Graham Hancock - Off the Record Segment

It's that time of year again, back to school season.

And Instacart knows that the only thing harder than getting back into the swing of things is getting all the back-to-school supplies, snacks, and essentials you need.

So here's your reminder to make your life a little easier this season.

Shop favorites from Staples, Best Buy, and Costco all delivered through Instacart so that you can get some time back and do whatever it is that you need to get your life back on track.

Instacart, we're here.

If you thought goldenly breaded Madonna's chicken couldn't get more golden, thank golder because new sweet and smoky special edition gold sauce is here.

Made for your chicken favorites.

I participate in McDonald's for a limited time.

Hey, everybody, Cecil here.

Jumping in before I play this for you.

What we're going to play for you today is an off-the-record segment that we recorded from the Graham Hancock episode.

So we released the Graham Hancock episode on our main feed, and then our patrons, every episode, get another sort of mini sod of us talking about the pieces that didn't actually make it into the main episode we talk about this all the time on the main feed whenever we release an episode that you can become a patron if you want and listen to this stuff we decided to let everybody on the main feed just hear one of these episodes that we recorded in the past and this happens to be the Graham Hancock episode and this was one that we recorded and figured that it was there was some amusing stuff in here and also some really interesting things in here some very targeted

PR that Graham Hancock was doing.

It didn't make it into the main show because it didn't really fit in with the rest of the things that we were talking about, but we figured it was interesting enough for everyone to get a chance to listen to.

We're taking a couple of weeks off, so we wanted something in our feed that people could listen to and enjoy, something that they hadn't heard yet.

To our patrons, we released, all of our patrons get an opportunity to hear one of our full bonus episodes of Cara Santa Maria.

So if you become a patron, you can listen to that as well.

And we just released to

another tier of patrons and above an opportunity to hear the June bonus, which is Neil deGrasse Tyson.

That released today as well.

So if you wanted to join in on the Patreon, there's a ton of extra content that you could listen to while we're on break.

There's just an absolute slew of it.

Every single episode has a full episode just like this, about 30 to 45 minutes extra,

as well as if you join its other levels, you'll get full bonus episodes as well.

One thing I want to mention before you start digging into this episode, understand that this is not as fact-checky as the other stuff that we do.

We're not spending a ton of time checking these facts out, digging through citations, things like that.

This is a lot more off-the-cuff, a lot more jokey, a lot more sweary.

Just beware that that is sort of the tenor of this portion of the show.

It's a little different than our regular show.

If it's not something you're going to enjoy, that's okay.

You don't have to enjoy everything we put out, but it might be something that you sort of miss in our main show.

And this is sort of what happens behind the scenes.

We hope that while we're off, people take advantage of some of that extra content.

Join in on our Patreon.

We're going to be coming back.

Our plan is to hit the new show should be dropping sometime in July, a little bit around maybe the 22nd of July would probably be when it hits.

So keep your eyes peeled for that.

And in the meantime, there will be other things hitting this main feed.

Next week, there's going to be a season wrap-up.

And the following week, we're going to release another one of these off-the-record segments for you to get a chance to listen to and see if you like.

All right, I'm going to quit rambling and let you listen to the off-the-record segment of Graham Hancock.

My problem with that is, I think plants are smart.

Oh my god.

What was that?

Where'd you get some money?

What'd you do?

What are you doing down there?

Why do people say you have UFOs?

Like, what is the tax bracket of someone who makes a million dollars a year?

They're so vitamin rich.

Oh, my God.

That's so crazy.

So, Marsh, here we are, gloves off, behind the curtain.

What did you think of Graham Hancock?

So I didn't warm to Graham, but I didn't hate him in the way, I didn't dislike him in the way of some of the other people that we've covered.

I don't think he was, I don't think anyone is dead because of Graham Hancock.

So that's, that's a nice start.

Yeah, he's giving a bit of medical advice, but not really a huge amount of medical advice.

Mostly he's staying in some areas that undeniably do cross into

supporting some bad narratives, but I don't think he's doing like the most harm in the world.

Yeah, so I thought, and there were parts of the conversation that were relatively interesting to listen to once they did get off what history used to look like and why all archaeologists are out to get poor old graham sure yeah and i and and and i mentioned on the main show that there's uh you know a discussion of drugs which i didn't dislike but there are parts parts of that discussion where he graham is talking about how i got off of uh

was it a an antidepressant medication because I didn't like it and I think you should too.

And I was like, wait a minute, buddy, settle down.

But, you know, there's also like just a long series of them talking about just the weirdness of doing psychedelics, which was, you know, relatively interesting.

I felt like, like you did.

I don't feel that there's no harm here, right?

I think, you know, showing people that science is out to get them is a bad trope and it's a bad narrative.

And it's a bad thing that people do to try to make it seem like, because this opens up the door for so many different people who science or who scientists and who people and experts in fields have said, you're doing something wrong, it opens up the door for us to try to, it puts a wedge in all those doors for us to believe those people.

And I think like that's a real problem and the undermining of science is a real problem.

But, you know, for the most part, it's not as.

it's not as brazen or as dangerous as some of the other things.

Like we've seen literal billionaires manipulating Joe to get more money and hurt people.

And that's totally different than what Graham is doing.

But I also think too, and I mentioned this in the regular one, I just think Graham is a journalist who's just not used to the rigors of science.

And he is

very delicate.

He is so delicate when it comes to his ideas, his ideas.

He's so invested in his own ideas.

And I'm not saying that scientists aren't and that archaeologists aren't invested in their own ideas.

I think you kind of have to be in order to believe it.

But I also, and try to push for it to be true, right?

Try to find the things that support it to make it true.

But I think at a certain point, you've got to try to actually do that work instead of just saying, well, there's a gap for it.

So this fits in the gap.

And he does a lot of that.

Yeah, there's not a lot of self-criticism going on from Grind here.

Not a ton, not a ton.

All right.

So now we're going to talk about the Egypt kings list.

This is,

I guess, some sort of stone carving or something that they have that talks about the lineage of kings.

Like the way they've viewed some of the older hieroglyphs that depict civilizations that were 30,000 years ago, like kings and the linguistics.

The king lists from ancient Egypt go back 30 plus thousand years.

But they want to pretend that those are myths.

Yeah, and yet, for their chronology of ancient Egypt, they actually use the king lists.

The moment those king lists start giving dates that fall within dates that archaeologists like,

everything before those dates, they say, oh, they just made it up.

How crazy is that?

Wouldn't it be a fascinating alternative if you were an archaeologist to go, you know what?

Maybe this king's list is legit.

Maybe this thing really is 30, 40,000 years old.

And maybe that explains a lot.

And now we have to figure out how.

How'd they do it?

It would be a fascinating alternative, but unfortunately, it's not the way that archaeology works at the moment.

And it's not the way that it should ever work.

Well, really, that's not how this works.

The way we discover things is to find evidence and then check if it's true, especially before we overturn everything we already know.

You don't take a new idea and then immediately change everything else before you check if your new idea is right.

That's really, really fundamental.

Yeah, yeah.

You don't start with the conclusion.

Don't Don't start with the conclusion and then work your way backwards because everything you're suggesting here is speculation.

Now they're going to talk about floods.

And also, archaeologists should not seek to isolate the story of Atlantis from other flood myths and traditions all around the world.

And that's a problem too.

I mean, we have hundreds of myths and traditions from countries all around the globe, which speak of a great global cataclysm, a huge flood, often wildfires,

destruction of human beings and of animals, a few survivors who seek to restart civil.

It's a a global story, not a single story told by Plato.

And, I mean, if you hear the same story from so many different cultures, at what point in time do you go, maybe there's something to this?

I mean, it's just very strange to try to deny that.

Yet, nobody is denying that floods happen.

We're denying that a global flood has happened, that the entirety of the world has flooded.

There's a really clear difference between the two.

It's perfectly plausible.

It's reasonable to think that your local area flooded.

And that might look at that local area might be everything you know existed.

If it's far enough back in time that you haven't really ventured out beyond your local area too much, if you haven't got off the British Isles or whatever island you happen to be on or whatever part of the world you're in, you might think that something that's happening in your local area is the entire world.

But that doesn't mean that literally the entire world has actually flooded or

wildfires have like spread across the entire world.

Even if people experienced it a lot locally, it doesn't mean that when they're saying everything burned, the world burned.

They mean literally everything because oral traditions rely on these big stories that get embedded in people's minds and consciousness in order to be prepared for when the next thing happens.

Yeah.

Yeah.

And I mean, just because a lot of cultures experienced individual floods doesn't mean one big flood happened.

It's not the exact same one.

And no one's denying it, but your proof is circumstantial evidence.

Your proof is these stories, right?

You're not showing it in any of the geological data that we're seeing.

You're not showing it that it's the same flood in like 20 different regions.

You're just saying, well, you know, this place had a flood and they had a story about it.

And this place had a flood and a story about it.

And therefore, they're the same thing.

That's circumstantial evidence.

All right.

Now they're going to talk about patterns that are geometrical.

It's interesting that the patterns are geometrical.

And are they geometrical, like with the perfect length?

Yes.

Yes, they're very metrical.

They're very, very good.

Fazenda Piranha and Severina Calazanza both aligned to true astronomical north.

That's different from compass north.

That requires astronomy.

You can't get true north without using astronomy.

So this tells us not only was there a culture that was capable of creating large-scale public projects, but also they had astronomers amongst them.

Wow.

Yeah, I mean, I think

he's sort of right here, but I think he is overstating it.

Like, it requires astronomy.

But I think only really in the sense that you use the sun.

Yeah.

And certainly in Europe, at least, you know, north is the side of the tree that the moss grows on because it's this part of the sky that the sun doesn't pass through.

That's not new knowledge.

You can figure out which way north is by the cues of in your environment as to how the environment responds to sunlight.

So you don't need to have, like, you don't need to have a Hubble space

telescope in order to tell you which way north is.

All right.

Now we're going to talk about seeing how you see patterns when you're high.

You do sometimes.

It's true.

It's a good mystery.

The other thing is the geometrical patterns are very common

experience in ayahuasca visions, in altered states of consciousness.

Our culture tends to despise altered states of consciousness, although fortunately that's changing.

But in the Amazon and many indigenous cultures, they're regarded as extremely important.

That we can't confine ourselves to the everyday wide awake state of consciousness that requires us to interface with the physical world.

There are other states of consciousness which are also valuable and which bring teachings.

And it's just one of those facts that most most people who drink ayahuasca, most of the time, at some point, will experience geometrical visions.

So there's a question,

is there a connection here between the use of ayahuasca and the geometrical patterns?

I'm not really understanding this.

Like shapes and patterns aren't mystical.

Imagine not seeing shapes.

If you close your eyes and see something.

Imagine it not being shapes.

What could it be?

It's going to be lines.

It's going to be,

you know, the way that your eyes, Wild's claws, are firing off and sort of like interpreting, misinterpreting data.

They're going to start like putting patterns to that because that's what we do.

That's what our brains do.

They look for patterns.

And those patterns are going to be shaped.

I don't really know why he thinks that's mystical.

All right.

So I teased this in the original episode.

This is Joe fat shaming giant sloths.

These are characteristic of ayahuasca visions, but in this case, they're more than 12,000 years old.

Now, does that prove they were using ayahuasca 12,000 years ago?

No.

It's very similar to like a tryptamine vision.

Totally, totally.

It does suggest that some tryptamine was being accessed at that time and resulting in

these visionary images.

Boy, these shitty drawers, weren't they?

Their drawing was terrible.

But bear in mind that they're clambering 100 feet up a sheer cliff in order to

create

these paintings.

The people were so fat.

Are those people or sea drawers?

What are those things?

I love this.

I love this as well because Graham is trying to show this as like this is evidence that they were so accurate at depicting the things that they were drawing.

And Joe's reaction basically gives the game away that he's really overestimating this accuracy.

Like Graham is massively overselling this.

They're not bad drawings for their time, but to say that these are like perfect renditions, perfect depictions of something and really clear as to what they mean and what they say, they're really not that.

I mean, Joe can't even tell if these are fat people or sea turtles.

So maybe they're not drawing the most accurate things in the world and we shouldn't like read too much into the drawings.

Yeah, I like to think they're ninja turtles.

All right.

Next up is they're talking about myths and the stories.

I would suggest that there was a method of preserving knowledge, that those survivors of the cataclysm were not just looking at their immediate time, they were also looking to the future.

How can we pass down knowledge to the future?

And one of the ways you can pass down knowledge to the future is something like the Great Pyramid, which so big it can't be destroyed.

And another way you can pass down knowledge to the future is in wonderful stories that people will keep on telling.

And those stories may contain scientific information.

The storyteller doesn't even need to know that information.

As long as he or she tells the story true, the information will be passed on.

And we are a storytelling species.

So that's why I take myths very, very seriously.

I think they are important evidence of our past.

I think archaeology is making a mistake in ignoring myths.

And it needs to pay much, much more attention to them.

So like we should listen to myths, but we don't have to believe they're literally real

to listen to them.

We are a storytelling people.

We've always been a storytelling people, especially like in a pre-literate society where you weren't writing things down, you only had oral traditions.

You needed to be able to pass on knowledge, pass on information, pass on ideas in ways that would stick.

And one of the ways to do that is to put them in the center of these big, embellished stories that will be memorable, that will be told, that will be passed down for generations.

So we can look at mythology and we can look at the

way the messages they tell to people, you know, know, the myths around your babies being snatched or children going missing.

And we can say, well, is it really true that there was a monster that was eating babies and eating children?

Or is there a cultural reason why a fear of your child going missing is something you'd instill into your child in order to keep them close so they don't wander off and get eaten by a bear, which isn't the evil monster from the story, but it is still pretty bad.

So, you know, you pass down some myths in order to

ensure that certain cultural ideas and cultural behaviors and societal behaviors are retained because those are beneficial for the group.

It doesn't mean that the myth is true.

It doesn't mean there really were Greek gods sat on a mountain throwing thunderbolts at people.

Yeah, and I think that's a great point, Marsh.

I think what we're doing is we're, you know,

the archaeologists and the historians, they review these things,

they look at the culture, then they look at these myths, and then they say, well, what part of it did they need to tell other people?

And then they sort of throw away the sort of, was there really a God?

No, but there was really something there that is the deep underlying idea behind this story that they kept telling to each other.

And I think, you know, when he says they're rejecting all these myths, I don't think they're rejecting it.

I think they're just saying like some part of it isn't true because that's how myths work.

I wanted to play this.

This is, this is, admittedly, audience, this is a little snarky, but I saw this, I heard this, and I wanted to play

Drugs should be limited to a certain age group.

I think the age of 21 is a good age.

I think teenagers can suffer quite badly from drug use, and I think it'd be a good idea if they didn't.

But I know from having had teenage children myself that teenagers will, by and large, do what they want to do.

Especially if you tell them not to.

Especially if you tell them not to.

Which is the problem with America versus Europe in regards to drinking.

Yeah.

Elaborate on that?

Well, in America, you can't drink at all until you turn 21.

And so drinking is this forbidden fruit that they get excited about.

Or if you go to Italy, like young kids can drink wine.

Sure.

They do it all the time.

I don't think they have the levels of alcoholism that we do.

I'm sure they don't.

All right.

So

I heard this and I thought, well, is it true?

Is what Joe's saying is true?

Because

it seems like he's saying one of those common sense little ideas here.

And so I looked it up.

And countries with the highest alcohol intake,

that would be Belarus at number one, then Lithuania, then Grenada, then Czech Republic, then France, then Russia, then Ireland, then Luxembourg, then Slovakia, then Germany, and USA is 25th on the list.

So it's like we are for infant mortality.

Oh, no, wait, hold on.

We're 54th in infant mortality.

That's different.

But we're really low on the list.

And I think, like, when you hear somebody say something like this, where it seems like sort of this easy, oh, it's an easy to understand, easy, simple correlation between these two things, just check to see if they're actually right.

And Jill wasn't right about this at all.

Now we're going to talk a little bit about drugs.

Because aren't pharmacies called drugstores in America?

Yeah.

Yeah.

Well, and they do have drugs.

I mean, they are selling sanctioned drugs.

Yeah, many pharmaceutical drugs are very heavyweight and very, very, very dangerous.

The antidepressants, for example, I've had experience with antidepressants.

They're horrible.

Cyroxat and Prozac back in the 90s, I had a long depression.

They didn't help me.

They made me worse.

And

when people ask me, I advise them to stay away from the selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors.

They are not good things.

But of course, if somebody wants to take them, that's also their free choice.

I mean, first of all, it's just striking me as how wild it is which words Graham Hancock pronounces very oddly, because he's capable of like pronouncing really quite complicated words just randomly in conversation.

But yeah, like serotonin rather than serotonin, I think, is a fascinating pharmaceutical.

But yeah, maybe

you don't say pharmaceutical, right?

I don't think anyone said pharmaceutical.

No, absolutely not.

Like, I've no idea what I'm saying.

I know How many of you guys pronounce aluminum weird?

I just didn't know if you did something else.

So no, absolutely not.

Okay.

But maybe we don't get our health advice from the mystery, mysterious civilizations built the pyramids guy.

Maybe that's not what we go to.

And I can't help but worry.

And, you know, this is connecting dots that

I don't think dust should be connected in this way, but it is kind of indicative of how the dot connecting works in Graham Hancock's world.

He's talking about going through a really dangerous, like deep depression in the mid-90s, which is when he discovered all of this.

He published the thing,

I think, Fingerprints of the Gods in 1995.

So, his, what he's talking about, the depression and his medication for that depression, coincided with him getting deeply into this.

And I don't know if those things are linked in any way, but it's interesting that the timelines he's talking about.

Yeah, you know, this is just like I said when we were talking about this before, and we might even mention in the main show in here, these are just anecdotes, right?

So, don't believe anything that's anecdotal that this guy says.

Talk to your doctor, man.

Don't listen to Graham Hancock on the Joe Rogan show about what you should and shouldn't do about your mental health medication for crying out loud.

That's just, it's just, it's just appalling that someone could come on there and be like, yeah, I had a bad experience with this and I tell everybody that listens to me never to take them.

That's a horrible thing to say to like a millions of persons audience.

Yeah, it's not good.

All right.

So now they talk a little bit about death.

What do you think that is?

When you say the next great,

where are you getting this belief from?

And what do you think it is?

A lot of it comes from the work I've done with ayahuasca over the years.

It goes back to a near-death experience I had in my late teens, massive electric shock.

I left my body, was up around the light, saw myself slumped on the floor, and then I came back into my body.

But from that moment, I doubted whether I am just my body.

or whether there's more to me than that, more to all of us than that.

Ancient Egyptian ideas about this realm being a theater of experience where we come to learn and to grow and develop, we are obliged constantly, every day, to make choices, and those choices define us.

And those choices may be very small or they may be very large.

But we are learning, hopefully, from these.

And I just don't think that this is an accident.

This is my belief system.

I don't...

commit to any of the monotheistic faiths, but this is my belief system, that this is a special place, that we are here to learn and to grow and to develop in a world that has consequences, where there will be consequences to the decisions that we make.

I like the Buddhist idea of going through multiple incarnations and

eventually reaching a state of perfection where you embrace nirvana.

But some come back, the bodhisattvas, they choose not to go to nirvana.

They come back as teachers to teach human beings how to better and improve their lives.

I just think all of this tells us so much about Graham Hancock.

You know, from his motivation to find something weird out there to his acceptance of the extraordinary in spite of the evidence, to his constant need to be outside of the mainstream, you know, the rebel, the maverick.

Yeah.

All of his instincts, all of these instincts, he's talking about, you know, the near-death experiences he's had and how he doesn't believe in the mainstream religions that you might have heard of.

All of these instincts make him more prone to fall into the kind of pseudo-archaeological narratives that he spent this interview sharing.

This kind of encapsulates how he got to where he is, I think.

All right.

So now we're going to talk a little bit about big pharma and psychedelics.

This seems to be a popular trope that Joe trots out constantly talks all the time about psychedelics and how big pharma doesn't want them.

I mean, the pharmaceutical companies are the biggest drug pushers in the world.

Literally.

Literally.

And they get full governmental support

in order to do that.

Why are antidepressants out there?

Because

people get less efficient when they're depressed.

So antidepressants make them perhaps, although I don't think antidepressants work, they certainly didn't work for me,

perhaps make them more malleable, more amenable members of society.

Alcohol isn't too much of a threat to society.

Yeah, it's a very dangerous drug.

It causes thousands of deaths.

It causes violence.

It causes road accidents.

But it doesn't challenge the status quo.

People are not drinking a beer or a bottle of wine and having thoughts that are anti-establishment.

That tends not to be what happens.

Whereas the psychedelics, they do challenge the status quo.

They do lead people, and I've seen this again and again, and it's been the case with me, to question the existing power structure in society and to say there must be something better.

There must be some other way to do things than the way we're doing them now.

So, yeah, Hancock's views here on, first of all, big pharma and then on psychedelics, they put him so squarely in the conspiracy camp.

That's for sure.

You know, big pharma is trying to push out antidepressants that keep you suppressed and keep you from questioning.

They want to suppress all of the psychedelics because psychedelics cause revolutions and they cause you to think outside the box and to challenge the mainstream.

These are conspiracy narratives.

And when somebody holds what is a relatively niche, a pretty niche position in one area and then has an incredibly niche and non-mainstream view in another completely unrelated area, you should start looking at what the common factor is and realize the common factor is the person holding those views.

It's just indicative of who they are as a person.

Yeah, a lot of people do psychedelics and then they just follow bands around from town to town.

They don't start a revolution.

Like that's not necessarily,

it's not necessarily a revolutionary drug.

I did a ton of psychedelics when I was a kid and I never had the same sort of like trips that they were describing.

I never had the same sort of thoughts afterwards that they did.

So, you know, they affect people in different ways.

And I think what's happening is Joe is often connecting with people whose psychedelics affected them in a very similar way that Joe did, that Joe's have.

And so he always sort of connects with these people with these psychic, at least the ones that we've heard so far, all the psychedelic stuff that he seems, it seems to be a feedback loop with him and that it constantly echoing the same thoughts that he has on these on these drugs.

You know, one of the reasons, I mean, there's a lot of reasons why they're not just available for everybody, but I think, you know, one of the reasons why they're not available as medicine is because there isn't good work out there yet that shows that they are actually

as useful as people claim they are.

And there's also dangerous side effects.

And so like we've got to pay attention to those types of things when we're making medicine legal.

And this also harkens back to what we were talking about before when, you know, they want to, they want to do the thing that says, well, let's just open the floodgates when it comes to archaeology.

Let's just presume this thing is true and then just open the floodgates.

They want to do the same thing with pharmaceutical, like with pharmaceutical mushrooms, essentially.

They're like, well, let's just presume it works and we'll just open the floodgates.

and it's like well there's always due diligence you have to do in order to make sure that it it's safe or that this information is right etc etc and they don't want to do any of that hard work all right now we're going to talk interestingly about atheism I didn't know where Joe stood on this and this is an interesting take

Which is to me one of the weird things about rigid atheism, this concept that when your brain shuts off, when your body dies, consciousness ends and it's just blank.

And it's just our ego that wants us to believe that there's something more and greater afterwards.

So annoying, though.

Well, it's just Richard Dawkins.

Yeah.

The selfish gene.

He's responsible for a lot of that thinking.

Well,

they don't want to buy into foolishness.

And a lot of them believe that at least some of the beliefs of organized religion are just mythical, foolish notions that people attach themselves to in order to comfort themselves, but that they, of the superior intellect, don't need those comforts.

That's right.

And they can embrace the darkness.

And their intellects are so superior that they don't realize that they themselves are practicing a religion.

But that is a religious belief.

If a scientist says there is no life after death, we are just accidents of chemistry and biology, that is not a statement of scientific fact.

So, atheism isn't a religion.

You can't just label things that you don't like as a religion, just turn them all things together.

That's just not true.

But what Hancock is doing here is saying that the people who believe in conventional faiths are wrong, and the people who don't have any faith at all, they're also wrong.

But ultimately, it's just because he's found a way to make himself superior to both.

Like everybody who thinks these things, that disagrees with me.

They're all wrong.

I'm smarter than them both.

And, you know, scientists aren't saying we're an accident of chemistry.

We don't know how life started.

So they put forward best fit ideas.

But ultimately, we don't have a solid assertion,

solid proof of the beginnings of life, the very start of life.

Now, once life exists, evolution by natural selection covers how we got to this point.

So does Hancock disagree with evolution?

Oh, it's interesting.

I'd have been incredibly interested for Joe to ask him.

I know some of the ideas that are around the kind of the Younger Dreyer's impact hypothesis are affiliated with a creationist worldview.

And I'm not saying Hancock has those views, but I'd be interested to know what views he holds around evolution.

Creationist

through

religion or creationist through aliens?

I don't know.

I didn't look into it enough to get because it didn't come up in this interview.

I just saw that some of the one of the criticisms of that hypothesis is some of the foundational kind of studies they refer to are from creationists.

So they are kind of willing to accept evidence from creationists if it happens to agree with them.

Interesting.

Yeah.

Throughout this whole thing, they constantly mistake we don't have proof for as this is not true.

And they constantly mistake those two ideas and they do it throughout.

This is another perfect example.

People who would say, I don't think scientists would say there's no life after death.

They would just say, we don't have evidence for life after death.

That is not saying it's not true.

They're just saying we don't have any evidence for it.

So you can't just say it's true without providing that evidence.

And they forget that very important part.

Here's that part you teased about eye supplements.

Have you ever taken supplements that help your macular degeneration stop?

No, I haven't.

Should I?

Yeah, there's a pure encapsulations has something that I take called macular support.

And it has a bunch of nutrients that are crucial to preserving eyesight.

Would you text me a little bit of information on that?

Yeah, I have no affiliation with this company, by the way.

No.

It's just something that I buy.

But they work for you.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Yeah, it stopped my vision still sucks, but it sucked up until a level and it didn't get worse.

That's good to know.

Yeah, and it didn't get worse and it coincided with me taking supplements.

Just being really religious about it.

Yeah, being really religious about it.

Suddenly being religious about stuff is okay.

It's cool.

We're back on the pitch.

But yeah, Joe takes all these supplements for his vision vision and his vision still sucks.

It's like, look, as you get older, your eyesight will get less sharp.

But very, for very few people, is that a slow slide into a complete loss of vision?

Like eventually, like your eyes will get worse and then they'll level off there.

And if you start taking supplements around the time your eyes are leveling off or just before your eyes are leveling off, you might say the supplements like arrested the slide.

But there's a decent chance that actually this is just coincidence, that your eyes were going to get to a point where where your vision sucks and then it was going to stay at sucky.

I actually found the supplements that Joe is taking.

I won't bother putting links in the show notes or anything.

I did check them through a colleague of mine over at Skeptics with a K, Dr.

Alice.

She was saying, depending on the type of age-related macular degeneration, some of the ingredients might be beneficial.

So if essentially, if

the degradation of your vision is related to an absence

or a deficiency

in diagnosed things,

those things might help.

But if you don't have a deficiency and your eyes are just naturally declining normally, then they're not going to do anything.

Then they're just drops and they don't do anything and you just paid for something that doesn't work.

Yeah, or they're tablets, I think, even.

All right.

So

we're going to shift our discussion to talk a little bit about migraines.

I suffer from migraines, very bad migraine headaches.

They're a curse of my life.

I'm taking a pharmaceutical medication.

I carry it still everywhere with me, which is a triptan.

It belongs to the class of medicines called triptans.

I take it as a nasal spray and it will pretty much guaranteed stop a migraine within two hours.

So if I have to do public speaking or come on your show and if I were to get a migraine, I could know within two hours I would be functional again.

What is it?

So I rely on these tryptans, but tryptans turn out to be quite closely related to dimethyl tryptamine.

And on this, let's put that shot up again.

On this session that I had with Francisco, I focused the whole session on please help me with my migraines.

That was the whole thing it was about.

And I didn't have the entity encounters and I didn't have many of the things that happened with ayahuasca, but I had, this is going to sound nuts to people who think I'm nuts, but I'm going to say it anyway.

I had a circle of serpents that appeared in front of me and they were all intertwined around each other and they came closer and closer to my forehead.

And in the middle of them was a bright light and it came right down onto my forehead.

And I started to feel afraid.

as one does in a deeply altered state of consciousness sometime.

And I was kind of backing off and I said, I want this to stop.

And a voice said to me, just shut up and get out of our way.

We're trying to help you.

And I said, okay, and I surrendered and I let it go the full course.

The net result is that in the three weeks since then, when I might have taken 15 or 20 of those pharmaceutical medicines, I've taken one, just one.

And I can't help associating it directly with that ayahuasca experience and focusing my intention on that happening and Francisco helping me with that as well.

I would have been really interested to hear what exactly happened after he let it go.

And he doesn't explain that.

Like, did it do open head surgery on him or something?

I'd be really interested to know exactly what happened.

Did you just shoot a light into him?

Like, what happened?

That's actually something I would be interested to hear about.

So I'd love to know whether he is taking the medication again.

I'd absolutely love to know.

It's a great question.

What he's talking about here is, you know, he normally takes medication pretty often for his migraines, but lately, he's only had to take it a few times because a snake in a vision told him not to have migraines.

So maybe the like

the tryptophan snake migraine doctor really did cure his migraines and in in subsequent interviews if joe had asked him that would be fantastic to hear or he's misremembering how often he's he used to have to take the medication and misremembering how often he's taken it recently or he's misremembering how often he'd have a period of say three weeks where his migraines would have been like less severe than they often are because migraines are a chronic condition which will come and go yeah um so it's it's either that or it's the the migraine snake cured him.

Yeah.

Well, I did see Ask Your Doctor about Migraine Snake on TV last week.

It was a pharmaceutical ad that I watched.

So,

and I think that's RFK doesn't want to ban those migraine snake commercials.

I think he's fine.

He doesn't like any of the other ones, but the migraine snake ones he wants to keep around.

So, yeah, I think he's appointed the migraine snake to be a JGS.

He's part of it.

He's the most qualified person.

He's part of the migraine snake board.

So,

all right.

Now, we're going to talk about this is this is a really interesting moment.

A couple of different clips that are sort of about the same thing.

This is a DMT experiment.

There's two projects which are now underway.

And one of them is at the University of California, San Diego.

It was launched with a $1.5 million donation from philanthropist Eugene Zhang.

I've put a link to a story there from USCD about this research.

But what he's doing is he's infusing psychedelic doses of intravenous DMT for for 60 minutes it's dr john dean who's leading it um he's using fmri to study the extended state dmt he's looking at the entity phenomenon particularly vast number of people who've worked with dmt experience encounters with entities and those entities communicate telepathically of course the mainstream would say that's rubbish it's just your brain on drugs but it's a mystery um and and they're going to decode these visual activities uh and and um the creation of new psychic extensive altered states research into human potential what this boils down to it's focused focused on measuring whether a person's consciousness can extend past the physical body during trance or hypnotic states uh and and of course if that were to check out in these investigations we're now looking at opportunities for people to volunteer for these projects and to report their experiences in detail they're going to be having people on dmt in one country and at the same time simultaneously people on dmt in another country this work is happening in switzerland as well and seeing if there's some kind of out-of-body element this is stuff that mainstream science wouldn't have touched a decade ago but now is interested in it and and uh you know that's that's that's a very positive thing well if we can get proof of a mappable realm yes that's the that's the exciting that's the exciting potential of this research

So yeah, this is an interesting plug.

He's plugging an experiment that he's not even responsible for.

It's just somebody who knows he's doing it.

But it feels like he's doing such a heavy sales plug for this.

Yeah.

It's almost like, and don't answer yet.

Or if you call right now, he's got a special offer code to get like 50% off or something.

You could get four easy easy payments of $69.69 or whatever for your DMT for 60 minutes.

I would be very careful if I was in another country coming to the United States on DMT because we can pick you up for immigration charges.

So be really careful if you actually project here.

That would be my suggestion to people.

Okay, so now we move on.

to another piece.

Now, this is also very, very close to what just happened.

Maybe 40 or 50 seconds later, there's another bit of a sort of push for this DMT research.

This is a hypothesis to explore.

And I'm really, really happy that it is happening at the University of San Diego.

Anybody who wants to find out more about it, it's down there at the bottom.

You can go to the Center for Psychedelic Research at UCSD.

There's a URL there.

And the point of contact is the lead scientist, which is j1dean at health.ucsd.edu.

Anybody who wants to find out more about this research, which is starting, I believe, in the spring of 2024, they can get in contact with John Dean and see if they're interested in enrolling in the investigation.

You have a hint to Elon Musk in this?

This is not my words.

These are words that have been sent to me by the team.

The team says we're looking to raise about 20 million to make all this happen within three to five years.

Hint, maybe Elon Musk would be interested in supporting, as he has mentioned DMT multiple times on Twitter and other public spheres.

He's the guy you go to.

Well, exactly.

They've raised $1.5 million, and that gets the project started thanks to Eugene Jong.

But to take this project to the next level, they need more money.

And this is a highly creditable institution offering something very interesting.

It's just incredible that he got like a sales pitch in, not just a sales pitch for this experiment, but like a targeted sales pitch directly to Elon Musk.

Like, Elon, if you're listening, can I have $2 million, please?

Outstanding, man.

I love it.

Like the people who were doing this, this research, they put together a pitch book specifically at Joe's clients, right?

They went out of their way to be like, well, you're going on this show, take this pitch book because it definitely reaches out to Elon Musk.

And while you're there, talk to Joe about Elon Musk and see if there's some way he could fund this.

All right.

So we got a little bit of RFK that's

brainworming its way in here.

I talked to Kennedy because I was just, I know that there's this narrative that he's a kook and he's an anti-vaxxer and none of those things are true.

And I wanted him to explain himself.

And he said that that was the first time in 18 years of talking about this stuff that someone has actually just let him talk.

And no one's jumped in because people are, if you're on a network and someone starts talking about vaccine safety and the issues with certain ingredients and vaccines, people are like, ah, hit the brakes.

This has been refuted.

What you're saying is not true.

The FDA says this and that and this.

And they have to.

They have to jump in.

The executives would be in their ear.

The producers would be in their ear.

Jump in.

They'll put up things that stop them.

Like, let the guy talk.

Let's at the end of what he says, then ask him, how did you come to these conclusions?

Have you ever steel manned the opposing positions?

Are there times where you've questioned what you believe?

Have you been vaccinated yourself?

What do we know about these peer-reviewed studies?

What do we know about the way they're allowed to access information?

What do we know about the vested interest, financial vested interests involved in pursuing a very specific narrative?

And has there been resistance to all these other points?

These are the questions that need to be asked.

These are interesting questions.

And the fact that Huberman was censored because he thought it was a good idea that more people have long-form discussions is madness.

What are they afraid of?

Yeah, I mean, there's nothing wrong with having long-form discussions, but the reason the producers keep interrupting, like when R.R.

Keir Jr.

is talking about vaccines, is to show when he's wrong or when he's lying.

And that's an important step because otherwise you're spreading those lies.

Yeah.

Like what happens on your show all the time, Joe Rogan.

Nobody has stepped into even this conversation to point out the many places in which the conversation has gone to places that aren't correct.

But Rogan is essentially painting the fact that he lets people say untrue things unchecked with absolutely no oversight.

He's painting that as some sort of virtue rather than like a perfect illustration of the problem his platform like pauses.

Yeah, you're not wrong.

It's exactly what he's saying.

He's saying that I should let these people do this.

Like just come on and just have these big, long, long form conversations.

And when they say something that's incorrect, just let them finish.

And you're like, well, what happens if somebody turns the show off before you get a chance to even talk to them, which you didn't, right?

Which you didn't.

What you did, what you did on the RFK one, at least from the clips I've seen.

Now, now I'm sure Marsha and I will cover this in the future.

We'll almost certainly

the RFK one.

But from what I saw on the on the clips that I saw, he called up websites using very specific terms.

And Jamie wound up finding RFK's website because it uses these very specific terms about what he's talking about.

So, he's he's just basically creating a tautology to say, this is the thing I'm talking about.

Look, can't you see?

Here's the evidence for it because all you did was type in the thing I suggested you type in.

So, it's a bad way in order to do it.

And even still, when he asks those questions, we see that he can't actually find real information to refute RFK.

He just kind of soft agrees with everything that RFK says.

And that gives all of Joe's listeners the sort of open invitation to then believe the same things Joe has believes.

So it's really bad for dialogue in general.

Now we're going to talk a little bit about these entities and DMT again.

And if it does turn out that people are encountering the same entities and the same entities are trying to express the same information, that would be really, really fascinating.

That would be a huge paradigm shift.

Yeah, a huge paradigm shift.

And I often wonder, I mean, many of these DMT, excuse me, alien abduction experiences, they happen while people are sleeping.

And we know that we think at least that DMT is released in the brain during sleep.

I often wonder if they're just accessing something that is there, that there is some sort of a realm that you can communicate with these things.

Whatever these things are.

Yeah, I mean, all that started with, if it does turn out, and like, that's a big if.

Like,

y'all stopping me there.

It didn't turn out that it doesn't turn out that's all everything that followed after that is a no I'm afraid buddy okay so this last piece last couple pieces here are talking about medicine there's two clips and they both sort of play into each other they're about a cancer drug

jamie have you seen there's been some talk of some new drug that they've found that's very effective for cancer have you seen this It starts with an F.

I'm trying to remember what the hell it's called.

I saw a story about that.

Yeah.

Let me try to find it here.

I know I have it saved in my

Instagram, I think.

Give me one second here.

Saved.

It's either I saved it on Instagram or I saved it on Twitter.

Let me find it here.

It starts with an F.

It's some sort of a very low-cost drug that's being repurposed.

I think it's some sort of an anti-parasitic drug that's being repurposed and is having supposedly remarkable results.

You've heard of this as well?

I heard something about it.

I haven't looked at it in depth, but I did catch a headline

about that.

It's so bad here that he's going through his saved pins on Instagram and Twitter.

He's getting cancer advice from Instagram.

And

he's bringing this forth as like, hey, maybe we should talk about this specific cancer drug.

And he's trying to find it on Instagram.

This is not where you go for your latest discoveries in cancer research.

Yeah.

What is their fascination with anti-parasitic drugs and how it works with cancer?

Do they think

there's a couple of things I think

partly

anti-parasitics generally became huge during the pandemic because that's what we're looking at with things like um ivermectin so i i think you're already training yourself to see the the the anti-parasitic field of medication as having these much much broader applications um there is also a long-standing pseudoscientific theory that actually cancer is all parasites it's all about kind of um a parasite in your body and that parrot that we are constantly being bombarded with various different parasites that cause a much broader range of diseases and illnesses than actually are parasitic in nature.

And so I think it's maybe sort of putting two and two together.

I'd love to see what his Instagram post that he'd clicked like on that told him about this particular cancer drug so I can see what it was basing it on.

But yeah, that's my imagination.

That's what I'm my assumption about it.

What's really interesting to me is how often quacks and people like this reframe these complicated medical things that happen to you more simply so people understand them, so they could sell them something that then makes more sense.

Because all of these people who are very anti-medicine and anti, you know, vaccine, et cetera, et cetera, if they break their arm, they don't just stay home.

They go to the emergency room, right?

Because for them, a broken arm makes sense.

They broke my arm.

I can go to the, I can get a cast.

It immobilizes it.

The bone knits itself back together as best it can.

And then I I move on with my life.

So they understand that process, but the more complicated medical processes, it seems like they have to have some sort of intermediary dumbing down of it in order for them to get a hold of this other quack medicine.

Cause they don't want to believe, you know, that your own body is the thing that's creating this cancer that could, you know, be the thing that's sort of, you know, messing up your body and how it's changing your body, et cetera.

So they do a thing that

seems really, you know, of course, it seems really shady.

And it's that in order to get them on this other stuff, they convince them that it's another thing that's actually causing these cancers.

All right.

This is the second clip of that.

This is Joe reading out about the medicine.

Overlooked miracle drug for cancer, why big pharma fears fenbesdazole.

Fenbenzozole.

At least 12 anti-cancer mechanisms of action, nine research papers reviewed.

So I think this stuff is supposed to be low cost.

And this is some of the speculation, the conspiracy theory about like why people are afraid of it.

Well,

I hope that Flint is aware of this and that it helps him to

get from his cancel.

That's very good to me.

I hope he's interested in even just examining it because there are no.

I think he will be.

I hope so.

But there's been some reaction to this.

I just found out about this a couple of days ago.

So these research papers, Fenn, goes stop right there.

Has at least 12 proven anti-cancer mechanisms in vitro and in vivo.

It disrupts microtubulate polymerization.

Major mechanism, induces cell cycle, whatever that means, arrest, blocks glucose transport, impairs glucose utilization by cancer cells, increases

p53 tumor suppressor levels,

inhibits cancer cell viability, inhibits cancer cell migration and invasion, induces

apoptosis, induces autography, induces, they're trying to get me with all these words,

prioptosis and necrosis, induces differentiation and

sesenence,

senescence, inhibits tuner angiogenesis, reduces colony formation and inhibits stemness in cancer cells, inhibits drug resistance and sensitizes cells to conventional chemo as well as radiation therapy.

Interesting.

Sensitizes cells to chemo.

A very similar drug in the same family is already been approved by the FDA.

And that is mebendazole.

And it is in

several clinical trials right now for brain cancers and colon cancers.

So why are no fembendazole clinical trials for cancer?

The answer seems

rather obvious.

It's very cheap.

It's safe and it seems to be effective.

Very effective.

Exactly.

Interesting.

Big pharma don't see a margin in it.

Oh, God.

So much in the middle of the middle.

First of all, bear in mind that even the reason that Joe started going to Instagram to find the latest cancer research was because someone couldn't be on the show.

Flick Dibble couldn't be on the show because he had cancer.

And that kicked off this conversation of how to cure cancer using this other anti-parasitic that Instagram says is totes safe and totes effective.

And now they're debating on the show

whether Flint Dibble is going to take this new drug that Rorgan's found.

Like this is so inappropriate.

I mean, and to be clear, Flint Dibble did actually say that he had cancer.

This wasn't like sharing private medical information.

He did say that they made clear that he has said that, but I don't think he'd license them to start speculating over to what drugs he would and wouldn't be taken.

And then you have Joe reading out what this Fen Bendersole does.

And it's clear that he has absolutely no idea what any of it means.

He's even saying like he doesn't understand some of these words.

They're trying to catch him out with some of these

science words.

So like, maybe don't trust the guy who can't even pronounce apoptosis.

Yeah.

Don't trust him for medical advice on cancer.

He doesn't know what that means.

So he's not a reliable person to like trust in this in any way.

And nor is Hancock, because hancock has literally only just heard of this right now and at the end of all of that he says oh it's big pharma don't see a margin in it so he's already decided that big pharma is suppressing this thing he's just heard of yeah for profit reasons and he's saying that based on what he's saying it based on his good instinct that big pharma bad conspiracy theory everywhere yeah i i love that he stops in the middle of this thing he reads a sentence and he says whatever that means and you're just like dude doctors take entire courses on medical terminology because it's it's essentially another language.

They need to study it and they need to know it.

And what I hear constantly from sort of Joe's sort of realm of people who are, he's involved with is do your own research, do your own research, search this stuff up, do your own research.

He can't, he doesn't even know what it means.

Is this what they would consider their own research when he's reading these things out and saying, well, there's 12 different studies about this and it handles my peptide count versus my whatever he, whatever he mentioned.

They don't even, they have no idea what it means, but that is considered research to them.

And also, he's not even curious enough to find out what it means, right?

He doesn't stop there and look up the terms that he just dug up.

He just presumes that it's right because the Instagram thing told him that it's right.

He doesn't bother to do the next step to be like, well, it says that it does this stuff.

Well, is that good or bad, right?

Is this thing good or bad?

Remember when we talked about the telomeres?

We had that conversation about whether telomeres are good or bad.

He just thinks telomeres if they're longer it's good that's not necessarily true all right so uh last clip um this is about cybernetics i'm i'm certainly a cyborg with two two replaced hips and a fused l5 disc you know i'm i'm definitely a cyborg and a cell phone in your pocket uh i have existed cell phones have you really santha my wife has the cell phone good for you um i i the little typing thing i can't do i just i just can't do it i i do have a cell phone but i don't use it as a phone it's uh it's a way for accessing social media if i need to post something when I'm traveling.

Incredible.

Incredible.

That isn't resisting cell phones.

That's not resisting cell phones.

Like you're using it as social media, but not as a phone.

That's worse than having like a non-smartphone that you only use for calls and not internet.

People aren't, when it comes to using smartphones, people aren't worried about the phone call part of it.

They're not saying that's what's bad for you.

They're normally saying like being on social media too much is the thing that's bad for you.

But yeah, him saying I just resisted cell phones.

It feels like another moment of Graham building this mythos for himself as the outsider, the rebel who does things different, who's unconventional.

But really, what he's saying is, well, I like the social media.

I just don't like typing too much.

I don't like texting.

All right.

That's going to wrap it up for our

gloves off section this time.

Thanks so much, patrons.

We really do appreciate you.

We'll catch you next week with another behind the curtain look at another Joe Rogan guest.

So, what do this animal

and this animal

and this animal

have in common?

They all live on an organic valley farm.

Organic Valley dairy comes from small organic family farms that protect the land and the plants and animals that live on it from toxic pesticides, which leads to a thriving ecosystem and delicious, nutritious milk and cheese.

Learn more at OV.coop and taste the difference.

A happy place comes in many colors.

Whatever your color, bring happiness home with CertaPro Painters.

Get started today at Certapro.com.

Each Certipro Painters business is independently owned and operated.

Contractor license and registration information is available at Certapro.com.