The War on Science: Exposing Fraud and Misinformation | Professor Dave DSH #1213

Keep going back to that wakefield study.

And RFK does it.

I mean, he's now part of the cabinet and he's just regurgitating these long, long debunked, ridiculous anti-vaccine talking points.

It's really scary that he has any control over any health-related organization, this guy.

I mean, it's just insane.

All right, guys, out here in Los Angeles here with Professor Dave, not my usual type of guest.

So thanks for coming on, man.

Happy to be here.

Thanks very much.

I appreciate you for coming because you've probably seen some of the episodes and it's a lot of people you fight against.

I just, I took a peek at a few and I was like, all right, this seems like kind of a mixed bag, but see what happens.

Here to explore the other side today.

Billy Carson is actually one of my most viewed guests.

Okay.

I wanted to start with him because you've made quite a few videos about him, right?

Well, I made one about him and then I made two more about him and Terrence Howard together because they are kind of thickest thieves, those two.

All right.

What is your biggest problem with Billy Carson?

Well, he's a con man.

He's just, he's a complete fraud and con man.

When you say con man, do you feel like he's just portraying misinformation on purpose or how do you view him?

Yeah, he uses script of lies to trick people and get them to buy things.

But you think he's aware of that, or you think he's just 100% aware of that.

He's a con man.

Yeah.

Wow.

Of course he is.

I watched the West Hoff debate.

Yeah.

Did you see that?

I didn't watch it, but I mean, like, I know what happened.

I mean, Billy lies about two different things.

He lies.

He pretends to be a scholar of like mythology and religious scripture and things like that.

He's not.

He has no idea what he's talking about.

And he pretends to be an expert in like quantum physics and like all kinds of science.

He's not.

He has no clue what he's talking about.

I'm a science communicator.

So when I debunk him, I

mention the.

you know, where he contribut where he contradicts like what we know historically and scripturally and things like that, but it's not my area.

So it's like Wes Huff.

I mean, he's an apologist,

but he is genuinely an expert on that scripture.

So you got a guy who is an expert on this, a guy who's pretending to be an expert, but has no idea what he's talking about.

So he got humiliated.

And then there was the whole backlash from that where he went to somebody's house in the middle of the night and was like, you got to take it down or something.

I mean, the guy is just imploding, but I'm a science communicator.

So I focus on the idiotic things he says about quantum physics.

And he pretends, you know, he says, I have, you know, I have these certificates from Harvard and MIT.

They're free online courses that anybody can take.

He says, oh, I studied quantum physics at Khan University, Khan Academy, the YouTube channel.

Like it's just like he pretends to know things and he doesn't.

I mean, he's just, he,

and even the things that he is lying about, they're just recycled.

Like all this emerald tablets crap.

Maurice Doréal was the guy who invented that stuff.

They don't exist.

There's no.

Wait, emerald tablets don't exist?

That's not a thing.

No, they don't exist.

I thought they did.

He made it up in the early 20th century.

He's just recycling that.

Then all this Anunnaki crap, that's Zachariah Sitchin.

Like he just repeats just other grifters.

He's not even original with his grift.

Are there any ancient texts that actually exist on?

Well, yeah, no, there's definitely ancient texts that archaeologists and historians study and read and translate and understand.

And he's not part of that.

He's not in that community.

He's just a con man.

He pretends to be able to read cuneiform.

He can't.

He pretends to know what all these books say.

He doesn't.

He's just spewing this ancient alien's sensationalist crap to trick people into thinking he's knowledgeable and then either buy his ludicrously overpriced Egypt trips where he just goes like, hey, here's awesome stuff.

Wow, cool.

He just lies to them.

Or he has all these products.

all these bogus products on his website you know it was books and then you know there's like water filter thing you know just ridiculous crap monatomic gold.

Yeah.

Elixirs and potions.

He says a lot of stuff that I want to believe in, if that makes sense, like teleportation, like that'd be sick.

Like Star Trek.

He said that exists.

And like, I don't know, alien stuff is fascinating to me, but you probably don't believe in aliens, right?

Well, no, I certainly believe that that life exists outside of Earth.

I don't think it's been here.

I don't think we've interacted with it, but I would be shocked.

if there was no other life in the universe that would be yeah that's a lot to take right ridiculous to me i mean i i i don't know for certain that it's there, but I would bet so much money that there is, that the universe is teeming with life.

Yeah.

Yeah.

I mean, it's just so big, the odds of it.

How could it be, I mean, the way that we look around even just our solar system and see that there are conditions where, you know, microbial life may exist and likely exists.

And hopefully we'll find it.

Maybe even within our lifetime, we'll find microbial life on Europa or maybe even more.

We don't know what's under in that subsurface ocean in Europa.

There could be multicellular life there.

We don't even know.

That's in our solar system.

And there are 100 billion stars in the Milky Way and at least 100 billion galaxies in the known universe.

I mean, it's like just the astronomical opportunities for life to exist can't be ignored.

But I don't believe that we've encountered it.

Absolutely.

I think one of your most viewed videos is debunking the flat earth stuff.

Yeah.

What was, I guess, your message that really put the nail in the coffin for that debate?

I mean,

it's a lot of things.

I got dragged into that just because I made a video for my astronomy series where I was just saying, hey, I heard that there are some flat earthers.

Well, it's not.

Here's how we figured out that it's a sphere 2,500 years ago, right?

In

classical Greece at the latest, you know, just simple observations, looking at the celestial sphere.

So I think I do a couple of things.

One thing I do is explain with crystal clarity.

how based on naked eye observations and basic spatial reasoning that we know it's a sphere, right?

The way, you know, when you look at what the stars do, what the sun does, all this kind of stuff.

It's obviously a sphere.

That's why we figured it out so long ago before we figured out almost anything else.

Then I go and I take flat earth talking points, which eventually I did familiarize myself with.

I eventually learned about all the dumb things they said, and I just debunked them one by one.

They deny the existence of gravity and they just all this ridiculous stuff that amounts to them not understanding middle school level physics or other science concepts.

Um,

and then I debated a couple of them and just humiliated them.

And so that has an impact, I guess.

Yeah.

Well, they don't have facts and data, right?

No, it's all hypothetical.

Well, they pretend to.

I mean, they'll say, oh, we shouldn't be able to see this thing.

It's that, it's this far and then eight inches per mile squared and it should be covered.

But like most of it is just, we see too far.

We shouldn't be able to see this thing.

But they're either not doing the math correctly or they're lying about how far away it is or they're not accounting for refraction because it's something that's done.

Like they love to say, I shouldn't be able to see the Chicago skyline from across that lake, right?

Well, it's only 50 something miles or whatever it is.

So and it's over water.

So refraction is a vector.

And guess what?

You can only see the top halves of the buildings.

Why are the bottom halves covered?

Right.

Right.

Because they're hidden behind the curvature.

So

it's just, it's really a circus sideshow with these guys.

That's probably easy for you to debate.

It's the easiest thing in the world.

I do drunk reaction videos where I drink whiskey and put on a flat earth video and just pause it and mock it and stuff.

Other stuff that I debunk requires research and I have to read primary literature and I have to like, you know, contact scientists and like really dig into stuff.

But flat earth is the absolute bottom of the barrel.

It's just, there's nothing dumber than anybody could possibly fall for.

What was your most challenging debunk that took you the most time?

Yeah, the one.

So there's this guy, James Tor.

He's a chemist at Rice University and he is part of a very coordinated movement.

He's paid by the Discovery Institute,

which is a Christian propaganda mill out of Seattle.

And so traditionally, you know how Christian propaganda in the biological sciences has all been anti-evolution, right?

Evolution is ridiculous, blah, blah, blah.

But there's also this kernel in those sciences that is abiogenesis or the origin of life, right?

How did life begin on earth?

And they had no personnel that was able to really tackle that

in a convincing way.

This guy, James Tor, is a chemist, so he can speak, chemistry speak.

And so he developed this whole, you know, this whole plethora of ridiculous talking points that is very convincing to people who don't understand chemistry and also

took a lot of effort to tackle.

I had to talk to Origin of Life researchers.

I had to read a lot of papers and then try to take all that science and make it intelligible to the common viewer.

And that actually culminated in a live debate as well, which was a complete debacle over at Rice University.

So you did it in front of their students.

Well, yeah, I mean, it was, it was half of the room was students and like Rice students and faculty.

And then the other half was actually like his church group that he bust in to try to stack the audience.

And he like reserved three rows of seats.

It was like, so they definitely, it was a very concerted effort to try and make his grift seem credible in a live format.

And it really, it failed miserably,

mainly because of how hotheaded he is.

He just lost his mind and was shrieking at me and just like acted like a toddler.

So he made himself look bad.

And then there was a part of me holding his feet to the fire about all the lies that he told for this was after several years of.

videos back and forth.

And so that was the most energy intensive.

Like I really had to read a lot of papers, like, my response videos took weeks and stuff.

That's the polar opposite of just like, never seen this video before, press play, make fun of it because I've heard all these talking points.

They're so ridiculous.

But, yeah, have you ever went into a debate, started research, and you were like, wait, maybe these guys are onto something?

No, so it's always just no, my targets are

frauds, con men, um, you know, apologists.

The degree to which certain flat earthers or creationists or something believe what they're saying is debatable.

I'm not a psychologist, but everything, like I'm attacking people who are poisoning the public with false, with science denial, false rhetoric, this kind of stuff.

I'm not going after, you know, like.

frontier science where we're not sure like this could be right.

That's a conversation that the scientists have in the primary literature.

Me as a science communicator, I don't do research or anything like that.

I'm here to understand what the scientific community is doing and convey that to the public.

And part of that involves identifying the bad faith actors who are lying about science for financial gain, political reasons, whatever it is, and expose them.

And I do it very aggressively, possibly the most aggressively of any science communicators out there.

So I have kind of a reputation for that.

But

I have a very strong sense of duty to do that.

I agree.

I saw you talking on another show.

You're You're able to do this because you're not tied to an organization, basically.

Right.

I'm just a scientist or they don't want to lose their job.

Right.

And it's not so much that they would lose their jobs.

It's just that there's a lot of bureaucratic hassle that goes along with it.

They have bosses.

I don't.

I don't have any bosses.

Right.

And then also, they don't want to, like, when you do what I do, you get targeted and attacked.

I get, I get harassed all the time.

But I am just a guy on YouTube, so I can, I can deal with it, right?

It's not, there's not a concerted effort effort to attack a particular institution in a way that would affect funding or anything like that.

Right.

I make YouTube videos.

I'm, I make a living on AdSense revenue.

I do whatever I want.

I say whatever I want about whomever I want.

You know, you can't stop me.

Yeah.

Do those attacks get to you, though?

Cause it must be tiring, right?

I mean, it, you, you get numb to it after a while.

Um,

it's a, it's a minor hassle at this point.

Yeah.

You know, I agree.

It used to get to me early on that I'm like, all right, this is inevitable.

No matter what I say, I can't please everyone.

Right.

Yeah.

Like, well, and you certainly can't please the people who you are exposing or the people who are, who fell for them and are mad because they feel like their identity is being attacked when you expose their preacher, their hero.

Right.

You saw that with Billy Carson.

Yeah, a little bit of that.

I got a lot.

That was the, that was very curious to get the, the, you know, all these, you know, you're racist, you're, you know, the black man who is, you know, getting the real knowledge that the white man doesn't want the black man to get, you know,

dude, he's just making up bullshit.

It's not.

I'm not a fan of the race card.

I think that's a low-level IQ argument.

For sure.

You know, when people pull that out, I just stop talking about it.

Yeah.

Plus, these people clearly have not looked at my back catalog.

I've debunked like 70 white people and then I hit Terrence Howard and Billy Carson and all of a sudden I'm racist.

Break, man.

What caused you to go after Terrence?

Was it the Rogan episode?

Terrence.

So that was,

that was, I was trying to figure out if I could do something a little more timely, and I was rewarded for it because everyone was talking about that first Terrence Howard, Joe Rogan episode.

And I was like, screw it.

I'm going to do it.

And I turned it around real fast, a couple of days.

And it was really, it was the top search result on YouTube for Terrence Howard.

Wow.

For

maybe a week, maybe a little less than a week.

You took over his name.

Yeah, that was a little bit viral.

I got, yeah, about 2 million views

in a few days or a little under a week.

And so I was was like, all right, I'm going to do this a little more often and more in a more timely manner, address, I mean, honestly, a lot of Joe Rogan guests because he has a lot of those people on.

But that Terrence Howard episode was just so ridiculous.

And as patently absurd as it was, everything that he said, I was shocked to get any blowback at all.

I could not believe that there were actual adults.

that listen to him talk and don't understand within 10 seconds that he's completely talking out of his ass.

He has no idea what he's talking about.

He can't even do second grade math.

Like the guy is totally clueless, but it's this delusional narcissism.

You know, he's convinced himself that he's a genius, that he's revolutionized physics and math and chemistry and all of these things.

And it's just, it's really sad.

Did you see his debate with Weinstein a few weeks after?

Yeah, I did a piece on that too.

I mean,

it wasn't a debate so much as Eric Weinstein.

So Eric Weinstein is also a fraud, but he thrives on this like anti-academia narrative, right?

The ivory tower.

So he had to play it in a way to position himself above Terry intellectually, which is very easy because Terry's an idiot and Eric Weinstein is intelligent.

But

at least.

No, yeah, he's smart.

He's a smart guy.

And he understands math, right?

He has a doctorate and he understands math.

He's not like this mega genius.

He understands math as well as anyone else with a doctorate in mathematical physics, right?

He understands math.

But

he had to position himself above Terrence while at the same time,

like validating this anti-academia thing, like, oh, you sent it, you know, I was astonished that people reacted the way they did.

And Terry, you know, he's an autodidact and he is multi-talent.

He's an idiot.

He has no idea what he's talking about, right?

He sent the thing to Terrence, to Neil deGrasse Tyson, and Neil deGrasse Tyson gave this very classy,

uh uh charitable response and and Eric was like that was so risky what do you want him to do Terry is completely clueless and thinks thinks that because Neil is black he'll be like yay go black geniuses no he's a scientist right he he's gonna tell you as politely as possible you have no idea what you're talking about please leave me alone right you know yeah he's a classy guy um he did it in a much more diplomatic way than than i do right right?

I just, you're more on

no idea what you're talking about.

But

yeah.

I wonder what Terrence Howard's angle was.

That's where I try to think.

Like, why would he do that?

You know what I mean?

I think he is genuinely mentally ill and genuinely believes himself to be a genius.

I think he genuinely believes that he has revolutionized.

He doesn't even know, like, he says that he has, you know, quantum field equations.

He does not know what those are.

He does not know what that is.

Like, and because he doesn't understand even intermediate math, his way of rewriting math, like Eric Weinstein has,

um, has, has his, uh, theory of everything and the hinges on the Shiab operator and all this stuff.

And that's been thoroughly debunked as not even a valid theory.

He's not even saying anything, but he can dress it up.

Like it looks like there's real math in it, right?

And it's high-level math.

So if you don't understand high-level math, you can't look at it and go, oh, well, this is obviously ridiculous.

You have to understand high-level math to see that it's not doing anything.

Terrence, he has to lie about arithmetic.

He has to say one times one equals two

because

that's the only level of math he has access to.

He can comprehend arithmetic.

So he's trying to rewrite that because that's the highest paradigm of math that his brain has access to.

He can't even do algebra, let alone calculus or something.

Yeah.

So yeah, the one times one equals two messed up a lot of people.

I mean, come on, like you listen to the guy talk about that.

And then all this,

you know, why is Route 2 cubed to Route 2?

It's like, well, if you understood math, you would see that there's no problem with that.

Yeah.

I saw you say on another show, the guy that funds Eric Weinstein is Peter Thiel.

Is that true?

Yeah, yeah.

No, I mean, he, it's common knowledge that he worked for Pete for Peter Thiel and he wasn't like managing a hedge fund or something or whatever.

I don't know.

Yeah.

Like his job was unclear.

So my understanding is that he is just paid.

He was, or maybe still is,

paid by Peter Thiel to spread anti-establishment rhetoric.

Wow.

Right.

There's a war going on culturally right now.

It's a war on science.

It's a war on facts.

It's a war on reality.

And the idea is to get the public to distrust anyone who could rationally be seen as an authority.

And we're not just talking about government figures, right?

Any scientist, right?

The papers, there's corruption in the papers.

There's a crisis in peer review.

There's a crisis in reproducibility.

Universities are indoctrinated, woke centers and all, right?

It's anyone who we all should agree knows what they're talking about, people who study something their whole lives, don't listen to them.

Listen to us.

We'll tell you what's true.

And that goes for every area of science, especially the areas of science that cross over into

public health.

things that we should be concerned about.

But just in a very general way, you know, when, you know, the James Webb Space Telescope proves the Big Bang didn't happen.

No, it didn't.

No, it didn't do that at all.

That's absolutely ridiculous and made up.

But if that story spreads, even though it doesn't seem like it affects public life like climate or vaccines or any of these more hot-button issues, it sows this seed of scientists are clueless.

I have no idea what they're talking about, right?

This new discovery proves all of physics wrong.

No, it didn't.

No, it didn't.

But if you can implant that in someone's mind, well, then all of physics is subject to revision at any moment.

So I shouldn't learn any physics because it'll all be wrong tomorrow.

And then I can trust this jerk about whatever he's saying because it's worth more than all of the knowledge that's that suddenly evaporated because it wasn't worth anything.

Yeah.

When do you think this war on science started happening?

Was it recent or has it always been that case?

I mean, no,

it's been about 100 years.

Oh, wow.

I'm actually planning a piece on this, the history of the war on science, and in particular, the rise of Christian nationalism.

And I wish that I had done more work on that.

If I knew you were going to ask me on that, I would have been able to rattle off all of his stuff.

But it, I mean, it definitely ramped up in the 50s and 60s.

And then there's been a lot of effort by Christian nationalists to

kind of,

there's an interest in, in, in eroding the separation of church and state.

Yeah.

Right.

And a big way of doing that is promoting evangelical ideology above empirical science.

And so one entry point is trying to get religion taught in public schools, right?

Intelligent design alongside evolution, which is just rebranded creationism

and all these kinds of things.

And then that also

is behind the assault on women's rights and reproductive rights and all these things.

So it's a multifaceted but singular endeavor.

And the goal is to get people to distrust anybody who knows what they're talking about.

Yeah, so I'll say this playing devil's advocate a little bit.

So I'm kind of in the health and biohacking space.

There's a lot of distrust there with the people in that space and science, because when you look at some of these food studies and who's funding them, it'll be literally a brand related to the food study to make that company look like a good light.

Does that make sense?

Sure.

And I'd have to see a specific example.

Yeah.

Yeah.

A big one that comes to mind for me is the food pyramid.

Yeah.

I think that's been a little bit deconstructed.

yeah

um food pyramid cheerios and the heart health one that's a classic one keep keeping the grains on the top right yeah but no just like when you look at who's funding it whether it's a soda company or whatever and it makes them look like they're a healthy product sure true so yeah and then the but then the flip side of that is that um there are thousands and thousands of of of you know self-proclaimed gurus on the internet that are totally full of shit and have no idea what they're talking about, talking completely out of their ass about nutrition to make money.

Agreed.

You get that.

And I know you've called out a few of them.

The structured water one, I saw you called that out.

The hydrogen water bottles, right?

So that's all BS.

So I did all of the special waters,

you know, alkaline water, oxygen water, hydrogen water, all of those things.

Those are the products.

Obviously, you know, alkaline water.

this idea that it regulates any the pH of any fluid in your body is insane your gastric acid is pH like two.

As soon as it hits your stomach, any base is neutralized.

So that's ridiculous.

People think it like regulates your the pH of your blood or something like that.

First of all,

that's already self-regulating, right?

You're not going to drink water to regulate the pH of your blood, but also it can't do that.

Oxygen water, the idea that you would drink water as opposed to just going like this

is ridiculous.

Hydrogen water was the only one where I was like, wait, there's one little thing.

okay i'm i i remained like not completely decided on that um but then there's all like i i did three parts i did water fluoridation and then the special water products and then the structured water and structured water is this ridiculous crap that's pushed unfortunately by a couple of uh actual scientists some of them are crackpots one of them was a um virologist the one who first isolated uh the HIV virus and um

just got Nobel disease and went completely insane and is commonly known to be a total crackpot.

But then also pushed by, you know, there was the Masaru Emoto.

We whisper the prayers and the different musics and it makes these

different things.

We talk positively, the plant grows and then.

Yeah, total hoax.

I mean, he just, first of all, the guy is not a scientist or a doctor at all.

He's just some guy.

And then also he just said he did that.

and then showed random pictures and put them however he wanted he just he froze water under differing conditions pressure and stuff like that.

And then just set them and James Randy offered him a million dollars to go on TV and reproduce the experiment under controlled conditions and he said no.

Wonder why.

Do you think these health influencers or gurus should be somewhat liable for their information?

I mean, I think so.

It's hard to know how to do this here because we have regulations for medicine.

But when you go into the alternative medicine space, it's not medicine.

So it's not subject to, you know, what the fda does and things like that right um but we need to figure out a way to i i i just i i i don't know i i don't know a lot about

law and civics and things like that i i just i i just call out the bad science right this is wrong this is wrong this is wrong this is wrong and hope that that makes an impact in the in the collective consciousness um but i don't know how we can go about regulating these things but we need to be able to because you know if you got somebody that's that's trying to do reiki or something

and they say oh it'll make you feel better

okay i mean maybe you did you know maybe you got a placebo effect and you felt a little better and you know i mean

you can't tell people that they did or didn't feel better um but if they start but the danger is that people start undergoing these kinds of fake treatments when they have cancer or something where i mean there's just so many people that let cancer get to like stage four and they think they're going to like eat this root and do the Reiki and the whatever it is.

It's not going to do shit.

It will do nothing.

And then now it's too late and you're going to die.

Steve Jobs did that famously.

So that's why so many of them are very careful about the claims that they make.

But there's a difference between like the claims that you put out there.

on in writing versus what you say privately and what you and what you imply and what people infer.

And I don't think that everybody out there doing Reiki or any of these other alternative treatments is pretending that they can cure cancer or are telling their patients, you don't need to go to a hospital or see a doctor.

You just do this.

I think many or most, maybe, I hope, are responsible enough to not speak that way.

But there are definitely people,

there are frauds on the internet that are very vocal and very influential that are not kind of just doing the mom and pop thing.

They're going for the empire and they're enormously toxic influences on society.

I can see though.

I tried Reiki once.

I know how powerful placebo is though.

So I don't know.

For me, I did feel better after.

Who knows, though?

I mean, you had a headache and the headache went away.

I mean, yeah, I mean, that placebo can do that.

Yeah.

You mentioned FDA earlier.

There seems to be an attack on them right now, right?

Especially with the biohacking health community.

Sure, yeah.

I mean, I'm not, I don't have have my finger on the pulse of it, but I mean, there's, I mean,

the current administration is definitely trying to

undermine all attempt at regulation.

That's for sure.

I mean, and it's not just Trump.

I mean, this has been going on.

I mean, it's been going on for decades and then heavily since Reagan.

Reagan was the first to make really big steps towards massive deregulation, which led to which led directly to the corporateocracy today.

But Trump is totally in line with that, wants to completely undermine FDA, CDC,

all of these institutions that we need.

I mean, you can

say what you want about the FDA and you can cite maybe an individual instance where something didn't go right.

But this is like the alternative is

completely unregulated marketplace.

Prior to the FDA, people could say whatever they want.

Drink this.

It'll cure your whatever.

No ramifications, right?

Now there are regulations.

If you make these claims, right?

You have to go through clinical trials.

You have to demonstrate the efficacy of your product.

There are a lot of oops to jump through for a good reason, right?

We don't want people just taking harmful substances, thinking that they'll do something that they don't do.

But it's just that.

It's hard to even talk about this with a science illiterate general public because they're so trained to have this knee-jerk reaction that any government institution is evil.

Anything that has anything to do with the government is evil and

you know i'm i'm here to criticize the government in in in in many ways as well but to just say none of these institutions that are there for safeguarding right they're they're regurgitating rhetoric from those who want deregulation to get the public to agree to it to coalesce with it right it's a very underhanded psychological manipulation i wonder what's going to happen if they actually fire 80 of the fda and cdc i mean it will be may mayhem.

I think so.

I think so.

Wow.

I mean, they are exposing a lot of corruption, though.

I'll say that.

Did you see the social security one that came out yesterday?

I did not.

So we'll put an image up on the screen.

But basically, there's millions of people claiming social security that aren't even alive,

which is just fraud.

Okay.

So they are exposing stuff like that, which I think is useful for people.

Sure, if that's true.

Yeah.

No, it is.

Okay.

Yeah.

We'll link it below.

I know you're scientific and you can see what I mean.

The problem is that today we are in the post-truth era and there are are so many outlets on the internet and even the president himself who just say things and pretend that they're real.

And it's just these days you can't just, I mean, I'm not saying what you're saying is not true.

It very well could be, but

I know what you mean.

It's hard to take things at.

You can take literally nothing at face value these days.

And even that, if you read certain studies, that could be bullshit too.

You know?

So what?

Like if you read certain articles or you read certain information, like that could, that could be false as well.

No, there's there's almost no source of information that can be trusted in a vacuum, right?

You need to compare.

I mean, you, you need to read that.

You need to read other similar things.

You need to expose yourself to anything that's claiming that's false and consider that as well.

Do you use Twitter at all?

I was on Twitter and was tweeting a lot and then I got my account suspended.

Under Elon or was it before that?

No, it was under Elon.

Really?

I thought he was about what did they tell you what you did?

Well, it was I was

after October 7th for about six months, I was relentlessly countering Zionist propaganda every single day because it's just this massive campaign of Zionists to manipulate the public into,

you know, granting them the green light for war crimes and genocide.

And so they have these paid actors that just sit there

every hour, just spewing the narrative.

And I was very aggressively countering all of that.

Yeah.

And then I was, you know, anti-Semite of the week and all this stuff.

And then eventually I just got dogpiled with reports.

And it got suspect.

Yeah, that was literally my question for you.

Have you seen all the misinformation on X, but you're already suspended.

So, yeah, so I don't go on there anymore.

I mean,

a little bit of me was relieved because it was affecting my mental health because I'm very invested in Palestine and the situation there and the genocide.

And just having to look at the way israeli media and those figures are distorting the truth at every turn just like it i was angry all day every day um it wasn't good for me my health so when i got suspended i was like all right i don't have to do that anymore

What were their methods for distorting it?

Because I've heard they own the news networks, right?

That's pretty nut at this point of aim.

Well, I mean, there's like Horetz, which like is like on the fence and like kind of exposes some of their stuff.

But I mean, mean, it's not really about media.

It's just about these personalities, media personalities that, I mean, they just lie.

Everything is a lie.

You know, I mean, early on, like some of the stuff I was like, you know, first of all, everything is Hamas.

Everything that they want to bomb is Hamas.

So that hospital, Hamas, that school, Hamas.

They bomb every, you know, isn't that convenient that just everything that you want to do to wreak havoc on civilians happens to be Hamas, right?

And then there was Al-Shifa Hospital, where they were like, this is like the super mega Hamas base.

And they had these CGI, like all these terrorists on this underground tunnels right under Al-Shifa.

They finally go in there and they like planted like a couple guns in a corner, like, see, there's guns there.

And then they went downstairs.

They're like, look, it's a list of terrorists.

It's literally a calendar.

And like, they're just like the level, like, it was so bad that even CNN was like.

All right, well, we're not running your propaganda on this, guys.

We're going to actually expose you because you're looking so bad that we have to flip now now to retain any ounce of journalistic integrity so it's just all this you know they openly call for genocide and then anyone you know from the river to the sea which is resistance to genocide that's a call for genocide you know while you are committing genocide it's just um

yeah i just i don't know it's rough it's rough and i i lean conservative but i know a lot of conservatives support israel obviously and that's probably my biggest thing i don't really speak on that too much yeah you know it's rough well you got it now Yeah.

I didn't vote this election, but I voted all these conferences and I see it.

So, and I see it all over X.

It's nuts.

Yeah.

I mean, that's the main platform with which that is spread.

And it's very effective.

It is.

You know, you get people all the time denying that it's a genocide.

So I don't know how much more clear we can get.

Right.

You know, human rights, watch amnesty, international, UN,

the, you know, ICJ, International Court of Justice.

Like, just everybody agrees that it's genocide except Israel and America.

Yeah.

Isn't that convenient?

Does he have any faith in Tront that he might put an end to that?

Absolutely not.

Are you kidding?

Of course not.

He's bending over for Israel already.

Wow.

He always has.

A lot of people think he's going to help put that to an end.

Absolutely.

You don't think he will.

There's nothing he's going to do that is going to be beneficial to Palestinians.

He says he wants to take keep Gaza, right?

No.

Okay.

That's helpful, sure.

The only thing that a president could do that would be helpful would be to cut off all funding, all financial support and weapons.

Yeah.

Right.

That doesn't look like it's going to happen, right?

I don't think it's going to happen anytime soon.

Not just him, but I think any president that

openly planned to do that would be assassinated.

Any candidate

who was outspoken about that would be murdered well before election day with UO.

Anyone in Trump's cabinet you like?

Because I know you're talking about RFK, which we'll dive into, but do you like anyone on his cabinet?

I mean, I have to admit, I'm not like, I don't know his whole cabinet.

Talk off.

Yeah.

I i think at some point i would because the thing is i'm a science communicator so i i try i i only delve into politics where it is science related uh which happens sometimes because there's legislation on scientific topics um i try not to just do raw political commentary it's not my area i mean like i said earlier i mean i'm a person and i have opinions so If you ask me questions about politics, I'll tell you my answer, but I'm not staking my reputation on that.

I stake my reputation on my analysis of scientific topics.

So we're having a conversation.

So whatever you want to ask me, I'll tell you what I think.

But I also just am so busy all constantly doing content creation that I'm not really on the pulse with the news so much.

Yeah.

So that's probably good then.

Yeah, I guess.

And let's dive into RFK though, because obviously he's, I don't know if he started the anti-vaccine movement, but he was a big part of it.

Yeah.

Well, he didn't start it, but

I mean, he's the premier anti-vaxxer alive today.

I mean, one of the most vocal and most powerful.

Right.

Obviously.

Is that your biggest issue with him?

Uh, yeah, anti-vaccine starter, of course.

And what would be your argument to him?

I've seen you say on other shows you wanted to date him.

I mean, I would, I guess.

Yeah, that would be that would be a pretty, I mean, I can't imagine why he would do that, why he would agree to that, yeah, but that'd be a good opportunity for me.

Um, he's just completely full of shit.

He just spews uh anti-you know, long-debunked, anti-vaccine talking points.

He's still doing like the Andrew Wakefield MMR autism thing, like just long debumped right one paper retracted many studies proving it's not legitimate that the study was fraudulent or everything about the study was fraudulent he was bribed by uh injury attorneys to make a case for for suing um but autism is increasing though right no no it's not i mean diagnosis might be but that's just because people who are autistic 40 50 years ago weren't diagnosed they're just weird he's always a diagnosis it's a diagnostic really yes

I don't know.

I mean, you would know more than me.

There's certainly not like some thousand-fold increase in autistic people.

That's insane.

That's not happening.

And also,

autism is genetic.

That's not, there's no substance in a vaccine that is going to give you autism that has been so unbelievably, conclusively debunked, right?

It all comes back to that one Wakefield study, which was fraudulent.

He was bribed into lying in the study.

It was somehow got it in the Lancet.

I don't know how the hell that happened, was rapidly retracted.

Many studies since then, which we all knew had that vaccine had nothing to do with autism, but they did the studies anyway, just to appease the public, conclusively showing no relationship.

But people keep going back to that Wakefield study.

And RFK does it, and he's now part of the cabinet, and he's just regurgitating these long, long debunked, ridiculous anti-vaccine talking points.

Um,

it's really scary that he has any control over any health-related organization.

This guy, I mean, it's just insane.

And they're already rolling back, you know, language about, you know, vaccines and, and, uh, yeah, yeah, we'll see what changes come.

Now, with the vaccine schedule for children right now, I've heard ages zero to 18, they got to get over 50 vaccines.

Now, I'm not sure if that's true or not.

That's true.

If it's not, do you know the exact number then?

I mean,

a dozen or

well or something.

I don't know.

I mean, see, that's reasonable.

Both of my boys got all their vaccines and think it's like two doctor visits, maybe three.

Okay.

That's reasonable to me.

I've had a year and say it's 70.

No.

Okay.

So that's not true.

No, that's not true.

Got it.

It's ridiculous.

That's where I was like, that's way too many.

70.

But 812 is...

I'm sure I got it on.

Also, why would somebody react that way just to a number without even understanding what they're being vaccinated against?

I mean, there are things that are very important to be vaccinated against and then things that aren't as much.

Like we don't get mass vaccinated against smallpox anymore because we already did that and now smallpox doesn't exist, right?

We don't take polio vaccines because that was more or less eradicated.

But guess what?

It's coming back.

And under RFK, I wouldn't be shocked.

to see some kind of polio outbreak even in America.

There was one in Gaza.

There was a polio outbreak in Gaza.

That's scary.

Yep.

It's actually spilled fast, right?

Yeah.

And it's absolutely devastating, right?

I mean,

this is the problem is that young people today, people my age or younger,

they don't even know what smallpox is.

They don't even know what polio is because it was eradicated before we were born.

And so we don't know the horrors of some of these pathogens, right?

Some of these diseases.

And vaccines are very obviously a candidate for the most important and best invention in human history.

Wow.

Yes.

At the turn of the 20th century, our newfound ability to contain pathogenic bacteria and viruses

basically doubled the lifespan, the human lifespan.

It changed the quality of human life in unimaginable ways, right?

We used to die all the time from pneumonia and crap like that.

And now we have antibiotics and we have ant you know and we have vaccines and antivirals and all these things and our command over pathogens is

the most incredible thing that humans have ever done

i will say i almost died from pneumonia i probably would have without antibiotics so i'll always be grateful to western medicine yeah i had a real bad when i was seven dude i had terrible during covid yeah so bad okay covid vaccine yeah you probably get asked about this all the time sure are you defending that one yeah really it saved a ton of lives wow that's a hot take man i mean it shouldn't be it's just that we're in this post-truth era where people just repeat over and over and over and over again clock shot clock shot it killed all these people myocardi all of it is fabricated all of it virtually all of it is fabricated not all of it because that you you can have there there are side effects to any vaccine right but there were not appreciably more adverse reactions to the COVID vaccines than any other vaccine that was that widely applied.

Well, I mean, one thing is that no other vaccine has ever been that widely distributed, right?

Something like five or six billion people took it.

So that's the most people who have ever taken any vaccine.

But no, there, so if you take the raw number of adverse effects, it was the most, but you have to scale it, right?

Right.

It's a percentage.

Percentage-wise, there were not appreciably more adverse reactions to the COVID vaccines than any other vaccine.

Because they rushed that one, right?

They didn't rush it.

I mean, they were, I mean, they were trying to get it out as fast as possible.

Well, in comparison to how long other vaccines take.

But people don't understand that it went through clinical trials, right?

The clinical trials, all that happened is that there are three phases of clinical trials.

They were allowed to overlap.

Usually you do one phase, you analyze,

there's red tape, got it clear, right?

Then you go phase two, finish phase two, then you more stuff checking stuff, then phase three.

This time we went boom, boom, boom.

They were all overlapping.

We were in a lot because we were trying to get it out as fast as possible.

And it saved, I don't know, 10 million lives or something.

Yeah, absolutely.

Do you think it's possible something like that could happen during COVID in our lifetime?

Yeah.

I mean, why couldn't it?

That's stereotype.

Yeah, it doesn't seem like we placed any measures to prevent that phenomenon.

No, and furthermore, won't.

And I shudder to think what would happen if a pandemic of the scale of COVID or greater

broke out tomorrow.

It would be pandemonium.

Nobody would be listening to any scientist.

It would be insanity.

Because of, why do you think that is?

Just the distrust and the paranoia and the conspiracy theories and everything.

Well, Fauci, people do not like Fauci.

I know.

How do you feel about him?

I mean, he's just a guy.

It's just, there's so much mythology that gets wrapped up in, okay, Fauci, like, okay, at the beginning, he was like, no, don't get the masks because he didn't want everyone to panic by the masks.

because he was afraid there wouldn't be enough for health professionals.

Okay, fine.

That was a little bit of a weird thing to say.

Fine.

But this just like this complete, like

they turn him into Satan.

It's just ridiculous.

Well, again, the same thing with the tech, too, like, oh, like,

you know, it's gene therapy.

You know, these people, they don't know what gene therapy is.

It's not gene therapy, right?

If you, I mean, we were all supposed to learn what mRNA is in ninth grade.

We all did, but people forgot.

And so they need a refresher.

but that you have the mRNA transcript that that gets translated into the viral protein is only one step different from injecting the viral protein.

It's pretty much the same thing.

So the tech itself too, people don't understand that.

They say it's not really a vaccine, right?

It's an experimental gene therapy.

No, it's a vaccine.

You just don't know what vaccines are.

I'm sorry.

Do you think the masks actually help stop the spread?

Yeah.

You think so?

Of course.

What about the six-foot thing?

I follow Kyle's group, six-foot rule.

I mean, what's weird about that?

That really, I have the hardest time wrapping myself, my head around it's like we have a communicable disease that is spread by people coughing on each other and you think that that not staying away from each other

you think that staying away from each other is not a good idea yeah i mean it's six feet fine six feet is made up but it's just like hey we want to minimize contact we want to minimize i mean i'm the worst person to be talking because i got covet four times yeah so i shouldn't even be talking about i mean i got it once i mean the the problem is that for reasons that i don't fully understand that particular particular virion was subject to a higher rate of mutation.

So we had many strains.

I call it that one.

The problem is that, I mean, we all got the Omicron.

Yeah, that's the one.

That's the only time I got it.

But I mean, the problem is that people looking at like enormous amounts, percentages of people not getting a vaccine.

You have this enormous host pool where it's going around and has all of these opportunities to mutate.

you get new strains.

And when you have new strains, the new strain has a new viral protein, then it's then the existing vaccine is not going to work on it.

Oh, yeah, why it was four vaccines?

Uh, stairs or whatever, sure.

I don't know how many they did.

I did doubt a fifth one.

I mean, I got one, I think.

Oh, so you didn't even get the other.

I mean, I've gotten some, but I mean, it's like the flu shot.

Sometimes I get it, sometimes I forget.

I mean, whatever now, at this stage, COVID is like the flu, more or less.

I mean, in terms of severity, no, it's a different family of viruses.

People who say it's the flu, no, it's not the flu.

You have coronaviruses, your influenza viruses, they're morphologically different,

but um,

yeah, I mean, it the studies undeniably show that it saved lives.

I mean, there's no two ways about it.

Yeah.

I watched this documentary.

You probably heard of that called Die Suddenly.

Uh-huh.

No.

I do have a thought.

Yeah.

It just showed like

people like pulling

people pulling stuff out of dead bodies to a year.

I don't know.

I would look into that.

Like COVID-infected dead bodies?

Well, the class shot stuff is full.

Eo, no.

I mean, but you never know like who funds these documentaries, right?

That's the thing.

No, and invariably, they're just grifters that are trying to make, you know, put it up on Rumble or BitChute and gain a following.

I mean, it's a proven business model these days.

What's this shoot?

I ever have it on.

Bit shoot is like Rumble.

It's like where people go if they can't put their content on YouTube because it violates community guidelines because it's just a bunch of laws.

Well, if it's not on YouTube these days, you got to be really talking about some nonsense because, yeah, I was really controversial.

Exactly.

I have some controversial guests, and uh, I haven't gotten a strike in a while.

Yeah, I will say, during COVID, I could not talk about the vaccine

in a negative spotlight.

They were taking those down.

I will say, okay.

But ever since then, smooth sailing.

Yeah.

Have you ever had issues on YouTube?

No, just like

no.

Sometimes a couple videos have the 18 and up just for language.

Because like I did one where I debated the rapper Flat Earther Lord Jamar, and he was swearing a lot off.

And I swear a little bit too, but there's just an amount of swearing that they do.

18 plus.

I've heard of that graph.

Yeah.

Do you get a lot of hate from the Christian community?

Yeah, of course.

What's their biggest issue?

Well, because I do a lot of work debunking creationism.

I mean, young Earth creationism, but also intelligent design, which is a propaganda movement.

It's creationism rebranded.

It's creationism in a tuxedo.

It's their best attempt at making a sophisticated case for creationism.

And so that would be another example of content where when they lie about primary literature, I then have to read the primary literature and show how they're lying about it, which takes a lot of effort.

You already did the whole bottle.

No, no, no.

When I say primary literature, I mean scientific journals.

Oh, scientific articles.

No, so intelligent design tries to distance itself.

from like an evangelical approach because they're trying to see very rigorously scientific, right?

We're scientists and we're talking about controversies within science.

It has nothing to do with religion, right?

I mean, it does, and they're lying the whole time.

They're doing nothing but lying.

They're distorting whatever science they're talking about.

So that's very popular content.

I've done on Discovery Institute where I just go down their roster and I just take each of them, take videos of them spewing their script and explain with crystal clarity how

they're lying about a paper.

And not only do I explain how they're lying about the paper by showing the part of the the paper they don't show you but also i'll get a statement from the author that says yeah that guy's lying about my paper is is saying the opposite of what the paper says you know interesting so they can't stand me uh their their followers can't stand me

uh yeah i feel like there's always been that uh divide with religion and science though right that's been since only on the side of religion not on the side of science right really science is not trying to disprove religion science is trying to figure out what's what's true about the physical world.

If that contradicts your religion, that's your problem.

science doesn't care science certainly is not trying to disprove god right right and there are plenty of religious scientists really yeah of course

but you to be a religious scientist you have to have a worldview that does not contradict science belief in god does not contradict science belief that the earth is 6 000 years old does interesting so you can't be a young earth creationist geologist that doesn't work so there's people that believe the earth is 6 000 years old yeah real yeah i've never heard that say it's called young earth creationism wow I ain't looking at that one.

That's crazy.

Yeah, it's crazy.

I mean, there were dinosaurs or anything?

No, well, so there were kinosaurs, but they lived alongside man.

Oh, wow.

Yeah, yeah.

All this crap.

I feel like we would have heard stories about it or something, you know?

So yeah,

they pretend that there's mention of it.

They distort, you know, or reinterpret something in the bio that's talking about, you know, dinosaurs or something.

But so young earth creationism is a much dumber version.

And then intelligent design is this more sophisticated version where they're that right.

A younger, young earth creationism is just denying all of these scientific fields like geology and paleontology and anthropology.

Whereas intelligent design propaganda tries to work within it and like make some concessions.

Like they don't, they, they sort of like they don't outright state it, but they don't argue about the age of the earth and stuff like that.

They try to make it a more scientific version,

but they go into the primary literature and distort it to try to undermine it.

So you have to go in the literature and show outer line.

Got it.

Wow.

That's interesting.

Yeah.

Have you done a video on Graham Hancock yet?

He's been on the show.

So he's been here?

He's been in this exact.

Okay.

So I'm planning one.

It's going to be epic.

Oh, no.

It's going to be big.

So, I mean, but

to put it bluntly, Graham Hancock is completely full shit.

He's a fuck.

Wow.

Yeah.

He's one of Rogans.

Most of you guessed that.

I know.

Over like 25 and then the goose.

I know.

Crazy.

Yeah.

What's your biggest issue with him?

He just distorts and lies about legitimate archaeology.

I mean, again, these are all proven business models, right?

You pick a field, pick a field of science and say the establishment is wrong and close-minded and ignoring these incredible other discoveries.

Whereas

what you're pointing at is just some bullshit you made up.

So when you hear about these ancient civilizations, South Sakhi's known for like Advances and stuff, you think all that's just is bullshit and bullshit?

Yeah, like they never existed?

Yes.

Wow.

It's a story.

Yeah, I guess scientifically, there's really no evidence.

No, there's none whatsoever.

What if some evidence came to light?

Did you change your stats?

If archaeologists acknowledged it as religious evidence, which why wouldn't they?

Right.

There's this idea that like there's some suppression within the establishment of this evidence for Atlantis.

Why?

Why would they do that?

They discovered a thing.

They're archaeologists.

You would be the most famous archaeologist.

We're like, look at all these artifacts I uncovered.

Like,

the narrative doesn't play

this victimization being ignored by the ivory tower because they can't handle my truth or it's being suppressed.

For what reason?

What are you talking about?

We find new civilizations all the time.

You find new Mayan ruins or new, you know, Mohenjo-daro over here, or a new African thing, or, you know, new anthropological finds, right?

We figured out that Homo sapiens is a little older than we thought because of the Jabel or hood uh remains in morocco pushed uh the origin of homo sapiens back like 30 it's all revisionary science is revisionary we discover new things and we revise you know we it doesn't totally undermine everything what we know is what we know but then we find new things that it's you know slightly changes to to fit that and and uh our understanding is updated all the time we make new discoveries all the time uh so to pretend that like i have this secret knowledge and the establishment is is ignoring me um is totally idiotic.

When you hear someone talk that way, your default response should be to assume that they're a charlatan.

You can feel free to look into what they're saying more and then compare to what actual experts are saying.

And maybe one time out of a thousand, they have something, but your default chance, default stance should be: this person is a grifter, they're completely full of shit.

And that's where Graham Hancock is.

Did you see his debate with mine?

Yeah, so I only skimmed it, but my piece,

I'll be working with Flint.

I mean, but

yeah, I mean, Flint just wrecked him, but then they kind of like repackaged it.

And then Joe, you know, there's a couple other guys.

It'll,

there's a wide cast of characters.

So we'll wait for that video to come out.

But

yeah, it's going to be good.

Yeah, I will say it'd be hard for every archaeologist to team up together and decisively decide I'm not exposing this episode.

Exactly.

And that goes by the way for biologists and physicists and any field of science right people tend to think that the scientific community is like this one room with like a couple of dudes making decisions they're like it's not there's scientists in a hundred developed nations working under the government some in the private sector some in academia You can't buy off an entire field.

You can't buy off archaeology.

You can't buy off physics.

You can buy off one person.

Somebody bought off Andrew Wakefield to pretend that he was a gastroenterologist, and then they bribed him half a million pounds to pretend that autism is linked to the MMR vaccine.

You can buy off one guy.

You can't buy off

200,000 in all these different countries.

How do you think scientists can get their respect back?

That's a very good question.

So

I do what I can.

I'm not a scientist.

I'm a science communicator.

I work with the scientific community.

I view myself as kind of an ambassador to the scientific community.

And so I interface with them a lot.

I am always, always encouraging scientists to do more SciComm and to stand up for themselves when their field is being attacked, when their works are being attacked.

I want to see more engagement from them.

Historically, they haven't really done a lot because, number one, they see the...

They kind of see themselves as above the fray.

There's all these conspiracy theorists here, but they're actual scientists doing actual science.

They don't need to concern themselves with this.

But I think some are coming around now because they're seeing that with this current administration slashing NIH funding.

So I go to universities and I give talks and I hear like the panic in their voice where they're like, we don't know what's happening.

Like all of this funding is frozen.

It's completely unprecedented.

We don't know what we're going to do.

So they see the urgency with how public perception of science influences voting behavior that votes in administrations that are detrimental to science and that they don't really have the liberty anymore of ignoring public perception of science.

So, yeah, I could do what I can do.

And so, you know, I like me not being a scientist,

the public sees that as both a pro and a con, right?

It's a pro in that I'm not of the establishment.

I'm just some guy working in my house.

Right.

But then it's when they want to, they create, they call it a con because I don't have a, you know, a terminal degree in a particular field that I'm commenting on or whatever it is.

So they won't take me serious.

So, well, if they, if they don't want to, right?

They'll take some other jerk seriously who didn't even graduate college, but yeah, I don't have a PhD, so I don't, I can't be listened to.

So they have the opposite situation.

Their pro is that they're.

they're experts, they're credential experts field.

The con is that they are part of the ivory tower or whatever.

So no matter what, who you are, the science denier can find an angle to deny what you're saying.

But I don't see any way around this other than just a really concerted

high-volume effort from

a lot of career science communicators like myself.

I go to schools and encourage students to go into SciComm as career to do what I do.

as well as scientists speaking from their place of expertise and making content and or just tweeting or whatever it is, getting out there.

We have to fight fire with fire.

There are a lot of very, very, very vocal charlatans out there, and we just need more people doing the same with the same intensity, the same fervor.

We got to fight this.

I'd love to see more of you guys on social media.

I grew up loving science, Bill Nine, Neil deGrasse Tyson.

I don't know how you feel about those guys, but I mean, they're colleagues.

They're my two most famous colleagues.

Yeah.

And they're very good at what they do.

Love their stuff.

Neil's got a good podcast.

So I'd love to see more like that.

You need that to counterbalance all the Charlotte per se.

Yeah.

And you're seeing that with the election, I think that's a big part of the reason Trump won.

There wasn't as many, you know, Democrats pushing content on social media.

Yeah, I think that might be part of it.

I mean, it wasn't even close.

If you looked at just podcasts alone, it was probably 80 points.

Sure.

Yeah.

Yeah.

I think certain certain narratives and certain voices and certain styles are rewarded on social media.

And that is not always the truth.

Yeah, um, unfortunately.

So, well, Dave, what's next for you, man?

What's your next Debunk?

Where can people find you?

Oh, yeah, Professor Dave explains on YouTube.

I just got a bunch of stuff in the works.

The Graham Hancock one is coming.

I'm gonna watch that one.

Yeah, it'll be good.

All right, guys, check out his stuff.

We'll link it below.

See you next time.