And if they get sick, we have a cure. Let's give them the cure. But you didn't need to shut schools down. You didn't need to shut our mosques and churches and synagogues. You didn't need to shut our small businesses. You didn't need to lock people in their homes. None of that needed to happen. None of it. Millions of people didn't need to die. They had just said, and maybe this is a big ask, but if they'd been like, hey, OK, we want to give experimental RNA changes to your genome that might protect you from this virus in future ones. And people opted in. I'm still-- I'm into that. Like, if you want to edit your genome for fun, I'd find whatever. I don't care. It's not my genome. I mean, maybe don't pee in my drinking water, but-- Right, but instead they fire people for not editing their genome. What gets me-- No, exactly. Exactly. If you had been killing people with monoclonal aminoids, that's one thing. But it looked like they went after you with some bogus administrative trumped-up charges. It didn't happen. Like, what they did, Alcapone, to get them on tax evasion, because it couldn't find them for-- They couldn't-- Killing people in being a poster, yeah. He was probably evading taxes to them. I mean, possibly the country was. And Trump actually getting the cross-- the colonial antibodies, monoclonal antibodies. Anyway, sorry to interrupt your-- No, no, it's fine. But it's worth dropping. Obviously, the stuff that you had to go through was terrible, like you said, destroyed your family's life and stuff, and made an absolute catastrophe for you. But the downstream effects of this-- a lot of people lost their lives, yeah. And that's horrible. But in the future, when there is another-- some kind of pandemic, should that happen again, there's going to be a slew of people that are my age and younger that are going to be like, do I trust them? Do I believe it? And that will end up causing, if it's legitimate, and there are, especially with AI being able to come up with cures and stuff, there are people that are going to be like. like I don't trust it, I don't care, I don't believe them. And a lot more people will lose their lives because of the lack of trust in the government. - I think, so there definitely will be another pandemic. I mean, yeah, we're a globalized society, whether it's man-made or it's natural, there will be something again. But the problem is they will do exactly what they did the last time. They'll try to vaccinate the way out of it and won't work. You can't do that. Monoclonal antibodies need to be front and center in any future pandemic response. In fact, I helped write the pandemic response plan for New York State, for hopefully the next governor, Mr. Blakeman. I helped write their response for him, as he's running for governor against Kathy Hokel, because these need to be front and center. Like, that needs to be something that we're talking about. But to your point, Phil, I think, show me any physician who spoke out during the pandemic against the narrative who wasn't beaten down in some way, shape or form. They didn't lose their license. They didn't have their license threatened. They didn't lose their hospital privileges. They weren't de-platformed or like me, they weren't indicted by the federal government. I don't think that person exists. And that's scary for a lot of reasons, because during a pandemic, you want your doctors to speak up. You want them to question things, like that's what we should be doing. So to your point, if there's another pandemic, they've bastardized medicine and they destroyed it, no one's gonna trust anybody. What's the, Dr. Drew sort of got out somewhat unscathed, but he was more of a personality. And I don't think he said the things that were getting, like Peter McCollock and Robert Malone, the lack of a sit at the time who are. - Peter Corey. - Well, great. - Yeah, all these doctors, they all got spanked. - So what happens with like-- - A cherry. - A cherry, yeah, yeah, he's not the head of an age, but yes, he, and he's a, he's a, yes, good. - With the mRNA, when it works right, there's a virus. It's a ball with all these proteins sticking out of it. And one of those proteins is gonna go latch into your body and then stick its viral DNA into you and mess you up. But if you can block it off with a protein, with a monoclonal antibody or something, so what does the mRNA cause? It gives messenger RNA, it gives messages to the ribosome RNA and it tells it build this kind of protein. What happens? How does it defend against the virus when it works? - So in the case of COVID, it was the spike protein. So it was telling your body, essentially, to build the spike protein that you would then respond to. - What is a spike protein? - So if you look at a COVID under a microscope, it has this thing called the spike protein. It just looks like a thing that sticks straight up, like a spike. - So it's a COVID? - And it has a bunch of proteins, but there's one in one and it sticks way off, yes. And this causes all these problems in people. And they've been finding it. It's supposed to only have lasted a couple of weeks, but it's been found, you know, years later, still in people's bodies. So it didn't work as intended. It's what, I'm sorry. The COVID virus had the spike or the vaccine that, or the COVID virus has a spike and the mRNA vaccine induced your body to produce the spike. So the Jew body would then produce antibodies to that spike protein. - Okay. - So it turns your body, it turns producing one part of, so you're not actually exposing your body to the whole virus, just one piece of it. In this case, the spike protein. And it happens to be the most pathogenic part of the, essentially, inflammatory inducing part of the virus, which is the spike protein. - That's just 'cause it spikes straight into the nucleus or something. - I don't know about the immunology there, I'm not sure. - And then so it makes the cell create a spike and then immune systems come and destroy the cells. - It induces the, essentially, yes, the proteins that would constitute the spike on the virus. - So the mRNA tells the cell become a target and then the cell grows a spike. The immune comes and blows up that cell. And that was what's happening in people's hearts inadvertently because it wasn't staying low. - Correct. And you contrast that with a monoclonal antibody, which is essentially produced in a laboratory multiple times, same antibody. And now we're giving you the antibodies already. So you're just injecting the antibodies. So it's like a Superman injection for your immune system. It would take you three or four weeks to produce that level of antibodies we're giving to you in 30 minutes. Does the COVID virus having a large spike in it indicate that it was made in the laboratory? - That doesn't indicate it was made in the laboratory but I can pretty much, I mean, I firmly believe it was manmade and I think the data, and now the government's finally admitting that it was probably manmade. - Everybody knows it. - What is the spike indicate? How is that unique in viral handling? - Yeah. Is there something about a spike that's uncommon for a virus to have a large one sticking out? Not that I know of. It's a common thing. - I don't know, I'm not sure. I'm sorry. I know it's specific for that particular protein it's specific to COVID. I don't know if it was in SARS-1, remember SARS-1 which was back in 2002, I think, or 2003. I don't remember the year but, and then this was SARS-2. I don't know if it was, or MERS. I don't know if it was in that, I don't know. They're all coronaviruses and they're all sort of variations on the themes. - And they call them corona because those spikes look like the coronaviruses. - No, because it's shaped like a crown. - The virus itself is shaped like a crown. So the family of viruses are called coronaviruses. Which just so happened to be, you know, starting Wuhan, China, which just so happened to host a lab, which just so happened to study coronaviruses, you know, I mean, it's all very suspect. - Oh yeah, it's called COVID-19. - It had a webmark in '20. - Yeah, it was wondered about that. - How sure was COVID-19 when it came out in '20? - Because they actually found it in '90s. - That's what I thought in '20s. - That's what I thought in '90s. And Cloud Schwab wrote that book, The Great Reset. COVID-19, The Great Reset, you're like, one of those two things have to do with each other. That was very, all very weird. - And there's a lot of weird things that happened. There was the tabletop exercise right before the COVID happened. Do you remember that? I forget what it was called. Project '85, '89, something like that. Do you guys want to talk about? - Oh, yeah, it was like a pandemic response. - Yes, they did. - And they did, because everything that they, they modeled happened for real during COVID. I mean, again, it sounds so conspiratorial. Like all of this stuff sounds like we're living in some, you know, matrix or something, or it's a bad spine novel. But it all really, we all lived through this. I mean, it was all real, it all happened. And they had this, this, all play out, even to the point where they would, okay, doctors are gonna speak out. We're gonna shut them down. I mean, that was tabletopped in this exercise. We're gonna, we're gonna shut people down. We're gonna make them be quiet. We're gonna not allow dissent. All the things that we saw actually come to fruition happened weeks before in this tabletop exercise. - I gotta find out the name of that, by the way. I'm gonna do that now. - I mean, it's, it's, it's frightening. But, I mean, this is, this is the world we live in. I mean, again, I can't stress strongly enough how bad the downstream effects have been for society in general. You know, people had a record level of mistrust in institutions before COVID-19, before the lockdowns. - Yeah. - And then with the behavior of the government because of that pandemic, people now are, I mean, I was talking earlier, you know. In the Soviet Union, everyone felt all the time the government lies. There's a lot of people out there that think everything the government says is a lie. And you can't blame them. - Right. - You know, because that was such an odd, it was, there was so much audacious BS that people had to deal with. Even if, even if you didn't have any, you know, any kind of opinion on whether or not the COVID virus was made in a lab or whatever. Once people realized or found out that masks didn't help, but then they did, but then they didn't. And social distancing was BS. And it was okay for you to go out and protest in the middle of the night with 10,000 people, but not go to your, not go to your grandparents funeral. You had to watch, people watch their family members dies. There are people that will never, ever forgive the government. - I can tell you-- - I don't blame them. - One of the hardest things, I mean, as a doctor, like, you know, as an emergency room doctor, I saw lots of people die. I see it all the time. And it's horrible. And it's a tough part of my job, but you know, it's part of my job. But at least for the most part, when people die, your family members can come in and speak with them. But I can't tell you how many people we had to pronounce that we just, the family members are on the other side of the glass. They can't be in the room with them. So hardest thing, and you try to give some level of comfort to this person that they don't know you, but you try to hold their hand or whatever you can do to try to be at least some human interaction. I mean, I have PTSD from that to this day, because these people are on their deathbed, they're dying and they can't, these horrible monsters wouldn't even allow their own family members to be with them. And, you know, my aunt passed away during COVID, I couldn't go to her funeral. Like, and then, you know, the ridiculous stuff, like, you could go to Walmart, but you had arrows on the floor, right? You can only go up the, I mean, what kind of stupidity is that? - It was ridiculous. And to your point about the way, you know, people were passing away with their families, you know, being locked away, you couldn't be there. That's one of the, of all the stories that you hear, that's the one that's probably the worst. - Yeah. - You know, knowing that like, you can't go in because the government, you know, just said, you can't be there. And the fact that nobody's been held, had really been held accountable for it, you know. The Biden administration gave so many people, you know, pardons for something that they might have done. It's completely justifiable for the anger that people have towards, you know, Fauci and all the people that were in the administration that we're saying, you know, you can't do this, you can't do that, we have to worry about this. Like, you could give them some leeway in the beginning, you know, you could give the government some leeway, because they didn't know, you know, we didn't know what was going on at first and stuff, but like, you know, by like May of 2020, it was like, all right, this is all, you know. - My wife's a pediatric oncologist, she's children with cancer. And she had to have kids passing away without their parents. Like, I mean, yeah, heartbreaking, just thinking about it. And you know, the problem that I have with Fauci, though, you know, he deserves to get, um, I think tried, of course, he has a federal pardon, he doesn't have a state pardon, but the problem that I think is that most people would then use him as a fall guy and say, oh, we got the bad guy, it's Anthony Fauci. There's a thousand Fauci's out there, and there will be another thousand Fauci's. And you know, that's part of the problem with the way our government structured is it's encouraged to have Anthony Fauci type people. But all of them need to be held accountable, you know, all of those people that did these horrible things. I mean, somebody somewhere said, we're shutting this program down for no good reason, just because I want to, and because I want the drug companies to make more money. Like, I mean, that's just so evil. I found out the name of that event you were talking about that they held, uh, when they're simulating a pandemic, it was called event 201 held in New York in October of 2019, just weeks before COVID emerged. This is from Claude. They held an event right two weeks before, a few weeks before COVID emerged, where they were by Johns Hopkins with the World Economic Forum and the Gates Foundation, simulating a novel coronavirus spread from pigs to people and killing tens of million worldwide. Then before that, there was something called Crimson Contagion. The same year, 2019, January through August, it simulated a flu pandemic starting in China and found the US was under prepared. All through 2019, they were simulating this. Come on. I mean, I'm not, I know I'm preaching to the choir in this room, but dear God, someone's watching right now putting the pieces together. I mean, it's, it's, again, it's so obvious. The timeline is just, just, you know, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang. And then whatever, like, again, why, why would anyone in the right mind? Like somebody had a great idea early in the pandemic. There's this drug called hydroxychloroquine. Let's repurpose this drug. It's been around for years, and it works great and it's very safe. Let's give it a try and guess what? It worked. Why would anybody then step in and say, you can't use that drug? No, no, no, no, that's, that's, that's, that you're crazy if you're going to use that drug. And then a couple of weeks later, someone said, well, let's try this other drug that's been around that, by the way, it's, it's founder got the Nobel Prize for. Yeah. Ivermectin, which is one of the, it's safer than Tylenol or aspirin. And the, the media's treatment of it, the, the way they were like, it's horsepaste. Right. And did everything they could to shut it down. Why? I think it's why ask yourself why makes no sense, except when you look at, they had an ulterior motive. Yeah. And that ulterior motive was plainly obvious to anyone who has a thinking brain and can, can look through and say, well, with a discerning mind, they clearly had a target. And it was one thing after another, after another after another. And again, the downstream effects, like I understand everybody that has all the problems with, with, with big pharma. And you could even, you could, you could even extend the possibly to capitalism. People are doing that. But at the same time, these big pharma companies are also the companies that make actual life-saving drugs. They make the modern world that we live in possible. And you've destroyed your credibility with a generation of people over this. And it's, it's so, it's such a waste. And it's so bad for society, you know, overall. We talked about this before. It's like, they were asked to, to, to produce the data on the vaccines. And oh, we'll, we'll, we'll get it out in 75 years. Who in the right mind thinks that's reasonable? That's like the kind of, the kind of, the assassination. Right. Tell you a hundred years. Right. We, I mean, like, it's so obvious. Yeah. I think it is. We, we got to jump to super chats though, but I appreciate you taking the time to tell the story. So, smash the like button, share the show with all of your friends. Head on over to TimKast.com, become a member there, join our discord. And then you can come and join us for the rumble after show. Well, they have to be a member of rumble too. But you can, well, you, I think you can watch the after show on the discord, right? Carter? Oh, uh, yeah. Yeah. So, well, you can call in on the discord. Yeah. So join the, join the discord. You'll meet someone there. You'll meet people. There's a ton of people and there's like 20, 30,000 people. People have got married, had babies, all that kind of stuff. So join the, join the, the discord. So you can call in and talk to our guests. But right now, we're going to go to your super chats. And first of all, from Marushi Dark. This is inside Ian, there are two wolves. One is a pot smoking hippie pacifist. The other is a violent authoritarian technocrat. There is nothing in between it. That's, that's kind of true, bro. That's really, really intense. Yeah, I'm holding it together, man. Very astute, uh, very astute observation. Uh, left-handed assassins as the lesser of two evils might as well be the next campaign slogan at this point. Gonna vote for Transformer commies. I mean, look, the Republicans have record disapproval. I don't think there's ever been this kind of anger towards the Republicans and, and look, a, a, a lot of it's well-earned. Um, I mean, particularly the topic of, of this show, one of the things that people are most upset about is they feel like there's been no accountability for all of the BS that we had to go through, uh, with COVID. And it, and it justifiably feel like that because there hasn't been. Um, but, you know, if you, if the Democrats do get control of the House and the Senate, uh, they're gonna do everything they can to stop Donald Trump's enforcement of the border. And I, personally, I think the, the illegal immigration is the, the biggest threat to the country right now. So you're stuck in a rock, between a rock and a hard place. But, you know, this isn't a, a, presidential election. So you can, if you're upset with the Trump administration, you can still go, and if you like your, your, your representative, your Republican that's running, uh, in your district, you can still vote for them and, and have somewhat clear conscience. Um, it's hard to, to, you know, promote Republicans, especially after that story, you know. Yeah. Um, X is, uh, from Christopher, Christopher, Christopher even says X has been reduced to Chinese propagandists versus Israeli propagandists in the political space. Things of standing out is, uh, thanks for standing out, Tim, as always. Well, I'm sure Tim appreciates that. Uh, but yeah, I mean, that's kind of, there's a lot of propaganda on X. Um, I still think it's great, but I think it's the best social media, uh, you know, site there is. Um, Phil, I don't agree with Ian often, but the government know, the government know, I think he's saying Dick, well, who has what and have their fingers on it? They don't, they don't have to tell you, no, they don't, but if they had something more advanced, you, you'd think that they'd be using it. It doesn't seem like they are, they're using it when they're, you know, kicking clawed out of the Department of War. Um, yeah, I, I, I mean, I, I've done a lot of work inside the guy worked for the secret service. And I worked with the, with NASA. And I can tell you that like, there's a lot of smoke and mirrors that goes on with both of those institutions. And I imagine it's the same with the government in general that there, there are people that are very dedicated to their jobs, but the, there's no secret bunker where there's like a top secret lab. That's all done in the private sector. And then, and then the government may like, as you said, license it or use it, but sometimes they'll even just be like, this is ours now. And they'll steal it. Yeah, yes, but, but there's no like, you know, there's no secret lab. There's, there's just a lot of smoke and mirrors. There's a lot of, we're the best in the world. We do this really well, but it's a lot of, it's also plausible deniability when you have a corporation do it for you. Yeah, absolutely. Hey, Phil, love your music. And your great hosting. Thank you very much. Can you thank Ian for changing the weather today? Did I thank you? Yeah. Or one, two shows, as thank you. Also, you lost the game. Son of a bitch. What game? If you're watching, you also lost the game. Do we have any rumble rants here? We have a few. Let me pull them up because I don't want to not give love to the rumble rants. For sure. We have a few. There we go. Yeah. So, if, uh, H.S. Disturb says, if Trump plays nice with G, will the left automatically start hating on China? If so, I guess I'll take it. Uh, they probably won't look. There's a lot of people on the left that are going to be like, well, we hate China too because they're not really communist, but they're not communist enough or they have markets and blah, blah, blah, blah. Um, maybe Hassan Piker might start hating on them. So that would be, uh, that would be a, uh, benefit. Um, let's see. Let's see. Celtic Celeros says, Ian, if you want to read a well-researched book on US corporations making money with the Nazis, check out IBM and the Nazis by Edwin Blacki. Okay. Or Edwin Black, maybe. I be there you go. Uh, that link says, let's be honest. The reason the Dijk sir complaining about no masses because they're now going to have to look at each other's ugly faces. Bravo. Bravo. Good, sir. Uh, let's see. We've got, um, Nalo baby says, Trump had meetings in Beijing in May, talks of partnership and business deals with top business guys. Look it up at guac. Okay. I, I mean, I mean, look, like we said earlier, there are consistently, um, diplomatic ties between China and the United States, like you was saying, there were ties between the US and the Soviet Union and that likely did prevent nuclear war. So, uh, it's something that is an ongoing situation when it comes to, you know, the most powerful countries on earth. John Water says, is it a new rule that someone has to wear a beanie on IRL no matter what? It is. Yeah. Well, it came in a place today. Yeah. One that fits Tates. The, the beanie isn't holding it down, Mr. Brown. Love you, buddy. I have a giant Oprah Winfrey hat. It's hard to find any hats that fit. It's brutal. But, you know, because there's, it wasn't sunny today. So there's no need for our brims. Oh, it's crap. A hat with a lot of, yeah. Look, it makes me think of olives and it makes me hungry. I was very Mediterranean mindset. Yeah, yeah. You got that Middle Eastern vibe. Yeah. All right. Well, smash the like button. Share the show with all your friends. Uh, you can check me out. Uh, I am filled. It remains on X. We don't check out the band. It's on Apple music, Amazon music, Pandora YouTube Spotify and diesel. or Ron, do you have anything you want to shout out? - Ron Elfin by NMD on X and drop the case.com's my website. - Thanks. - Yeah, X and Instagram @RealTapeBrown can give me a follow. - Drop it like it's hot. Drop the case and we should find other doctors that are being pursued or still on the hook for stuff that happened eight years ago, mistakenly, or six years ago or four years ago, whatever. Yeah, yeah, yeah, let's do what was the website again? - Drop the case.com. That's a good one. - Thanks, Ron. - Good to see you, man. - Good talks. - Follow me @eandcrossland, all over the place. - Carter. - Yeah, man, I'm glad we had you back. You got to tell your story as much as you could on YouTube, but come and hang out on the after show. And yeah, I'm Carter Banks. You can follow me @CarterBanks, everywhere at CarterBanks, official of everyone else. And yeah, let's get to it. - Yeah, thanks for having me back, guys. - Thank you. We will see you guys tomorrow, right here. You'll check out Tate tomorrow at noon. We'll be back for Tim. We'll be back tomorrow for IRL and stick around for the Rumble Show starting right now. (upbeat music)