#0022 Calley Means & Casey Means, MD.

If you thought goldenly breaded McDonald's chicken couldn't get more golden, think colder!

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.

Ready to buy a car, a home, or just want to take control of your money?

Your FICO score matters, and 90% of top lenders use it to make decisions.

Check your FICO score for free today without hurting your credit score.

Visit myfico.com/slash free or download the MyFICO app today.

MyFICO gives you the score lenders use most, plus credit reports and real-time alerts to help keep you on top of your credit.

Visit myfico.com/slash free and take the mystery out of your FICO score.

On this episode, we cover the Joe Rogan Experience, episode number 2210, with guests Callie and Casey Means.

The No Rogan Experience starts now.

Welcome back to the show.

This is the show where two podcasters with no previous Rogan experience get to know Joe Rogan.

It's a show for anyone who's curious about Joe Rogan, his guests, and the claims they make, as well as for anyone who just wants to understand Joe's ever-growing media influence.

I'm Michael Marshall.

I'm joined as ever by Cecil Cicarello.

Today, we're going to be covering Joe's October 2024 interview with Callie and Casey Means, the siblings.

It's an interview that's been viewed 1.8 million times on YouTube alone.

So, Cecil, how did Joe introduce the means in the show notes?

It says, Dr.

Casey Means is the co-founder of Levels Health, which provides insights into metabolic health through real-time data.

Callie Means is the co-founder of Trumed, which enables HSA spending on healthy food, supplements, and exercise.

They are the authors of Good Energy.

And is there anything else we should know about these siblings?

Well, Callie and Casey Means are co-emperors of their wellness empire.

Callie is a former food lobbyist, and Casey was a Stanford-educated surgeon, and then she dropped out of surgical residency.

Means sought to leave mainstream traditional medicine.

And so now, if you're not familiar, residency is the post-grad work where you complete your medical education on the job under the supervision of doctors.

Means set up a medical practice in Portland and practiced pseudoscientific functional medicine.

Her state license was labeled inactive of January of last year.

Means is the co-founder and chief medical officer of Levels, a company that offers continuous glucose monitors.

She is involved in her brother's company, Trumed.

Means sells sponsored dietary supplements, creams, teas, and other products on her social media account.

I think there's one other thing we should also be letting listeners know about in all of that, in that Casey Means has been nominated by Trump as the next Surgeon General of the United States.

Despite that being her medical background.

Yeah, great point um which is which is in in a way the reason we're putting this episode out we've gone to casey means because surprise surprise she was interviewed by uh by joe rogan just two weeks before he spoke to donald trump during the uh 2024 presidential election campaign so what did joe and the means talk about well it talks about food mostly but food conversation revolving around chronic conditions and how the right food cures it and prevents it and how the wrong food actually gives you these conditions.

They talk about Trump and RFK and how they helped form a bond between these two that now shapes

America's healthcare system.

And they also talk about spirituality and a lot of trad wife stuff.

Yeah, they certainly do.

And for the main event this week, we're going to look at their claims of the healthcare instant, all the institutions being captured by corporate interest.

And we're also going to look at whether there's some other institutional capture going on.

That's going to be our main event.

But before we get to that, we're going to say thank you to our Area 51 all access past patrons.

Those are Stargazer97, Dr.

Messi Andy, Scott Laird, Darlene, Stone Banana, Laura Williams, no, not that one, the other one, definitely not an AI overlord, 11 Gruthius, Chunky Cat in Chicago, who apparently has stopped eating the rich.

Maybe they've realized you are what you eat and food is your health.

They couldn't realize it could go bad.

It could go bad.

They could have realized that the rich contain high fructose corn syrup.

That is probably the reason.

Also, of our patrons here, there's Am I a Robot?

Capture says no, but maintenance records say yes.

There's Fred R.

Gruthius, and there is Martin Fidel.

Every one of those subscribed at patreon.com forward slash no Rogan.

You can do that too.

We have a range of levels.

Patrons at any single level get access to early episodes, as well as a special patron-only bonus segment every single week.

This week, we're going to be talking about medical errors and causes of death.

We're going to be talking about what would be the first thing Joe Rogan would love to ask Donald Trump.

And we're going to talk about what actually counts as alt-right.

So you can check all that out at patreon.com forward slash no Rogan.

But now for our main event.

So a huge thank you to this week's veteran voice of the podcast.

That was Iris in Switzerland announcing our main event this time in German.

So remember that you can also be on the show by sending a recording of you giving us your best rendition of it's time or ich ziet.

You can send that to noroganpod at gmail.com as well as telling us how you want to be credited on the show.

So like Mark suggests, this is all about industry capture.

And so we're going to start with a clip about how Joe finds his guests.

What's up?

Nice to meet you guys.

Thanks for having us, Joe.

Thanks for coming here.

I'm all happy, but this is not a happy subject.

I don't know.

It's probably a bad way to start off a podcast of how fucked we are.

But I really appreciate what you guys have been doing.

And I think I first saw you on Tucker and

the details of all the stuff you guys have exposed.

I mean, it's shocking, but it's not surprising.

It's really really crazy.

So I think this is interesting.

This, as you can hear, is the first thing that we hear on this interview.

You can even hear the intro music in the background, but it shows now where Joe is getting his guests from.

Because how many times have we now seen Joe platform someone because he saw them on Tucker?

This is the pipeline that I know you and I are both particularly worried about.

That Joe will say, I just interview people because they seem interesting to me.

I'm not looking for anything in particular.

I'm not looking to try and seek out certain types of views.

But he's finding people from shows like Tucker Carlson.

So at this point, Joe's standards for his guests are at least in part dictated by Tucker Carlson's standards for guests.

So who Tucker Carlson decides to speak to is going to have a massive influence on who Joe Rogan decides to speak to and then who Joe Rogan exposes to a massive, massive platform of audience and millions of people.

That's important to point out.

I think it's interesting, too, that a lot of Joe's defenders may think that he's sort of this middle-of-the-road guy, that he's, you know, he can go left or right.

He'll have left people on and right people on.

But if you were to ask them about Tucker Carlson, if you were to ask those same people, be like, what do you think of Tucker Carlson?

They would almost certainly, I can't imagine someone being like, yeah, he's a middle of the road guy.

I think everybody thinks he's a right-leaning guy.

At very least, right-leaning, if not far-right, right?

I think he's a far-right guy.

So what, if, if Joe's getting his guests and is a stream from Tucker, is he creating right-wing shows then?

Is that, is, is his pipeline then creating right-wing stuff when he thinks he's creating middle-of-the-road stuff?

And is that just like more evidence that the Overton window has shifted well out of control?

Yeah, exactly.

Because I don't think, well, we certainly haven't seen Joe citing, finding guests on any far-left shows that he regularly listens to.

So it does seem like his diet is skewed towards the right already here.

They're going to start talking about their origin stories, and Callie is going to go first.

So can we get into this?

Like, you used to be on the dark side.

Let's start with you.

Tell everybody your background, like how you got started with this.

We were born and raised in Washington, D.C.

And I thought being a good young conservative was supporting the farm industry or supporting the food industry, defending those industries.

So I went to Stanford with Casey.

She studied biology.

I studied political science and economics and went on campaigns, but then was a lobbyist.

Everyone bipartisan in D.C.

goes to work for the food and the farm industry.

And on one morning, I'm working with the farm industry to literally steer money to the dean dean of Stanford Med School, who's a pain specialist, to be put on an NIH panel to say that opioids in 2011, that the issues around addiction were overblown.

And

we actually helped engineer an NIH panel to issue a report to say opioids are okay, pain is a crisis.

And then later in the afternoon, working for food companies, working for Coke, steering money to institutions of trust, steering money to the NAACP

to say that taking Coke off food stamps was racist.

Coke soda today to this day is the number one item on food stamps.

What I realized fundamentally is that we are profiting.

The biggest industries, the biggest spenders in the country are profiting from kids particularly getting addicted, sick, and fear, and then drugging them and profiting from that.

So you'll hear, first of all, Callie saying about how he and Casey grew up in Washington.

We'll come to how they grew up in Washington and who their parents are later in this conversation.

But let's just look at what he's saying here about the fundamentally racist idea that Coke is on food stamps, because Coke is soft drinks are the number one product.

So, soft drinks are actually the number one product bought on food stamps.

Milk is second.

However, if you look, and that sounds particularly bad, that sounds like, well, why are people who are particularly poor spending money on these things like soft drinks that are bad for them?

I mean, milk is second, so nobody would say you shouldn't be buying milk.

Milk seems a fairly reasonable thing for people to buy.

But this might seem like it's biased towards these kind of sugary drinks on food stamps.

Except if you look at the purchasing behavior of people not on food stamps, so everybody who's not on food stamps, milk is first and soft drinks is second.

So it's milk and soft drinks one and two, regardless of where your income is coming from.

This isn't about biasing everything on food stamps towards sugary drinks.

It's just that people in America typically buy that and they buy that with the resources they buy those drinks with the resources they have available to them, whether that's the money that they get from their job or whether through food stamps or kind of other means.

If you then look at the subcategory rather than the broad category, you'll see it's actually milk first, regardless of your income, regardless of what type of income it is.

So if you're looking specifically at the subcategory of drinks and of products, milk is number one in both camps.

We can see if you're watching the YouTube, you'll see some charts that kind of show you this.

It's soft drinks, multi-packs that come second.

So it's about the same regardless.

It's not about people on food stamps going after soft drink more than anyone else.

It's just that's the American diet and you buy it how you can.

It's just true right across America.

They're just demonizing food stamps here and they're demonizing poverty here.

That's what's happening here.

Conservatives often will talk about how they're sort of very freedom-minded, how people should have their own free choices, free speech, et cetera, et cetera.

And they hate regulation very often,

especially when it targets rich business owners, but they really love regulating what poor people eat.

They seem to micromanage.

people in poverty's food.

I just want to point out that, you know, getting little things in your life when you you don't have a lot, little things like being able to have a can of Coke is really important to you because you don't have a lot of things that

many people can do.

And it's one of the few things you can do that sort of makes you fit in with the rest of the people who can afford a lot of different luxuries that you can't.

Kelly brings up now the existential issue that brought them to the show.

Wow.

So it's just everyone's sort of captured by this thing and nobody steps out of the lines.

I mean, the highest level, Joe, you know, I think we don't realize that there's a defining existential issue in our country where our major institutions have been captured.

I think there's like pings of consciousness trying to alert us to this, like, you know, you having people on that are calling this stuff out, trying to ring the alarm bell and people flocking to this show, you know, iconoclasts from the military industrial complex, from the healthcare industrial complex.

I think Elon being the richest person at the world trying to sell us something.

It's like, let's get resources to these people calling these things out.

I think it's like Donald Trump, like I've been thinking about this a lot.

Why is he the defining figure of our lifetime?

Like, why have voters again and again and again gone to him and said, you know, this MAGA movement, like, why are we like supporting this person, making him the defining person of our generation?

What does he represent?

He represents like putting finger on something that's just not quite right with institutions.

And I think the problem is we can't quite wrap our head around how bad it is and how so many people are complicit.

But there's all these signs right now.

And I think we're going to be brought to our knees if we don't realize this: that our institutions have been captured.

So he's claiming here that institutions, the big parts of American government and how American life works, have been captured by corporate interests.

And the people who are going to save us from that are billionaire Elon Musk going into government and doing what he wants there, billionaire Donald Trump running the country.

I mean, I'd argue that Trump and Musk and the influence of Joe Rogan in health policy are signs of captured institutions, just captured by this billionaire class, this Silicon Valley class, this tech braw adjacent class, essentially.

Because bear in mind, Callie and Casey Means are here on Rogan and they grew up in Washington.

Callie's a lobbyist.

Casey

dropped out of being a surgery resident.

And now she's...

just been made the surgeon general, nominated by Trump as the surgeon general.

And when we covered the Trump show, the reason we even heard about Casey Means is because when Rogan was interviewing Trump, he brought these two up and said, well, you know them.

Here's this amazing thing they're doing.

And Trump seems to know them as well.

So Rogan brings these two up when they're talking to Trump.

Trump appoints her as the Surgeon General.

RFK Jr.

is good friends, works with both of these two.

He's the head of the HHS.

It's like there's this, the more we hear in this conversation, them describing their version of how America's healthcare industry should work, it's like they've they've just laid their own alternative framework over every one of the institutions of America and taken it over.

Like Trump's got in and here we go.

And it's worth knowing what the deal is with RFK and with the means.

So I'm going to read you from an article by,

this is Jonathan Jerry's article, McGill.

And he writes when talking about the means here, he said, the shell game at the heart of Make America Healthy Again is that RFK Jr.

is meant to care about metabolic diseases like diabetes and cardiovascular issues and to use the Means' book, Good Energy, as a roadmap for how to get Americans healthy again.

But the focus on mitochondrial dysfunction, which Casey Means is going to talk about a lot, is a mirage.

Given RFK Jr.'s decades-long crusade against

vaccines, his obsession is not with the mitochondrion, but with one of the public health's resounding successes.

The platter of scienceploitation that he offers

Americans, stem cells, peptides, nutraceuticals, all the things he put on X, That's just a distraction.

RFK Jr.

wants vaccines gone.

So that's what Jerry writes.

And pretty clearly,

the mean siblings are part of that project of getting rid of vaccines.

Yeah.

And they talk about like

that this we've been captured.

You're like, what have we been captured by?

I mean, we're really looking to two mega capitalists to solve what he describes is a clear problem with capitalism.

Or are they going to just look, and then this is all through another alternative to what could happen.

Are they just going to divert the money to themselves and their friends and then shift the blame elsewhere?

And we are seeing that certain contracts and certain things wind up getting taken up by Elon Musk and certain other ones get canceled.

So it may be something to think about.

Another, and I just want to say too, you know, we're going to start this show.

And as they work their way through, and as you heard in that previous clip, and as you'll hear in many of these other clips,

these two are coming off as sort of a maverick.

They've sort of figured out this grand unified theory of what is the problem with America.

And this is not a unique type of person to be on Joe's show.

Very often, the people who come on your show are bucking the system.

They're a solo agent.

They're a contrarian.

They have a new way of looking at things and they're trying to expose the system.

Now, either there's a vast conspiracy across massive disciplines here.

We're talking aviation, food safety, nutrition, vaccines, governmental spending, mathematics, archaeology, special education, evolutionary biology, et cetera, cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

Or there are people grifting the system as outsiders and they keep finding Joe and Joe keeps platforming him.

I'm not saying that I'm not trying to make a false dichotomy to say it's one or the other.

Maybe one of these is true, maybe one of them is not, but think about it in that sense.

Very often, people on his show come with a brand new grand unified theory that they have thought up.

And Joe is more than happy to send that out to millions of people every single, every single episode.

Now, Casey runs us through a bunch of statistics.

we're not going to play.

And this is what she thinks is wrong with America.

She tells us that 50% of Americans have type 2 diabetes these days, which isn't true.

It's 38 million Americans, which is 9% of the population.

She also tells us that one in two Americans have cancer in their lifetime, which could be because we're screening people and that adults live longer.

And then she tells us that autism rates are rocketing.

And this is one of her friend RFK's big talking points.

And then she puts all those pieces together.

So this is Casey's origin story.

As I kind of just looked around, and again, these are just statistics, I started trying to put the pieces together.

Why is this happening?

Why are these all going up all at once?

And that led me on what is now a seven, eight-year journey, ultimately leaving the surgical world, putting down my scalpel forever.

Because what I realized is that when you go to the science with a root cause perspective, you go back to PubMed with a slightly different perspective.

not how do I treat these diseases once they emerge, but why are they happening?

You see a very obvious blaring answer, which is why we had to write a book about it, which is that it's all caused by metabolic dysfunction, a term that I never learned in medical school.

I learned about metabolic syndrome and the different individual diseases that make it up.

But there is a problem.

There is a fundamental breaking of our core cellular biology that is caused by our diet and the world we're living in, the modern world we're living in today, that is crushing the very way that the human body and our human cells can transmit food energy to life energy, to cellular energy.

And so our bodies are essentially, I mean, fundamentally, because metabolic health is how we make energy in the body, the way that our environment is now synergistically restoring our metabolic health, and the science is very clear about this, it's basically like all of us are a little bit dead while we're alive.

That's what metabolic dysfunction is.

It's less energy in the body.

We're underpowered.

And that's very dark.

I mean, that is very dark.

If this is true, what she's found here is something that fundamentally shifts everything we know about human health and how we treat people and how modern medicine should work.

Because as you point out, you pointed out a moment ago, Cecil, this is another case where the guest has come on and is bringing their grand unified theory that's going to revolutionize this particular one industry.

You know, the one weird trick that they don't want you to know about is that we're all all crushed inside.

The energies in our cells are crushed and we're all a little bit dead while we're alive.

These are huge, huge ideas.

And I would always say

when people offer you like one simply, relatively simple to understand

reason why a plethora of complex problems are happening, I'd be suspicious of that.

When someone sells you a single answer to a bunch of different things, it feels less likely.

It's less likely to be true than if there were individual answers to individual questions there.

And going back again to an article written by Jonathan Jerry, who'd written quite extensively about Casey Means

before she was nominated Surgeon General, he wrote: America's diagnosis, according to Casey Means, is metabolic dysfunction, her one true cause of all disease or all chronic disease.

According to her, our cells can't produce good energy anymore because of chemicals and toxins.

It doesn't matter that she's not a metabolic health expert or that these theories,

or that theories claim to have found a single cause for all diseases, never pan out.

It sounds good.

And that's pretty clear.

And he also writes: if you want to keep your mitochondria from getting gummed up, the best advice is

unsexy and as dull as ever.

Eat well, get enough sleep, exercise regularly.

Your mitochondria will thank you later.

So

she's got this grand theory, but

it doesn't pan out.

There's not no evidence that it is behind the many, many diseases that she's talking about or all of the issues that she'll kind of outline throughout the course

throughout the case of this uh throughout the cause of this um uh conversation but also in those stats she lists all these stats as you say autism rates skyrocketing cancer rates skyrocketing she's attributing all of that to something that there's just no evidence that it's true yeah and and let's just presume that one of the things comes out to be true let's say that they start doing all these major studies based on some of this stuff and that more and more people start to find out that one of these things seems to be the cause of you know the cause of one of these things happens to be um diet right?

That doesn't mean she's true about everything, right?

It doesn't mean that she's true about all the things.

And so we can't presume that if there is a win in the future for this sort of thing, that all of it is true.

And that's, I think we're evaluating the truth of the entire claim here.

And the entire claim is pretty big.

And so keep that in mind as you listen to what she has to say.

I also want to point out, and this is a minor point, but really, I think important.

You wrote a book instead of a study.

You looked at a bunch of studies and it was obvious to you, literally obvious to you, that this was happening.

If it's obvious, then you should just write it, like get a bunch of researchers together and make us and do a study and then submit that to other researchers.

Why skip the rigorous examination of your work for a colloquial examination of your work, for a non-rigorous public examination of your work?

One of the reasons could be you're afraid that your conclusion isn't true.

That could be a reason that you might skip something so rigorous.

All right, we're going to move on to the big health problems in the United States.

Look at what's happening.

Like you look at, look at what's happening with kids.

We've got ADHD through the roof, autism through the roof.

These are neurodevelopmental issues.

Then you look at midlife.

Well, women and men are depressed.

We have huge rates of mental illness.

25% of women.

25% of women now are on SSRI.

I mean, we're living in like the wealthiest, safest country in human history and 25% of people are on an SSRI.

That's insane.

Then you go into menopause, perimenopause, that age group, and it's sort of brain fog.

And then we have full-blown Alzheimer's going up.

So we've got all these neurodevelopmental issues and neurodegenerative issues sort of across the lifespan.

And obviously, what she's trying to do here is draw a straight line between all of these things.

It's ADHD and autism as a child.

It's depression when you're towards the middle of your life.

And it's Alzheimer's in later life.

And there's one cause that's linking all these things together.

They're not individual things.

This is one

set of disorders.

They're all symptoms of the same thing.

Now, in terms of autism and ADHD rates going up, they have been going up over a few decades, but that's due to better diagnosis, especially actually a better diagnosis among girls, because the way that autism, autistic girls play.

doesn't always look like it's uh it's it's symptomatic of autism because of the way we socialize girls to mask it more or when they're taking care of dolls and spending a lot of time on how their dolls are sort of perfectly prepared, we see that as nurturing rather than an exhibition of kind of autistic traits.

So we get better at diagnosing autism in a wider population and at a younger age.

And that's why we're seeing those rates going up.

It's not about

this one true cause of mitochondrial dysfunction.

And then when it comes to, let's just look at SSRIs.

Let's re-dig into that claim.

Now, the latest stats that I could find on SSRI uptake in America was from the CDC, but only went up to 2018.

I couldn't find anything after 2018, so it may well be that Casey Means has access to more up-to-date figures than I have.

But the figures she's talking about sound like the same ones.

According to the report, during the period of 2015 to 2018, 13.2% of Americans aged 18 and over reported taking antidepressant medication in the last 30 days.

Antidepressant use was higher among women than men.

in every age group, which is what Casey was saying there.

Use increased with age in both men and women, and almost a quarter of women age 60 and over took antidepressants.

So Casey and Callie said 25% of women are taking antidepressants.

Here from the CDC is saying almost a quarter of women over 60 are taking antidepressants.

Now, let's give Casey the benefit of the doubt and say she made a slight misremembrance and she was talking about the 25% of women over the age of 60.

That's the one she was talking about.

It's under 25%

if you're under 60.

Is that a sign that a quarter of women over the age of 60 are all depressed to the point of requiring medication?

Again, I don't think so.

I think it's much more likely that those women are menopausal or post-menopausal.

And there's actually some evidence to suggest that SSRIs reduce the frequency and severity of hot flushes in menopausal and post-menopausal women.

So, and we'll put the citation for that in the show notes here.

Now, some of that use might even be inappropriate.

It might be that doctors are just giving SSRIs because we haven't got anything else.

Menopause is actually one of the most common but completely underinvestigated issues.

So it's experienced by so many women, but hasn't historically been valued by medicine to really dig into.

So we don't have great treatments for various symptoms.

And sometimes we therefore just have to repurpose what works.

But either way, it's fundamentally not true that 25% of women are on SSRIs for depression.

Even the cohort for which that figure is true, it's most likely to manage hot flushes and symptoms of menopause that aren't about depression.

So, this isn't an illustration of us being racked with depression and needing medication because of the mitochondrial dysfunction that we've got going on.

And notice that she raises all of that within the context of how we're living in the wealthiest, safest country in human history, as if that SSRR usage is all about maybe over-prescription.

We can't have such high-rate depression.

We've got such comfortable lives.

So, something is going on here.

Yeah, that's a great point.

Okay, so now they're going to talk about more health problems.

And, you know, then you look at kind of the hormonal side of things.

We've got girls going through puberty much earlier than they ever were.

You know, we, we are the, of continents on earth, we are the earliest puberty rates right now.

That's gone down on an average six years since 1900.

Our puberty rates are way earlier.

So girls are reaching sexual maturity at like age 10.

They're getting pubic.

Then you've got

in midlife, you look at women and infertility is the roof.

We've got PCOS is affecting 26% of women.

This is a metabolic fertility issue.

It's a leading cause of infertility in the country.

Then we look at older age and like menopausal symptoms are a disaster for women.

This is why a book like The New Menopause is like the number one book in the country for a while because women are desperate.

So

if you step back and look at all these different things, we've got these neuro issues throughout the lifetime all exploding.

These hormonal issues throughout the lifetime all exploding.

It's happening all over the place, but no one's stopping asking why.

Like, why is this happening?

Instead, we put ADHD in a bucket, we put depression and anxiety in a bucket, we put Alzheimer's in a bucket.

And so, that's that's really the problem.

And what she's arguing for there is that these aren't separate buckets.

We should be looking at all these buckets together because they're all caused by the same thing.

And she says something in there that I think is true.

She says that books like the new menopause is number one book in the country because women are desperate for information.

I think that's true.

I think, again, it's because the menopause is such an under-invested,

under-researched area that we kind of just accept, we kind of just leave women to get on with it and don't talk about it as a society.

So I can understand why women would absolutely be seeking out information there.

But then she says, she's also said about polycystic ovary syndrome, PCOS or PCOS.

She says that's affecting 26% of women.

Well, according to the Endocrine Society, PCOS is a hormone disorder defined by a group of signs and symptoms, and it affects 7 to 10% of women of childbearing age.

And it is the most common cause of infertility.

In the United States, about five to six million women have PCOS.

So it isn't 26.

She's exaggerated by quite a substantial margin to get to this kind of epidemic level.

But yeah, she's arguing that we should see all of these things.

They're all symptoms of the same stuff.

Then what she means is that they're symptoms of chemicals and hormones and lifestyle issues in our food.

But these are all separate.

We know that what causes Alzheimer's is different to what causes PCAS, which is different to ADHD and autism.

Even if we don't have

solid evidence for exactly what causes each of those things, the way that each play out give us indications that the causes are likely to be in different areas.

If we treat all of them as part of the same issue, we don't magically solve them all.

We just solve none of them.

Yeah.

Specialism is important.

You can't just pretend they're all symptoms of the same thing because then what you're doing is not actually investigating the individual thing itself.

And you're going to lead to more people being desperate and turning to cheap and easy answers, like the ones sold by Casey and Callie Means.

It's important to point out another issue here.

And it's, she says, of continents on Earth, we are the earliest puberty rates.

And that's true, right?

That is true.

But we're going down globally.

So it's going down all over the entire world.

Now,

this is important to point out because

she is trying to link this with, like you suggest, all these, these maladies, and she's trying to try to link it to metabolic health.

But very specifically throughout this episode of Joe Rogan, she comments about Europe being a model.

Europe is a model for what we should put on our food.

Europe, European wheat.

We won't get to it.

Now we'll get to it in the gloves off section, but European wheat is better for you, et cetera.

The Europeans Europeans don't eat these kind of really hyper-processed foods that we eat.

They don't eat the same sort of high-fructose corn syrup that the people in the United States eat.

Well, if her answer is food, that would mean that the rates wouldn't drop in Europe, that the rates would be where they were back in the 1940s or whatever it is that she's looking at.

But

they're dropping all over the world.

So perhaps the thing she's suggesting isn't the cause of what is happening all over the world.

This sort of thing isn't just about health.

This is about bigger things.

Health is a tip of the iceberg of fundamentally like a planetary issue.

But like the planetary issue is the tip of the iceberg of what I think is really, really going on here, which is like a spiritual issue.

Like we, we, we are like not fighting for life in this world anymore.

And I think that's more of a consciousness issue.

You know, we talk about why is no one covering this?

It's like, I think people see it.

I think in some way we have like totally lost a respect for like the miraculousness of life.

That's what our actions are reflecting.

Like we know a lot.

We have the technology, the money, and the resources to fix all of this, the planet and health, and we're not.

And that's why I think there's something darker happening on like the consciousness level.

So we have here the tip of an iceberg that actually is the tip of an even bang, a bigger iceberg.

We've got icebergs on icebergs going on here.

But what could she possibly mean?

She's talking about something darker is happening on a consciousness level.

This is a spiritual issue.

You know, we've given up the miraculousness of life.

What could the future Surgeon General of America be talking about here?

Now we're going to talk about how life is a bipartisan issue.

And I think we could get our way out of this if we like, I think it's going to be hard to get our way out of this if we stick to like partisan politics and quibbling about individual policy ideas, I think it has to start with: are we committed to life and to awe and to connecting with source and then listening and moving our way out of here?

Or are we not?

And if we choose not, which is what I think we're doing, I mean, I think there's huge light happening because that's why everyone's interested in this.

That's why a lot of people are interested in this issue right now.

But, like, if we don't, like, I do think we're on the road to existential disaster because we're that powerful now.

Like, our, and so,

you know, I think step one is us deciding like what choice do we want to make in this lifetime?

Do we want to, do we want to believe that humans are, that life is a miracle?

This universe is a miracle.

Our bodies are miracles.

And we want to connect with God in this lifetime.

We want to build and respect these temples that are interconnected with the earth to do that.

Or do we not?

And like, that's the choice we have right now.

So, yeah, someone who is now on the precipice of, if not already fully in, a position of medical authority for your country is talking in terms of miracles and connecting with source and connecting with God and how our bodies, our temples, interconnected with the earth.

These aren't medical terms.

This isn't a conversation about health.

This is a religious conversation.

That's what we're actually experiencing here.

Yeah,

look.

I'm just standing my ground.

I refuse to be committed to awe and connected to source.

I'm just not going to do it.

I don't care what they do to mandate that, that, Marsh.

I will not do either one of those things.

I will resort to never being committed to awe.

I guarantee it.

I just want to, like, right now, when I go to the doctor and they say, they, they, they ask a series of questions about depression.

They'll say, have you felt sad in the last couple of days?

Have you felt sad for the last month?

Do you find joy in doing other things?

It's like, it's like a battery of seven or eight questions to find out.

You know, you might be depressed.

I think when I go into the doctor with RFK's America, in RFK's America, I'm going to have to answer questions about awe and connection to source.

Get ready for that, America.

Get ready for that, America.

Yeah.

So now they're going to shift their conversation to fertility and contraception.

Clear.

Now, going to later life and talking about estrogens, we've got a huge percentage of American women on birth control pills.

That's, of course, post, hopefully post-puberty, but we're putting women on exogenous estrogens for acne, for PCOS, for menstrual regularity, sometimes, of course, for actual birth control.

But it's like, it's, it's very ubiquitous now in the environment.

And, and it's like,

when you kind of know this stuff, you're like, how are we allowing this to happen?

And then, of course, it's affecting boys too, right?

You know, and so I kind of just think about this world we're living in where it's tons of estrogens.

It's not like there's a bunch of exogenous testosterone, right?

It's not like the plastics are also stimulating testosterone.

So you've got these estrogens, then we're barreled with sugar.

And it's literally like it's in our kids' school lunches, this sugar everywhere.

Sugar is driving the visceral fat in kids, which is turning estrogen to testosterone.

So it's like we live in a world that's basically feminizing us, which for women, that's going to make puberty early.

For men, it's going to feminize them, you know.

And then we also have an entire food system that's driving visceral fat to make us more estrogen sort of rich.

And what is this doing?

I think in a lot of ways,

it's depleting American vigor, right?

Like we're living in this estrogen stew that's hard to get away from.

So here we're coming for the birth control, but because we give it out too broadly, you know, it's been given out for acne and PCOS and menstrual regularity.

But what's wrong with taking a pill that's going to help with severe acne or help with polycystic ovary syndrome or help with mental regularity?

What's actually wrong with doing that?

Especially when the alternative is not doing that and just asking women to just suck those things up as they have done throughout history.

So we're coming for some very basic women's healthcare here, and we're doing it under the guise of, oh, we can't have too many estrogens floating around.

For that matter, what's wrong with taking a birth control pill to control birth, to control for contraceptive reasons?

That's perfectly valid and has been a huge,

a huge step on the way towards bodily autonomy that women have had since the birth control, had more and more of since the birth control pill came in.

But no, we have to demonize it.

We have to do that by comparing the birth control pill to plastics.

Well, it's the pill and plastics are what's doing all these harmful things, including apparently depleting America's vigor.

I don't know how America as a country, how its vigor levels have been doing since the 60s when the birth control pill came in.

I don't know whether they've been dwindling over that time, but it's such a fuzzy and such an unspecific term.

That is not a scientific term.

That's such a judgment-laden term.

And if you ask me, it sounds a lot like she isn't, her issue here isn't people taking birth control pill for acne, like, oh, you're using the birth control pill incorrectly or off-label.

It's about the birth control pill generally and its use in contraception.

And I think that not just because this interview, but I went away and found both those people are against the contraceptive pill.

She did an interview, as Joe mentioned, with Tucker Carlson in February 2024, which is where Joe found them.

And in that, she's very explicit about why she doesn't like the birth control pill.

I always noticed that you were not allowed to criticize the pill.

Period.

Like that was not allowed in the world I grew up in.

You could have all kinds of kooky opinions.

You cannot criticize the birth control pill.

And now I feel like maybe we were played a little bit while you're laughing sardonically.

Yeah, I mean,

I can speak as a physician, but I can also just speak as a woman who has taken all these different medications because it's liberation.

Yeah.

It's liberation.

We can do whatever we want, you know, and

who needs to get a period when you can, you know, work in the hospital 100 hours a week and put off having, and then I freeze my eggs at 37 and have kids.

You know, so as a woman, I mean, I do think, of course, these drugs have helped in some ways, but we are prescribing them like candy.

We're prescribing them for acne.

We're prescribing them for PCOS, polysticovarian syndrome, the leading cause of infertility in the United States, which is a metabolic issue driven by our food and how the food interacts with genetics.

And then, of course, for birth control.

So, you've got these medications that are literally shutting down

the

hormones in the female body that create this cyclical, life-giving nature of women.

We basically told women, these hormones don't matter.

Your ability to create the most miracle of any miracles, which is create life, just shut it down.

There's no impacts.

That's crazy to me.

And as I've woken up from this, I realized like your cycle and having these hormonal cycles is part and parcel with our health in every possible way.

And also with the miracle of creating life.

And so for years, you just lose the biofeedback of what's happening with your cycle.

It is one of the key barometers of female health.

How is your cycle doing?

Is it regular?

Is it heavy?

And we're just, we just shut it down and say there's no repercussions for that, which I think gets to a larger issue, which is a disrespect of life, right?

Yes.

It's a disrespect of things that create life.

And I think about you've got the pill and it just goes hand in hand with the rise.

And this is going to seem a little far out there, but like it goes rise and rhyme with the hand of industrial agriculture, you know, the spraying of these pesticides, the things that give life in this world, which are women and soil, we have tried to dominate and shut down the cycles.

We have lost respect for life, which again gets to the spiritual crisis.

Keep going, keep going.

Keep going.

That was

almost a shroud wife.

You're almost there.

Exactly, exactly.

That was Tucker Carlson's interview with Casey Means in February 2024.

And just listen to the way she's framing how even the birth control pill is that.

She's framing this from a women's empowerment point of view she keeps saying plenty of times that as a woman as a woman i think this so she has legitimacy to be saying these things she talks about how the birth control pill is just callously getting rid of disconnecting you from life-giving it's disrespecting things that are life-giving it's just shutting down your hormones and saying that shouldn't that doesn't matter it's it's parting you from the miracle of life it's stopping you getting the bio feedback about your own health,

how it's part of a world where we dominate anything that can create life.

So she's painting the birth control as a tool of patriarchy here.

That's what she's doing.

Even though it is literally the opposite of that, it was literally part of the empowerment of women through the 60s and beyond.

She has to reframe that because to me, it seems like a pretty indication between a pretty clear indication between that Tucker interview and this Joe Rogan interview.

It's an indication that that's what make America healthy again.

That's what they're coming for next.

They're coming for birth control next.

They're coming for contraceptions.

And that is something that is wanted by a large section of the most powerful groups in America, the evangelical anti-abortion groups like the Alliance Defending Freedom or the Heritage Foundation, which to me is another sign that what KC and RFK are doing here is alternative institutional capture.

They are the institutional capture, pushing this regressive conservative ideology under the banner of empowerment and the banner of discovery and all this kind of stuff, like taking back control, pushing this regressivism into the various different strata of the American healthcare system all in one go.

Yeah, I just want to very quickly point out that

the Senate Republicans blocked the bill to protect access to contraception last year.

Yep.

Okay, now they're going to talk about how organizations are controlled by the food industry and so is medicine.

Like literally, when I was a junior employee, I helped Coke phone money to the American Diabetes Association.

Okay, the American Diabetes Association says that if you have diabetes, you don't need to worry about your sugar intake.

They say it's not tied to food, right?

The American Academy of Pediatrics right now is saying that if your child is overweight, slightly overweight, overweight, 12 years old, dietary infrigidates, don't wait.

It says do not wait to see if dietary infrigidates work.

Ozimpic.

It's now being studied on six years old.

The American Psychiatry Association, right?

The psychiatrist, the standard of care, if your child is a little sad, SSRI, immediate intervention, right?

SSRI rates have doubled among high schoolers in the past five years, right?

If your child's a little fidgety, the standard of care, right?

It's not asking whether they're in the sunlight, not asking if they're too sedentary, not asking if they're being force-fed, ultra-processed food, which would make any animal crazy if we subject them to what kids are subjected to.

No discussion of that.

It's just not in the clinical guidelines.

I want to read directly from the American Diabetes Association website.

When it comes to managing diabetes, the carbs you eat play an important role.

After your body breaks down those carbs into glucose, your pancreas releases insulin to help your body absorb that glucose.

In short, the carbs we consume impact our blood glucose, so balance is key.

They continue.

Try to eat less of these.

refined, highly processed carbohydrate foods and those with added sugar.

These include sugary drinks like soda, sweet tea and juice, refined grains like wheat, like white bread, white rice and sugary cereal, and sweets and snack foods like cake, cookies, candy, and chips.

They clearly do not say what he just said they said.

He is misrepresenting what they say.

They say you need to worry about your sugar intake and you shouldn't be eating these things.

They say the opposite of what he claims.

Yeah, exactly.

And the same is true for SSL ride.

There is no part of it where any doctor is advised if a child, a young child is a little sad, sick them straight on SSRIs.

That is not how any part of this prescription works.

I also thought it was interesting that he's drawing the line as to the increase in SSRIs in children over the last five years.

Almost like something happened from, say, 2020 onwards, which would severely impact on the mental health of the crazy American children and children around the world.

I missed that when we first heard it.

I just caught it right there.

You're absolutely right.

All right.

Now we're going to talk about the genius of return customers.

So you get to World War II.

Up until World War II, around that time, the 1950s, 1960s, I would argue almost any medical miracle you can think of or any listener can think of was created before that time.

You know, it's all acute situations, emergency surgical procedures, sanitation procedures, antibiotics to make an infection not deadly.

Almost every medical miracle we can think of was something that was going to kill you right away, infectious disease.

And then

you take the pill or take the treatment for a finite period of time and you stop it or do the surgery quickly and you're cured.

Those are medical miracles.

And we had a lot of good things happen up until World War II.

Very intentionally, the medical industry saw the birth control pill in the late 1950s, 1960s.

And the birth control pill was the first pill in world history that people took for longer than a couple of weeks.

It was the first pill ever that it's like, oh, interesting.

You can actually convince someone to take a pill for years, for almost most of their life, recurring revenue.

So Kelly has bring this up, and he likes to bring this up, this idea that the birth control pill, where it's the first pill people had to take as an ongoing thing.

He's done it in other interviews that I've found with him, too.

Because what he's trying to do here is tie this to an anti-pharma stance.

So birth control pill, it's just about making money.

It's not about giving women control over their bodies.

So you pair that to the kind of anti-big pharma.

Big pharma just wants to keep you buying pills.

And that's why they invented the birth control pill, and therefore you should resist.

You should stand up to big pharma and stop taking your birth control, stop going for that, push back against the allowance of birth control.

You've got that messaging, which will appeal to one segment of Joe's audience or the various audiences they'll speak to.

And at the same time, Casey's talking up miracles and spirituality and the sacredness of procreation and the empowerment of women to have bio feedback for their bodies.

And she's attacking the other side of the audience where they might be might be vulnerable to this kind of messaging.

Together, this rhetoric is just designed to create a permission structure for a conversation about getting rid of coverage for the contraceptive pill on any kind of health insurance.

That is what the agenda is here.

And they're doing this in tandem, attacking it from different angles.

It's like a pincer movement.

Yeah, that's really interesting and a great point.

I want to talk about the framing here because he says he's talking about medicine before a certain time, which he claims was like up until World War II.

And then afterwards was when we started changing how we did some other medical procedures.

Well, isn't that just how technology moves forward?

Isn't that just how medical understanding moves forward?

You know, we had a smaller toolbox, so we did less things.

And now we have a bigger toolbox and we do things with the, where we reach into the toolbox and find a more specialized tool.

That's just how the advancement of technology and medicine is a type of technology.

That's how that moves forward.

I think, and I, and this is anecdotal, anecdotal, but I want to bring this up.

I think of all the times I've gone to the doctor and I've been to the doctor for things that have been musculoskeletal, clearly, you know, you got hurt an arm or whatever.

And I don't expect to get something, maybe a pill or something there, you know, maybe a small pill for a little while to like reduce inflammation or something.

But then I think about all the things that I went for that didn't require that, right?

Like, you know, I've had like serious headache problems in my life and I've gone to doctors to see that.

I've had, you know, I had a couple other issues that I went to go see doctors for.

And I think of all the things that probably could have easily, they could have easily prescribed a pill that could have gone for a long time.

And they didn't do that.

If this was the case, wouldn't this be something that many people would experience?

Wouldn't most of us wake up in the morning and have a big bevy of pills that we're taking if that was the case?

Think about, think about this.

Now, I'm not saying that there aren't people who do have that, but those people, I think, are not the they're not the regular sort of like the average type of person.

I think average people don't wake up and take a giant slew of pills at the younger parts of their life.

Maybe as I get older and my body starts to break down, I might need more and more things to try to make my feel more young and more normal, what I think would be normal and my regular levels of the activity and all the things that I've been experiencing for my whole life.

But as I get, that's as I get older, not like when I'm young.

And I don't, I just don't feel like that's the case.

If it was about money, they could be making a hell of a lot more money than they're making right now.

Yeah.

if they're pushing drugs on everybody, they're doing a bad job because there's lots of people who don't take drugs every day.

And also the idea that drugs were just invented, chronic conditions, things were just invented in order to keep you buying drugs.

I mean, I know for a fact that I take two antihistamines pretty much every day because I've got chronic allergies.

And it's not like my chronic allergies are made up.

It's not like they've been pushed on me by a lifestyle sore big pharma can sell me these what turn out to be incredibly cheap antihistamines that I pay maybe several pence a day in order to keep me from having awful like breathing symptoms.

So, none of that's made up and they work really effectively.

And if you, if you caught me at a time when I wasn't taking them, you'd hear from my voice and from the noises that I was making, I had some really serious respiratory going on.

So, like, the pills aren't just there because they want to make money, they're there when there's something they can actually do a lot of the time.

We're going to take a short break.

We'll be back right after this.

mean?

Here we go.

Okay,

so two 30 ago.

Video como guy.

Obtain Wi-Fi and Mazzin connect the local con ATNT Fiber with Al-Fi.

ATNT connectar locambia todo.

ATNT Fiber tennis response limitation.

So here the service de covert Wi-Fi extended ATNT concerns.

The Mercedes-Benz dream days are back with offers on vehicles like the 2025 E-Class, CLE Coupe, C-Class, and EQE sedan.

Hurry in now through July 31st.

Visit your local authorized dealer or learn more at mbusa.com slash dream.

I was sipping my latte when my friend gasped.

Her phone had just alerted her to a data breach.

Again, that's when I told her about CAPE.

It's not just another app.

It's a mobile carrier built to protect your privacy.

No name, no address, no data collected.

Cape offers premium nationwide service for $99 a month.

First month, just $30.

Use code CAPE33 and get 33% off your first six months.

She signed up that afternoon.

And now, no more gasps.

Go to CAPE.co.

Privacy starts at the source.

It's time to head back to school and forward to your future with Carrington College.

For over 55 years, we've helped train the next generation of healthcare professionals.

Apply now to get hands-on training from teachers with real-world experience.

In as few as nine months, you could start making a difference in healthcare.

Classes start soon in Pleasant Hills, San Leandro, and San Jose.

Visit Carrington.edu to see what's next for you.

Visit carrington.edu slash SCI for information on program outcomes.

All right, we're back.

Let's jump right back in.

This is a really important part of the conversation.

This is where they're going to talk about how these two people became so influential.

I met with Nancy Pelosi two weeks ago.

Looked her in the eyes because, you know, we've been

helping RFK, helping Trump, and we should talk about that.

I think there's a really, really important societal dynamic happening with that unison.

But I'm preparing as much as I can to foster this bipartisan conversation.

I can tell you, everyone in the room, right, like is horrified by these statistics.

But every time, their staffers are slithering behind them.

And the healthcare staffers in Congress are waiting for their next job with the pharma industry or the insurance industry, and they really drive the place and make the bills.

But a real problem with the corruption is these people making policies, literally chairs of healthcare committees.

So this, you know, two weeks before Joe sits down with Donald Trump for that incredibly influential interview that we've covered on a previous couple of shows, in fact, here is a pair of people that he seems to know pretty well.

He's pretty comfortable with them.

And they're citing the various people that Joe knows and trusts.

And throughout the interview, there's a laundry list of names of people that they agree know what they're talking about.

And it's all the kind of people that would appear on Joe Rogan's show.

And they're saying they're working with Trump.

They're working with RFK Jr.

We're meant to think that this is just a coincidence.

Joe is still undecided about who he's going to vote for and where his loyalties li and where he was in the election.

But this feels pretty deliberate.

This feels very specific.

Two weeks, this is the start of October, two weeks before he sits down with Trump, one month before the vote, we have people from RFK's team on here to essentially sell the pivot to the audience.

So we're these two matchmakers for Trump and RFK?

Let's find out.

So you were one of the people that helped sort of broker the deal with RFK and Trump and bring the two of those together.

Tell me how that got started.

Tell me how that worked out.

Yeah, I mean, when I think about that story, I literally think about 2021.

Our mom abruptly dying of pancreatic cancer.

And Casey and I on her grave site literally hugged each other and said, we want to write a book and we want to make this and evangelize this inspired by you and others.

We want to evangelize this and add to the chorus to prevent what's happening because so many Americans are on this pharmaceutical treadmill.

And then the cancer is random.

It's not random.

Like all these warning signs that were missed with my mom, her prediabetes, her high cholesterol, her high blood pressure, those were pilled, not seen as gifts to get to the root cause.

And then she was chopped down by cancer.

This is happening to everyone.

So we want to evangelize that.

And we've been on the path as best we can with companies and evangelizing.

And through these amazing podcasts, like Tucker,

we got connected with people.

So got to know RFK, got to know Democrats, and got to know the Trump campaign.

And in the past year, I will say this, the Trump campaign has been extremely interested in the policy of why kids are getting so sick.

And if you go back a year ago, President Trump actually at rallies to loud applause has been talking very similar points to RFK.

So we got to know RFK.

So this is how this kind of brokerage happened.

Notice he starts with the story about

their mom, which obviously incredibly sad to lose a parent.

Wouldn't say anything else about that.

But interesting that they highlight the signs that were missed for her cancer, and then they point to things that she was treated for.

But they say, no, you shouldn't have treated it for those things.

Those were gifts in order to get a diagnosis.

So we've got a very specific worldview going on here.

But then what he goes on to outline is effectively how the health industry, the institutions of health in America have been captured by a group of people.

He and his siblings have these outsider views, including on cancer, metabolic dysfunction, all these things that are not evidence-based at all, but they do have connections.

And so they talk about growing up in Washington.

They're the children of someone called Grady Means.

Now, Grady Means was the assistant to Vice President Nelson Rockefeller, who worked on the health and human welfare issues at the Department of Health, Education and Welfare.

He was also a managing partner at Price Watt House Coopers.

So very, clearly, very influential, very well connected.

No surprise then that Kaylee grew up and became a lobbyist lobbyist in Washington because he's got these political connections.

He developed further political connections.

As a result, he gets to have books published without any qualifications.

Why is Kayleigh means?

You know, Casey at least was a

medical resident.

Kaylee isn't.

Kayleigh was a lobbyist in the chemicals industry.

Why is he writing a book on health and getting it published and getting out such public and such a big publicity tour?

Well, because he's got connections.

He's got influential people in his circle, essentially.

He gets to know more influential people, Tucker Carlson.

Through Tucker Carlson, he gets to Joe Rogan.

Through the two of them, they get to influential people like RFK Jr.

and from there to Donald Trump.

And then they get to be in the room when decisions are made about the directions of campaigns that go on to become the policies of the incoming government.

So I think it's fascinating as to how this kind of connection is being made because nobody voted to have Kaylee and Casey Means be influential in their healthcare.

Nobody even knew during the election, really, that their views would be so influential on RFK or that they'd help bridge those RFK views into Trump's policy.

But in their world of alternative influence, it isn't what you know, it's who you know.

And they're very clearly pulling on all the levers and all the threads and the strings of who they know in order to get into those most influential rooms.

And in fact, we know that this is how it works.

Because what did Trump tell us two weeks later?

Two weeks later when he's talking to Joe, he said the mistake he made the first time around in office was saying yes when the wrong people were suggested to him as hires.

But this time around, he's got people around him who are recommending the right people to hire.

I wonder who he might mean when he says that kind of thing.

Two weeks later on Joe Rogenshaw.

Yeah, yeah.

I know this is a weird connection, but isn't this the second time we've heard someone suggest that they decided to write a book because somebody died?

I thought Kai Dickens said the same thing in her story.

And it's a weird connection so far.

And I'm not making anything out of it, but it's interesting to see two Mavericks in a field, right?

Kai

in the field of special education and this in the health field.

Two people have been rocked by death in their life and decided to change the world.

And they both stumbled across grand unified theories of different types.

So another interesting.

All I'm going to say is we haven't got to Dr.

Asim Malhotra's interview on Joe Rorgan yet.

We may do it this series.

We may do it next series, but pin in that thought, because I know a lot about Aim Malhotra.

Next, Callie has a vision.

Sitting watching the first assassination attempt, I had like a spiritual, what I can call it, kind of out-of-body experience, and I felt the need to call.

Robert.

And I had this vision for a year.

I actually, it sounds very woo-woo, but I was in a sweat tent with him in Austin at a campaign event six months before.

And I just had this strong vision of

him standing with Trump and how what RFK represents is actually what Trump represents and actually what almost every American's feeling, which is this frustration and this rigged thing and this stunt thing that doesn't quite feel right that you can't quite put your finger on.

And it was so clear to me that how RFK talks about health personifies this overall kind of institutional capture and makes it real for people in a really visceral way because it's clearly impacting their kids.

So that was all the context.

Pick up the phone, called him, and just urged him, you know, as a supporter, as a lowly supporter, to consider maybe this is the time as President Trump put his fist up as, you know, with all this momentum.

There's rare moments in history where the deck can change.

And I really felt, and he felt, like this could be a realignment of American politics because that moment felt very heavy after the assassination.

So we went back and forth and he asked to, you know, he's like,

let me talk to him.

So I worked with Tucker

and we connected them that night.

And he talks about seeing seeing a vision of Trump sort of stood walking with RFK.

And I just thought, you know, and when there was only one set of footprints on the campaign trail,

it was when RFK was carrying Trump.

But to make a serious point off this, he's talking about institutional capture whilst also explaining that he is a lobbyist who decided to change Trump's health strategy after sitting in a health retreat with RFK Jr., his friend who he happened to know.

And then once again, he's throwing in that it was Tucker Carlson who acted as a middleman.

This feels like a carve-up of the country.

This is like an old boy's network of who you know and who you've rubbed shoulders with in order to get into the influential spaces.

Yeah.

This is not a meritocracy.

Yeah, right.

Exactly.

What a great point to point out, because that is what we hear from this side constantly.

It's a meritocracy.

It's the best people should be involved.

And then you see the appointments and it's a guy he liked from Fox News.

So he made him the defense secretary.

It's some guy introduced him to RFK and now RFK is his guy.

Yeah, it should be the best people in the country, not the best people in that sweat lodge at the time.

Yeah, the best people in my Rolodex, you know, exactly.

Okay.

Now this is

a defining moment and these two figures, Trump and RFK, they're bonding.

Like, this was a true like connection of these two men and a true deep bond, which I think you're seeing out there on the campaign trail, that this transcends politics and this wants, Trump wants this to be a generational issue for him.

And I just want to say something.

I think we're at a big moment here.

There's, we're debating trivia.

Like, I think the two most existential issues are nuclear war or what's happening to our health.

And whatever you think, and I used to be a never-Trumper.

Watching him care about this issue, watching what's happening with the RFK, watching what's happening of how that's resonating with voters, seeing smallly, you know, from my small vantage point inside, there is tremendous connection of these two men and moral clarity of seeing what's happening.

And my question is this, and to anyone kind of considering voting in this election, Trump is going to say stupid shit.

He's Trump.

We know who he is.

There's two important questions to ask.

Who sees this corruption and institutional capture that's going to destroy our country, I think to an existential level?

And who is willing to suffer that blowback?

Who is willing to go up against these military industrial complex, the healthcare industrial complex, the education industrial complex that's making us a non-competitive?

Like they are ready.

Who is going to appoint?

This is a question I have.

Who do we believe is going to appoint people like RFK, people like Elon Musk to stir stuff up?

Who is going to do that?

Like that to me is the foundational question.

And I do consider this the most important election of my lifetime, watching these two men, because it is so genuine.

And there is like a genuine desire

to truly transform, to see our broken corruption and institutions for what it is.

And really, truly, I think prevent nuclear war and dramatically reverse our health crisis.

So just listen to that impassioned plea, that pitch.

This is the sales pitch.

This was, bear in mind, this is the start of October 2024.

This is two weeks before Joe decides after interviewing Trump that Trump's his guy.

This is before that's ever taken place, apparently.

This is speaking specifically to the fans of RFK Jr.

who were in Joe's audience, given that Joe had been supportive of RFK at various other points of this election campaign.

This is speaking to those fans and saying, this is who you're going to vote for and why.

You need to switch to Trump because Trump is the one who's going to stand up, ignore the silly things that he said.

He's going to stand up for what RFK Jr.

says.

So you need to switch your allegiances and get behind Trump.

That's what this very specifically is.

Yeah.

And

I just want to point out that Trump is very much stopping corruption, but he is going to take a short break so he can get a free Air Force one from Qatar.

Then he's going to go right back to stopping corruption.

All right.

Now, Trump isn't the hero that we want.

He is the hero that we need.

There's a war right now between incrementalists and radical change.

We are living in a great time, but we have existential threats.

And the question before everyone in this very important election is: do we need more incrementality or do we need a fundamental rethink of some of our major systems?

I really think that's what's before us.

And as Casey said, I think we're in a good period of history right now, certainly, but we're facing, I think, more existential threats

that I really think we don't fully appreciate.

This is

such a unique time, and it seems like without a person that's a total outsider like Trump, that's being so attacked.

The fact that they, it's not just that they disagree with him, they attack him, it's that they do it in unison, they do it so coordinated that you realize there is a machine behind this, and that they repeat the same talking points over.

I mean, it's like they're given a script, and that there's no repercussions for lies.

I think we both picked up on something fresh to go through.

Do you want to pick up on this, Cecil?

Yeah,

Trump, the former presidential outsider.

I just wanted to point that out.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Four years in the job, but a total outsider when he comes to try and redo the job.

Complete outsider.

Very clearly signaling, Joe, signaling to his audience, his audience who love Mavericks, who love outsiders.

Trump is your man.

And then look at the scale of the rhetoric here.

This is an existential threat.

This is a war, and only Trump can save you from it.

And Joe's response is to complain about there are people out there who are being given a script.

Joe, this is you being given a script.

This is your script right here.

That is what we're witnessing.

Yeah.

And Joe is complaining: there's no repercussion for lies.

Donald Trump, does he face a great deal of repercussion for the lies that he is told?

I don't think he ever had.

Even his fans, his,

many of his ardent fans would say

he has told some lies.

He hasn't faced any repercussion for those lies.

Yeah,

I just want to point out, too, every time Joe brings up the criticism of Trump, unless it's grassroots and organic,

then there's the and then the blowback against Trump, we can't accept it.

It has to be organic, it can't be through major media outlets because if it is, then it's constructed.

And so, it's a real easy way to pass off a ton of criticism that comes to Trump, which may be true, but Joe says he doesn't believe it because he won't believe that source.

And so, it's a real easy way for him to hand wave away tons of bad things that get reported, you know, by many, many different major news outlets.

Yes.

And also, if it is organic, it's not organic.

It's paid for by George Soros, the role paid protesters.

That comes up as well.

Or their bots, AI bots.

We heard that.

They're Ukrainian bot farms.

Yeah.

So there's plenty of different times that he's mentioned these other things.

So he has a way to dismiss most criticism that he hears.

Yeah.

And now this is the last clip in our main event.

This is mostly Joe talking while looking through his phone to see if he tweeted something that he wants to bring up.

There was something, I believe I retweeted it, see if you can find it, about YouTube taking down a podcast for medical misinformation, and there was none.

And this is without Twitter, without X, without Elon buying it, and this person being able to post it.

I think it was Schellenberger.

Was it Schellenberger?

Do you see my Twitter feed?

Is it up there?

Well, this is the.

Oh, here we go.

It's below the.

hold on.

Oh, that's

we need people like Dr.

J in power.

Maybe I didn't tweet.

Sorry, it was him.

It was him directing Jamie.

There's another part where he's distracted on his phone.

So yeah, I was incorrect there, but yeah.

Yeah, exactly.

I love that.

Joe is not listening at all.

And this happens quite frequently on Joe Rorgan Show.

These are the bits we normally kind of cut out.

But the reason I wanted to leave this in is because while Joe is doing that kind of meandering around, you hear Callie say, We need people like Dr.

J in power.

He's talking about Dr.

Jay Batticheria, who was a COVID denialist.

He's a doctor.

He was very, push a lot of kind of anti-vax and anti-COVID kind of rhetoric throughout the pandemic, has now moved into those spaces a lot more.

He brings this up.

They've just been talking at this point about corruption, specifically corruption at things like the National Institute for Health.

And then he says, we need Dr.

Jay in power.

Dr.

Jay Bhattacharia is now the head of the National Institute for Health.

He was named that by Trump a month after, or just a month, just over a month after this interview aired.

So So obviously, either Callie had prior knowledge that that was going on because he's in those rooms, whether the map is being laid out as to who takes what job, or the alternative is that after he was coming up with that kind of recommendation here, he fed that through to the people who put that into place.

One way or another, Callie has had influence or insight into what the campaign was actually doing, and he's selling it to George's audience here.

And I know we approached this episode by talking about how important Casey means will be because she is possibly going to be the next Surgeon General, but let's not overlook how important Callie is.

We're going to take a quick break and then move on to our toolbox section.

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.

Dreaming of buying your first car or a new home?

Knowing your FICO score is the first step in making it real.

With MyFICO, you can check your score for free and it won't hurt your credit.

You'll get your FICO score, full credit reports, and real-time alerts all in one simple app.

Your credit score is more than just numbers.

It's the key to building the future you've been working toward.

Visit myfico.com/slash free or download the MyFICO app and take the mystery out of your FICO score.

Wow.

So that's the tool bag and something just fell out of the tool bag?

All right, so for this week, it's the naturalistic fallacy in chemphobia.

And this is essentially just saying a bunch of chemicals, listing chemicals, and how those are bad and natural things are good.

Yeah, absolutely.

Anything natural is good for you.

Anything that's chemical-based or synthetic or manufactured or in any kind of way involves chemical names, well, chemicals are bad.

And they kind of go hand in hand as kind of like the yin and yang of this particular rhetorical quirk and linguistic technique.

So we're going to start out with our first clip.

This is about studies.

On the foundational level, why this is happening, it's because these studies are all funded by the chemical companies, by the food companies.

Like, we've almost been, I think, misled by the experts when it comes to chronic conditions and when it comes to nutrition to take leaves of our common sense.

Like, do we need to wait for a double-blind, placebo-controlled, human-randomized control

study to know whether 0.5% of our brains being plastic is a good thing right now?

That's the reason data.

Do we need to have a human-randomized control 10-year study to know know whether an herbicide like glyphosate that's being sprayed on almost all of our food and our children's food that people have to wear hazmat suits to spray and kills every single organism in sight?

Do we need to wait for a study?

Like, like we've been, we've, just as the medical system is siloed, we've siloed all these questions and just taken leave of our common sense.

Like, animals in the wild, wolves in the wild, are not getting like chronic rates of obesity, diabetes, metabolic dysfunction.

Like, we're born with an innate sense of knowing what's good for us, of knowing that the sun is good, of knowing that, that steak is good, that broccoli is good.

We can't overeat those things.

The problem is we've been why to buy the professors at Harvard, at Stanford, at Tufts Nutrition School that I believe are essentially, from my experience, PR for the food industry and the pharmaceutical industry that accepts all these things as a given.

So yeah, we can't wait for studies that will say these kind of things.

Well, nobody is waiting for studies to say we should be reducing microplastics that they're not good for health.

We're already trying to do that.

There's an entire global movement about it.

There are even policies that governments are putting in place.

A lot of the time, they're policies that guests on Joe Rogenshaw will complain about, or people in those same kind of spheres will complain that this is kind of like government overeat, climate change gone mad, wokeism, et cetera.

But these are studies, these are things that are being done to reduce the amount of plastics in the environment.

So we're not just waiting for the studies to do that.

But that's also not to say we aren't also doing the studies.

There are studies being done right now about the accumulation of microplastics in human brains.

Callie even cites one.

Sorry, Casey interjects and sort of cites one.

The two of them cite a particular study.

So there are studies being done.

I don't buy this idea that we're not doing anything.

Similarly, we do have studies on glyphosates, but you don't like their conclusions.

So you're saying this is just PR.

This is nothing more.

You're given a way to just write this off without thinking about it.

And then he talks about how, you know,

steak is good for us.

He talks about wolves in the wild,

how they don't get chronic rates of diabetes.

So we should be living like wolves in the wild.

Well, yeah, wolves in the wild also don't have access to medicine and abundant food supply.

So they don't live as comfortably or as long.

They're way more likely to die of disease, starvation, or injury.

So you won't see them getting chronic disease because the second there is a weakness in a wolf, nature will take it out and nature will take that animal down.

Yeah,

there are two wolves inside of every person.

One is just a little chunky and he can't keep up.

The other ones are much more more speedy and spelt.

We don't do medicine using common sense.

Okay.

We do it with studies.

If they want to prove that these obvious things are true, then go ahead and have one of your rich oligarch friends produce a scientific study.

They could easily fund this.

It wouldn't take anything, right?

You could provide.

A study, not a book, yeah.

Yeah, a study, not a book.

You know, go out of your way to do this.

And I'm emphasizing the words you use, which is obvious, right?

Common sense.

This is easy to do.

If it's easy to do, then prove it.

I mean, proving it should be the easy, that should be a cakewalk, but you haven't done that yet.

Common sense at one time thought we had too much bile in our bodies.

So let's not just lean on common sense.

He keeps saying that the people behind this are in big industries.

Well, isn't this a capitalism problem?

You know, we're letting businesses give huge amounts of money to

political campaigns through Citizens United.

Shouldn't we, you know, basically say, I mean, if this is really a problem with them

using their political will and political power and lobbying to go into government and make all these things true, then let's try to remove those things.

If you can remove those things, then they won't have that political power in order to manipulate things.

But they're not trying to change that.

They're not trying to change what could, you know, if this is the problem, there is a clear and obvious fix and you are overlooking it and trying to say, well, what we need to do is do change the food.

Changing like how we want food isn't going to make these big changes to capitalism.

Changing capitalism is going to change how we and changing how our government interacts with capitalists will change these big things.

But they don't like that answer.

They're not trying to do that.

And I just want to say, they're pointing out microplastics in this.

Well, what does that have to do with changing our diet?

What does that have to do with sunlight?

They're pointing out something that I'm like, you know, you can start pointing to all these problems.

and that's what they do throughout and say, this is food related.

Okay, whatever, prove it.

But we get to this point and I'm like, okay, well, now we're talking about microplastics.

I don't, I mean, maybe there's some weird back end way that they're related to those two things, but I'm not quite sure how

they smash those things together.

And I just want to say the fallacy here is that we use unnatural means to grow food and therefore it's tainted and bad.

Yeah, exactly.

And meanwhile, he said, you can't overeat broccoli.

You can't overeat steak.

Those things are natural, therefore they must be good.

Wolves in the wilds must be good, and we should be living like those because nature's best.

Yeah, absolutely.

Yeah.

And challenge accepted, I can overeat steak, and I do very often.

Yeah, exactly.

All right, now we're going to, second toolbox clip is about food companies.

So you had that literal food pyramid.

which said ultra-processed food is great, low-fat, carbs, base of the pyramid.

That was constructed literally by the cigarette cigarette industry to promote their addictive products.

And this weaponization of food, as I call it, it's not just like this conspiracy.

Literally, the cigarette industry, those two companies, Philip Morse and Arjunes, were the two largest food producers in the United States.

But like 50% of American food were created by cigarette companies in the 1990s.

And they have gotten us addicted and weaponized this food.

And all chronic conditions have just shot up.

It's because that ultra-processed foods, literally, by tobacco industry scientists, hijacks our evolutionary biology.

Again, you can't overeat grass-fed steak.

So, yeah, the nasty chemicals from the cigarette companies are designed to get you addicted to weaponized food.

Ignoring the fact that this would be also happening in other countries around the world, I mean, where we don't have the same kinds of food systems or food companies pushing quite as much stuff.

Are we seeing the same commensurate rise in chronic conditions?

Yes, we are.

So, clearly, it isn't just that American food is uniquely bad.

Flip side of that, he's doing the natural fallacy here.

Grass-fed steak is doubly natural.

You know, it's real meat that was fed on real grass.

Therefore, you can't overeat it, apparently, due to evolutionary biology, which in some ways what he's doing here is essentially using a scientific sheen on the naturalistic fallacy.

Well, evolutionary biology, if I talk about the science of that, it's sort of saying this is how your body is meant to be.

So nature is best.

Science says so.

But obviously, this isn't true.

Of course, you can eat of foodstuff.

Your body doesn't decide how much to eat based on the how much steak to eat, based on the diet of the animal that you're eating.

Your body is like, well, hang on, what did this cow eat?

Because I need to know that before I know whether to have another mouthful or not.

There's a complex mix of other factors involved in eating and overeating or undereating, not least things like how fast you're eating.

If you eat too fast, you're going to overeat because the signal that sends your,

the mechanism that sends a signal to your brain saying you're full takes a little while to get there and you can eat beyond the before that uh that signal comes um if you've been routinely overeating you're going to train your appetite to be higher these are all things that you can do regardless of whether you're eating grass-fed steak or a burger it's all the same what this is doing is just all designed towards pushing this incredibly simplistic narrative natural is good chemical stuff bad and it's way more complex than that in reality I want to add something really quickly, and I don't know if this is something that is,

I'm not sure if this is

valid or not, and maybe we could talk through this, but is overeat a really vague term?

Is that a vague term for a purpose to say something like that?

Because overeat seems very specific.

It seems personally specific, but it also seems ultimately very vague.

What do we mean by overeat?

And I think like, you know, when you say terms like that, it's easy to point to and people understand what it means, but at the same time, we don't have a definitive figure of what that actually means like by measurement you know what i mean does that does that make sense and then and then it in a way it's a real easy thing to say because it seems to match a lot of different satiation figures Yeah, that's a good point.

It's that thing.

Yeah, you're right.

It sounds specific, but it's vague enough to be applied to a range of different things with the same term, which means that in any different part of the conversation, you could be using the same term to mean different things.

And therefore, you're not having the same, it's not clear clear what conversation you're having necessarily yeah that's an interesting point so now this this next clip is just a

continuation of the last clip

the byproduct of this cheap addictive food which we don't even have research for yet is that it's sprayed with all these chemicals it's sprayed with 10 000 chemicals that are allowed in the united states when only 400 are allowed in europe all these chemicals to make the food addictive to make the food cheap you know to do the monocropping and that food is absolutely and we don't need to wait for the research on this these chemicals these neurotoxins are destroying our cells, destroying our microbiome in ways we don't fully understand.

So I just want to make clear to everyone, like this has happened like very intentionally.

And it can be undone pretty quickly too.

But we have to realize this isn't a conspiracy.

It's true corruption

that

happened deliberately.

If we don't fully understand it and we don't have the research for it, How can you know that that's doing what you suggest?

Yeah, it's because, and the answer to that is, because they're chemicals and chemicals are bad, and the more chemicals, the worse.

And look, don't get me wrong, America does have lower food quality and safety standards than other countries in some cases.

Um, you do allow more chemicals to be added to your food than they do in Europe or here in Britain.

Um, in fact, American chlorinated chicken was a very big talking point here in the UK after Brexit, once we liberated ourselves from the EU's high food safety standards that banned the use of chlorine to treat chicken.

Yeah, we've we've freed ourselves to eat bleached chicken that you guys eat routinely.

But we also, the assumption here is that we don't have to wait for the research as if the research hasn't been done.

You know, as if there's this standard of everything is fine chemical-wise unless it's proven to be harmful whenever it comes to chemicals and food.

But that obviously isn't the place.

Like the FDA specifically exists to maintain American food standards and additives have to get FDA approval before they're allowed in food, including including that part of that approval process is showing that they're actually safe in food at the levels they're going to be there

in food, that their use is appropriate and that their use is safe.

But Kelly and Casey don't want you to know that.

They want you to be scared of chemicals so they can push what they see as the natural solutions here.

Okay, now we're going to move on to talking about things that have a designation called generally recognized as safe.

We're one of the only countries in the world where the burden of proof for harm, like we allow these chemicals to just enter our food system.

We have 10,000 chemicals in our food system.

Europe, only 400, because they have to show that it's safe before they use it.

We're allowed to use it and then, and then only, you know, only if there's issues that crop up do people have to do research.

So, you know, there's this like ridiculous

GRAS generally recognized as safe designation, which is essentially a company self-assesses whether the chemical that they are creating is generally recognized as safe.

No one's overseeing it.

And Brigham talks about this, like compassion for the FDA.

They're overwhelmed.

There's a lot of stuff to do.

It's kind of like a hoarder's house.

Where to even start?

Like, I don't necessarily know if I buy that.

I think that it's pretty, pretty bad and bought off that we have all these chemicals.

But they basically just have to self-designate if it's generally recognized as safe and then it can go into our food system.

So they want to tell you here that companies are just marking their own homework.

And the FDA, well, they're too overwhelmed to do their job so what they're doing is giving a complete green light to everything that's new and just declaring it safe unless proven otherwise that isn't what a g ras classification generally recognized as safe classification actually means so here's from the fda website g ras is an acronym for the phrase generally recognized as safe under sections 201 and 409 of the federal food drug and cosmetic act any substance that's intentionally added to food is a food additive uh that is subject to pre-market review and approval by the fda unless the substance is generally recognized among qualified experts as having been adequately shown to be safe under the conditions of its intended use, or unless the substance is otherwise accepted from the definition of a food additive.

So it isn't that they're going to just assume something is safe until proven otherwise.

It's saying that if a substance has already been demonstrated by qualified experts as safe, it can be considered so.

And one of the things there might be, for example, if you're taking a food additive and you're adjusting it in a minor way, but creating a new chemical as a result of that, the safety profile might well remain the same, even if the coloring is slightly different.

In those situations, you'd go to

an adequate expert to a adequately qualified expert to look at it and then provide evidence that it's safe without the FDA having gone through a full reclassification and reanalysis.

It's interesting that people who push natural foods can't bring themselves to pronounce it G-RAS as grass.

They won't let them do it.

It looks so much easier when you just look at it.

You're like, well, they just call it grass.

But no, they don't want to do that.

Don't mix up these two things.

Look, this sounds like a capitalism issue if it's true, right?

If it's true, right?

If the things you're saying are true,

Marshall already talked about how the things you're saying are not true.

But even if they're true, this feels like a capitalism issue.

And

this is what government funding, you know, behind government funding would be able to cure a lot of this stuff.

But they're sort of lighting the candle at both ends here.

They're suggesting massive changes to our food system in big, sweeping ways.

At the same time, they're firing a bunch of people who handle these sorts of things.

So that's sort of those, that's, you're burning the candle at two ends there.

That's not how you would fix this problem if you were serious about fixing this problem.

Yeah, it's certainly very hard to square their issues of the FDA being completely overwhelmed with the bonfire of regulations that Trump's platforms.

Those two things are in contrast to one another.

Also, she mentioned very briefly, oh, this is something that Brigham talks about.

She's referring to Brigham Bueller, who is somebody I think Joe has had on the show that they also know and is just in that same world.

And this happens throughout the interview.

They reference even just by first name, oh, well, you talked to so-and-so and he told you this.

Talk to Andrew Huberman and various other people.

They're all in the same circle spreading these same ideas amongst each other.

And Joe is the outlet by which these people get those views into eyes of millions of viewers.

Yeah, I quickly had Googled that to see who that person was to see if I should put him on our radar.

Yeah, I think he may have been on a Joe.

I think I might have even added him more.

He's on it.

I think he might have been interviewed by Joe previously.

Yeah.

All right.

So now we're going to talk about poisoning.

One thing that I find really interesting is like that I really reflect on a lot is like, what is the difference between a food chemical and a drug?

They're all just synthetic molecules that are made in factories, in labs by scientists.

Do you know what the difference is?

Intended use.

So basically, if the intended use is for food, you can synthesize almost anything you want and put it in food.

We are being mass drugged and poisoned in our food system with 10,000 virtually unregulated chemicals, which have bought off papers saying that they are safe.

This is absolutely textbook chemophobia.

Synthetic modules, synthetic molecules are made in factories.

Well, why would Thors be, by definition, inherently inherently worse than naturally occurring molecules if you're just

putting together the bits of chemical in the same way?

It doesn't matter how you synthesize something.

A molecule is a molecule.

It doesn't really matter the means by which it came together.

But rather than consider that or really analyze that or explain that, they just claim that companies can put almost anything they want in foods, which isn't true.

That the only difference between a food and a drug is its intended use.

That isn't true.

It's about the effect that it's going to have.

If a drug,

if it's designed to have a medical impact because there's ingredients in it that will have a medicinal impact on the body or a chemical impact on the body that isn't just nourishment, that becomes a drug for that reason.

So, yes, it's intended use in the sense of you said this ingredient does this thing over here rather than just changes the way the food looks slightly or makes it last a little bit longer.

So she's doing a sleight of hand here.

And then the other sleight of hand is she says the chemicals are virtually unregulated.

What exactly does she mean?

What is a virtually unregulated chemical?

Seems vague.

Yeah, so where and where is the evidence that says that the papers that say these chemicals are safe are bought off, i.e., fraudulent?

She gives us none of that.

But then Joe doesn't ask for any of that either because he's persuaded by this rhetoric of mass drugging and poisoning and the big food and the big drug coming, big pharma, and all this chemophobia is just music to Joe's ears.

So any critical faculty he might have to question what he's hearing just gets switched off by that rhetoric.

So now we're going to talk about longitudinal studies.

And then you've got the evidence-based people saying, Well, we need to have a 10-year longitudinal study to show that glyphosate is causing XYZ disease.

And it's like, obviously, that's not the right approach because, first of all, it is the synergistic combination of all the toxins that are now in our environment that are leading to all these pleiotropic health issues.

That's very hard to study.

So, we have to get our our heads out of our ass and use our common sense and realize what's going on and not wait 10 years with these NIH-funded studies that are going to be corrupted.

Do they do synergistic studies, Marsh?

Is that something that doesn't happen in medicine?

I mean, I'm fairly sure it would be.

Yeah, absolutely.

What she's doing here, this is just special pleading.

It's getting around what the evidence says.

Well, the evidence says this is safe.

Well, it's because it's not just about that one chemical in isolation.

It's about a mix of all of the chemicals.

And okay, people will actually look at how does this chemical play out with these other chemicals?

How does it play out in our diet?

I mean, if you look at the impact of glyphosate, for example, it's not looking at just the impact of glyphosate, it's looking at the impact of glyphosate in people with everything else that people are doing.

So it's not like you're just feeding someone glyphosate and they're not getting any of this.

So this synergistic thing of everything else that's in the environment, these people, the people who are in those studies are in that environment.

So of course it's seeing how this stuff actually plays out in the wild.

But she's trying to say, well, you need to be able to study the complex interplay of every single chemical and toxin out there, which obviously you can't do to that degree.

So you've got to just take my word for it instead, that it's just obviously bad.

Later, she'll do the same thing with vaccines.

I'm not sure we're going to do it in the show here, but there's a point where she says,

maybe it's not this one vaccine that causes autism, but the combination of all the different vaccines.

That could be what's harmful here.

So it's the same thing that's done.

And also notice she's saying, you know,

before you even look at these NIH-funded studies that are going to be corrupted.

Before the studies have even been done, she's decided to discredit them as corrupted.

They don't exist yet, but they're already corrupt.

Okay, now we're going to talk about ultra-processed foods.

You look at the processed food emergence.

Processed food really didn't start taking off until these mergers.

Like it's, there was a little bit of a start of it.

Ultra-processed foods did not exist before World War II.

We, and, you know, we needed to have shelf-stable food for soldiers and things like that that we could ship.

And so there were maybe some good intentions there.

But then it got, there was an opportunity there that got seen.

And we can also, you know, weaponize the feminist movement against, you know, oh, being in the kitchen, you're a slave.

You know, you don't, that your values outside the home, you need to climb the corporate ladder.

Here, have this convenience food that we basically made for soldiers.

And we're going to tell you that this is actually your liberation.

So, of course, we got people not cooking.

Families aren't eating together anymore.

Like,

you know, kids are eating 67% of children's calories now are ultra-processed foods.

These means foods that come from a factory made by food scientists.

Not just processed, ultra-processed.

The highest form of processing, 67% of calories.

Then you go to the 1970s and we have the advent of high fordose corn syrup, which as Callie talks about, this preceded some of the mergers.

But high for dose corn syrup is a weapon of mass destruction that basically food scientists used an understanding about hibernating animals like bears, who fructose is one of the only types of calories where instead of making you feel satiated, it makes you more hungry.

And this is evolutionarily, and we knew this.

In the fall, when animals are preparing for hibernation and they start eating fructose-rich berries, They need to put on a ton of fat for winter.

And so there's a feed forward mechanism with fructose where it actually gets the bears to be hungry and even violent to out-compete other animals to get as many berries as possible in a short period of time to lay 3D print fat for winter.

So you have the scientists understanding this and say, hey, we can make liquid fructose a thousand times more potent than the fructose you'd find in berries, same molecule, but in higher concentration.

And we can add it to everything.

We can add it to salad dressing.

We're going to add it to ketchup.

We're going to add it to children's school lunches.

We're going to add it, obviously, to sodas.

And we're going to make people insatiable.

insatiable.

We're going to make their bodies and their brains think that they're preparing for winter that's never coming.

And that, and there has been research that shows that hyphrose corn syrup is associated with violence, ADHD in kids, all of these different things.

Before I get started talking about hyphructose corn syrup, I do want to mention that She sort of lays a little bit of this blame or a lot of this blame on women in the workplace and not willing to cook for their kids and their family.

And that is very specifically trad wife stuff that keeps on getting dragged into the conversation.

We saw it with the birth control.

We're seeing it here again as she's saying, it's kind of women's fault that this, they've sort of, they, they were the ones on the watchtower and they failed.

That is almost or it's almost, I agree, or it's almost saying that liberation from the home is a form of patriarchy taking away women's roles.

So like this is, you weren't empowered.

It would actually be empowering to go back to this space.

It was, it was the opposite of empowerment to give up your lives as cooks and cleaners and go off into the working place.

Great point.

Great point.

Okay.

So, well,

why do they believe a very specific study here that they bring up?

They seem to be demonizing.

And they said earlier in the previous clip, well, that study is going to be corrupted.

So they're picking and choosing which studies they seem to believe, right?

They say that high fructose corn syrup is associated with violence and ADHD.

Now, I found a couple links that I'll put in the show notes.

Many health providers agree that high-fructose corn syrup is bad for you and that you shouldn't do it.

You shouldn't be eating things with it.

And their voice advice is to avoid packaged food because high-fructose corn syrup is shelf-stable and it's used in products that are made to last and made to put in your shelf and made to very quickly reheat and cook with very little cooking ability.

So there have been studies which have shown some of the things that she's suggesting, but I just want to point out really quickly who funded those because she's been shitting on the National Institute of Health this entire episode.

Well, the people who funded that study were the National Institute of Health, and Trump cut 1.8 billion research for funding in the National Institute of Health.

So I just want to point out, you know, here's a person who's constantly shitting on this organization, this governmental organization that came up with a study that she's picking and choosing to quote that it was funded very specifically by the NIH.

Yeah, that's a good point.

I'll also point out that she's saying that it's the food companies,

the evil food scientists who decided to deliberately weaponize our evolutionary instinct and reaction to fructose to make us a thousand times worse than those bears who are violent.

That's not why high fructose corn syrup is suffused throughout the American diet.

It's much more the other side of it.

It's the corn lobby.

It's the corn industry and the abundance of corn and having to get extra stuff out out of the what's left of the crop in order to justify ongoing farm subsidies.

It's capitalism again, but it's not the food industry that was deciding how can we make everyone addicted.

It was much more of a corn industry.

How do we get rid of all of this corn and carry on getting subsidies or at least part of it?

Yeah, no, that's a really great point.

And processed food is easy to make.

And I know I sound like a broken record bringing up capitalism again, like Marsh just did, but throughout this episode, they talk about sunlight and eating less processed foods and exercise.

But, you know, like, if you work so much, you're tired after working a hard job, why should we feel shamed by rich people who live luxurious lives when they suggest we should get out for long walks more and enjoy the sunshine and cook from scratch with your family more and you know, just carve out that time to exercise?

Like, that's real easy for Joe Rogan, right?

Joe Rogan wakes up, reads Twitter for an hour and then podcasts.

So

spends two hours in his sauna or whatever he said.

He's talked us through his day before.

It's massive amounts of luxury in there.

He can carve out a two-hour sauna and cold plunge where the most of us can't do that.

So very often, a lot of times we'll feel this, at least I feel this, I'm feeling like I'm being shamed by rich people on how I should be living my life.

And that's very prevalent throughout this whole episode.

And I'm going to, I'm going to move off the beaten path here just for a second, but bear with me.

Cooking for your family as someone who works maybe two jobs or as a single parent, this is time consuming.

Cooking things from scratch is time consuming.

I love to do it.

I'm actually a classically trained chef and patisserie chef, and I like to do that.

I think it's rewarding and fun, but not everybody likes to do it.

A lot of people find it like drudgery.

They don't want to have to do it.

And so I'm going to talk to you about sort of these people often say, eat a whole food, go ahead and, you know, make a food from scratch.

But let's just talk about.

you know, sort of what it would take to make a meal from scratch.

Let's do this with a cake.

Let's talk about making a cake.

Let's say you come home from work, your kids want a cake, you gotta make a quake.

Now, cake, now you could easily grab a box cake and a tub of ready-made frosting, and you can make that in a relatively short amount of time.

Or you can sort of make one from scratch.

Well, what goes into that?

Well, first, I gotta google a recipe if I don't have one at hand.

Now, granted, that might not take a lot of time, but you're still taking some time to sort of do this thing.

So, I did that.

I Googled a recipe for a yellow cake with chocolate frosting.

And the first one I found, and this is the top search on Google, do I have these ingredients in the house?

Are these common ingredients?

You know, maybe if I don't do a lot of baking, maybe they're not common.

So maybe I might have to go to the store.

So that's another bit of time I have to add to this.

And if you're on a budget, you might be, you won't be able to buy a single cake's worth of that ingredient.

You may have to buy an entire pack of it for this one cake.

You may not have the income in order to be able to spend that all in one goal.

Right, exactly.

But, and people will argue, it'll be like, well, some of that stuff you can keep using.

You're like, yeah, but I still have to buy it initially, initially, right?

I still have to do it initially.

It's not like I'm going to plan for the cakes down the road and my budget is going to be okay with that.

Yeah, you can't buy a giant bag of flour on higher purchase.

You have to on a

piece-by-piece basis.

Yeah.

Yeah.

So the cake I found.

called for Dutch processed cocoa, kosher salt, cake flour, buttermilk, cornstarch, vanilla extracts, sweet, semi-sweet chocolate chips.

I might not have any of those things on hand, but buying a cake mix and a tub of frosting seems a lot easier.

The other thing too is that I, you know, do I have a pan at home?

Do I have parchment paper?

Is that necessary?

Because in this recipe, that's what they call for.

Do I need those things?

A box cake is fail-proof.

It's got emulsifizers, got stabilizers.

You can add too little.

You can add too much and by a pretty substantial margin.

You can't margin.

You can leave it out and you could put it in a cold oven.

There's, you can undermix it.

You can overmix it.

You know, all these different things that you can do that won't break that cake, won't mess that cake up.

But you can't, like

with a regular, like a cake without all those extra little things in it to make it so it's a little easier to make, those things are a lot harder to make.

So you might make a cake that failed.

I know when I read this recipe, what the creaming method is, right?

But this recipe says cream the butter.

Do I need to know what that means?

Is that another thing I have to look up?

Is that another thing I have to YouTube?

You know, do I know how to bloom the cocoa?

Do I know what ganache is?

And I purposely didn't search for a hard recipe.

This was the top one on Google.

This is the one I first want I picked out.

So, you know, it's exponentially easier for you to find and make a cake that's a box cake.

And it's going to take a lot less time, especially if you find cooking to be drudgery.

And yet we're going to look at those people and we're going to shame them because they're not providing the proper thing for their children.

Let me let me bring in the beginning piece here too, because the important thing to remember is that while some of the things she's saying are true, right?

There's

like threads of truth in the thing that she's saying, the overall point that we, that foods cause a myriad of problems and organic food is sort of the grand unified theory that's going to remove all these medical issues.

That's not proven at all.

That's not, that's not it.

That's, that's a gut feeling she has.

Okay, so now this is the last clip in our toolbox section.

This is talking about dead food.

And we've also bought into this idea that like both parents need to be working all the time to have, for women to have any value in society, which is insane,

and forgotten that parenting is the most precious, incredible act we possibly could do, I think as humans and raising healthy, strong, critical thinking people.

But like because of all of these forces, we are just giving food to our families that is literally dead.

Ultra-processed food is dead food.

Like the second People don't really understand this.

Doctors certainly don't.

The second food comes out of the earth or is killed, if it's an animal, like it starts degrading.

That's just what happens.

And the food has tens of thousands of molecular components in it that work miraculously with our cells to generate health.

And right now, the average piece of food, I mean, 67% of our calories are ultra-processed food, totally dead, totally stripped of all those miraculous nutrients.

And the average piece of fresh food is traveling 1,500 miles from the soil to our plates and is usually out of the ground for weeks.

So we are literally eating dead food that has lost all of its magic that is God-given for us to have cells that function properly.

And all of this is tied in to all these cultural societal factors that are being like used against us to make us think that our priorities are basically just climbing the corporate ladder.

It's all interconnected.

And fundamentally, we need to just wake up and really focus on like, again, like get back to the core basics below all of this, above all of this, which is that our life is a miracle.

That is a really basic thing, I guess.

Also, there's a ton of trad wife stuff in the beginning of this.

You can just hear it.

It's seeping in this.

Yeah, absolutely.

Women should be empowered to leave the corporate ladder and to go home and get back to the basics of cooking for your kids and raising your kids because parenting is miraculous.

That's the

messages.

It's the most important thing you can do as a human being.

Exactly.

I am missing out on the most important thing I could do as a human being.

And I am 100% fine.

I'm very happy with that.

Yeah.

Now,

I did find

an article that talks a little bit about what she's suggesting, which is, according to

just how food works, when we pick food, the farther food travels, the longer it takes en route to get to the customer, the more the

freshness declines and the more flavor is lost.

Many fruits and vegetables are engineered for a long shelf life, and that sort of sacrifices the taste and the nutrition for preservation purposes, because that's what we do.

I want to point out two instances that she doesn't mention.

You can freeze and you can can things, and that normally does keep a lot of the same nutrients in.

So if you're worried about nutrients in your food, if that's something that you think about, frozen food is a great way to get those nutrients back into your food because it's, it's literally frozen almost immediately after it's picked.

So it's, and it's flash frozen in freezers that we don't even have, right?

This is for a flash frozen very quickly in a, in a big industrial setting, and it's actually really just almost just as nutritious as freshly like food you would pick out of the ground and then eat it.

I also want to point out one other thing.

They keep bringing up grass-fed steak.

They're like, grass-fed steak, grass-fed steak is aged.

Okay.

So

we don't just like kill a cow and then eat cow shashimi.

We age that steak.

We cut it.

We hang it.

We hang it in refrigerators for sometimes the longer it hangs, the more luxurious that steak gets.

So, you know, she's saying it has no, this has no nutritional value.

And here's a guy telling you to keep eating steak and broccoli while the thing they're eating is aged.

Also, and they're saying, they're using a very specific term here.

They're saying dead food.

Now, that's not, I don't know what the hell you're talking about.

Yes, maybe some food loses nutrients as it travels, but that is that dead food is nonsense.

Yeah, absolutely.

And the key question is, how many nutrients does it lose while it travels?

And is what's therefore left somehow worthless or worse, actively bad for us?

Yes.

And the evidence for that is no, absolutely not.

And not just the evidence from America, but from around the entire world, parts of the world where she would point to and say they don't have this kind of problem.

They have have the same kind of issue with food stuff.

We just don't see

food that we've that's been a while since been out the ground actively harming us.

But this is the naturalistic fallacy.

You need to be as close to the soil as possible.

Food starts dying the second you harvest it and you start to lose the molecular components that work miraculously for our cells, as she said, or the magic that's God-given for us, is the term that she uses.

She's telling us here that nature is best, everything else is bad for you.

And yeah, you're absolutely right.

This is trad wife coded to hell.

This is nodding towards a life where you raise your own crops, raise your kids, give up your jobs, and go live in a farmstead somewhere, barefoot and pregnant, while your man does the work.

Yeah, yeah.

I'm the last person that thinks I'm smart.

Trust me.

All right, Marsh, we're at the end.

And normally I make you go first because you say, Cecil, you steal my something good.

So I will not steal your something good this time.

I will go first.

There is nothing good in this.

I could not find a thing that I felt like it was good.

I guess if I was going to say one thing, they seem rich.

Is that good?

They both seem wealthy.

So maybe they live nice lives.

I can't pick anything out.

I didn't feel like any of this conversation didn't feel like a very pointed attack on institutions that they are now attacking.

Yeah, I mean,

I came away with something good.

I came away with a good recipe for a cake, which I didn't have coming into this show.

So

pretty happy with that.

Again, I couldn't find anything that I felt from the conversation was a net good for the world.

You're stealing mine.

You're stealing it.

I said that first.

I'm coming to something.

I'm coming to something.

So I couldn't find something that I think was a net good for the world.

But what I will say is

this,

I watched this one first and I was texting you while I was watching it because I found some parts of this quite jaw-dropping as they talk about the influence they had in networking this alternative health movement into power.

And I think the way that they are so overt and explicit, even before the election, what blew my mind is this was the start of October.

If we had been watching this show, if we'd been doing this show and saw this episode when it went out, we would have had a very good handle on exactly where America's institutions were going over the next four months.

So the overtness of that, I think, wasn't good in the broader sense, but was useful.

It was explicit enough to make

that kind of gives

further power to the idea that we need to be paying attention to these conversations because these conversations will be, at times, them showing their entire hand.

And I think that's what this one was.

It was good in that I knew where you were going to punch me.

That's how it was.

Yeah, exactly.

Okay, well, that's it for the show this week.

Remember, you can access more than half an hour of borders content every single week, probably more than half an hour, substantially more than half an hour, I imagine, because we've got a lot to get through in the borders.

That is going to be literally like a dollar an episode at the lowest end by just subscribing to patreon.com forward slash no rogan.

You'll also get early access to shows, but you'll have already got access to this show before you hear me say you'll get early access to shows.

So you won't get early access to this one if you're not a patron subscriber, but you will the next time.

That's how time works and things.

Um, remember, you can hear more from Cecil at cognitive dissonance and citation needed, and you can hear more from me on the skeptics with a K podcast and the skeptic podcast.

Um, but other than that, we will see you next week for a little more of the No Rogan experience.

If you love the show, please rate and share it.

If you want to get in touch with us, become a patron, or check out the show notes, go to norogan.com.

K-N-O-W-R-O-G-A-N.com.

Today on Hey Culligan, reverse to reduce.

Here's Bob.

Hey, Culligan, I love fresh water, but I got plastic bottles coming out.

Whoa, Bob, you are not kidding about the bottles.

But did you know Culligan's reverse osmosis and always-on drinking water systems provide fresh, clean, delicious drinking water and help reduce the equivalent of over 15 billion plastic bottles from landfills worldwide?

Holy, fresh, environmentally friendly drinking water.

Am I right?

Right, Bob.

And we're already on the way.

Let us help you out with free in-home water tests from a local Culligan water expert at Culligan.com.

My phone just buzzed.

Another data breach alert.

It was a reminder that VPNs and encrypted apps can't fix what's broken at the network level.

That's where CAPE comes in.

CAPE is a secure mobile carrier built with privacy as its foundation.

It doesn't collect names, addresses, or personal data, so it can't sell what it never stores.

Use the code CAPE33 to get the first month of premium nationwide service for just $30 a month and 33% off the first six months.

Go to CAPE.co.

Privacy starts at the source.