456: Gavin de Becker—Forbidden Facts

Speaker 1 Hello, friends. It's still me, Mike Rowan.
This is still the way I heard it. And as far as I know, that's Chuck staring at me still through my computer.
How are you, buddy? I'm great, Mike.

Speaker 1 How are you doing? I'll tell you, man, I am still awash in

Speaker 1 the forbidden facts showered upon me by one of my favorite guests.

Speaker 1 And I think I actually mention at the end that if you're going to have a dinner party, and and if you have an opportunity to get Gavin DeBecker to come by and just hold court, you might not agree with every single thing he believes or has to say, but I am telling you the stories will go deep into the night and you will have him back.

Speaker 2 And he will make you think.

Speaker 1 Because whether you believe him or not, he is well sourced, as is his book. Yeah.
Gavin and I met. almost two years ago now, back with that crazy dance I did with Bobby Kennedy when

Speaker 1 he was running for

Speaker 1 the big office. And there was some crazy talk going around about

Speaker 1 what a world would look like if I were his VP. We don't really get into that.

Speaker 1 Those facts are not forbidden, by the way.

Speaker 1 But that's how I got to know Gavin. And the more I got to know him, the more interested I was in the kind of life he had led.

Speaker 1 And, you know, he's sat on several presidential, what is it, like commissions or

Speaker 1 yeah. He's like the go-to guy in the world of security, both cybersecurity as well as personal protection.

Speaker 1 He guards some of the wealthiest, most powerful people on the planet, and he's done it for a long time. Yeah.

Speaker 1 But boy, oh boy, he's got to be in his bonnet about the incredible way our institutions have let us down.

Speaker 1 And he's written a book that's going to make you look real hard at everything you think you know is true. And yep, the vaccines, the big V, it's right in the center of it.
It's not just the vaccines.

Speaker 1 It's just the way that studies are done. It is the way that our country, our government, for whatever reason, doesn't think

Speaker 1 we've got our big boy pants on enough to tell us the truth. And

Speaker 1 he's got some humdingers of lies that he brings the receipts for that are really fascinating. You want the truth?

Speaker 1 You can't handle the truth.

Speaker 1 That's what they think. Yeah.
For sure.

Speaker 1 Gavin is not an anti-vaxxer.

Speaker 1 He'll go out of his way to tell you that, but you will hear some things and read some things that might lead you to conclude he is certainly skeptical, and without a doubt, he is.

Speaker 1 He questions if they're safe and effective. We're being told that they're safe and effective, and that's what he is questioning.

Speaker 1 With great

Speaker 1 passion. Yes.
With great passion.

Speaker 1 He comes at this honestly. And by that, I mean he's truthful, but also it's authentic.
He's a criminologist by trade. And this book reads almost like a whodunit.
It's just jammed with facts.

Speaker 1 And as you said, every single page has QR codes all over the bottom. It's intensely researched.
If you're skeptical by nature, you're just going to enjoy this on every level.

Speaker 1 If you're not, it's going to make you uncomfortable. It's also going to make you angry.

Speaker 1 And believe it or not, it's going to make you laugh out loud sometimes when you're right in the midst of being pissed.

Speaker 1 It's a really interesting achievement from a literary standpoint. And I think maybe a really important legacy for him and

Speaker 1 a guide, I hope, for all of us. He's got a wicked sense of humor, and that comes through in his writing and in his conversation.

Speaker 1 But boy, I could listen to him talk all day long, and we pretty much did with this.

Speaker 1 It'll feel like that. I mean, it's a two-hour podcast.
It's going to fly by, I promise you, but I stayed on the phone with him for another 90 minutes after we said goodbye.

Speaker 1 And that's never happened with a guest before. My only regret, full disclosure, as we jump into this, is that we weren't able to do it in person.

Speaker 1 He's over deep in the South Seas right now, but carved out some time for us. It's a terrific book.
It's called Forbidden Facts. He's called Gavin DeBecker.

Speaker 1 And if you haven't met him before, what a treat you're in for right after this.

Speaker 1 Vince Romano used to make lifestyle boots for a number of well-known boot companies here in the USA. He was good at it, really good.

Speaker 1 But Vince was bothered by the fact that when it came to work boots, a lot of companies who claimed to make their product here were in reality only assembling their boots in America.

Speaker 1 The materials were coming from God knows where.

Speaker 1 Well, Fince was troubled by that, so he decided to start making work boots on his own and resolved to make a boot that was really and truly and completely made in the USA.

Speaker 1 He launched the Truman Boot Company and never looked back.

Speaker 1 Today Truman boots are designed and built from start to finish in Eugene, Oregon, with a focus on high quality materials sourced from this country.

Speaker 1 No exceptions, no shortcuts, shortcuts, no cute games with the English language. They're not cheap, but they are awesome.

Speaker 1 I'm talking about handmade, fully rebuildable boots with Goodyear welt construction, just the way your granddad's boots were made.

Speaker 1 I won't try and sell you a pair here, but I will encourage you to visit TrumanBoot.com and take a look at what goes into making a true American-made work boot. I think you'll be blown away.

Speaker 1 Use code Mike for 15% off. Try a pair at TrumanBoot.com.
The name is singular, but when you order, you'll get one for each foot. At TrumanBoot.com.

Speaker 2 Let's not begin with laughing, okay?

Speaker 1 I just want to say I'm sorry I didn't get the memo about the baby blue shirt, guys. Really? It is just ridiculous.
And technically, is that Robin's Egg Blue, Gavin, or is it Periwinkle? I can't tell.

Speaker 2 All I know is the last time I did your show, I was criticized for what I was wearing, and it still hurts. So I decided to go with something fairly new.

Speaker 1 Well, you were wearing like a onesie or something, as I recall.

Speaker 2 That's something you might have dreamed. What I was actually wearing was a dark blue shirt and a dark blue jacket, but you didn't like it.
That's what stuck with me.

Speaker 1 It's not that I didn't like it.

Speaker 1 It's just that, you know, I didn't realize the first time we sat down to speak just how much actual verisimilitude and credibility you were going to bring to the proceeding.

Speaker 1 And so the outfit, while consistent with that level of know-it-all-ness,

Speaker 1 kind of threw me off. But then the more you talk, the more I realized that your intellect did, in fact, match your outfit.
And though everything became congruent, which is why we're friends today.

Speaker 2 That was a Russell brand question. That was good.

Speaker 1 All right, to be clear,

Speaker 1 the conversation has begun. Uh-oh.

Speaker 1 And I suppose, while I'd love to just BS with you forever, because honestly, I don't know many people who are better at holding up their end of a meandering conversation than you.

Speaker 1 I just want to come out right with a kind of a shameless plot. I'm going to hold up your book.
It's called Forbidden Facts. And I'm going to ask you right out of the gate, how

Speaker 1 in the world did you manage to put together so many claims, so so much observational

Speaker 1 dogma in such a condensed way

Speaker 1 in a fashion that made me so angry, Gavin. You made me very angry, and then you made me snort and laugh.

Speaker 1 Sometimes within the same paragraph as I was experiencing like a kind of rage, I was suddenly giggling out loud.

Speaker 1 Is that because you're a better writer than I thought you were, or because sometimes the truth is just so damn strange that there's nothing reasonable to do in the face of it except laugh?

Speaker 2 Yes and no.

Speaker 2 The thing is, some of this stuff was just actually funny.

Speaker 2 And it's not a funny topic because the book is about the various methods that government uses to debunk facts they don't like or falsely debunk them and all the tricks they use.

Speaker 2 And so that's the part that's enraging because when you see it in practice, it really does piss you off.

Speaker 2 But then when you see it in, we got to go into the room because somebody leaked a lot of transcripts of some of these meetings, and that stuff is just like a one-act Broadway comedy.

Speaker 2 That stuff is just absolutely downright funny. The way these supposed scientists who are paid to debunk things engage with each other behind closed doors is ridiculous, as in

Speaker 2 worthy of ridicule.

Speaker 1 Vaudevillian.

Speaker 2 Yeah, it's true. It's true.
I'm glad you found that as well. And look, listen, writing it, I was often really pissed off and often laughing.

Speaker 2 And that was just the reality of the gift that the government delivered to us for this book.

Speaker 1 I also think it's the reality of being alive and curious in 2025.

Speaker 1 If you're not in on the joke, and if you're not capable of laughing at some of the horror show with which we've been confronted, then you might go mad. But because you're also curious, you

Speaker 1 need to engage in a genuine inquiry. And I feel like what you've done with this book is really balance those two.

Speaker 1 You know, I think it was Travis McGee that said the only sensible way to go through life was with the fatalistic attitude of a vaudevillian clown, like the ones in the circus that get out of the tiny car with 30 other dudes dressed just like them.

Speaker 1 And they know they're going to get hit in the face, right? They know they're going to get the pie in the face. And yet, and yet they show up and they do their job.

Speaker 1 You're going to get a pie in the face for this, brother. You know that.

Speaker 1 You have pissed off powerful people from sea to shining sea.

Speaker 1 So first of all, congratulations for that. Congratulations for laughing while you did it.
And then to the question, why?

Speaker 1 What in the world do you hope to accomplish?

Speaker 2 Well, I had two things. First of all, I don't entirely know the reason why.
I know what I was inspired to do and what I was thinking at the time.

Speaker 2 As I look at it now, there are aspects of this book and the whole inquiry that if you take the the helicopter up high enough is not about Agent Orange and the tricks the government played or Gulf War syndrome or baby powder that causes cancer or vaccines that cause brain damage.

Speaker 2 It's really about the way power operates and it just doesn't feel and when there's nobody to answer to,

Speaker 2 power does not feel that it needs to tell the truth.

Speaker 2 And then if it doesn't like the truth and the truth is finding its way out, then there are these methods of debunking and pre-bunking and engaging supposed science when it's really just syntax. So

Speaker 2 that seems to be what I wrote about, though I didn't start off that way. I thought I was going to be writing about the Institute of Medicine, which is...

Speaker 2 I should back up and just remind everybody that the Institute of Medicine is this tremendously revered government organization that studies things that are important to public health for the government and settles issues once and for all.

Speaker 2 Only it isn't a government agency. It's a private organization.
The guy who runs it makes $1.1 million a year. All the experts are paid and paid well,

Speaker 2 and it's hardly unbiased. It actually is the government's crisis control PR division.

Speaker 1 Let me back up even further and say that the book, for the record, is written from the point of view of a criminologist, which happens to be what you are. But at base, at base, it's a story.

Speaker 1 And that's the compliment I meant to pay you initially. All of these facts, all of these forbidden facts, are woven together in a narrative.

Speaker 1 And anybody who appreciates a decent narrative knows the importance of a protagonist and an antagonist. You need a villain.

Speaker 1 So as we start to talk about what you wrote and why you wrote it, tell me if I'm wrong, but it felt to me that if there's a Snidely whiplash in this thing, twirling his metaphorical mustache and cackling maniacally in a corner,

Speaker 1 it's the IOM.

Speaker 2 You're right on all counts.

Speaker 2 I'd say the government that funds it and the corporations that fund it, but you're very right that it's a story, and it's a story of, you know, I asked in the first chapter, what's Agent Orange got to do with it?

Speaker 2 Agent Orange was a, you know, a chemical warfare material that was used in Vietnam and sprayed on jungles and on people.

Speaker 1 Dioxin, right?

Speaker 2 Yeah, it contained this tremendously toxic material you just mentioned, and that caused a lot of injury and death to people and then birth defects to the children, the offspring of Vietnam veterans when they got back.

Speaker 2 They came to the Veterans Administration and the government and said, hey, we've got all these injuries from Agent Orange.

Speaker 2 And the government said, Agent Orange, no, no, no, that's not a biological weapon. That's just for plants.
That won't hurt anybody.

Speaker 2 And people said, well, I'm hurt and look at my children with severe deformities exactly like animals have the result of severe deformities from dioxin.

Speaker 2 And the government eventually said, well, let's get to the bottom of this and let's hire the Institute of Medicine. And the Institute of Medicine will answer this question once and for all.

Speaker 2 And so the Institute of Medicine convened a group of experts who concluded that there was no connection between dioxin, this known toxin, and all these injuries.

Speaker 2 And they concluded it by doing a study that two years later they published their report. And the conclusion was more studies needed.

Speaker 2 So two years later they published their subsequent report, which had a much better conclusion. That was more studies needed.
And then two years later, they did it again.

Speaker 2 And this one, interestingly, also concluded that more studies needed.

Speaker 1 Don't tell me. Don't tell me.

Speaker 2 Ah, damn it. I spoiled it.
Yeah, I ruined the So now we get up to

Speaker 2 year 19 and they now get really bold and they say not only that more studies are needed, but they say we ought to study the actual veterans who were affected by the Agent Orange because they hadn't thought of that yet.

Speaker 2 So I don't have anything to criticize about that except that it literally took 20 effing years to get there and then conclude that there was no connection between Agent Orange and all these terrible injuries that people had not been compensated for.

Speaker 2 Enter in the story Admiral Zumwalt, who does another inquiry for a congressional committee and he comes back and he says that the IOM put forth the most fraudulent and terrible study he could imagine that was done entirely to save the U.S.

Speaker 2 government from any responsibility and he found that they were dead wrong and it's particularly poignant.

Speaker 2 that he's the person who did that study and provided that testimony to Congress because he had ordered the use of Agent Orange in Vietnam and his own son had died from it.

Speaker 2 Yeah, so it's a, as stories go, that's a compelling part. Then the Veterans Administration did a study and they too disagreed with Agent Orange.

Speaker 2 And then to jump ahead in the story, the two people who were most discredited for the shammy and scammy work that the Institute of Medicine did, were they fired? Were they demoted? No, no.

Speaker 2 They were promoted. and then took over responsibility for studying childhood vaccines.

Speaker 2 Same two people. And so, you know, I look in the book at the Institute of Medicine's Agent Orange debacle and then their

Speaker 2 Gulf War syndrome, which as far as they were concerned, what's Gulf War syndrome? We don't even think it exists. And then Burn Pits, how could that possibly hurt anybody?

Speaker 2 Probably healthy to breathe the smoke from Burn Pits.

Speaker 2 And then a bunch of other things where they always surprisingly concluded that the big bad corporation and the big bad government had nothing to do with it.

Speaker 2 And so that's the through line of the story.

Speaker 2 It involves the Institute of Medicine, but also how powerful centers in our society, the government and corporations, pay the Institute of Medicine for these conclusions.

Speaker 1 Where is the Institute of Medicine today?

Speaker 2 Well, naturally, it's located in a big, impressive building, part of the National Academies of Science in Washington, D.C.

Speaker 2 However, the National Academies of Science is also not a government agency and is also just a private organization that is also just paid money by large corporations and today is actually seeking to expand its funding from large corporations.

Speaker 2 And it's had some doozies like, you know, baby powder doesn't cause cancer.

Speaker 2 That took 50 years.

Speaker 1 Johnson ⁇ Johnson, right?

Speaker 2 Yeah, Johnson ⁇ Johnson baby powder. The reason I say it took 50 years is that about 50 years ago, Johnson ⁇ Johnson went to the FDA and they asked for a special meeting.

Speaker 2 They sent a delegation and they said, look, we've got a little problem with our baby powder and it's a little problem. It just contains a tiny bit of cancer-causing material.

Speaker 2 And the same material that's taken out of buildings. What is that called?

Speaker 1 Asbestos. Asbestos.

Speaker 2 Oh, yeah, that terrible stuff. It's just in the baby powder.
And the FDA said, well, thank you for telling us we must immediately study how much asbestos is okay in baby powder.

Speaker 2 They never considered that the answer might be zero asbestos is okay in baby powder, but they began a study.

Speaker 2 And boy, when they study, I got to tell you, Mike, they really stick with it because they stuck with it for more than 40 years before they finally came out and said, yeah, there may be something to this.

Speaker 2 And then eventually they said, yeah, maybe the baby powder that Johnson Johnson is making, maybe you shouldn't use that. And that was in 2024, last year.

Speaker 1 How would you like to win a free ham?

Speaker 1 Who doesn't want a free ham? Here's what you do. Gather around the dinner table tonight with friends, family, people you love, share a meal together, and take a photo.
Make it memorable.

Speaker 1 Doesn't have to be anything elaborate, just authentic, like you do on Thanksgiving. Post the photo under stories on your Instagram page.
Hashtag BacktoTheTable.

Speaker 1 Tag my friends at Good Ranchers. They're sponsoring this Back to the Table promotion.

Speaker 1 And every Thursday between now and Thanksgiving, Good Ranchers will reward their favorite photos with a free ham from an American farm.

Speaker 1 I subscribe personally to Good Ranchers because I know with certainty that all of their beef and their meat and their pork comes from farms and ranches in this country. And that's important to me.

Speaker 1 So is the convenience of having the best steak money can buy delivered straight to my door every month, along with a free gift. Could be bacon, kobe burgers, salami.
You never know.

Speaker 1 In fact, Good Ranchers is offering free meat for life to new subscribers along with a $40 discount when you use code Mike at goodranchers.com. That's codemike at goodranchers.com.

Speaker 1 Let's get back to the table at goodranchers.com.

Speaker 1 If you could eat a steer, if you could eat a cow, don't take a chance on a foreign ranch. Get Good Ranchers now.
Hey

Speaker 1 Good God.

Speaker 1 Okay.

Speaker 1 Well, back to my earlier point. How can your brain be asked to process that without those weird equal mixings of rage and

Speaker 1 absurdity? I mean, we're living in a time you put on Fox News right now, the odds are decent.

Speaker 1 There's some guy named Doug who's suffering from mesothelioma, which he contracted by breathing cancer when he was building a submarine back in 1970 or something.

Speaker 1 I mean, we all know,

Speaker 1 it seems, and I want to be certain of those kinds of superlatives because the debunking and the rebunking is really important, too. Don't forget the pre-bunking.
That's interesting.

Speaker 1 And the pre-bunking.

Speaker 1 But I think the rebunking, we'll get to all the bunkmate stuff.

Speaker 1 But this idea that we know asbestos is bad. We know it.
And yet we have to sit quietly back

Speaker 1 and watch this sort of unholy kabuki unfold as the experts come to the conclusion that Marge from Idaho realized decades ago was self-evident.

Speaker 1 It's enough to make you nuts, Gavin.

Speaker 2 Well, I think it's really true. And for a time in this book and the last book, I probably was nuts.

Speaker 2 And I still am not fully comfortable with accepting or taking on board that people can actually sit around a room and say, hey, we've got this new product, let's say the mRNA vaccine, and when you inject it in the arm, it's supposed to stay in the arm.

Speaker 2 But we know that it goes into the ovaries and the testes and the heart and the brain and crosses the blood-brain barrier. And we're just not going to tell anybody about that.

Speaker 2 And we're going to put this out publicly, even though we know it will cause cardiac problems for young people.

Speaker 2 It's very hard for me to cross that line and picture the people sitting in that room who can have that conversation. This book made it a little bit easier for me because

Speaker 2 somebody leaked the transcripts of the actual behind closed doors conversation that the Institute of Medicine was having when they studied whether any vaccine could cause any brain damage to any child in America and concluded, of course not.

Speaker 2 Well, we got to get those transcripts. And when you read those transcripts, it's easier to believe that people actually do

Speaker 2 knowingly participate in

Speaker 2 something that awful and that damaging to that number of people. But it's true.
Still hard, however, for me to accept.

Speaker 1 But I mean, not to oversimplify it, but didn't the IOM simply write the headline before they jumped into the story regarding Agent Orange, regarding baby powder.

Speaker 1 You know, obviously we're going to get to vaccines and the mercury therein, but it just seems like in every case we're starting from a conclusion instead of from some kind of objective inquiry.

Speaker 2 Well, you can always find any kind of study you want, and what I've learned is you can also fund any study you want with any result.

Speaker 2 And I won't jump ahead to vaccines beyond just saying because I happen to have the page marked here. This is the first first thing said in the behind closed doors meeting.

Speaker 2 The point of no return, the line we will not cross in public policy is to pull the vaccines or change the schedule.

Speaker 2 We wouldn't say compensate the injured, we wouldn't say pull the vaccines, and we wouldn't say stop the program.

Speaker 2 CDC wants us to declare that these things are pretty safe on a population level and we are not ever going to come down that autism is a true side effect.

Speaker 1 Good God.

Speaker 2 That was day one, hour one. And then two years more, you know, so-called study to conclude what they ultimately concluded.
So

Speaker 2 that's what goes on.

Speaker 1 Do you, I mean, you name names in the book. You show pictures.
Who said that? Who was listening?

Speaker 2 That particular thing was by Kathleen Stratton. She worked on Agent Orange as well, so we know that she's got a lot of experience with injury to children.
And then the second part,

Speaker 2 we are not ever going to come down that autism is a true side effect, was was said by Marie McCormick, rather.

Speaker 2 And she also, I think, worked on Agent Orange, but she ultimately ended up at the CDC working, as all parents would hope, on childhood vaccines.

Speaker 1 Who in the world leaked it?

Speaker 2 We don't know. We don't know.
Some really good, good-hearted person. It's happened a couple of times.

Speaker 2 There's another secret meeting, even more secret, where they just warned everybody 10 times not to discuss this anywhere. And in that one, it was also leaked and you know, very favorably.

Speaker 2 I think, you know, I want to give you a really weird analogy.

Speaker 2 Because when I was having trouble accepting that Pfizer really would do the things it's done so many times and been criminally fined for so many times, I was talking to a friend of mine, the novelist Bruce Wagner, and I said, it's just, you cannot get your mind around the idea that people sit in a room and talk like this and know what they're doing.

Speaker 2 And he said, well, it's a little bit like the conference at Vonse. And I said, I don't know what the conference at Vansey is.
He said, go to Wikipedia and look it up.

Speaker 2 So I go look up the conference at Vansey.

Speaker 2 And this is the conference at which Hitler's generals and various operatives go and meet with the civilian heads of government agencies, the Minister of Transportation, the Minister of Agriculture, etc.

Speaker 2 And these civilians, at this point, know very little about what we would call the final solution, what the plans were.

Speaker 2 And so the generals inform these civilians at this conference at Vonse, and they say things like, well, then we're going to move 600,000 people by train to these relocation camps.

Speaker 2 And the Minister of Transportation chimes up and he says, no, no, we don't have enough seats. And the general says, well, we're not going to use seats.

Speaker 2 And it's slowly dawning on these civilians that this final solution is a much darker thing than they realized.

Speaker 2 And yet here they are being told by the powers that be in Germany that this is going to move forward, relocation camps.

Speaker 2 And when the meeting ends, they then break out the wine and they stop the euphemisms and they start talking about it all much more openly.

Speaker 2 And the reason I said it's an unusual analogy, Mike, is that that too was transcribed and leaked. And you can find it on YouTube.

Speaker 2 People have performance films where they just say the actual words that were spoken.

Speaker 2 These aren't dramatic representations. They're documentaries that just have the exact conversation the way it evolved.
And

Speaker 2 so,

Speaker 2 can people do this? Yes, yes, yes, and people do it.

Speaker 1 You have an anonymous whistleblower. Is there any pushback from the individuals that you just mentioned by name who are quoted in the transcripts? Is there any denial of it?

Speaker 2 I haven't heard a denial, and I haven't gotten the

Speaker 2 letter from lawyers that will no doubt follow our discussion today.

Speaker 1 Great.

Speaker 2 I don't know much about their position or what their position will be as things move forward.

Speaker 1 Of all the conversations with which to blow myself up, it's the one with you while you're in Maui and I'm sitting here sweating it out in Northern California. This is where it all ends.

Speaker 1 Not with a bang, but a whimper.

Speaker 2 That's right.

Speaker 1 This conference.

Speaker 2 When do you figure that was?

Speaker 2 The conference at Bonsey is 1942, 1941 or 1942.

Speaker 2 Hitler's been in power for many years, and on the subject of pre-bunking and the use of scientists, Hitler did another very interesting thing, or the administration did, and that is using scientists.

Speaker 2 It's very well described in a long and boring book called Hitler's Professors.

Speaker 2 But what they did is they started funding academics to do studies that concluded that Jews spread disease and that Jews adversely affect the economy and that Jews use Jews Jews.

Speaker 2 And so the population was being moved slowly to a place where it could be what it became by the time of Kristallnacht and what it became by 1942.

Speaker 2 But that happened in the very same way that the U.S. government, and yeah, no, I'm not making a comparison between Nazis and the Institute of Medicine.

Speaker 2 No, no, no, I'm making a comparison between the processes used by people in power, and they are identical.

Speaker 1 I would go even further and make a comparison between the good Germans in 1939

Speaker 1 and the sensible Americans in 2020.

Speaker 1 Now, all of a sudden, and look, I, God,

Speaker 1 please don't blow yourself up, Mike. Please don't blow yourself up.

Speaker 1 But if on the eve of the Kristallnacht,

Speaker 1 many good Germans look around and say to themselves, you know something? This doesn't feel right. This does not feel like a thing I'm comfortable accepting.
But they'd been tenderized.

Speaker 2 Yes.

Speaker 1 They'd been tenderized for nearly a decade by Hitler's professors. And so a great many things that might have felt heretical or just straight up crazy had been introduced.

Speaker 1 And so like the frogs and the boiling water, they had become desensitized. to the place where, well, what do you mean we're not going to have seats on the trains?

Speaker 1 What do you mean we're going to move them? Like, that didn't happen because we flipped the switch. Now, in the same way,

Speaker 1 how do you think about

Speaker 1 how we've been prepared or tenderized as citizens to accept

Speaker 1 a certain list of morals and dogma that cannot be questioned because they have been, quote, previously debunked and before you answer, I'll just say that back

Speaker 1 when I used to impersonate an actual interviewer and wanted to have some sides on this conversation, I Googled Gavin DeBecker, I asked Chat GTP, whatever the hell it is, to comment on your book, and they do.

Speaker 1 And it's fascinating because virtually every paragraph starts with the fact that you're dealing with claims that have long since been debunked. Everything is qualified.
Everything.

Speaker 1 And so I think

Speaker 1 maybe now as we think about Asian Orange and we think about the baby powder and we think about all of the other ways these ideas

Speaker 1 come to fester and root, what is the role of the debunker in all of this and the attendant challenges?

Speaker 2 Well, you're right on the mark of what I was exploring here from a criminal point of view, and that is the preparation of societies, in this case, including consumers who will pay for something, pharma products or whatever the products are, the preparation is long and

Speaker 2 effective and

Speaker 2 time-tested. And in our case, we all experienced, say in 2020, we experienced a form of mass madness that was accepted by most people

Speaker 2 really because it was connected to science and because you were told or made to feel you'd be stupid if you didn't support the science when it really meant the paid scientists, often, very often, by the way, paid by pharma, there's a Merck product that came out and it had 18 studies, safety studies, published before the product came out.

Speaker 2 16 of them were written by Merck employees, for example. There's so many examples like that.
But we were told, 2020, wear a mask made out of anything. It can be made out of an old pair of socks.

Speaker 2 Just go to a fabric store and put something over your face and that will somehow stop virons, which are microscopic.

Speaker 2 And then we were told even wear two masks. And all our government officials for a time would wear a large is white mask with a black mask over it.
So you'd see that they had two masks.

Speaker 2 And they'd put them on right outside of camera view before walking on for a press conference and then take it off in order to talk, spreading COVID that would kill everybody in the process.

Speaker 2 We actually accepted the idea that we should clean the outside of the pizza box when the pizza is delivered, but it's fine to eat the pizza. We accepted the idea that

Speaker 2 contact transmission was possible, meaning you could touch something in the supermarket and suddenly you'd have COVID. We accepted the idea of standing six feet apart.

Speaker 2 We accepted the idea of a single vaccine that would give you immunity forever, morphing into a vaccine that you'd have to take again in three months and again in three months and again in three months and then give to your six-month-old baby every year for the rest of its life.

Speaker 2 We accepted all that bullshit, and we did it because we were tenderized, to use your word. And nobody does the tenderizing better than academics and what I have to call so-called scientists.

Speaker 2 They may have degrees, but they leave their degrees at the door when they decide to just do what the government wants them to do.

Speaker 1 Dumb.

Speaker 1 ZipRecruiter receives over 10,000 new resumes every day. That's over 300,000 a month or 3,500 a year.

Speaker 1 Now, every known law of probability would suggest that the person you've been desperately trying to hire is somewhere in that enormous stack of data. And that's good news.
But here's the better news.

Speaker 1 ZipRecruiter can probably find that person for you in less than 24 hours. How do they do it?

Speaker 1 I don't know, but I suspect it involves a technology that is truly second to none, a proprietary process, perhaps, that allows them to mine their enormous database in a fashion that allows you to proactively connect with the best possible candidate for your company and then send that candidate a personal invitation to be interviewed.

Speaker 1 This filtering technology really is a game changer and the biggest reason why ZipRecruiter is America's number one rated hiring site.

Speaker 1 And right now you can try it for free at ziprecruiter.com slash row. The person you've been looking for is waiting for you to find them at ziprecruiter.com slash row.

Speaker 1 See for yourself why four out of five employers who post on ziprecruiter.com slash row get a quality candidate within the first day. ZipRecruiter, the smartest way to hire.
The smartest way

Speaker 1 to hire.

Speaker 1 How was it a gift in the context of what you just described? And was it fear in its undistilled form or was it some level of something else? Because it's not just,

Speaker 1 I mean, we were scared, so we did a lot of those things, but right next to the fear that drove us to comply was the comfort that came from complying.

Speaker 1 And then this, I don't know, lordliness that came from correcting the heathens around us

Speaker 1 who hadn't yet yet fallen into line and needed to be educated.

Speaker 1 I use the example all the time. Chuck came up to visit me in Northern California at the height of the lockdowns, and we were walking around this neighborhood, which is a pretty quiet, isolated place.

Speaker 1 And on the far side of the street, a man was walking with two masks, and he lowered both to scream at us,

Speaker 2 Shouldn't you have your masks on?

Speaker 1 Yes. And he was, I couldn't decide if he was mostly scared or mostly delighting in an opportunity to correct

Speaker 1 measure

Speaker 1 a couple less informed bipeds who needed to be straightened out. And he was on hand to do it.
So talk about all that vis-a-vis the gift of fear.

Speaker 2 Well, you know, fear is certainly used by every government in world history. All leaders in world history have used fear to control and influence populations.

Speaker 2 Fear of of the outside tribe that's going to come and invade our village and fear of the enemies that will come over the wall and fear of disease and fear of terrorism and communism and ideas that got smaller and smaller and smaller.

Speaker 2 You start with fear of a real country and the soldiers in it and then you go to an idea like communism and then you go to terrorists, real people, then you go to terrorism, an idea, and then ultimately we came down to the smallest particle possible, which was the Viron viruses, been used for a long time.

Speaker 2 But that fear, just to give you the distinction, that fear is unwarranted fear, because in gift of fear, I describe what I'm talking about that's a gift, is true fear.

Speaker 2 And true fear is always apparent because it occurs in the presence of danger. And it is something that you sense.
You hear it, or you smell it, or you see it, or you touch it, or it touches you.

Speaker 2 That is true fear. Unwarranted fear

Speaker 2 are all the things that arise in the imagination. Anxiety, worry, the story we heard from three weeks ago or three months ago, the story we heard from somebody else that's operating in our brain.

Speaker 2 Now, there's a somewhat humorous example I give that if you, you know, how can you tell the difference between true fear and unwarranted fear?

Speaker 2 Well, you're, you know, you're at the airport and you get that feeling, I shouldn't get on this plane, I shouldn't get on this plane, which people, many people have had that feeling, I should take another flight.

Speaker 2 And if that feeling is based on your memory of a news report from three months before where a terrible plane crashed somewhere, that's unwarranted fear because it's not in your presence.

Speaker 2 But if it's based on seeing the pilot stumble out of the bar at the airport, drunk, and board the plane, that is true fear because it's based on something you perceive in your presence.

Speaker 2 And that's the issue of like how you tell the difference: is that any time that a government or a marketer of a product tells us to be afraid of something, we have a, I think, patriotic duty to be skeptical and come to understand exactly what it is we're being asked to fear.

Speaker 2 What is it that's being used to herd us like cattle into a particular ramp and to get onto a particular truck?

Speaker 2 And then

Speaker 2 if it's something that's genuinely frightening, like lava

Speaker 2 coming down the street, when people see lava, they don't think about it.

Speaker 2 They don't make imaginings of what they should do. They just run away.
They run down the street.

Speaker 2 And so it's our responsibility to figure out the difference between things people want us to fear and things that we actually have good reason to fear, and to figure that out and to

Speaker 2 live our lives accordingly.

Speaker 1 I'm so sympathetic to parents with kids who are trying to either trust their gut or pick which expert to trust.

Speaker 1 They're going to read a book like this and their faith in institutions is going to be shaken, maybe irrevocably. Spoiler alert, you do what you always do, which is why I,

Speaker 1 one of the things I like about you, there's several things I like about you, Gavin, but I,

Speaker 1 in the end,

Speaker 1 your arguments

Speaker 1 are always rooted in a measure of personal responsibility.

Speaker 1 So, again, spoiler alert, but the book ends with trust yourself.

Speaker 1 Like in the in the wake of all these forbidden facts,

Speaker 1 there's not much you can really offer in the way of counsel other than to kick the tires until your toes break and then trust yourself. Because in the end, right?

Speaker 1 In the end, that's what we're left with.

Speaker 1 Sorry, I'm Russell branding you, but the question is, isn't the opposite also true? When you say when the government sets out to scare you, it's incumbent on us to say, why are you doing that?

Speaker 1 But in this world,

Speaker 1 it felt like we were being told not to be afraid. It's safe and defective, Gavin.
It's safe and defective. That's not somebody trying to scare me.
That's someone trying to assuage me in order.

Speaker 1 to act in a certain way. And we have to discern, it seems, both of those things, sometimes contemporaneously.
And what a pain in the ass that is for the average Joe.

Speaker 2 Yeah, listen, it's not easy being human.

Speaker 2 And as I've raised 10 kids, and I have two teenagers now, two sons, 16 and 14, and the reality is, uh-oh, 17 and 15, a mistake I make too often, they will remind me.

Speaker 2 But the reality is that there's a lot of responsibility that goes with that.

Speaker 2 And of course, you know, parents want to drive their kid to school and and throw the kid out of the car and generally land near the building and know that it's now their responsibility, it's the school's responsibility because the school, after all, is the government, and the government knows best, and the government has my best interest at heart, etc.

Speaker 2 We want to do that because we can't really get into: do I want to do a background check on every employee to know that there's no sexual predators working in the school? Were there ever?

Speaker 2 Might there be in the future? Are the policies sound? Does the fire safety system work? It's all too much.

Speaker 2 And so what I've done as a parent is, and we all do, we limit, we're going to trust certain things like traffic lights and road works and aircraft and airlines and elevators and escalators.

Speaker 2 We're going to trust certain things that we know are beyond our ability to fully dig into. But,

Speaker 2 but, I draw the line at that which you want to actually inject or you want my child to ingest or eat or think

Speaker 2 or do, that becomes too much. We all have to make these decisions ultimately.

Speaker 2 And I say in this book that no parent in America would let a stranger walk up to their baby and inject it with something that the parent doesn't understand or know what it is.

Speaker 2 And yet, nearly every parent in America does exactly that when they go to the Long's Drugs or the Rite Aid or the local pharmacy and they have a 23-year-old pharmacist assistant who was hired three weeks ago, if you even know that, inject something you don't understand and you don't know what it is.

Speaker 2 And so in this book, I tell what it is. I have a lot of pro-vaccine information and a lot of QR codes that lead to links that are pro-vaccine.

Speaker 2 But when you really know what the ingredients are, and when you really understand what they're meant to do, and when you understand the history of it, and you understand that the same government that told you that Agent Orange was no problem, and burn pits were no problem, and and Gulf War syndrome was no problem and baby powder was no problem that's the one telling you to use your term Mike safe and effective now is safe and effective itself a use of fear it is because those are both fear words right safe is conjures danger and they're telling you this product is safe but you're in danger that's the key message and then effective is telling you that you need this and its effectiveness is important because otherwise you're dead from the virus and you and everybody you know, your grandmother and everybody else, they're all perished and doomed if you don't take this product that we're telling you is safe, unlike the dangerous virus, and effective.

Speaker 2 So it's still the fear button after all.

Speaker 1 But there's also this other patina on it. Like you can shake your finger at me and tell me, oh, there's too much sugar in all that soda pop.

Speaker 1 or there's too much alcohol and all that liquor. You can go down the list and find all of the injurious things I'm doing to myself.

Speaker 1 Smoking is a great example, but the whole argument tipped when we introduced secondhand smoke. And now we're outside the bounds of my own domain.
Now I'm impacting people around me.

Speaker 1 And man, I mean, wasn't that the thing that just tipped us straight into crazy town with all of this? It wasn't just the lecture.

Speaker 1 It wasn't just the experts saying, do it for your own good or do it for the sake of your kids. Now it was you're going to kill your neighbor.
You are just a menace right now because you're uninformed.

Speaker 1 You know,

Speaker 2 actually, Mike, it came at you exactly as you describe it, but it came at you in many, many ways. And the persuasion campaign was

Speaker 2 probably

Speaker 2 the largest and best-funded persuasion campaign in the history of the world. I'm talking about COVID vaccines, mRNA vaccines all over the planet.
Billions of doses.

Speaker 2 And it came at you in the form that you just said, which is you'll be helping others and you'll be meeting your civic duty and you'll be saving grandma and you'll be protecting other people.

Speaker 2 This is a method that's been used before, was used for the swine flu in 1976 that was eventually taken off the market because it caused paralysis and Guyan-Beret syndrome.

Speaker 2 But the same method, even in 1976, they were saying that, you know, if you hug this person and then the the mailman and then the mailman goes home and his mother is sick and she gets it and then she gets it and then she gets on a plane and gives it to her friend and she gets it.

Speaker 2 It explained the same premise. But in addition to that, there was the premise that you can't get on an airplane.
You can't go to a restaurant. You can't keep your job.

Speaker 2 And so there were some personal consequences given for making a choice to not get the mRNA vaccine, for example, which now, today,

Speaker 2 already, it's only a few years, is in countries all over the world, Western countries all over the world, not even allowed for people under 50 years old, and certainly not allowed for children.

Speaker 2 But in the United States, until Bobby Kennedy, it was still on the list for every six-month-old baby. Three, three injections for every six-month-old baby, for God's sake.

Speaker 1 I was at a small airport last week, standing on a little jetway that hadn't been maintained in a while.

Speaker 1 And on the wall, it still invited me, urged me really, to stay six feet away from whoever was in front or behind me.

Speaker 1 And out of nowhere, Gavin, a wave of nausea washed over me.

Speaker 1 I know so many people now, frankly myself included, that if I could go back in time, I wouldn't have taken it.

Speaker 1 I have a good reason, or I have a reason I don't know if it's a good one and I suppose everybody does too mine mine wasn't rooted in fear I don't think unless maybe the fear of not being able to work or the fear of a loss

Speaker 1 right I mean

Speaker 1 so

Speaker 1 I just wonder are we going to look back at this or are our kids going to look back at this and where will those five years

Speaker 1 reside in the hierarchy of consequential moments in the history of modern civilization? I mean, compare it to the First World War, the Second World War, compare it to whatever you want.

Speaker 1 Will there be anything more consequential than what we just went through?

Speaker 1 Every time I turn around now, it seems my friends over at Pure Talk give me one more reason to feel really good about switching from Verizon, which I did.

Speaker 1 This month, for instance, they're supporting Canines for Warriors.

Speaker 1 This is a great organization that trains rescue dogs from animal shelters and then pairs them up with combat veterans who are struggling with PTSD.

Speaker 1 The results of this program, Canines for Warriors, it's been absolutely incredible. Lives are being rehabilitated and saved every single day on both ends of the leash.

Speaker 1 That's why I switched to Pure Talk. I like being in business with an American wireless company who shares my values.

Speaker 1 Yes, I appreciate unlimited talk, text, and plenty of 5G data for just 25 bucks a month, and you will too, but I think you'll really appreciate doing business with a company who gives back to the men and women who volunteered to defend our country as well as our four-legged best friends.

Speaker 1 Just go to puretalk.com/slash row. You can switch in as little as 10 minutes.
That's puretalk.com/slash/row for unlimited talk, text and plenty of crazy fast 5G data for just 25 bucks a month.

Speaker 1 And the comforting realization that you're in business with an American wireless company who actually stands for something, Pure Talk.

Speaker 2 You know, I think there really won't be in in so many forms the interruption of infrastructure that caused millions of starvations, the

Speaker 2 enormous shift of wealth, hundreds of thousands of businesses just in America put out of business forever, and then the long-term physical consequences that we are learning more about all the time.

Speaker 2 There are studies that come out all the time, hundreds of studies, by the way, that you can find in that book. I've got 400 and some odd citations, but hundreds of specific examples of

Speaker 2 young people, particularly young boys, having cardiac,

Speaker 2 sudden cardiac death that is arguably the result of the mRNA vaccine. And when I say arguably, there's plenty of studies, including that the CDC has now put that on

Speaker 2 the vaccine product information sheet that it causes myocarditis and pericarditis.

Speaker 2 So we won't know the long-term medical consequences of injecting the entire planet, or just about, with a product that wasn't ready for prime time.

Speaker 2 Now, you said, how will we look back at it? That's a tougher question because the victor tends to write history. And so, you know, those people who storm into

Speaker 2 Rome and destroy all of the particular kinds of statues or particular icons or particular buildings, they get to write the history. And this is true for World Wars.

Speaker 2 You know, if you go to the, as I have, to the Holocaust Museum, I'm sorry, not the Holocaust Museum, the Museum in Hiroshima

Speaker 2 that discusses and commemorates is the wrong word, but

Speaker 2 reveals the facts behind the bombing of Hiroshima in Nagasaki, it's a totally different story than I was taught in school.

Speaker 2 My wife is Japanese, and I remember when I first met her, she was showing me something, and it was an architectural, it was a building, a monument. And I said, oh, what's that?

Speaker 2 And she said, cut it out. I said, no, no, what do you mean? What is that? I don't know what it is.
She said, cut it out. That's the Hiroshima Arch.

Speaker 2 And I said, listen, darling, in my school, it was five minutes of study. There's no arch that Americans are taught about.
There's no monument of any kind. She said, really?

Speaker 2 And she was really surprised. It would be like if you didn't know the Statue of Liberty.

Speaker 2 And so when I went to the Hiroshima Museum, with my sons and my wife, and we all had a good cry, the story told is a different story than the story told by the victors in the United States and in the Western countries.

Speaker 2 So what will be the story of these five years we've experienced in which people were literally locked in their homes and not allowed to engage?

Speaker 2 You know, families of divorced families, for example, the kids couldn't go from the mother's house to the father's house because that would be mixing households.

Speaker 2 In Hawaii, where I live, the governor put out an order that I had to send to friends in the the mainland because they wouldn't believe me if I just told them.

Speaker 2 It said all forms of transportation are prohibited, other than for essential businesses.

Speaker 2 It said musical instruments.

Speaker 2 You can only play guitar. You couldn't play instruments that blew air.

Speaker 2 I mean, brother, it was insane. You could walk on a beach, but you could not stop on the beach because walking is exercise and stopping is death.

Speaker 2 A A man fined $5,000 for not wearing a mask on a surfboard, true story. It was literally madness.
And how will it be remembered? Well, I think the most damaging,

Speaker 2 damaging is a hard word, the one that has touched me most deeply in my heart is to know that something around three and a half million Americans died in hospitals, not from COVID, but from all things, as happens every year, alone.

Speaker 2 Because they couldn't have a family member to hold their hands because it would be, oh, so dangerous to let anybody into the hospital. That's a dark reality.
That's a dark one.

Speaker 2 And another dark one is that people were not allowed to gather together. Why does that matter? Well, we're social animals, and it's what gives us social cohesion.
You know, we're all at the concert.

Speaker 2 of some performing artist, and we don't look over and say, oh, that guy over there voted for Trump or that one over there voted for Biden. Oh, I hate that guy.

Speaker 2 Oh, that guy doesn't care about other people. Oh, that guy's right or left.
We just enjoy the music together. We don't go to the beach and say, oh, that dad over there is an awful guy.

Speaker 2 He voted for Trump or Biden or whatever our hate methods were. But when we were all at home and we weren't allowed to gather like that, what were we left with?

Speaker 2 Social media that does inspire anger and hostility and hate. And that broke the world, in my opinion.
That period of COVID lockdowns in all the countries where it worked broke the world.

Speaker 2 It's still not back. Hotels are not back to providing service.
Hospitals are not back to providing service. People don't want to go back to work.

Speaker 2 I'm almost done with this long answer, Mike, but when the new administration that's in Washington right now went in, I had reason to speak to several officials.

Speaker 2 And I learned that almost nobody had gone to work in five years.

Speaker 2 Almost nobody in DC. The buildings were empty.
A billion dollars was spent on air conditioning and heating buildings that were empty. Only janitors and security guards were working in those buildings.

Speaker 2 Can we believe that that happened and all the way up till Trump was continuing to happen? Holy shit. So these five years are incalculably destructive.
How will they be remembered?

Speaker 2 Probably, it's possible that lots of people will say the COVID vaccine saved the planet from the terrible scourge of COVID.

Speaker 1 Look, we're still not quite flat on how to think about Stonewall Jackson unless you go to Georgia.

Speaker 1 That's true. That I truly understand.
But I think I'd like to ask you about...

Speaker 1 And by the way, I don't want to spend all our time on your fabulous book because I'm starting to feel like, you know, a book salesman and I'm happy to sell this one.

Speaker 1 And there's a lot more to talk about. But I've got two or three other things I've got to get in your head about while you're here.

Speaker 1 So if your bladder rebels or if something happens in your very busy world of protecting some of the most important people on the planet, just give me a heads up and I'll cut to the meat, okay?

Speaker 1 I mean, you're nodding, but nobody can hear you nod, Gavin.

Speaker 2 Okay, hang on a second. Hang on a second.
Nod.

Speaker 1 Nod.

Speaker 1 Words. Language.

Speaker 1 Everything you just described was a kind of assault on liberty, rooted in fear, but with it came an assault on the language, wherein the words stopped meaning what I thought they meant.

Speaker 1 And throughout this book, we see how pandemic doesn't mean what it used to mean. Vaccines don't mean what it used to mean.

Speaker 1 There's just a long list of words that got slowly redefined to the point where I don't know that their definitions are currently recognizable.

Speaker 1 And as you riff on that and collect your thoughts, I was also struck by a couple pages in your book where the authoritative organs

Speaker 1 project

Speaker 1 the deaths likely to occur from a swine flu, from the avian flu, from the COVID. I mean, there's a long list of things, even sounds like a mad cow disease.

Speaker 2 Yeah,

Speaker 2 bird flu, yes.

Speaker 1 Right.

Speaker 1 So what that page made me think of, and obviously the projections next to the realities is the thing I want you to comment on.

Speaker 1 But my point too is that same weird lack of true understanding exists with Chernobyl and Fukushima and Three Mile Island.

Speaker 1 And, you know, I still remember looking at the map of Europe in the wake of Chernobyl and half of it. Well, maybe a third, was just blackened out.

Speaker 1 And experts with many initials after their names were saying, this could be it this thing could literally a third of europe could be uninhabitable yes right what like 17 people died so

Speaker 1 if you would what have we done to our language and how can we live with these authoritative agencies who have so completely beclowned themselves with regard to projections that were not only off

Speaker 1 but cosmically off.

Speaker 2 Yeah, so I'll hit both of those and thank you for raising them.

Speaker 2 The language thing is very interesting because often when you can't change, for example, a law or a regulation, let's say there was a regulation about pandemics and you can't change the regulation, what you can do all by yourself without going to Congress and without getting elected to any office is you can change the definition of the word.

Speaker 2 And I'll give you two fast examples. Here is the CDC's original definition of the word vaccine.

Speaker 2 A product that stimulates a person's immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease. Now that's what we grew up with.

Speaker 2 You take this injection and you won't get polio. You will be immune to polio and you will be protected from this disease.

Speaker 2 That was for all of our lives and instill in most people's consciousness what it means when you say vaccine.

Speaker 1 To be immunized.

Speaker 1 To be immunized, yes.

Speaker 2 Here is the actual CDC's new improved definition of vaccine. A preparation that is used to stimulate the body's immune system against diseases.
So what have they dropped?

Speaker 2 They've dropped producing immunity to the disease. They've dropped protecting the person from getting the disease.
Those two ideas died of COVID in 2020.

Speaker 2 And then the other one that's worth mentioning quickly is pandemic.

Speaker 2 As defined by the World Health Organization, this is what pandemic used to mean.

Speaker 2 An influenza pandemic occurs when a a new influenza virus appears against which the human population has no immunity, resulting in, and this is the key part, several simultaneous epidemics worldwide with enormous numbers of deaths and illness.

Speaker 2 In other words, an emergency. Here's the new and improved definition of pandemic from the World Health Organization.
It's really short.

Speaker 2 An influenza pandemic may occur when a new influenza virus appears against which the human population has no immunity, so what was dropped? You don't need a single death anymore to call it a pandemic.

Speaker 2 It doesn't need to be widespread to call it a pandemic.

Speaker 2 It doesn't need to be simultaneous in more than one country. It doesn't need to be worldwide.

Speaker 2 And so they get all the power and all the funding and all the fun of declaring a new pandemic on the basis only of the fact that it's a virus that's new. That's it.

Speaker 1 But new

Speaker 1 was not sexy enough. We We had to go with novel.

Speaker 1 Right.

Speaker 1 It's the novel coronavirus novel.

Speaker 2 That's right. And then I want to go to the second part of your long Russell Brandinian

Speaker 2 question.

Speaker 2 By the way, Russell's getting a lot of attention today for these questions. I hope he doesn't become like curt and concise as a result of this criticism.

Speaker 1 He gets away with it because of the accent. And because he's jacked up on a lot of caffeine, obviously.

Speaker 2 I have to add eloquent and uh and funny uh but this is the place for adding anything nice about russell brand here we're just criticizing him

Speaker 2 okay so here the second part of your question had to do with the projections and projections are typically modeling meaning they are you know ideas and mathematical suggestions of how terrible a thing could be many of the projections that we've all lived by have come from something called the imperial college in london here's their history.

Speaker 2 In 2002, they predicted 150,000 deaths in the UK from mad cow disease. The actual number, not 150,000, 170.

Speaker 1 Oops.

Speaker 2 In 2005, they predicted 200 million people could die from bird flu. The actual number, over six years, 282.
Whoops. Yep, whoops is right.
In 2009, they predicted 65,000 flu deaths in the UK.

Speaker 2 The actual number, 45.

Speaker 2 That was swine flu, by the way. In 2020, they predicted 179,000 COVID deaths in Taiwan in the first full year of the pandemic.
The actual number of deaths in Taiwan in the first year of the pandemic?

Speaker 1 10.

Speaker 2 So the modelers basically have run our world in recent years by giving government what they want, which is there could be hundreds of millions of deaths from this. And that links to the vaccine saved

Speaker 2 150 million people. And in the book, I won't do it here because it's too, you know, requires a lot of precise math, but in the book, I discuss how these projections, these modeling projections, are

Speaker 2 just radically off base. And they become facts, like it's a fact now that vaccines have saved 154 million lives until you learn that it includes things like the tetanus vaccine, where

Speaker 2 in all of the United States, in 10 years, the number of tetanus deaths was 13, and they were all old people.

Speaker 2 So how then would you say that billions of life years of people's lives were saved by the tetanus vaccine? Because the tetanus vaccine, there's a billion and a half people on earth who haven't had it.

Speaker 2 And guess what they have? The exact same death rate as the ones who have had it. Same with measles.
The death rate for measles going back many, many years, 22 years in the United States was zero.

Speaker 2 And it was zero for the vaccinated and it was zero for the 9 million unvaccinated. So when you make these ridiculous reaches to say things like,

Speaker 2 you know, 1.1 billion life years

Speaker 2 resulted because of the tetanus vaccine.

Speaker 2 I want to just quickly, by the way, for people who are interested, say something favorable about the tetanus vaccine, which is that you can give it at the time of the injury.

Speaker 2 You don't have to give it prophylactically. So, and the injury, by the way,

Speaker 2 comes from a very deep wound, puncture with wood or metal, a deep puncture, but it also has to have the tetanus bacterium on it. Tetanus is not transmissible.

Speaker 2 Tetanus is incredibly hard to find on Earth.

Speaker 2 There's a chart in the book most people wouldn't believe, but it shows that in all of Europe, 24 countries, whatever it is, all but two countries had zero tetanus.

Speaker 2 In all of Russia in 2022, one case of tetanus. In all of Central America, 20 some odd countries, fewer than 10 cases per 100,000.
Not deaths, just cases.

Speaker 2 Because when you get that injury, you can at that moment in the hospital, they always say to you no matter what, even if you had a tetanus shot a year ago, five years ago, they say, we'll give you a booster.

Speaker 2 So they're going to do it anyway because of the deep puncture wound on the off chance that you are one of the, listen to this, this is true math, one of the 150 million people in America.

Speaker 2 It's one out of 150 million will die of tetanus.

Speaker 2 So two a year.

Speaker 2 In some years, and often zero a year.

Speaker 2 You know, here's, if you want to go really crazy, you look at polio, which is the, you know, the greatest killer of all time, we are told. That's the spin.

Speaker 2 But I'm going to tell you how many polio deaths there were in the world, on Earth last year, out of 8 billion people. The number of polio deaths last year was

Speaker 2 zero.

Speaker 2 Zero.

Speaker 2 Polio.

Speaker 2 99% of the people who contract the polio virus have no symptoms. They never know they even had it.

Speaker 2 Of the 1% who do know that they had it, they have what amounts to a cold that resolves typically within a week. And of that percentage, about 1%

Speaker 2 of them suffer the big dreaded consequence, which is paralysis.

Speaker 2 And that is

Speaker 2 on Earth last year, there were 154 human beings out of 8 billion, sorry, 541 human beings out of 8 billion who had polio myelitis paralysis, and 97% of them were vaccine-induced.

Speaker 2 poliomyelitis, meaning it was the vaccine strain, not the wild.

Speaker 1 That's the truth.

Speaker 2 That's the truth, truth, all documented from the CDC, by the way, in this book. And yet, polio is the one that they use like crazy to say, well, you don't want to get polio, do you?

Speaker 2 For all I know, I've had polio, maybe several times. We don't know.

Speaker 2 But the bottom line is that this thing we were told is like instant death, the CDC tells you on their website that 99% of the cases, and by the way, I got one more for you.

Speaker 2 Half of the people who actually experience the dreaded outcome, which is paralysis,

Speaker 2 half of them recover.

Speaker 2 So this whole idea, I'm not saying it's a great thing to get polio or that, you know, that it's not a problem on earth, but it's not a problem on earth, but putting that aside, they will quickly say, well, that's all because of the vaccine.

Speaker 2 How does that account for the more than a billion people

Speaker 2 who didn't take the vaccine? and yet have the same death rate and the same paralysis rate and the same side effect rate.

Speaker 2 The problem with this whole thing is it doesn't work. It doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
That's why it's treated like a religion.

Speaker 1 I think the thing that is most terrifying about all of it is that it's so much broader than just this one thing. It's the curse of the consensus.

Speaker 1 And like back to all of the stuff that accompanied Chat GPT's analysis of your book. All the parentheticals, long since debunked, proven as misinformation.

Speaker 1 It just reminds me of if you go looking at global warming arguments, you'll find that 98% of the scientists, that there's a consensus, right?

Speaker 1 And I'm not even sure what the consensus is, but this idea that the science is settled.

Speaker 1 That feels like it's a core part of your book as well, because you talk about gravity and you talk about a great many things that at any given time in the world, we were awfully certain about.

Speaker 1 It's, you know, Chuck and I were having this conversation the other day on a slightly adjacent matter, but it had to do with this nexus of faith versus skepticism and how for the longest time there was a supernatural explanation for virtually every inexplicable thing.

Speaker 1 But once we determined that maybe the sun wasn't being dragged through the heavens by chariots, and once we determined that maybe taking most of the blood out of George Washington's body wasn't the way to keep him alive, blah, blah, blah.

Speaker 1 Less supernatural, more natural, more science. And now it just feels to me like the real rush is not to figure out the truth of a thing.

Speaker 1 It's to shut somebody up who is not on board with the settled part.

Speaker 2 Yes, it's to lock down, lock down information as settled when the term settled science is against everything that science is, which is continued exploration.

Speaker 2 Of course, we know that all these things have changed in the last hundred years and thousand years as we've learned new things.

Speaker 2 The problem is that we now pretend like we've gotten to the end, and this is now settled science. Will you indulge me to read something from my book

Speaker 2 on this topic? Sure.

Speaker 2 Okay, because it's a good example of how the arc works in, you know, the early experimenters with vaccines, for example. You know, why is it called vaccines? Because vaca means cow.

Speaker 2 The early vaccines were pus taken from cows that had cowpox and then put onto wounds on human beings, eventually injected into human beings, pus from cows, pus from horses, and a whole lot of other things.

Speaker 2 But they were experimenting and they were advancing.

Speaker 2 And some of the old-timey vaccine ingredients, now I'm reading, were made by steeping them for years in a mix of oxbile, glycerin, and potato slices. And yes, really potato slices.

Speaker 2 But over time, vaccines evolved because science evolves.

Speaker 2 And over time, they began to include dried rabbit spinal cords, duck embryos, chicken blood, human bile, because God knows you don't want to throw that away.

Speaker 2 You want to use that for an injection, ground-up rat spleens, and boiled pigskin. Now, all of that is about the past.
We've come a long way since then.

Speaker 2 Here are some ingredients in today's modern vaccines.

Speaker 2 Gelatin from boiled pigskin, chicken embryo protein, blood from the hearts of cow fetuses, human fetus DNA fragments, albumin from human blood plasma, oil extracted from the shark's liver, protein from army worm ovaries, and finally monkey kidney DNA fragments.

Speaker 2 Now all of that is true and it reminds me of that Shakespearean, you know, the Macbeth scene where the witches are stirring the brew and they're saying, you know, eye of newt, toe of frog, lizard's leg, tongue of dog.

Speaker 2 It's not really that different. And just quickly to read one more paragraph.

Speaker 2 That I just shared with you was the natural ingredients.

Speaker 2 It's not natural to inject them into other biological beings, to take them out of a pig or a cow or a monkey and inject it or a worm and inject it into us.

Speaker 2 But these are the chemical ingredients in today's vaccines. Formaldehyde.
I don't have to say anything bad about formaldehyde. I guess people know it.
Polysorbate 80, which is linked to infertility.

Speaker 2 Potassium chloride. Now this is a great one.
Potassium chloride is the final injection that's given to people when we execute them with lethal injection.

Speaker 2 But of course, a much higher volume than we give to infants.

Speaker 2 Phenol, which is listed by the FDA as a hazardous substance. Borax, you can imagine that's probably not good for you.
MSG monosodium glutamate.

Speaker 2 And finally, the big one, ethylmercury, which until just a few weeks ago, thanks to RFK Jr., was in all kinds of vaccine products

Speaker 2 given to children, even though the FDA and the CDC claimed it had been removed in 2005. It wasn't.
It was still in six vaccines given until just very recently. Mercury.

Speaker 2 Mercury, for God's sakes, injected into people.

Speaker 1 I would encourage people, if you have a relationship with ChatGPT or Gronk or whoever your favorite assistant is, ask it about mercury.

Speaker 1 With the possible exception of radioactive material, is there a substance on the planet that is more widely?

Speaker 2 I mean, don't touch it.

Speaker 1 Don't eat it. Don't sniff it.
It will kill you. It's like crystal, crystal, crystal clear until you ask the AI

Speaker 1 if it's okay to inject it.

Speaker 1 And then it gets weirdly awkward. It's like cough, cough.

Speaker 1 Well,

Speaker 1 I mean,

Speaker 1 what are we doing?

Speaker 2 Yeah, it's an interesting one. You know, the mercury has been so well established.

Speaker 2 There are a couple of world events, the Minimata disaster, it's called, Minimata, Japan, where the people in this small village started noticing that their cats were acting unusual by falling into the ocean and dying.

Speaker 2 And then they noticed that their friends were acting unusual by falling into the ocean and dying, or first going crazy and then dying. And so they wondered what was up.
Nearby was the Chisso

Speaker 2 Corporation factory. And they also wondered what was up because for 10 years they'd been feeding the cats their mercury

Speaker 2 waste product that they were dumping into the ocean as a test because they were trying to figure out what was going on too.

Speaker 2 The difference is they were doing it in secret, not telling the people of Minimata.

Speaker 2 And so for 10 years they continued to give, to dump mercury into the oceans and the fishermen would get sick from the fish and of course the cat who shared the same diet would get sick from the fish and die.

Speaker 2 That went on for 10 years until finally it was acknowledged and the Chisso Corporation paid some of the survivors, the ones that hadn't died.

Speaker 2 By the way, the Chisso Corporation is still in business and doing great, just like Pfizer is still in business and doing great.

Speaker 2 So after that, there was the Iraq disaster with mercury, where a bunch of seeds were shipped to Iraq and they had been treated with mercury as a preservative and an insecticide, and on the bags, the sacks that contained the mercury, it said lethal and poison and it had the skull and crossbones and all of that didn't mean anything to the Iraqis.

Speaker 2 Skull and crossbones is not a graphic icon that's used there. So they ate it.
They cooked it into bread. And 100,000 people got sick from it.

Speaker 2 And it was one of these great disasters of mercury around the world.

Speaker 2 And then I have to add to that the little matter of hundreds of millions of children being injected with mercury all over the world, now billions. By the way, What RFK Jr.

Speaker 2 did by making it no longer a viable vaccine ingredient in childhood vaccines, all over the rest of the world, it's still used hundreds of millions of times. Mercury, I'm not a scientist,

Speaker 2 but I have enough brain cells left to know that mercury should not be injected into human beings.

Speaker 1 So the obvious question I can hear people screaming is why?

Speaker 1 Why are all these Shakespearean...

Speaker 1 Why is it still a witch's brew? What is the purpose of all of these wild components, including and especially mercury?

Speaker 1 And in the same breath, What possible reason could you have for deliberately putting asbestos into baby powder?

Speaker 1 I get why dioxin went into Agent Orange, and I understand why there might be a giant concerted effort to maybe redirect or misdirect the inquiry around that.

Speaker 1 But what is the affirmative reason to put these clearly toxic substances into these things?

Speaker 2 Well, in the case, let's take mercury first. So what,

Speaker 2 and by the way, aluminum is also on that list, is also, you know, in many childhood vaccines and is also a heavy metal that's not good for you.

Speaker 1 The

Speaker 2 stated reason is that mercury was added as a preservative. The actual reason, in my opinion, is that it was added as an adjuvant.

Speaker 2 An adjuvant is a vaccine ingredient that causes the body to say, oh, what the hell? I don't like that, and mount an immune response. Why is that important?

Speaker 2 Because back in the days when CDC and FDA were actually doing their jobs,

Speaker 2 a vaccine would have to prove that it was effective by showing that it got an immune reaction a certain percentage of the time.

Speaker 2 Sometimes it was called 90%, later it was called 50%, but in any case, you had to show that something happened when you injected this thing into the body. That's an adjuvant.

Speaker 2 It's there to insult the body so that the body reacts and says, every time I see that thing from now on, I'm going to mount an immune response. and with it is

Speaker 2 a measles viron or

Speaker 2 a particle from some disease that is the target disease. So if you follow that the adjuvant is meant to aggravate the body and

Speaker 2 it was often said by toxicologists that the more toxic the vaccine the more effective the vaccine. It sort of goes in the category of no shit.

Speaker 2 You inject me with something, my body is going to go, whoa, what the hell's that? And if it doesn't have that reaction, then you're not going to get much of an immune response.

Speaker 2 And so they say it's a preservative. I don't believe them.
I believe it was always meant to be an adjuvant because you couldn't find a better one.

Speaker 2 And they claim, and maybe believed, that it was only trace amounts, so it didn't matter. Even though...

Speaker 2 Chat GPT or Grok or any other AI will tell you that mercury in any quantity, no matter how small, those are the words it'll use, no matter how small, should not be touched, should not be breathed, should not be eaten, and would be, should not be injected other than in childhood vaccines.

Speaker 2 That's sort of my opinion in the matter,

Speaker 2 but your why still stands strong

Speaker 2 and it links up to how. In other words, how in the world can we, you know, I just read the vaccine ingredients and experimentation continues.

Speaker 2 And, you know, is virology an acceptable science that really makes sense and is a discipline that we should all follow? I have to put that in the category of maybe.

Speaker 2 It might be a little bit of black magic, but it's a priesthood. And

Speaker 2 like any discipline, scientific discipline, it's a priesthood that will do anything possible to protect itself and to get attention and to get funding.

Speaker 1 What are you saying to people? who will listen to this or glance at your book and not necessarily read it? And by the way, I should mention that like your previous book, Cause Unknown, I think it was?

Speaker 2 Yes.

Speaker 1 You've mentioned these QR codes. I want people to understand that very, very rarely is there a page in this book that isn't filled with those things.
That's what it looks like.

Speaker 1 It's not just a footnote. I really recommend reading the book with your phone nearby.
If you read something that simply sounds inexplicable, you just scan it and you hit it.

Speaker 1 and you can take a fairly deep detour, but maybe not a detour, Because in the end, man, you're going to have to defend yourself. You're going to be called an anti-vaxxer.

Speaker 1 And I would love to hear how you're going to respond to that, how you have responded to it, and when the business of being skeptical turns you into not an inquisitive seeker of truth, but a denier.

Speaker 2 Yeah, it's funny that why I'm laughing is that the

Speaker 2 things being denied are not being denied by skepticism, but by an almost religious commitment to unquestioning allegiance to, let's say, vaccines. That's an example.

Speaker 2 But government itself is an example. You know, we rely upon government for a lot of things, and sometimes we have a choice, and sometimes we don't have a choice.

Speaker 2 In the case of a pharma product, a pill or a vaccine, I hope we continue to have a choice for a while. And so, you know, I'm actually not anti-vax, which is the interesting feature.

Speaker 2 There's a passage in this book. And by the way, we've talked about the book a lot, Mike, and I appreciate it.
I want to make clear that neither I nor the publisher makes any money on this book.

Speaker 2 We both did it to get the information out, and I made it very short. And the way creative energy is, this book had to get out of my chest.

Speaker 2 And it wasn't because it's going to get me a new car or an add-on porch at my house, although it would be nice to have a new porch at the house, but I'm not going to get there by this book.

Speaker 2 Anyway,

Speaker 2 you know, there's a section in here where this very topic is discussed, which is how should parents make decisions when, you know,

Speaker 2 their pediatricians are coming at them and saying, you know, you have to take all these vaccines. Interesting discipline, by the way, pediatrics.

Speaker 2 If you think back to your own childhood, you didn't get sick very much. You didn't have to go to the doctor very much.
And kids don't.

Speaker 2 They're born. the vast majority of them, inherently healthy.

Speaker 2 And then we begin to hit them with all the toxins and all the processed foods and all the bad behaviors sitting around online that causes weight gain and all of that. But they start off quite healthy.

Speaker 2 And I didn't go to the pediatrician in my entire life as a kid other than when I broke my leg. And it didn't have to be a pediatrician.
That's who it happened to be. Today, however,

Speaker 2 people go to the pediatrician all the time for wellness checks.

Speaker 2 We got to be sure your seemingly healthy young kid who's just running around athletically all day with seemingly boundless energy, we got to be sure that your kid is well and while he or she is here, let's take the opportunity to inject them with one of these vaccine products that we're going to do 140 times before they're 18.

Speaker 2 So pediatrics itself, which is of course is

Speaker 2 not all, but in large measure pro-vaccine, sells these vaccines and makes its business by getting you in there to get these vaccines and of course charges for doing so.

Speaker 2 Am I saying they're all corrupt and terrible? No, but they're all following a priesthood in the CDC, and very few pediatricians will know as much as a single reader of this book will know. Very few.

Speaker 2 In fact, I've got a chapter in here called Ask Your Doctor. And you ask your doctor, what are the vaccine ingredients? Not ask him by email when he'll just go check Chat GPT or the CDC website.

Speaker 2 Ask him in person.

Speaker 1 What are the vaccines? I like the question. I like the question where

Speaker 1 you basically

Speaker 1 who debunked it?

Speaker 2 Yeah.

Speaker 1 And why?

Speaker 1 And what is the answer? I mean, have you heard such an answer?

Speaker 2 Yeah, you know, that's sort of how I started with this book: to say we all know that the link between, or any link between any vaccine product and brain damage or autism has been debunked.

Speaker 2 Everybody knows that's been debunked. And only a stupid person would claim otherwise.
It's been debunked. And then you ask, how was it debunked? You, so smart person, how was it debunked?

Speaker 2 And who debunked it? And why was it debunked? And all of a sudden, nobody can answer those questions. Those three simple questions answer, by the way, how was it debunked?

Speaker 2 By the IOM going into a room and having closed-door meetings that are funny as hell. Who debunked it? The IOM.
Why was it debunked? This is an interesting question, too. Why?

Speaker 2 It's not because Bobby Kennedy, he wasn't even involved in the topic.

Speaker 2 It's because there were many, many scientific studies that showed a connection between childhood vaccines and autism and brain damage. Why? Why were vaccines even a suspect?

Speaker 2 Because when mercury damages the human body, it damages the body neurologically. It causes the very things that are evident and apparent in brain damage.
That's what it does.

Speaker 2 And so when you had these thousands of parents say, I took my kid to be vaccinated, and the next day my kid was gone, mentally gone, no eye contact anymore, no talking anymore, listless.

Speaker 2 Maybe it has something to do with that vaccine. So it wasn't Bobby Kennedy who got the idea.
It was reality itself. That's the big problem.
And there's a scene in this book where

Speaker 2 they talk about the fact that seizures that follow vaccination is normal. It's perfectly healthy.

Speaker 2 Yeah, why would that be a problem? So your baby has a seizure that ends up in the emergency room. So what?

Speaker 1 He's already lying down, right? He's down. He's gone.
Exactly.

Speaker 2 It's not like, it's not like your baby baby was driving a car or operating heavy machinery. So it just had a seizure.
It's totally normal.

Speaker 2 Well, the interesting thing is that there are two studies I cite in the book that talk about how it's a very serious problem. Seizures after vaccination is a very serious problem.

Speaker 2 Not because of the seizures or the emergency room visited to in the morning. It's a problem because it causes vaccine hesitancy.

Speaker 2 And vaccine hesitancy is the one thing we must never have. I know, by the way, what actually causes vaccine hesitancy.
It's reality.

Speaker 2 No shit.

Speaker 2 You take your baby to the hospital at 2 in the morning with seizures and your baby's eyes rolling back in its head, and you'll be very thoughtful when they tell you, oh, yeah, that's from the vaccine.

Speaker 2 That's no problem.

Speaker 2 That's the most normal thing in the world.

Speaker 2 You'll be very thoughtful before you'll do it again. Lots of parents do.
They do it the second time. And they get, some of them, lose their babies that way.

Speaker 1 I hate this question but I have to ask it as a you know as a fake journalist

Speaker 1 okay you're not anti-vax

Speaker 1 and I know you're not an expert but it's very difficult to read this book and not come to a conclusion that's rooted in profound skepticism what vaccines if any are you comfortable with

Speaker 2 well thank you for asking and as a fake journalist you said you have to ask so as a fake journalistic subject, I guess I have to answer. And it goes like this.

Speaker 2 There is a vaccine called the BCG vaccine. That's given for

Speaker 2 tuberculosis. Now, the actual number one killer in the world, infectious killer in the world, transmissible killer in the world, is tuberculosis.

Speaker 2 1.5 million children a year. And it's not very prevalent in the United States, but it's very big around the world.

Speaker 2 And it's had a vaccine for more than 100 years without the new technology that we don't understand yet like mRNA and yet that vaccine is not given in the United States go figure that's the vaccine they don't give the one that actually is helps to prevent the number one killer respiratory killer in the world which is tuberculosis now why why is it not given well they might say because the prevalence of tuberculosis is so rare in the United States however that doesn't work because there were 9,000 cases of tuberculosis in the United States last year.

Speaker 2 And if you say that that prevalence isn't enough, then how do you deal with the fact that you're giving it for

Speaker 2 10

Speaker 2 cases of the one I mentioned that you get from Poke tetanus, for example?

Speaker 1 Tetanus. Or like, how about zero polio?

Speaker 2 Zero polio, and yet we're still giving the vaccine, that's right. And the only polio cases in the United States, by the way, has just been one since 1986, one, one,

Speaker 2 and it's polio, it's the vaccine-induced poliomyelitis. So, you know, in asking what vaccine I believe in, I think this BCG vaccine is actually very valuable.
It is helpful for fighting cancer.

Speaker 2 It is helpful for fighting other respiratory diseases. And you could actually make the claim that it improves health.
which you cannot make for the others.

Speaker 2 You know, the others are demonstrated time and again to

Speaker 2 have unfavorable consequences in addition to preventing the disease they're intended to prevent. Many of them do that, meaning many of them work.
So

Speaker 2 am I anti-vaccine or pro-vaccine? What I'm anti is the

Speaker 2 deification of these supposed experts who act like this is a religion. And what am I, by the way, for questioning this? What am I?

Speaker 2 Crazy.

Speaker 1 Well, you're the denier. That's what they would say.

Speaker 2 Crazy, debunked. What is Bobby Kennedy for questioning it, who, by the way, wanted nothing to do with this topic? He was talking about mercury in fish, and nobody called him anti-phish.

Speaker 2 But when he started talking about mercury in vaccines, what happened to him? 19 years.

Speaker 2 Unable to get on television. Couldn't be interviewed on a news program.
Crazy. He's crazy.
They had to say he's crazy because they don't want to engage with the arguments.

Speaker 2 And every time that anybody refuses to engage with the argument and instead does what ChatGPT did to me, you know, saying that I'm,

Speaker 2 floating debunked theories and things that have long been debunked. Well, when you see the debunking method, debunking ain't so grand anymore.

Speaker 1 You know,

Speaker 1 you quote, oh, what's his name, Hotez in the book.

Speaker 2 Yes, Peter Hotez, yeah.

Speaker 1 As saying maybe one of the all-time dumb things. I'd like to hear that if it comes to mind.
But I'm also thinking of some people that I kind of respect, you know,

Speaker 1 writers and thoughtful thinkers, some of whom are at the National Review, who have called Bobby a crackpot.

Speaker 1 And I guess it should be said, too, that, you know, you and Bobby have been friends for decades. You go way back.

Speaker 1 Yeah,

Speaker 2 I have a lot of respect for him. And I have lots of people who've been friends who I wouldn't, you know, endorse their process or their belief systems.

Speaker 2 But, you know, Bobby was a trial attorney who took on corporation after corporation for toxins being put into our environment.

Speaker 2 And there's no better example of that than being injected into our internal environment. And he was very successful.
He was very well regarded, very well liked,

Speaker 2 cover of every magazine as one of the 100 most influential Americans. And he'd done so much for the environment until

Speaker 2 that fateful day that he published the book called Thimerosol, Let the Science Speak. Thimerosol is ethylmercury, mercury.
And And at that moment, that was it.

Speaker 2 No TV shows, no articles anymore, all his past articles taken out and debunked. And that was the pharma's third rail.
Because

Speaker 2 it's not that he said something bad about vaccines. It's that you can't say anything about vaccines because they can't stand up and walk around on their own.

Speaker 2 They're not capable of mounting a viable argument. And that's when it becomes a religion.
And that's how it's treated as a religion. I want to get that Peter Hotez quote.
I found it.

Speaker 2 Here's four quotes in a row from scientists. The first one, in science, consensus is irrelevant.
There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science.

Speaker 2 If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.
That's said by Michael Crichton, a graduate of Harvard Medical School and

Speaker 2 went on to become a great writer.

Speaker 2 Here's another quote, this one from Carl Sagan. Science is a process of learning and discovery and debate at its heart.
Sorry, and debate is at its heart, Carl Sagan.

Speaker 2 Here's one from Neil deGrasse Tyson, who's a more current scientist. In science, the debate is never over.
And I end with the dumbest quote I could find from Dr. Peter Hotez.

Speaker 2 Quote, science is not up for debate.

Speaker 1 Close quote.

Speaker 1 Well, with great respect to Dr. Fauci, isn't I am the science a strong contender?

Speaker 2 It is, but I was done with Fauci already by this point, and

Speaker 2 Hotez needed some attention. I mean, listen, I'm not saying a thing bad about Hotez.
He's an idiot, and he's the one who demonstrated his idiocy, not me, when he says science is not up for debate.

Speaker 2 And he's in the religion, by the way, and he's a vaccine maker. And he's basically to him, you all saw that when he appeared on Joe Rogan, Rogan said, will you debate Bobby Kennedy?

Speaker 2 And he said no, because science is not up for debate, apparently.

Speaker 2 But I think he was offered ultimately millions of dollars to just attend to attend that debate but he is not going to debate Bobby Kennedy because Bobby Kennedy is crazy and not a scientist you don't debate with non-scientists well listen I'm not a scientist but I speak English and I can read the CDC website and I can read these quotes that I'm reading you know the idea that you have to be a scientist to have an opinion about what you eat or what you swallow or what you inject into your baby, wow, that's a bad idea.

Speaker 1 Isn't it interesting though, and I think probably a net positive, in this sea, this miasma of chattering and certainty, which we're obviously long on, the long-form podcast for the genuine, curious biped who really wants to understand, or at least inquire.

Speaker 1 as to how to be healthier, you know, how to get in better shape, how to have a better diet, how to understand the very things we're grappling with right now.

Speaker 1 I mean, I don't think you and I have ever lived, certainly, in a time where there was more information. Granted, the great challenge now is to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Speaker 1 But if you're curious, there are lots of tires to kick.

Speaker 2 It's true. And this, of course, threatens government profoundly.
And if you agree, Mike, we can try something here live on the air that I didn't even tell you about.

Speaker 2 And that's where editing will come in if it's no good. But it's a very interesting exploration of how AI can function in our lives and how important it is to ask that second follow-up question.

Speaker 2 Would you buy into a little experiment I can show you?

Speaker 1 It's why we're here.

Speaker 2 Okay, thanks. Let's see.
So,

Speaker 2 I'm talking now to Grok.

Speaker 2 Who killed Senator Robert Kennedy in 1968?

Speaker 2 Sir Han. Sir Han.

Speaker 2 Say it again. I didn't hear you clearly.

Speaker 1 Sir Han.

Speaker 2 Wouldn't you know it? We're having an audio problem with it. It says, Sir Hans.

Speaker 2 Sir Hans Sirhan killed Senator Robert Kennedy in 1968.

Speaker 3 In 1968.

Speaker 2 Okay, how many shots were fired at Robert Kennedy?

Speaker 2 You know what? This damned experiment's not going to work the way I hope because the Grok is not working. How many shots were fired at Robert Kennedy when he was killed in 1968?

Speaker 2 What a shame. All right, we tried the experiment.
Here's the thing. You asked that question.
You want to try it? I can give you the questions.

Speaker 2 Sure.

Speaker 1 Let me try it.

Speaker 2 Who killed Robert Kennedy in 1968?

Speaker 1 Who killed Robert Kennedy in 1968?

Speaker 1 It's not going to talk to me.

Speaker 2 Interesting.

Speaker 1 Funny. Hold on a minute.
But why wouldn't it? I mean, it searches.

Speaker 1 Yeah. Yeah.
Yeah. Sir Hand, Sir Hand killed him.

Speaker 2 Okay, now ask how many shots were fired at Robert Kennedy?

Speaker 1 How many shots were fired at Robert Kennedy in 1968?

Speaker 1 Generating.

Speaker 1 Generating. Based on official reports, Robert F.
Kennedy was shot four times, with three bullets hitting him and a fourth passing through his jacket.

Speaker 1 However, the total number of shots fired during the assassination is disputed, and there is evidence to suggest more than one shooter.

Speaker 2 Oh, that's a good answer. That's probably my responsibility for a lot of these conversations.
Ask if Sirhan Sirhan was standing in front of or behind Robert Kennedy.

Speaker 1 Was Sirhan Sirhan standing in front of Robert Kennedy or behind him?

Speaker 1 Sirhan Sirhan was standing behind Robert F. Kennedy when he shot him.
Kennedy had just turned to shake hands with someone when Sir Han stepped out from behind a tray stacker and fired at close range.

Speaker 2 Ask it to reconsider whether he was standing in front of or behind.

Speaker 1 Reconsider whether Sir Hans Sirhan was standing in front of Robert Kennedy or behind him.

Speaker 2 Generating. Generating.

Speaker 1 A discrepancy exists between eyewitness accounts and forensic evidence regarding Sir Hans Sirhan's position relative to Robert F.

Speaker 1 Kennedy during the assassination, eyewitnesses generally place Sirhan in front of Kennedy, while the autopsy report indicates the fatal shot was fired at point-blank range from behind him.

Speaker 1 This has fueled controversy and theories of a second gunman.

Speaker 2 Ask it, who is Thane Cesar?

Speaker 1 Thing?

Speaker 2 Yeah, T-H-A-N-E. Who is Thane Cesar?

Speaker 1 Who is Thing Cesar?

Speaker 1 Thane. T-H-A-N.
Thane.

Speaker 1 Yeah.

Speaker 1 Yeah.

Speaker 1 While a specific person named Thang Cesar could not be identified, a popular Colombian-born designer named Cesar Giraldo. No, I guess I got that wrong.

Speaker 2 Who is Thane Cesar who was present at the assassination of Senator Robert Kennedy?

Speaker 2 I was hoping mine was going to start working.

Speaker 1 Oh, I got it. The suspected second gunman is Thane Eugene Cesar, an Ace Guard Service employee hired by the Ambassador Hotel for that night.
He is implicated in several ways.

Speaker 1 He was standing immediately behind Senator Kennedy at the time of the shooting and said he was holding the senator's arm.

Speaker 2 Was he armed?

Speaker 1 Was Thane Cesar armed?

Speaker 1 The LAPD, which interviewed Cesar shortly after the shooting, did not regard him as a suspect and did not ask to see his gun.

Speaker 1 Cesar stated that he did own a.22-caliber Harrington and Richardson pistol, and he showed it to LAPD Sergeant P.E. Osteen on 24 June, 1968.

Speaker 2 So he was standing immediately behind Robert Kennedy. He hated Robert Kennedy.
This is me talking. You can stop with that.
He's standing immediately behind him. He hated him.

Speaker 2 He had a top-secret clearance. He worked for one night as a guard for a company called Ace Security.
The round that killed Robert Kennedy was upwards and from the right.

Speaker 2 The gun was right against Robert Kennedy's head, according to the autopsy. All the rounds that hit him were fired from behind.
Sir Hahn was standing six feet in front.

Speaker 2 And yet, AI began by telling you and me, Sir Han Sir Hahn killed Robert Kennedy.

Speaker 2 And so why I raise this, and I wish we could have gotten mine to work, it would have been fun, but why I raise it is that the first question you ask,

Speaker 2 you must never stop there with AI. You have to keep going because what you get on the first question is the official consensus answer on anything.

Speaker 2 And what you'll get on the follow-up questions is far more significant and valuable.

Speaker 1 You know, it probably wasn't available when you generated those early reports for some of your clients at the height of the, well, not at the height, but at the onset of the lockdowns.

Speaker 1 I remember talking talking to you about, you did a pretty deep analysis on what was happening in Italy. And that,

Speaker 1 you know, how useful would AI have been, or could it have been, when you were trying to get to the heart of some of the way the

Speaker 1 information on hand had been spun, omitted, and leaned into in ways that just, in hindsight, don't make a lot of sense.

Speaker 2 Well, what we learned, I mean, that was in March of 2020, and for a group of clients, clients,

Speaker 2 we wanted to learn what the risks were.

Speaker 2 And what we learned from the first data that came out, which was out of northern Italy, was that the average age of death was 81, meaning that the people who died of COVID had already outlived the national lifespan average.

Speaker 2 They'd already won the lottery in that sense. And then we learned that the

Speaker 2 things it would...

Speaker 2 it would take to die from COVID included catching COVID, then not treating it, then not going to the hospital, then getting very sick, then going to the hospital, then being one of the small percentage who would be admitted, then being one of the very small percentage that would be admitted to

Speaker 2 intensive care. And even then, you had a 90% chance of survival.
In other words, this was not the instant death drama that we were told. Who did die of COVID, by the way?

Speaker 2 Probably the single most remarkable statistic you can find out of the COVID drama is that 71%

Speaker 2 of the deaths attributed to COVID in Canada were people living in nursing homes.

Speaker 2 So

Speaker 2 that wasn't presented to us that way during all the COVID drama from all the marketing and promotion.

Speaker 2 It was not, if you're not living in a nursing home, your odds are overwhelmingly favorable that you're going to be just fine. It was quite the opposite.

Speaker 2 It was, you know, even children will die, and we have to inoculate even the children, and who had just about zero consequence from COVID.

Speaker 2 The other thing we learned was that the people who died of COVID had 3.7 existing fatal comorbidities, meaning they were already very sick.

Speaker 2 And so the idea that just a healthy person, I was 65 years old and was told, oh, if you're over 60 and you get COVID, you're dead. That was the original information.

Speaker 2 But after I got the Italy information, it was quite apparent to me that I would be just fine when I got COVID, which of course I did, which of course everybody did, including all the vaccinated people, got it two or three times.

Speaker 1 And so there were a lot of,

Speaker 2 you know, you could generously say mistakes and ungenerously say lies and concealments. I'll tell you the weirdest one.
I wrote, you know, a passage for Cause Unknown.

Speaker 2 I wrote the afterword and I helped Ed Dowd with the book. And a lot of the information was based on COVID deaths around the world,

Speaker 2 which came from Johns Hopkins University called Worldometers, funded by Bill Gates, by the way. Only afterwards, only years later, did a very smart friend of mine say,

Speaker 2 How do you think they got those daily deaths from all those countries, 190 countries in the world, that they could report on the daily deaths that crawled along the bottom of the

Speaker 2 CNN screen, for example? And it never occurred to me to wonder. I thought, well, deaths, that must be from death certificates.
No, death certificates aren't filed the day of death.

Speaker 2 And how could they know since these people were sick with other things as well? How in the world did they do that? And you know what it turned out to be, Mike? Very unfortunately? Modeling.

Speaker 2 Modeling. It was the same thing when we were told this is the number of deaths in this country and this is the number of deaths in this country.

Speaker 2 Yesterday the number of deaths were this and yesterday the number of COVID cases was this. Never before in our lives could you be a case without being sick.

Speaker 2 But you could be a case, a COVID case, just for testing positive. And testing positive, as we know, did not mean being sick.

Speaker 2 In a large measure, there were many more positive tests than there were people being sick. But all over the world, I believed that too.
I fell for it too.

Speaker 2 And I was saying, oh, look at the number in North Korea. Look at the number in South Korea.
What can we learn about this? The number of deaths daily reported.

Speaker 2 You couldn't do that in any country in the world. Could you get accurately the daily death rate from something?

Speaker 1 How charitable should we be, and how angry should we be in light of all of this? I talk to people all of the time who are already ready to shrug it off. It was an unprecedented time.

Speaker 1 People were doing their best. There was a lot of confusion and fear.
Let's just get on with it.

Speaker 2 Yeah, the idea that any world event is just an organic event that our, you know, say our federal public health officials were scurrying around to react to, I just don't believe it anymore, unfortunately.

Speaker 2 And anybody interested can go to YouTube and

Speaker 2 look at

Speaker 2 Event 201.

Speaker 2 And if that doesn't put you on the same page I'm on, I'll be very surprised.

Speaker 2 Event 201 is an event funded by the Gates Foundation and attended by representatives from CIA, from the Chinese CDC, from the US CDC, from the military, from CBS News and various media organizations.

Speaker 2 And it happened in October of 2019. And it's all about a flu-like virus that's going to become a pandemic in the world and how we will handle it.

Speaker 2 It was a tabletop exercise to say how would we handle this thing. And you know what they discuss at Event 201? They don't discuss the medical responses.

Speaker 2 They don't discuss how they'll improve people's health or protect people's health. They discuss how they'll manage misinformation.

Speaker 2 And what is misinformation? Misinformation is or disinformation. Disinformation is a great phrase because that misinformation is accidentally inaccurate.
That's the definition of it.

Speaker 2 Disinformation is intentionally inaccurate. That's done by those terrible people who promote disinformation, like Robert F.
Kennedy, Jr.

Speaker 2 And

Speaker 2 then there's malinformation, my favorite of all of them. Malinformation is true,

Speaker 2 but unhelpful to the government.

Speaker 2 Misinformation and disinformation and malinformation.

Speaker 2 That's what they talked about in October of 2019 as the world was gearing up for, lo and and behold, what an amazing coincidence happened right afterwards in October and November. A new virus

Speaker 2 evolved in nature and was spreading around the world. And we're just doing the best we can.
We're doing the best we can to resolve it. I don't believe it anymore.

Speaker 1 So you're a malinformationist.

Speaker 2 I'm a malinformationist.

Speaker 2 Yeah, screw you, too.

Speaker 2 You're almost as bad as I am. How dare you, you and your name-calling.

Speaker 1 Well, look, you know,

Speaker 1 you're a teller of inconvenient truths.

Speaker 1 And I don't know if you've seen that movie, An Inconvenient Study. Is this thing on your radar yet?

Speaker 2 Oh, yes, I saw it, and if you didn't raise it, I was going to recommend it to everybody. It's really, really good information, a really good material, and very, I thought, very well made.

Speaker 2 I'll ask you what you thought of it, if you've seen it.

Speaker 1 I haven't seen it yet. Chuck recommended it to me and thought

Speaker 1 we ought to get the people on to put that together. We ought to get that great Native American Del Bigtree on.

Speaker 2 Del. Yeah, by the way, I know him well.
I just recently spent some time with him in Austin, and I'd be very glad to introduce you guys to him.

Speaker 1 Please do. I saw the movie already, but I'm having like eight people over tonight to watch it again.

Speaker 1 I thought it was fascinating and jaw-dropping, and I was telling Mike about it. It's very much like your book.
It's right in line with your book.

Speaker 2 Yeah, I'm so glad. And of course, with filmmaking, that reaches on a different level.

Speaker 2 And so I really strongly encourage, you don't need the encouragement, Chuck, but you, Mike, who runs from any information and just denies everything and falls for everything that the government tells you to believe, you should probably see it.

Speaker 1 Just be patient with me, all right? Baby steps. Crawl, walk, run.

Speaker 1 Look, this is ridiculous. I've kept you.

Speaker 1 I promised Chuck we'd start keeping these to an hour, but I can't do it with you. And I also can't let you go yet.

Speaker 1 I just got to do a quick hard pivot, if you don't mind.

Speaker 2 I don't mind. I don't mind.

Speaker 1 Because

Speaker 1 you're like nailing jello to a tree, man. You're very hard to find.

Speaker 1 You're around the world, all over the place. But I wanted to talk to you after Butler,

Speaker 1 the assassination attempt, and I really wanted to talk to you last month after Charlie was killed. Just from a security standpoint, I know you can't know, but when these things happen,

Speaker 1 what goes on in your medulla oblongata? Like, how do, what does your brain do in the immediate wake of that? And what, if anything, do you have to say about either or both events?

Speaker 2 Well, I'll talk first about Charlie. It just broke my heart.
I didn't know him. I didn't even know a great deal about him.
I'd seen him do debates on campus, and I really loved the fact that he was

Speaker 2 committed to dialogue and discussion and it just broke my heart that he was killed. It really, I had a

Speaker 2 very

Speaker 2 emotional reaction to it and I thought it was a terrible thing for

Speaker 2 society that in the very process of engaging with our division, which is what he was doing,

Speaker 2 now

Speaker 2 people will say he was divisive. I didn't find that, but nonetheless, everybody's entitled to their opinion.

Speaker 2 No matter what, he was going around the country and the world and engaging with people over divisive topics. And so the first thing was an emotional reaction.
Now,

Speaker 2 in terms of my profession and my work in anti-assassination and in studying assassinations, my early reactions are that it's difficult to learn.

Speaker 2 what actually occurred at any of these events. It's difficult to understand the motivation of people behind them.

Speaker 2 It's difficult to draw conclusions because of the very issue we've been discussing in this last hour, which is the inability to accept at face value information that those in power want to present.

Speaker 2 And so as in Butler, the very fast resolution of everything you need to know is right here. It was that young kid over there, and he's dead, so there's no trial.

Speaker 2 There's nothing further to explore or to do. And, you know, in these cases,

Speaker 2 and the other assassination attempt at the golf course, which

Speaker 2 has a much more problematic

Speaker 2 bad guy aligned with it, in that he was, you know, several times in Ukraine, even though he was supposedly anti-war, he was a recruiter, acting as a recruiter for soldiers around the world to go, is he crazy?

Speaker 2 Maybe he's crazy too.

Speaker 2 But the concept of the lone gunman, which we just took a little look at in that AI exploration of the well-documented assassination of Senator Robert Kennedy, where everybody knows he was killed by a Palestinian man named Sirhan Sirhan.

Speaker 2 And yet, when you get into it, you find out that it isn't so. So

Speaker 2 I have a...

Speaker 2 It's not even a skeptical reaction, Mike. It's a quite scientific reaction.

Speaker 2 You know, my work in anti-assassination is physics

Speaker 2 and protection of public figures in environments like Charlie was in mostly boils down to athleticism. It's an athletic contest, usually between somebody wielding a handgun and the protectors.

Speaker 2 And where they're standing and how it all works is what I tend to study. In this case, it's,

Speaker 2 you know, I can't come up with a better phrase than to say it's too soon to know. And will we ever understand all of it? I just don't know.

Speaker 2 There are certainly elements to this narrative that was immediately set forth and exploited that probably will not withstand

Speaker 2 physics when we can really understand all the details. It's a very unsatisfying answer.
It's unsatisfying to me, too, because we are subject to the two competing influences that we're dealing with.

Speaker 2 One is those in power and official narratives, and the other is the massive amount of information,

Speaker 2 false and accurate and speculative, that we all have to sift through via the Internet.

Speaker 1 Well, it sure sounds like you just kind of glossed over it, but I was going to say, do you think Cesar did it?

Speaker 1 It seems clear that Sir Hansirhan was a patsy, and the country just hasn't got the memo yet.

Speaker 2 Well, I'll just go a little further onto that. Yes, I think Thane Cesar killed Senator Robert Kennedy, and Sir Hans Sirhan had a trial that didn't get into any of the physics or issues.
His lawyer was

Speaker 2 the same lawyer as for Johnny Rosselli, of all people, a known participant in assassinations for the CIA.

Speaker 2 The whole case is just ridiculous, but just to stay with the physics for a moment, ChatGPT or Grok will quickly acknowledge for you that the number of shots attested to by witnesses was 13 or 14, and Sir Hans Gunn held only eight shots.

Speaker 2 That the number of shots demonstrated by audio, by review of the audio recordings, was 13 or 14, and Sir Hans Gunn held only eight shots.

Speaker 2 That Sir Han was always standing in front of Senator Kennedy, and

Speaker 2 Thane Cesar was always standing immediately behind him,

Speaker 2 and that the shots were upward. All the shots that hit Senator Kennedy were from behind him, not from in front of him.
And the shot that killed him was a contact wound

Speaker 2 from behind him. So there's nothing about the Sirhan case where the official narrative can stand up and walk around on its own.

Speaker 2 So yes, Dane Cesar, who immediately, by the way, left the country and moved to the Philippines, where he eventually died some years ago. We don't know how he was supported during that time.

Speaker 2 We know he hated Robert Kennedy. We have a bunch of public quotes regarding things he said about Robert Kennedy.
And he likely was aligned with bad actors in a broader conspiracy.

Speaker 2 But is Sirhan Sirhan the shooter? No. By the way, Sirhan,

Speaker 2 how did I come to know this? I'd written an actual book called Just Two Seconds, which is about the physics of assassination.

Speaker 2 And one of the, it studies 1,400 cases, and one of them was the Sirhan case, which I bought the narrative on.

Speaker 2 So if you get an old version of that book, it says Sirhan Sirhan fired eight rounds and killed Senator Kennedy and hit six other people as well, including Senator Kennedy's best friend who was hit in the head.

Speaker 2 And he came to Bobby Kennedy, the Bobby Kennedy Jr. that we know, and he came to Bobby Kennedy and said, would you be willing to look at the autopsy report?

Speaker 2 Years after, Bobby was in his 60s, and then Bobby read the autopsy report.

Speaker 2 It was quite clear that all the shots were from behind, and it was quite clear that Sirhan fired only two shots before being knocked over by people who were protecting Senator Kennedy.

Speaker 2 And so he went and met with Sirhan.

Speaker 2 Bobby Kennedy did, and then he petitioned for his release and a re-evaluation at his next parole hearing, which was denied. He and one of his brothers, by the way.

Speaker 2 And then I got into the case fully, and I have some, you know, tremendously

Speaker 2 decisive information provided by and available to anybody via Grok or ChatGPT where at the end of the discussion the same entity that told you that Sirhansirhan killed Robert Kennedy in 1968 will make the best possible case for why it could not be Sirhan Sirhan

Speaker 2 so so yes that's my belief and that that took only uh you know, uh, all these years to get even me there as an expert on the topic, because the information that was available when I was a kid and Senator Kennedy was killed, you'd see a press conference, the cops would be there, the mayor would be there, and they would say, we have our man, we've caught him, and he's a Palestinian

Speaker 2 who hated Senator Kennedy. And

Speaker 2 why would you disbelieve them?

Speaker 2 Why possibly would they not be telling the truth? And why would they be quick to identify a suspect and say the case is resolved? Well, all those same questions apply to Charlie Kirk.

Speaker 2 Why, three days later, do we have

Speaker 2 really weird texts written by the shooter that completely admit everything and completely make the case against him.

Speaker 2 Why? How did he get the gun on the roof? How did he get the gun off the roof? You don't see that in the video.

Speaker 2 They say he disassembled it. Why would he disassemble it and then reassemble it to place it to be, you know, where it was found, wrapped in a towel? There's plenty of things that are questions.

Speaker 2 They're just skeptical questions.

Speaker 2 I don't have enough information to claim a conspiracy or to claim anything. And this is the part that's unsatisfying.

Speaker 2 Which is that we cannot know in these cases.

Speaker 1 We can't know yet, but you have a fair amount of certainty decades after

Speaker 1 RFK.

Speaker 2 Yes.

Speaker 1 We're a month, what, six weeks maybe after Charlie Kirk.

Speaker 1 And there's a level of skepticism now and dubity, it seems, that probably, I don't know, I wasn't old enough to remember, but, you know, six weeks after RFK's assassination, did the country more or less buy the company line?

Speaker 2 Didn't you?

Speaker 2 100%. Not just the company, not just the country, but the family.
100%.

Speaker 2 Many family members to this day, including children of Senator Kennedy, still absolutely accept, as even Bobby Kennedy did

Speaker 2 until he was in his 60s and got this approach from his father's best friend, accept the official narrative.

Speaker 2 But the official narrative, by the way, in the case of Senator Kennedy, is absolutely unsupportable. It cannot stand and walk around on its own.

Speaker 1 Well, I guess maybe the final thought has to do with, you know, as we land the plane here, the topic that

Speaker 1 we talked about at length the first time we met, which was just this

Speaker 1 weird challenge that I think back to most commonsensical, curious people who have components of faith in their life, but who are being called right now to be more skeptical than ever.

Speaker 1 I mean, if we're to find the truth, if we're to put our trust in any of the institutions that we've talked about, from doctors to politicians to journalists, we have to be insanely skeptical.

Speaker 1 And then on the other side, you know, when it comes to the supernatural, when it comes to our faith, when it comes to these things that, you know, we're called to be faithful.

Speaker 1 So I guess my question is, what's your advice to the average Joe who feels like he's being called to be faithful

Speaker 1 and rational and at the same time

Speaker 1 being pushed into a level of skepticism that's right adjacent to cynicism? Because in this world, I just don't know how.

Speaker 1 how we can move forward, you know, without proclaiming that the science is never settled and embracing a new level of skepticism.

Speaker 2 Yeah, I wish I had a great answer, Mike. I'm struggling with that issue all the time myself.
I don't, you know, nobody,

Speaker 2 we have no difficulty believing something like the conference at Bonsi, which occurred and was transcribed, et cetera, that I talked about earlier.

Speaker 2 We have no difficulty believing that generals sit around a room and conspire to on how a war will be mounted and prosecuted and how it will be undertaken and where it will be started and how we'll move our troops, and where we'll fire the first missiles, etc.

Speaker 2 Why do I call that a conspiracy? Because sometimes we conclude those wars were wrongful. And that's all a conspiracy is, is one or more persons secretly getting together to take a wrongful action.

Speaker 2 Every product launch in America is preceded by a conspiracy. And I'm not exaggerating.
What do they do? They sit around a boardroom and they, let's say, take a pharma product, for example.

Speaker 2 They say, how shall we most discredit the alternative products? That's number one. That's wrongful.

Speaker 2 How shall we most overinflate or inflate the value of our product? That's wrongful. How shall we deal with anybody who questions our product? That's wrongful.

Speaker 2 And then how shall we keep this all secret until the product is rolled out and we can advertise it in the most favorable way while suppressing the unfavorable? How shall we do all that?

Speaker 2 That's a conspiracy. And so the idea that people have this phrase conspiracy theorist, and they say, oh, if you talk about conspiracies, you're the problem.

Speaker 2 You've got some kind of a problem because you're a conspiracy theorist, which is a pejorative.

Speaker 2 It's ridiculous.

Speaker 2 People conspire to do things all day. I've done it myself all day in many, many ways.
And

Speaker 2 it happens in corporations, and of course it happens in government. Why, by the way?

Speaker 1 Why more?

Speaker 2 among the powerful than among the unpowerful?

Speaker 2 Because the powerful are less likely to get caught.

Speaker 1 And maybe because too, you know, I worked for Tylenol for a few years. McNeil Labs hired me in Another Life and I did maybe 20 commercials for them.

Speaker 1 And I remember sitting in a conference room, you know, this of course was after the Tylenol scare and

Speaker 1 a frankly pretty brilliant move to pull all that product and introduce the safety cap and talk about making, you know, lemonade out of lemons.

Speaker 1 But the whole battle in analgesics in those days was really a zero-sum game. And the only way to get more people using Tylenol was to get less people using Excedrin or Bayer or Anisin.

Speaker 1 And they were all in this giant knife fight in a phone booth, making claims about taking comfort in our strength and all of these other things.

Speaker 1 And I only point it out to say that if that happens in

Speaker 1 pharma, you know, it probably happens in running shoes. It probably happens in every imaginable thing we've ever purchased.

Speaker 1 And it's true. It's all true.
Money, money, money. It's the money, man.
Sure.

Speaker 2 And aspirin is interesting, and Tylenol is interesting because aspirin is grandfathered in so that its adverse effects, which it has, by the way, aspirin has some benefits and some adverse effects for some people.

Speaker 2 And so it causes, for example, stomach bleeds in some people. And that's the, you know, a substantial cause of

Speaker 2 injury to a lot of people and there's people who just shouldn't take aspirin and then there's others who take a low-dose aspirin for blood thinning to reduce the likelihood of heart attack.

Speaker 2 So all of these things take a little bit of thought. You can't just believe the advertisement in all these cases.

Speaker 2 Tylenol has a very

Speaker 2 bad profile for liver damage and particularly bad for infants as we're learning more and more in recent days. And

Speaker 2 yet the second second it comes from, say, Bobby Kennedy or President Trump, everybody says, you know, when Bobby Kennedy ordered that,

Speaker 2 not Bobby Kennedy, but the ASIP, the committee at the CDC that makes decisions on vaccines, ordered that vaccines not have mercury anymore, people were incensed. Don't take away our mercury.

Speaker 2 Don't take away all the mercury we're trying to give our babies. And the same thing happened with Tylenol.

Speaker 2 Don't take away our Tylenol that we're trying to give to our babies when maybe it's not always the best decision. But these are all hard decisions.

Speaker 2 And the question that my book ends with is who shall decide? Do you want it to be the company deciding?

Speaker 2 And let me tell you a few things about Pfizer and Johnson and Johnson before you make that decision. All the criminal fines, all the outrageous bad conduct.

Speaker 2 I mean outrageously bad criminal conduct that they've been fined for more than any other institutions in the United States and billions of dollars in fines. So criminal fines.

Speaker 2 So do you want them to do it? Okay, if not them, do you want then the government to do it?

Speaker 2 Oh, that would be the government agency that's run by a former pharma guy who's about to be a pharma guy again when he joins the board of Pfizer as soon as he leaves. You know, the guy who left

Speaker 2 Dr. Peter Marks, who was the head of vaccines at

Speaker 2 FDA and resigned in protest over Robert Kennedy. I wonder where Peter is now.
Oh, could he possibly be working for Eli Lilly?

Speaker 2 Interesting. That's what's going on.
And so there is, it's not corruption in the form of people twirling their mustaches. It's systemic corruption.
It's the way things work.

Speaker 2 And so if I'm holding this brand new baby boy, and I have to make a decision, and who do I want to make it?

Speaker 2 Either I'm going to really trust this particular pediatrician, or this particular pharma manufacturer, or this particular government agency, or learn about it and make a decision myself and be as comfortable as I can be with it.

Speaker 2 It's not easy. Not easy.

Speaker 1 Well, you can't put the shit back in the goose, and you're right about the aspirin. You know, 80,000 people admitted to hospitals last year from stomach bleeding brought on by aspirin.

Speaker 1 I can't imagine how you could get that product today if it were just introduced onto the shelf without somebody like the IOM running some sort of study and say,

Speaker 1 like a seizure in your baby. It's just a little stomach bleeding.
It's just a little blood in the toilet. Don't let it freak you out.

Speaker 1 On the other hand, tell me I'm wrong, but is Vioxx going to wind up back on the market?

Speaker 2 Oh, sure, for sure. It'll have a new name and it'll have a

Speaker 2 new use. And I mean, things like even the dreaded Remdesivir ended up back on the market.
It hadn't even completed. It was stopped in the middle of the FDA trial for being too dangerous.

Speaker 2 Too many people were dying for it in the FDA trials, for God's sake. And it ended up on the market because of, thanks to Anthony Fauci.
And what did the people in the hospitals call it, by the way?

Speaker 2 Nurses that worked in intensive care, nicknamed Remdesivir, run, death is near.

Speaker 1 Oh, my God.

Speaker 2 It caused kidney failure, and yet it became the,

Speaker 2 what did Fauci called it, the standard of care. It had never even been FDA approved.

Speaker 2 And it became the standard of care for COVID.

Speaker 2 Oh, my God.

Speaker 1 Look, you've pissed a lot of people off. You've intrigued a lot of people.
You know, I hope we sell some books.

Speaker 1 Who benefits, Kibono, from the purchase of this book?

Speaker 2 The reader. I hope.
That's the only intention. I don't get any royalties and the publisher doesn't make any money from it.
And we've all basically, you know,

Speaker 2 the publisher is an important publisher in our country because it publishes all the books nobody else will publish.

Speaker 1 Who are they?

Speaker 2 Sky Horse Publishing. So they publish Woody Allen, who nobody would publish.
Norman Mailer, because he, after his death, for God's sake, he got canceled.

Speaker 2 And

Speaker 2 books that are pro-vaccine and books that are anti-vaccine.

Speaker 2 And if you go to Amazon and you look up vaccine as a category, you'll see a whole bunch of books there, some of them tremendously pro-vaccine, and some that are skeptical of vaccines.

Speaker 2 But they wouldn't be there if it weren't for Sky Horse Publishing. The company just deeply believes in publishing books and let the consumer read the books and decide

Speaker 2 which information they want to credit and which information they want to discredit.

Speaker 1 Well, not all truths are convenient. Not all facts are forbidden, but these are.
It says so right on the cover.

Speaker 2 It's such a,

Speaker 1 I almost said fun. It's not fun, but it's compelling.
It's quick, and it's well researched. And sure, it's controversial.

Speaker 1 But whatever you think of the claims and whatever you think of my guest, I'll tell you this, man. If you're having a dinner party and Gavin DeBecker is available,

Speaker 1 invite him.

Speaker 2 I want to add to that because I'm very hungry right now,

Speaker 2 having been here for two hours. So if anybody has an invitation, please email me right away.

Speaker 1 You can come tonight and watch the movie with me and my friends again.

Speaker 2 Thank you, Chuck. I really do like it.

Speaker 1 We're going to have time.

Speaker 2 I really do like the movie.

Speaker 1 Dude, he's in Maui. You really think he's going to fly to friggin' North Hollywood to sit out? Mike,

Speaker 2 I'm headed to the airport just to prove you wrong, which is, as you know, one of my favorite things.

Speaker 1 Well, when you're there, do me a favor. Keep six feet between you and your fellow travelers, okay?

Speaker 1 It's the only rational thing to do. The book is called Forbidden Facts.
You'd be a fool not to read it. Get it wherever fine books are sold or even controversial ones.
Chuck, always great to see you.

Speaker 1 Gavin, my friend.

Speaker 1 We have to hang up now, but stay online for a minute because I have some deeply personal things I need to ask you.

Speaker 2 All right, let's record those two. Thank you very much for the show, Mike.
Thanks.

Speaker 1 Let's not. All right.

Speaker 2 Adios.

Speaker 1 When you leave a review, only five stars will do. Not just one or just two or just three.

Speaker 1 We were hoping

Speaker 1 four

Speaker 1 more

Speaker 1 as in a one more

Speaker 1 than a four.

Speaker 1 Oh, please one more than four.

Speaker 1 Just a quick review with five stars too

Speaker 1 from the you, five stars

Speaker 1 High interest debt is one of the toughest opponents you'll face, unless you power up with a SoFi personal loan.

Speaker 1 A SoFi personal loan could repackage your bad debt into one low-fixed rate monthly payment. It's even got super speed, since you could get the funds as soon as the same day you sign.

Speaker 1 Visit sofi.com/slash power to learn more. That's SOFI.com/slash P-O-W-E-R.

Speaker 1 Loans originated by SoFi Bank NA, member FDIC, terms and conditions apply, NMLS 696891.

Speaker 3 From mobile clinics in Jordan to water wells in Ghana, Islamic Relief USA is transforming lives through powerful development programs, education, medical aid, food, clean water, and women's empowerment.

Speaker 3 These efforts are helping millions thrive across East Africa, Asia, and even here in the U.S. Be part of the change.
Visit irusa.org to support global development. That's irusa.org.

Speaker 3 To make your donation today, irusa.org.