We are waking up, but at a terrible price: The 294th Evolutionary Lens with Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying

Today we discuss MAHA, vaccines, Covid, autism, and ostriches. Senator Ron Johnson held a hearing on the corruption of science, at which Jake Scott (MD), Toby Rogers (PhD), and lawyer Aaron Siri testified about vaccine safety testing and the relationship between vaccines and autism. The new MAHA Strategy report attributes poor diet, aggregation of environmental chemicals, lack of physical activity, chronic stress, and overmedicalization to the decline in children’s health. Meanwhile, people who have been fooled by the fear campaign celebrate getting their newest Covid boosters. And in Canada, ostriches are at risk of being killed because of a misunderstanding of immunity, but people are fighting back. The immune system that defends the body politic is discovering how to defeat the infection. The battle is over the public consciousness.

While we were livestreaming, news broke that Charlie Kirk was shot during an event in Utah and sadly passed away shortly after. 

“Charlie Kirk was a beautiful person. He died engaging his foes honorably. I truly hope he’s right about the universe and is receiving his reward. I’m beyond heartbroken for his lovely family—we must take care of them. Let’s live up to his example.” – Bret Weinstein

*****

Our sponsors:

Masa Chips: Delicious chips made with corn, salt, and beef tallow—nothing else—in loads of great flavors. Go to http://masachips.com/DarkHorse, use code DarkHorse, for 25% off.

CrowdHealth: Pay for healthcare with crowdfunding instead of insurance. It’s way better. Use code DarkHorse at http://JoinCrowdHealth.com to get 1st 3 months for $99/month.

ARMRA: Colostrum is our first food, and can help restore your health and resilience as an adult. Go to http://www.tryarmra.com/DARKHORSE to get 15% off your first order.

*****

Join us on Locals! Get access to our Discord server, exclusive live streams, live chats for all streams, and early access to many podcasts: https://darkhorse.locals.com

Heather’s newsletter, Natural Selections (subscribe to get free weekly essays in your inbox): https://naturalselections.substack.com

Our book, A Hunter-Gatherer’s Guide to the 21st Century, is available everywhere books are sold, including from Amazon: https://amzn.to/3AGANGg (commission earned)

Check out our store! Epic tabby, digital book burning, saddle up the dire wolves, and more: https://darkhorsestore.org

*****

Mentioned in this episode:

Congressional hearing: https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/subcommittees/investigations/hearings/how-the-corruption-of-science-has-impacted-public-perception-and-policies-regarding-vaccines/

Childhood vaccines aren’t tested against placebo: https://naturalselections.substack.com/p/childhood-vaccines-arent-tested-against

MAHA Strategy report: https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/MAHA-Report-The-White-House.pdf

Covid boosters to show RFK: https://x.com/newstart_2024/status/1964562477716558123

Universal Ostrich Farm at Rebel News: https://www.rebelnews.com/breaking_b_c_ostriches_temporarily_saved_from_cfia_cull_by_interim_stay_order

Ostriches - Politico: https://www.politico.com/news/2025/07/15/why-rfk-jr-wants-canada-to-pardon-400-ostriches-00455360

Ostriches - Wall Street Journal: https://www.wsj.com/world/americas/universal-ostrich-farm-canada-jfk-oz-f6548a6a

Ostriches - WaPo: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2025/08/22/ostrich-bird-flu-canada-cull-rfk/

Chapters

• 0:00 Dung Beetles All the Time
• 10:04 Unpacking the MAHA Strategy and Upcoming Senate Hearing
• 13:19 Examining Dr. Jake Scott's Vaccine Testing Assertions
• 18:46 Aaron Siri Reveals Flaws in Vaccine Placebo Controls
• 27:53 A Personal and Historical Look at Vaccine Efficacy
• 38:28 Senator Johnson Challenges Dr. Scott on Vaccine Data
• 44:47 Charlie Kirk News During Live Stream
• 46:56 Unveiling mRNA Bio-Distribution
• 51:57 Dr. Toby Rogers' Startling Testimony on Autism Causes
• 59:16 Developmental Regression Rules Out Genetics Testimony
• 1:00:36 Bret & Heather Review the NEW MAHA Report
• 1:08:46 Americans React to MAHA Agenda Reports with Absurdity
• 1:17:15 Canadian Ostrich Farm Highlights Natural Immunity Conflict
• 1:34:47 The Body Politic is Sick and Confused

Transcript

1:00:00

Hey folks, welcome to the DarkHorse Podcast, live stream number 294, where it's all done Beatles all the time. I wish. I mean, that'd be a cool channel. It'd be a little less shitty, I think.(...) Yeah, it'd be moving in that direction. Yeah. All right. We got a lot that we gotta cover. It's been just such an incredible few days, even since our last podcast, and we're going to cover some highlights. But most importantly, let me say, I think a new picture is emerging, and we're going to do our best to synthesize some things from a number of different quadrants that may be telling a single story. So anyway, that is, roughly speaking, what lies ahead. All right, you are Bret Weinstein. Oh, thanks. Here we are, DarkHorse. We did a Q&A last time. We're not going to do one today, or last time, last week. Go check them out on Locals. We're going to watch party there now also, and you had some good conversations on Patreon this week. And the other way that we pay our rent is through our sponsors. Three of them are at the top of the hour, and then others that we bring to you throughout the episode. And Bret, you are going to start us out. Holy cow, I did not see that coming. You've got a prop. You've alerted me. Don't leave your prop. The chips are down. Now they are no longer down. All right. You're hiding them behind the elevator. That seems awkward and inappropriate. I will put them over here. Our first sponsor today is Masa Tips. Masa makes delicious, healthy chips that aren't going to make you sick because they're made with real, whole ingredients. You know the way food used to be made. These chips are fried in 100% beef tallow, no sea oils ever. You can taste the difference, and your body can feel the difference. America's health is declining fast. Chronic illnesses, obesity, autoimmune diseases have exploded. It's a strange image.(...) Why? I mean, it is. You'll grant me it. It is a strange image, yeah. In large part because we have swapped real food for cheap industrial substitutes, like literal industrial lubricants. All chips and fries used to be cooked in tallow, but in the 1990s, corporations switched to cheaper seed oils, which include soybean, canola, sunflower, safflower, and corn. Seed oils are often labeled vegetable oils, as if that makes them healthy, while in fact sea oils are linked to metabolic health issues and inflammation. And today, seed oils make up 20% of the average of Americans' daily calories. That is a stunning number. Isn't that crazy? That is a crazy number. 20%. Like I said last time, we had them as a sponsor. It's not 20% of the average of Americans' fat calories. It's 20% of the average of Americans' total calories from seed oils. From crops that are not foods that have been rendered food-like through industrial processes. Absolutely stunning, as we've covered multiple times. Back to the ad rate. Big food companies also use artificial thighs, stabilizers, and other toxins, and I will just add that the funny things that end up in your seed oils in order to extract the oil and make it palatable are also unavoidable if you're eating those things. But in contrast, masa chips have just three simple ingredients. Organic, mixed malized corn, sea salt, and 100% grass-fed beef tallow. Absolutely no soy, no soy, no seed oils, which cannot be contracted to soy.(...) No artificial dyes or additives ever. Beef tallow is a nutrient-rich nourishing. You know, I'm a trianglish.(...) For one thing, I think most of the audience probably speaks of beef tallow as a nutrient-rich nourishing. Is nutrient-rich, comma, nourishing, comma, and makes food taste incredible. Usually, when we read, we don't actually pronounce the punctuation. Yes, but if you dictate things while driving, you become accustomed to it. But I don't seem to be driving. Okay, what am I driving at? That's the question. What I'm driving at is that masa chips are crunchy and delicious, and after you eat them, you feel satisfied, satisfied, and energetic. Masa also supports American farms and regenerative agriculture. Choosing real food heals us and our environment, which in turn makes us even more healthy. Trying masa chips with salsa or goat cheese or spicy pepper jam, smother them in beans and cheese, or just eat them straight out of the bag, they are delicious. My favorites are their original and wine flavors. Zach surprised himself when he realized that he really loved their churro flavor. They've also got white corn, blue corn, and carbonaro flavors. We've got blue corn here on the screen. That is correct. You can tell by blue stripes. Indeed, it cues you before you even open the bag. Ready to give masa a try? Go to masachips.com, slash dark horse, and use the code darkhorse for 25% off your first order. That's masachips.com, slash DarkHorse, and use code darkhorse for 25% off your first order. And if you don't feel like ordering online, starting in October, masa will be available nationwide at Sprouts supermarkets. Stop by and pick up a bag before they're gone. They're so good. We're not going to eat them on screen this morning. We're stopped. Yes. Crunching. Yes, exactly. Some people appreciate most people probably wouldn't. Yes, so, Mark, you never know what they're going to like. Yeah, indeed. Our second sponsor this week is CrowdHealth. CrowdHealth isn't health insurance, it's better. It's nearly open enrollment. The season when health insurance companies hope that you will once again blindly sign up for overpriced premiums and confusing fine print. We used to do that, but not anymore. Not since finding CrowdHealth. CrowdHealth is a community of people funding each other's medical bills directly. No middlemen, no networks, no nonsense.(...) After we left our salary jobs, college professors, we spent years buying health insurance in the marketplace. It was confusing, irritating, and very expensive. As a family of four who had health insurance for emergencies only, we were paying more than $1,500 a month for a policy with a $17,000 annual deductible to a company that never answered their phones and had a website that didn't work. Tens of thousands of dollars paid out for no benefit whatsoever. I went looking for alternatives, and I found CrowdHealth.(...) We have now had two sets of great experiences with CrowdHealth. When Toby broke his foot in the summer of 2024, when I slipped on a wet concrete and slipped on my scalp this summer, we went to the ER both times and got good, but expensive treatment for the medical staff there. In both cases, CrowdHealth paid our bills with no hassle. Their app was simple and straightforward to use, and the real people who worked with CrowdHealth were easy to reach, clear and communicative. With CrowdHealth, you can get health care for under $100 a month. You get access to a team of health bill,(...) negotiators, low-cost prescription lab-testing tools, and a database of low-cost, high-quality doctors vetted by CrowdHealth. With CrowdHealth, you pay for little stuff out of pocket, but for any events that cost more than $500, the diagnosis that requires ongoing treatment, a pregnancy or an accident, you pay the first $500, and they pay the rest. The system is vetted, and you'll stay stuck in the same overpriced, overcomplicated mess. And this year, it's even more complicated because most of the ACA, Affordable Care Act subsidies expire, which means your prices are going to be even higher. So far, CrowdHealth members have saved over$40 million in health care expenses because they refused to overpay for health care.(...) With this open enrollment, take your power back. Join CrowdHealth to get started today for $99 for your first three months using the code "DARKORSE" at joincrowdhealth.com. That's joincrowdhealth.com, code"DARKORSE." One important reminder, CrowdHealth is not insurance. Opt out. Take your power back. This is how we win. Joincrowdhealth.com. Hell yeah. That was exactly right. Yep. Our final sponsor this week is Armora colostrum, an ancient bioactive whole food. The original mammalian colostrum is the first food that every mammal eats. It is produced in the first two or three days of an infant's life and is nutritionally different from the milk that comes in afterwards. Colostrum serves many vital functions, including that of protecting and strengthening the mucosal barriers of infants before their own systems mature. Modern living breaks down many of our barriers, however, the mucosal and immune. In contrast, armora colostrum balances and strengthens, helping to create a seal that guards against inflammation in everyday toxins, threats, and pollutants.(...) Armora colostrum is a bioactive whole food with over 400 functional nutrients, including but not limited to antioxidants, minerals, immunoglobulins, and prebiotics. Bovine colostrum has been used to treat cancer, heart disease, and rheumatoid arthritis among many other ailments. It's a general anti-inflammatory, and its use in adults has been clinically shown to increase lean muscle mass, improve athletic performance and recovery time, support healthy digestion, and reduce allergy symptoms. Armora colostrum starts with sustainably sourced colostrum from grass-fed calves from their co-op of dairy farms in the U.S., and they source only the surplus colostrum after calves are fully fed. Unlike most colostrums on the market, which use heat pasteurization that depletes nutrient potency, armora colostrum uses an innovative process that purifies and preserves the integrity of hundreds of bioactive nutrients while removing calcium fat to guarantee the highest potency and bioavailability. The quality control is far above industry standards, including being certified to be glyphosate-free. People who have used armora colostrum have reported clearer skin, faster on thicker hair growth, and better mental concentration. In addition, people using armora colostrum have noticed a decrease in muscle sinusceptor exercise, better sleep, and fewer sugar cravings. You don't want to put it in hot liquids, but it goes great in anything cool, like in smoothies. Try it with loads of fresh mint, raw milk, fantastic honey, and cacao nibs, or just with raw milk, frozen strawberries, and honey. It's amazing. Armora colostrum is the real deal.(...) Armora has a special offer for the Dark Horse audience. Proceed 15% off your first order. Go to tryarmora.com slash DarkHorse, or enter DarkHorse to get 15% off your first order. That's T-R-Y-A-R-M-R-A dot com slash DarkHorse. important number of lactation that-- A demonstrably different stage, that is short-lived, but critical. Right, but almost seems, and I think was taken for a kind of priming of the pump. You know, that's the ratchet, not the milk production. You might get the gunk out first or something. Right, exactly. And it's like, whoa, no, you missed an entire chapter of immunity. And anyway, fascinating stuff. It is indeed. So we have a number of things to report on, all of which are basically from Mahalan, all of which are emerging from the desire of many of us to indeed make America healthy again, and the seemingly perverse, obviously politically motivated in many cases, utterly confused desire on the part of many to, I don't know, keep us sick, even on the part of citizens who should not be interested in being sick, but they are practically demanding that they remain sick rather than give Kennedy in particular any of his due. Yeah, almost more than demanding, as you will see in the various segments that we have coming. Yeah. So should we start? Where should we start? Your call. All right. Maybe we should start with the hearing that took place yesterday in the Senate. And I will say if you are on Twitter slash X, you may have seen many of these clips. If you're a fan of DarkHorse, then you're probably recording the algorithm of somebody who would have been interested in the hearing. The hearing was held by Ron Johnson, who is the head of, I hope I don't butcher the title of something like the Permanent Committee on Investigations. And he is the head of that committee as a result of the victory of Donald Trump in the last election, being a Republican as the committee chair position.(...) So he is capable of holding hearings, and he held an absolutely extraordinary one yesterday. If you have seen clips, we are going to show some clips, but that does not mean that this is going to be redundant for you. Our purpose here is going to be to contextualize some of what was seen yesterday in the Senate because it's really hinting at a larger picture that I think couldn't possibly be more important.(...) We will not get to the fact of DNA contamination in the mRNA shots, which was mentioned in the Senate yesterday during this hearing. We just don't have time for all of the clips. But anyway, if you're interested in that part of the story, I would suggest looking into the clips in the hearing that reveal that discussion.(...) But let's start with just a basic framework. So Senator Johnson called this hearing, and the hearing, the primaries in the hearing are Senator Johnson, Jake Scott, Dr. Jake Scott, who is a vaccine specialist and an advocate,(...) an academic vaccine specialist and advocate with excellent credentials, Toby Rogers, who is a Brownstone fellow, among other things. That's where we know him from. He's also been on DarkHorse. Aaron Siri, who is a lawyer who has been fighting the vaccine battle in court.(...) And in any case, we're going to see some footage from each of these folks. Let's start with the vaccine expert, Dr. Jake Scott, who, as you'll see, knows his stuff. involving over 10.5 million participants. Every entry is publicly verifiable through PubMed links. The entire database is openly accessible. Anyone with internet access can verify our findings.(...) This is what transparency looks like. Our findings directly refute false claims about vaccine testing. We documented 661 trials using inert placebo controls, saline, sterile water, or other biologically inactive substances.(...) Of these,(...) 503 involves antigens that routine childhood vaccines are based on. Most importantly, we confirmed that all 16 antigens routinely recommended for children have been studied in placebo control trials. Every single one.(...) The claim that childhood vaccines haven't been tested against placebos is demonstrably false. All right. Now, that is a fascinating bit of tape. As you will see, the picture that he paints is upside down and backwards. I am not actually convinced. I don't believe he knows he's lying. And I'm not sure that actually, if you were to parse that sentence by sentence, that you wouldn't find that there was some tortured defense of each claim. But here you have a highly credentialed doctor who has set out to study the very question and has told us that something that you've heard here on DarkHorse multiple times, if you're a long time listener, is simply not true. That actually all of the vaccines on the childhood schedule have been tested against a placebo. It might be worth at some point going back and actually looking at the sentences. Because as I listen to it, I can sort of see the way that you would make those sentences true, despite the fact that the overall picture is absolutely false. The final direct quote that I was writing down at the end, the claim he said, Dr. Scott said, "The claim that childhood vaccines haven't been tested against placebos is demonstrably false." Right, now I think what we would discover is that one of the top level categories of the way pharma has pulled a fast one on civilization is through the redefinition of everything.(...) And if you go back and you look at COVID, we see a couple of things redefined that years later we can now understand what happened to us and what the redefinitions actually meant. One of the things that was redefined was vaccine.(...) Vaccine was redefined so that a gene therapy snuck in in our vaccine blind spot(...) because we didn't understand the significance of the technological departure that this was from true vaccines. The other one, which is not as well known, is the redefinition of the word pandemic,(...) which initially required a level of contagiousness and a level of severity. The idea of a pandemic cold shouldn't make any sense. The idea that you may have something that's very, very contagious, but a minor annoyance, that's not a pandemic. That's not something worthy of rearranging policy over, but because the public doesn't distinguish between contagiousness and severity very well, by redefining pandemics of severity wasn't a necessary characteristic, they effectively gave carte blanche to the so-called public health authorities.(...) So in any case, I suspect that last sentence is defensible based on the idea that placebo doesn't mean inert placebo. Now let's look at what Aaron Siri responds to this claim that there are 661 studies that demonstrate that all of the vaccines on the childhood schedule have been tested against a placebo. Thank you. To go to your section and talk about the 661 studies(...) that Dr. Scott is talking about in terms of these inert placebo controls. Just describe that in detail. I mean, it's interesting. Sure. Actually, I think Dr. Scott has done a great service in terms of pointing out the lack of clinical trials supporting the safety of the routine injective childhood vaccines. You see, he's saying there are 661 inert control trials to support the safety of the routine injective childhood vaccines. But when you actually drill down into the 661 trials, let me give you the breakdown of it, okay? 567 of these trials were not a routine injective vaccine for disease in the CDC childhood schedule. They were for HIV vaccines or other vaccines.(...) So totally irrelevant to the safety of the routine injective childhood vaccines. The remaining 94 studies, 70 of them did not involve healthy children. For example, trials of HIV positive adults. Again, completely irrelevant to the safety of childhood vaccines. Of the remaining 24, 21 did not involve a US licensed vaccine or was a vaccine, or was not a vaccine that was just a control to license a currently used US licensed vaccine. For example,(...) the Chinese flu shots, stuff like that. That leaves us with three studies, three, that were claimed to have a inert control(...) that were relied upon to license a routine injective childhood vaccine. That's the title of 661. And these actually help really highlight the problem we have in terms of assessing safety with regards to the licensure of childhood vaccines. I want to include a trial that I needed for my practice.(...) Okay, let me walk through those three. One was a trial for the chickenpox vaccine, very solid vaccine. That trial had,(...) it was only a few hundred people, so it was underpowered anyway. Dr. Scott says it's got an inert control, but actually it was the injection of neomycin, an antibiotic. What's that inert? Now, neomycin was topically-compulsation let alone injected. The second one was Gardasil IV trial, which had thousands and thousands of girls and women in the control group. Almost all of them got an aluminum adjutant injection. And then there were a few hundred, only a few hundred that were labeled as days that inert control, but they weren't. They got everything that's in the vial except for the antigens and the allen, which included elizadine, plus rhodeteside, so the amorae, yeast protein,(...) not inert. And then the third one was the Gardasil IX trial,(...) which finally, by the way, did have a single injection, just a few hundred. There were thousands and thousands of girls, women in that trial. They all got an injection, I don't know if it's ethical, it's an injection, something that's neuro-incytotoxic, but in that side, a few hundred that got the placebo, and they only got it when they first got three doses of Gardasil IV. So again, not an actual inert control group. All right, now this is stunning. So Aaron's theory is very good at what he does, and he whittles away the 661 studies that Dr. Scott presents as evidence. He says, "This is what transparency looks like. You can all check them out on the website, you can evaluate them yourself." Aaron's theory goes through and he shows that not a single one of those is a true inert control. Well, actually, no, there is actually one study in the end that has an inert control, saline, exactly what we all want these things to be tested against. But what does it have? Well, the control group is polluted by having had the vaccine already. So they're cheating the boundaries of the trial because the requirement presumably that the people in the control, or maybe all of the people in the trial, I don't know, was that they got the three shots of the Gardasil IV in advance. That's not technically part of the trial, and therefore they can claim, Dr. Scott, for instance, can claim that there was an inert placebo, which there was, but only if you confine your boundaries here instead of understanding the larger timeline. Yeah, so here's the overarching message of that section there, I think. There is no conceivable way that you could get to 661 studies that appear to demonstrate safety via the testing against a placebo control, and not one of them stands up. There is no honest way you could get there. You have to be setting out not to study against a placebo control in order to end up with that level of consistency where if you zoom out, hey, we've got 661 studies that are placebo controlled. You zoom in, the definition of placebo control doesn't stand up in a single case. Who knows how many different laboratories? Which is to be as precise as possible. Dr.(...) Scott claimed,(...) said, the claim that childhood vaccines haven't been tested against placebo system was pretty false. And one of the very surprising things that lawyer Aaron Siri then says is that of those 661 that Dr. Scott is presenting as in full transparency, this is what we do, this is what science has done, 567 of those trials were not about childhood vaccines at all. So it's not that, and because it's not relevant to the question,(...) Aaron Siri doesn't then explain what's going on in those studies and why I haven't gone and looked. But whether or not they're actually in our placebo is being used is not the relevant objection there. The relevant objection is the claim was that in our placebo is being used in testing childhood vaccines. Those weren't childhood vaccines, therefore their inclusion in this conversation is in error. It is irrelevant. And I would point out that it's not only irrelevant in the sense that a bunch of other vaccines were tested against a placebo control, irrespective, the necessity of a placebo control in order to establish safety is, I don't know, 10X what it would be for an adult vaccine because layered on top of the hazards is development.(...) So you'll see why that matters again, here in a clip we're going to show, but development is an incredibly sensitive process that we do not understand. We understand elements of it, but there are things we can now say,(...) but this is a largely mysterious process. And anytime you are exposing a child or a fetus to a novel compound or novel cocktail of compounds, you are running a risk of disrupting that process. The only way, you're not gonna know that it's totally safe until people have lived their entire lives downstream as part of an experiment that tracked them for that entire period. But there's no way you're gonna know that it is tolerably safe until you test against a truly inert placebo. And you just simply say, we injected this cocktail of stuff into this group of children. This other group of children didn't get it. And there is no distinction in their outcomes across any of the large number of things we measured, including all of these chronic diseases. Now, I will point out another thing that was a bombshell presented here is not in the clip that you saw, is a CDC study that was specifically Vax versus Unvax children conducted by the Henry Ford Clinic, which is a vaccine favorable entity(...) and not published because it came out of a very indicative of a tremendous number of chronic conditions that were clearly caused in the vaccine treaty group and not in the unvaccinated group. So anyway, that's another thing.(...) We will end up covering that story in another episode. But for the moment, go ahead.(...) I mean, it's a little bit of an aside, but I was reminded of, this has been a journey for us, right?(...) This is not what we expected to end up. And I remember writing about childhood vaccines not being tested against placebo for natural selections. And I went and looked, it's June 27, 2023. So a bit over two years ago.(...) And in it, I say things like from early in COVID, oh, I'm not an anti-vaxxer, I'm a trad-vaxxer. And I've walked that back now because I still believe many of the things were being said about the traditional vaccines at that point. But I talk in this piece, and you can show my screen here if you like, about a nation, the nation, the weekly very left-wing journalistic magazine, I guess, that's been published nonstop since the late 1800s, where the hit piece on Kennedy, this is again back in the summer of 2023,(...) with an article, cites an article titled, The Vaccine Study You'll Never See.(...) In the piece, I'm just reading from what I wrote here, a Dr. Hayes imagines a world in which the safety testing that us crazies are asking for requires that there be a giant cohort of children who not only never receive any vaccinations, but also don't appear to be eligible for other medical interventions and are excluded from the standard of living that so many people attained in the 20th century. Quote, "It's gonna be a germ-fest"because, well, that's just life," says the doctor. And this is relevant here to a number of the things we're gonna talk about here, because in part they, the they who are opposed apparently to getting to the bottom of why we are all so sick,(...) are trying to win through fear, or trying to scare people into complying with their crazy shots and rules and mandates and everything else, but they are also, they are also just like explicitly anti-evolutionary and anti-historical in other senses of the word too, because obviously evolution is an historical science, but the idea that people previous to vaccines were simply dropping like flies all the time is an error. That's just not true. And I think it has been the way that history has been taught to some people, and I think it was to some degree the way that we were taught when we were in elementary school.(...) Think of the engravings of the bubonic plague from the Middle Ages, and people just dead in the streets. And it's not to say that there haven't been some plagues, but the idea that throughout history, this is what humanity has been like all the time, doesn't hold up to any kind of scrutiny. And frankly, all you have to do is look at the rest of the world, the non-human animal world, and see how pandemics are not taking out everyone all the time. Right, and to the extent that it has ever happened, we do have one profound example in what happened with smallpox when it arrived in the new world. On the other hand, that comes from a world in which populations were not in contact. And so you had a totally naive population encountering a population with a certain amount of smallpox circulating. And yes, it was absolutely devastating(...) to the new world population, but that has already happened. And then-- And before we had an understanding that different pathogens can travel through different routes that some are vectored by mosquitoes, for instance. Some travel through water, some travel through air, and therefore tend to be, tend to be, you can get them by being coughed on. Before that understanding emerged,(...) we were grasping at straws, but it's not that people were always dying from all of the pathogens all the time. What happened in the 20th century was cleaner air, better sanitation, and also better water. And we are healthier. And we've talked about this over and over and over again. I don't have the graph right in front of me here, but what you see is lower rates of both disease and mortality from those diseases before the vaccines show up, over and over and over again. What you have instead is improved sanitation and water in air. And on top of that, if you look at plague and oddly Spanish flu, you actually have a good degree of confidence that you can get that these things would not repeat themselves on the basis that we have antibiotics. Plague is directly responsive to antibiotics. And although it seems very strange that flu, a virus would be responsive, most of the people who died of Spanish flu, it turns out, died of bacterial pneumonia or being poisoned with aspirin, which caused them to drown in their own fluids. So if we look at that story, if we look at the polio story, and I would advise people to go back to Forrest Moretti's "DarkHorse" episode we talk about polio or his first episode, in which we talk about the true polio story in which yes, there is a virus, but no, it should not be growing in your spine. What we see is that all of the scary stories that are made to spook us into this worldview in which, well, if you had a large control group of unvaccinated kids, it would be a germ fest. Well, what I think you've done is you've rejected science. You've assumed your conclusion.(...) And in fact, that is the study that we need to have. And what's more, that is the study that we've had and apparently wasn't published because of the doubt it casts on the health-improving nature of the childhood vaccine schedule. Anecdotally, I'm reminded of the first time that occurred to me that some of these stories from history weren't what they appeared when we were traveling to Madagascar for the first time, I believe.(...) So this had been in the early mid-90s and we understood before going that there was an outbreak of plague, which seemed terrifying. And obviously, you don't travel to a place with an outbreak of plague.(...) And what we were told by, we had an excellent doctor at the University of Michigan, so I don't remember his name, but he was actually quite excellent. Yeah, he was. And he said, "Well, you're gonna be traveling"with Doxycycline. "You're gonna have antibiotics with you(...) "in case of other problems that you won't have. "And Doxy's the treatment for plague. "So you've got your treatment, "you don't have to worry about plague." Now, that's not to say that there won't be cases where it might not do the trick. I'm not arguing that this is a 100% solution, but it is close enough that thinking back and going like, well, obviously in the Middle Ages, they didn't have Doxycycline, but we do now. And we need to be careful with our antibiotics. We need to be careful not to breed resistance(...) by overusing the antibiotics, which of course is also happening, especially in agriculture. But given that we have these incredible tools, which themselves are not perfectly safe, also true, but which do a fantastic job against some of the things which we have in our memories, in our understanding, as these giant, you know, terrors from history, like, oh, well, we have the tool for that. We have that in our arsenal already. Oh, but you know, you people want to have, you know, to test vaccines against placebo. Don't you understand that all the children will die? No, they won't. No, they won't. Why? Why?(...) Who wins by you trying to terrify parents into putting more toxins into their children? Who wins? I would also point out that the, an artificial standard has been set for those of us who are awake now to the concerns about on the placebo control tested vaccines inflicted on children and things like that.(...) We are going to be held responsible for anybody who dies from an infectious disease for which there was a vaccine if they didn't get, that is not the right standard. The fact is there is a question and it is net. Doc, is my kid net benefited by this shot if we include the risk of the infectious disease for which the shot might successfully protect them and all of the other diseases that they might have caused by the thing? Net is the only thing we care about as patients. We want to know, am I net better off for taking this? And the answer is no, I don't care what story you've got from me about some infectious disease that I'm probably not going to encounter. I only care about the net impact and that's the standard. Well, as is so often the case, the media narrative wins in part by constantly fuzzing up the borders between the population level analysis and the individual level analysis. That when we're talking about scourges from history, it's about populations, whole swaths of people died. And that too will happen here in the United States if we don't stay the course and keep doing what we've been doing. But when they're trying to tug at your heartstrings and get you to do the thing that they want you to do, they tell a story about an individual and they tell you that you're going to make a decision and whatever happens will be on you. And this is an illegitimate form of argument and it's also an illegitimate form of analysis. Absolutely. Now I will say there are two vaccines which I hold out hope do and did actually successfully work. If no vaccine has ever worked, I'm open to that possibility, but I still believe the smallpox vaccine was effective even if smallpox was mostly on the way and as a result of other things. And the rabies vaccine, I think clearly does save people even post exposure. So in any case, there are positive examples, but what you wanna know is for each injection, not even each vaccine type for each injection. Does this one give me a net benefit? And those are questions that need to be studied. But you asked the question, how is this done? And I think that's really one of the key lessons of this hearing yesterday. One of the ways that this is done is in isolation from a robust critique, the story of vaccines and the massive benefit they have produced for humanity is pretty compelling. Dr. Jake Scott is pretty compelling until he faces the pushback. You've seen the pushback from Aaron Siri who says, let me talk to you about those 661 studies. Now let's look at what Ron Johnson, the interaction that he has with Dr. Scott. Again, I'm just kinda waiting out why you are open.(...) I guess people have been hell-caught. This is a history of autism. This is a chart,(...) chart from, and hard to say, but CDC numbers starting in around 2000,(...) from 150 to now 131. According to the California Times, it's been estimated at 110,000, no less certain than using CDC numbers, but there's been explosion. What are we doing about it? Who's the state of the world? Who's trying to determine what causes?(...) As Dr. Chris Palmer said, when it comes to chronic illness, and I throw autism in there, they don't walk the root causes of stuff.(...) That's what people are, right? That's what people need.(...) Put on 200 things that they need to be prepared later.(...) Let's put up the next chart, number three. This is probably my most sensitive chart. Dr. Scott, were you aware that worldwide on VAERS, we reported 38,742 deaths worldwide, associated with the COVID accident.(...) Were you aware of that carnage? I'm not aware of that from figure in particular. In America, I believe the number 19,000, correct? Again, VAERS does not prove causes. Oh, I've heard that time and time again. So let's take a look at the bottom figure down here. Of those 38,000 deaths, 9,252, 23.9%, called 24%, occurred on the day of vaccination,(...) or if in one or two days.(...) I know that doesn't prove causation, but man, that's a correlation that we all look at. Do you know to what extent VAERS is reported to under state adverse events?(Mumbles) Any idea? We're seeing studies on that. Let's see what's the question. To what extent does VAERS under report adverse events? Again, it's a pain to report something to VAERS. Okay, doctors are busy, takes half hour, 45 minutes, a lot of people don't know about it. So the vast majority of adverse events from a vaccine or a drug is reported to VAERS. So again, they've actually done studies on this. Do you know what percent actually did reported versus what doesn't get reported? Somewhere between one to 10% correct, Mr. Syria? I know it's less than 1% according to the AHRQ Fund in studying heart research. So if it's less than 1%, then let's just use US figures. By the way, what is it? 17,000, 19,000, US deaths. Yeah, it's close, okay? It's one of those 17 or 19,000 deaths reported in the US based on VAERS. If we're only recording one out of 100, that means deaths from the vaccine, so between like 170,000 in the US. 100,000 again, that's the kind of reporting ratio. This is why people are outraged. And what people are denying, is that the potential factors of vaccines, I think most of us think, yeah, they probably work in certain steps. But they're denying the vaccine injuries, the injection injuries. How much do you know about the mRNA technology? So it is the mRNA that's encapsulated in the lipid nanoparticles, is that true mRNA? True mRNA, the messenger RNA, it's degrades very rapidly in the body. Correct? Correct. So the mRNA in the injections, is it true mRNA, is it degrades rapidly in the body? Do you not know? I do know, yes, it does. It does, it's knowing it does not. It's modified, it's modified mRNA, it's designed not to degrade, and there are studies that show it sticks around the body we don't know how long. The lipid nanoparticle, do you realize that it was designed to permeate difficult permeate barriers? Like the blood breaking, the cell barrier. Did you know that? Did you believe when Fauci told us that the mRNA shot would stay in the arm? Did you believe that? So say what you guys know, I mean, do you believe the co-injection would stay there by Zahn? Do you believe that's what happened? Primarily?(...) You do think so, huh? Were you aware of the Japanese foyer of the study of the muscundels and the photovolta distribution where it wraps and finds it's human-called body,(...) accumulated in the adrenal glass in the ovaries? They think because the lipid nanoparticles designed to permeate difficult permeate barriers, they knew, the designers knew, and they did a study that would find the strumming all over the body, but our CEC, Fauci, said it was in the second ear. Okay, there's a lot there. There are a couple things to notice in that exchange. One, Dr. Scott is completely humiliated by Ron Johnson. Ron Johnson is a manufacturing guy from Wisconsin. He has been taught, as you and I have been taught, by the COVID pandemic and everything it revealed, and then followed that thread through to, well, what's true of childhood vaccine schedule, et cetera. He has been awakened to an absolutely shocking picture, and he now has-- He's a smart, honorable generalist who we are lucky to have in the center. Right, and the fact is, all you gotta be is smart and willing to look at the evidence. It's really unambiguous.(...) Now, I will say, while that clip was playing, Heather and I became aware that Charlie Kirk has been shot. Now, before you leave the broadcast to go check that out, I would tell you that Charlie Kirk was extremely dedicated to the idea of getting President Trump to understand the horror of the mRNA COVID vaccine, which is exactly what we were hearing about here. And in fact, he and I have partnered on that job that he had me on his show to explain why it is that the COVID shots induce the immune system to attack your own tissues, causing myocarditis, yes, which is inflammation of the heart, but actual damage to your heart that your heart can't recover from because hearts don't repair in the normal way. So I think we should all be thinking about Charlie. He's a very good, dedicated guy, and I really hope that he ends up well and stronger after this. But nonetheless, this was a primary concern of his was getting President Trump's attention on the carnage caused by those shots. I would also point out in that clip that Senator Johnson ends on this point where Dr. Scott is completely unaware, apparently, that the mRNA in the COVID vaccines or so-called vaccines circulates around the body and bio-distributes to all of these remote tissues. Now, interestingly, this is the exact thing in the podcast that I did with Steve Kirsch and Robert Malone that I believe got us fact-checked and then demonetized on YouTube. We were talking about this Japanese biodistribution study, which was at the time treated as malinformation or misinformation, I guess malinformation. I haven't been invented yet, but it was treated as misinformation when DarkHorse talked about it back in the early days. And nonetheless, here you see it discussed finally in the US Senate, which is a wonderful development. It's important that we talk about this. This is all knowable. And yet the esteemed, well-credentialed vaccine expert still apparently, I mean, it's impossible to know for sure what's in his head, but still apparently doesn't know. Doesn't know. And earlier in that clip where Senator Johnson has what he says is his most censored chart up, and he's talking about the huge number of deaths reported to VAERS. 17,000 deaths in the US from the COVID shots. And he asks Dr. Scott, do you know what fraction gets reported to VAERS? And interestingly, you and I know this because of course this was widely discussed in the dissident COVID circles. Dr. Scott is apparently unaware that the number is certainly below 10% and may well be below 1% as Aaron Siri offers in this exchange. Now, Ron Johnson misspoke. If it's the 1% number, then the number that we would extrapolate total number of deaths is up by a factor of 10 to 1.7 million. So he's reporting that. Well, if it's 1% is up by a factor of 100. That's what I mean. That's up by 10% from what he says, 100,000. So anyway, he's down by a factor of 10 from the number that you would get if you multiply by a hundred. Well, I mean, I call it the exchange and apologies for hearing this terribly as much as we're listening. So we're a little bit out of source now. But yeah, Senator Johnson tells, apparently tells Dr. Scott the vaccine expert, the Stanford academic vaccine expert, three necessary things with regard to what happened to us during COVID that Dr. Scott doesn't appear to know. And you just mentioned two of them, but just to repeat, he doesn't know to what degree or maybe even that there's under reports, there's, there's under reporting injury and death. Yeah, I mean, I think that's a good question. You're reporting injury and death. He doesn't know that Fauci was lying or wrong. It doesn't matter. It does matter, but not for this story. The shot stays in the arm. And then the third thing, which was the second thing that Senator Johnson said to Dr. Scott was that he doesn't know that the modified mRNA is not decaying rapidly in the body. In fact, that's the one to which Dr. Scott says, oh yeah, of course it does. As if he does not know that indeed the very thing for which the creators of Moderna shot got the Nobel Prize in medicine physiology, which was the insertion of the superuridine into the mRNA(...) precisely so that it would not decay. But that is the point. It is doing exactly what it is supposed to do when it fails to decay as normal mRNA would decay, degrade. Right, so to go back to the point that we entered that clip with, how is this done? Well, the answer is if you're only allowed to hear the official version presented by official authorities, the story is very compelling. It falls apart as soon as you're allowed to push back on it. And the only reason that this pushback is happening at this level is that Donald Trump won the presidency,(...) Ron Johnson is in charge of this committee, and you therefore have a hearing, which is revealing that these are not just claims of the maha movement or something. These are robust results that you need to know about before you answer the question, do you want this shot? So let us go to the last of the clips that we're gonna show. The last of the clips, which I think is in some ways the most mind blowing is Toby Rogers. Dr. Toby Rogers, who has been a guest on Dark Horse, he's a friend, he's also a Brownstone fellow, which is where I met him.(...) And I will say the first time I saw Toby Rogers at a Brownstone event, he got up, I'd never heard of him, and he started talking about autism and vaccines. And of course, my blood pressure went up, and what am I about to hear? Is it true, is he crazy?(...) And as I'm listening to him talk, I'm thinking, can this possibly be right?(...) Because as you'll see, he's very calm, he is encyclopedic, he is extremely smart, and he lays out the case in a way that is,(...) in my opinion, unassailable. So how is the magic trick accomplished? Well, one way is that people like Toby Rogers don't show up where the public can see them, except for the loophole of Ron Johnson via Donald Trump. And now here you're going to see Toby Rogers present just the tip of the iceberg of that case that he presents so well in the Senate, which I think is a historic moment in respect to what else we can say about this hearing. Thank you, members of the University of Permanence Subcommittee. July 4th, 2015, my then partner's son was diagnosed as being on the autism spectrum. I was in a PhD program in political economy at the University of Sydney, where I had access to almost all current scientific and medical journals.(...) I wanted to better understand what was happening, so I went to the CDC's webpage on the causes of autism.(...) As a PhD student, I was trained to focus on primary source documents, so I met all the references in the footnotes. To my surprise, I quickly discovered the CDC's narrative did not add up.(...) Claims on autism as genetic don't make sense because autism prevalence was rising too fast. There's no such thing as a genetic epidemic.(...) Then the CDC blamed valproic acid, the treatment for epilepsy that is contraindicated in pregnancy, and thalidomide, which was never approved for use in the United States.(...) Finally, the CDC pointed to advanced parental age. The odds ratios were modest, and the increase in the proportion of older parents is insufficient to explain the surge in autism prevalence. Furthermore, the cost of autism was already in the hundreds of billions of dollars a year in the US,(...) and yet government was not responding with a sense of urgency. I changed my doctoral thesis topic to the political economy of autism, and spent the next four years reading and analyzing everything that's been written on autism prevalence, causation, and cost. In 2019, my thesis passed rigorous external peer review. It's now in the top 10 of the most downloaded doctoral research papers in the history of the University of Sydney. Since then, I've continued my research with Children's Health Defense as an independent journalist, and as a fellow at Brownstone Institute. Here are the facts.(...) In 1970, the first autism prevalence study in the US found an autism rate of less than one in 10,000 children. According to a study by the EPA, sometime around 1987, the autism rate in the US began to skyrocket. The most recent report from the CDC showed that one in 31 eight-year-old children in the US in 2022 were on the autism spectrum. That's a 32,158% increase in the last 52 years. Two massive studies from the best epidemiologist in California show that changes in diagnostic criteria only explain a small fraction of the rise in autism prevalence. There are 22 studies that claim that vaccines don't cause autism. None of these studies have a completely unvaccinated control group. So unfortunately,(...) if you want to understand what's causing the autism epidemic, these studies are of no use. Then there are five large genetic research projects, Agree, SSC, ASC, Missine, and Spark.(...) Together, they produced 501 published papers.(...) The search for the gene for autism has consumed over $2.3 billion, and researchers have almost nothing to show for it because genes don't suddenly create epidemics. The human genome just doesn't change that fast. Then there are four large epigenetic research projects, so genes and the environment. Charge, marbles, seed, and early. Combined, they produced 437 publications that look at the effects of air pollution, pesticides, fluorinated substances, PCBs, nutritional factors, flame retardants, maternal metabolic conditions, and volatile organic compounds. None of these studies control for vaccines as a possible covariate or confounder, so it's impossible to know the true impact of these variables. The critical missing piece in autism research is vaccinated versus unvaccinated studies. Thankfully, there are now six good studies that we can rely on. Unfortunately, these studies have been systematically suppressed and ignored by the mainstream media and the medical establishment. Two studies by Gallagher and Goodman show that the birth dose of the hepatitis B vaccine significantly increases autism risk. Three studies by Anthony Mawson confirmed that vaccination increases the odds of developing autism at least 4.2-fold. Preterm birth, coupled with vaccination, increases the odds of neurodevelopmental disability by more than 12-fold compared to preterm birth without vaccination. And finally, a study by Hooker and Miller published in 2021 found that vaccination increases autism risk five-fold.(...) Vaccination in the absence of breastfeeding increases autism risk 12.5-fold. Vaccination in addition to C-section birth increases autism risk 18.74.(...) After conducting the systematic review of a thousand studies, my belief is that the autism and chronic disease epidemics are primarily caused by toxicants, mostly from vaccines and about a dozen additional toxicants. If we stop exposing children to these hazards in the first place, that would stop the epidemics of chronic illness in children. Now we must summon the political will to act. Thank you. All right, well, very proud of my friend, Toby Rogers. Again, that is the tip of the iceberg. I'm still thrown a little bit by the news about Charlie Kirk, I really hope he's doing all right. But it may be in that clip or it may be elsewhere Toby Rogers discusses the prevalence of regression with it's not there. So in another clip, which is worth watching, he discusses the fact that a large fraction, I think it's something like 80% or above of these cases include developmental regression. And his excellent point is that rules out something like a genetic cause, right? Because the point is the child has already gone through a developmental process. They've generated circuits that do the right things in the mind and then something is disrupting us. That implies a toxicant as he calls them. So anyway, this is mind blowing that that testimony is showing up in the Senate. And it is hopefully this is something where the powers that wish us not to be able to discuss these things are unable to cause a regression in the public mind. We need to remember that these things were said that when you compare the two camps head to head, right? You have a very credible defender of vaccines present there. And he's completely ended up, upended by Aaron Siri, by Ron Johnson, by Toby Rogers, all of them understand this way better than he does. And you know, Aaron Siri's a lawyer. Toby Rogers is a PhD in political economy and Ron Johnson is a manufacturing guy who is now a Senator. But the point is all you gotta be is smart and willing to look. And then the picture becomes very clear. If you're not willing to look because you're told that only bad people look and that, you know, you can trust people like Jake Scott. I don't know why you can't. He seems like a decent guy. And frankly, kudos to him for showing up at that hearing. Right? The hearing would be much less significant if they didn't have a credible defender there. If they had had a, you know, a joke like Peter Hotez or something, then it would mean nothing. But here you've got apparently an earnest guy who really does believe and he can't answer basic questions. That's right. Yeah, I think part of what we wanna do with the rest of our time is talk about the politicization of this. Like how it is that people, what people are being fed with regard to what they're supposed to think. But first, the timing of this hearing, spearheaded and chaired by Senator Ron Johnson yesterday, was it? Yeah. Is coincident with the release of this model. You can show my screen here. It came out this week. Or you could show my screen if the technology were working. So we have the Maha report. I think it's the second of the two Maha reports that has come out. Make our children healthy again, assessment. Is it still not working?(Mumbles) I don't wanna slide past this until you can see my screen. She's got it. Yeah, all right. So this came out just this week as well. It's incredibly long and I just wanna share basically the four top items that they are discussing here.(...) First off, it references executive order 14-12 from February 13th, 2025, which was establishing the President's Make America Healthy Again Commission, which we talked about here on DarkHorse when it came out. And it says, it includes, within 100 days of the date of this order, the commission shall submit to the president through the chair and the executive director to make our children healthy again assessment. And within 180 days of the day of this order, there shall be a make our children healthy again strategy based on the findings from the assessments. And this is the strategy document.(...) And it is impressive, it includes for instance, Bhattacharya, now the head of the NIH, as one of the contributors. But here it is in a nutshell. To make our children healthy again, we must begin with a shared understanding of the magnitude of the crisis and subsequently what's likely driving it. This assessment provides that foundation, grounding future efforts in a common scientific basis identifies four potential drivers behind the rise in childhood chronic disease that present the clearest opportunities for progress. One, poor diet. The American diet has shifted dramatically toward ultra-processed foods, leading to nutrient depletion, increased caloric intake and exposure to harmful additives. Nearly 70% of children's calories now come from UPFs, ultra-processed foods, contributing to obesity, diabetes, and other chronic conditions.(...) Two, a creation of environmental chemicals. Children are exposed to an increasing number of synthetic chemicals, some of which have been linked to development of issues of chronic disease. The current regulatory framework should be continually evaluated to ensure that chemicals and other exposures do not interact together to pose a threat to the health of our children. Three, lack of physical activity and chronic stress. I wouldn't say chronic stress and lack of physical activity because they're not denouncing the lack of chronic stress in children, they're actually talking about(Laughing) some chronic stress.(...) American children are experiencing unprecedented levels of inactivity, screen use, sleep deprivation, and chronic stress. These factors significantly contribute to the rise in chronic diseases and mental health challenges. And four, over-medicalization. There is a concerning trend of overscribing medications to children, often driven by conflicts of interest in medical research, regulation, and practice. This has led to unnecessary treatments and long-term health risks. Now you could argue that every one of these is so understated as to be missing what is actually going on, but the fact that we have those four things where, you know, over-medicalization, part of that is going to be about the childhood vaccine schedule, but there's no mention of vaccines in this bullet point because there doesn't need to be. The point here is that there are these four major things contributing to the decline of American children's health, indeed, of all American's health, and people worldwide, poor diet, environmental chemicals, lack of physical activity, and increase in chronic stress as somehow one item, and over-medicalization. So we've got toxicants, to use Toby Rogers' word, through compounds that we shouldn't have anywhere near us from both outside the educational and environmental chemicals and willingly brought inside the body through over-medicalization. Both of those, that's the same kind of thing. It's just, are you exposed and you had no say in it? Either because no one is regulating the stuff out of existence, or you happen to live in a place where it's impossible to avoid it, or did you have some choice? Did your family have some choice? It denied the ability to say no when the doctor said you must take X, and therefore you've been toxified by being given meds. These are all things that are happening. So this report is important, long, dense, but there's one more thing here that I wanted to share, which points just a tiny bit to how this has been allowed to happen, which is, I don't know, a lot of good stuff here going. Somewhere. Well,(...) there we go. Okay, so in talking about corporate capture and the revolving door, we have this. The pharmaceutical industry, from 1999 to 2018, spent $4.7 billion on lobbying expenditures at the federal level more than any other industry. In addition, nine out of the last 10 FDA commissioners, and approximately 70% of the agency's medical reviewers have gone on to work for the pharmaceutical industry. Because what prepares you better for work in the pharmaceutical industry than to have been working for the supposed of Washington? Nine out of the last 10 FDA commissioners went on to work for pharma. That is so stunning. Nine out of 10, I mean, holy cow. It strikes me in hearing you discuss this.(...) Part of what we're doing in this broadcast is picking up another level of what I've called the game of pharma. How does the game of pharma accomplish the goal of getting us to take all of these things which may not be in our interest to take? All right, lobbying the regulatory agencies is one thing, but they do something that you might call lobbying the press as well, right? We've talked separately about the idea that the huge expenditures on pharmaceutical advertising are not really about persuading people to take drugs. They are about making it impossible for the mainstream outlets to report on the net impact of those drugs. So that's like lobbying news firms which shouldn't be lobbyable, right? That their whole purpose is not to be lobbyable. So anyway, wow, it's just a stunning piece of information. It is. So we have the pharmaceutical companies being heavily influenced by effectively inside information on what the government watched out, what the government oversight is doing and how it is that they accomplish things. And you have a large part of the population of America who are so confused, so angry, so frightened by what is coming out in the media, that they are proudly, proudly getting their COVID boosters apparently to show Pavi who's boss. So this is from the Twitter account, Camelot.(Phone Ringing) Oops, oh, sorry. We don't need the sound to go with this. We have images of, all of the particular accounts have been anonymized, but pictures of people with bandages on their arm, flu and COVID boosters, RFK Junior can get bent. My wife and I got our COVID and flu vaccines to do our part to make sure everyone is safe. We have fall 2025 new COVID updated and 2025 new updated flu vaccines.(...) Suck it, Secretary Kennedy, COVID booster achieved. And it goes on and on and on. Some of these people aren't referencing Kennedy, but enough of them are here. This is what I, hey, RFK, this is what I think of your bullshit conspiracy theories.(...) So I'm just gonna stop this before it randomly goes into another thing. This shows such a confusion about what it is that you should do to take control of your health, what you should not do is make a, not just futile, but actually self-harming gesture in order to give the finger to someone who you have been assured is denying science while actually trying. And this, it's been over two years that we have(...) had our eyes open to what is even the case with the traditional vaccines, not just the COVID vaccines, but what is the basis for the claim that they are the root to health? The basis is not placebo. The basis is not an actual test of efficacy or safety against nothing.(...) The basis is a test against what is probably the most toxic part of the vaccine, almost always. The aluminum adjuvants and the other stuff that are in there, the excipients, are there in part, the adjuvants are there precisely to aggravate your immune system. I guess I'm having a hard time understanding why that point is having such a hard time with that. Well, I think part of this has to do with marginalizing voices that are trying to help you see it, right? Yeah. I know from talking to intelligent people who for whatever reason are on the blue team. When we talk about Bobby Kennedy, the answer is, well, he sounds like a crazy person to me. I think the only way that he sounds like a crazy person to you is if you were allowing him to be filtered by something that wishes to portray him that way. The man himself doesn't come off that way. You can disagree with the point.(...) But he has an encyclopedic knowledge far more than you are or whoever it is who's judging him. If you basically allow the New York Times Church to dispense what you're supposed to conclude,(...) then you can end up in this place. Then you reinforce each other online by being defiant as if you're showing Bobby Kennedy anything by getting the vaccine. But let me just point out the absurdity here, the thing that's really at the bottom of this.(...) Let's agree that the only thing you as a patient should care about is net. Is that shot net beneficial for me? That is not a static target. COVID shows up at the end of 2019. Evolution happens.(...) I would bet you every single one of the people who depicts themselves getting this booster would tell you that they believe in evolution. They're the science people, right? They believe in evolution. But as an evolutionist, I would tell you, hey, you've got a brand new pathogen. Whatever its route to infecting humans was, and it certainly seems to be via a laboratory, but whatever its route, once that thing is in the wild, it is going to evolve. It's part of, it's involved in an arms race with the human immune system in which making you really sick is not an is it it's interest.(...) So it is going to tend to evolve, and this is a well-established evolutionary principle, it's going to tend to evolve in the direction of being less virulent. It may be more contagious, but less virulent. So that means if you were convinced on the dawn of 2021 that this shot was in your interest, you need to go back and reevaluate how good would the shot have to be and how safe would it have to be to be in your interest now? How many people do we actually think are dying from this disease? And how many people are getting better? And how many of these boosters do you intend to have? Your protest going to get the shot is predicated on an assumption that's actually insane. The assumption is that the shot is perfectly safe, so safe that you don't need to do a net analysis because there's no cost to you, and that's nonsense. It's the same confusion.(...) I always use this as the baseline crazy example, but it's the same confusion as, oh my God, they're going to take our gender reassignment surgery rights away. Your rights come again? The rights of 14-year-olds to have their breasts hacked off because they've been fed a lie by people who have no idea what humans are? Like that isn't actually a right. Any more than the creation of both a virus in the lab and a shot that may or may not in any way effectively engage with that virus in a lab is your right to have. And I think, you know, I've had some conversations with people who think of themselves,(...) are young, but think of themselves as a leaning libertarian. You say, well, but if it's there, then it's our right to have it. That argument doesn't hold once you're talking about something that we have created, that is our technological invention, and especially the newer it is, the more likely there is a really good argument that we shouldn't have released it. It should not be out there. Sorry, COVID-19 certainly shouldn't have been released, whether it was done so by accident, as I still presume, but I don't know, or intentionally, but the idea that anything that is created is your right to have access to, no, that's not actually the case. No, and if that is your position, then you are effectively saying that there shouldn't be mandatory safety testing and licensure, right? As soon as you acknowledge that there should be safety testing and licensure, then you are acknowledging that anything that cheated to get through those processes shouldn't be on the market and you shouldn't have access to it, you know, what's more, and you can use the analogy of the so-called gender-affirming surgeries, in the case of gender-affirming surgeries,(...) people, you know, are you arguing against the idea of consent? Because people who can't consent to sex, can't consent to destroy their capacity to, you know, being sexually functional, and yet you want a double standard, so it is double standards all the way down. Yeah.(...) Okay, so just before we stop, I wanna say just a tiny bit about what's going on with the universal ostrich farm in British Columbia, which sounds like it has nothing to do with this, but it really does. No, it really does. It really does. So the universal ostrich farm in British Columbia, not too far from the US border here on the west coast, where we are, has had ostriches for decades, and in December 2024, January of this year, they had 69 of their flock die, and it is presumed that they died of avian flu, although that isn't actually certain.(...) All of the living herd, of which there are 400-ish individuals, have been, quote, according to a September 6 article in Rebel News, healthy and symptom-free for 235 days. So they had a substantial fraction,(...) less than a fifth, but a substantial fraction of their flock, which they had for decades, die,(...) but the vast majority of them have been healthy symptom-free for much more than half a year. It's now come to a head because the Canadian, I don't remember what the acronym is, but the Canadian Animal Safety, something, regulatory structure, is saying that the entire flock needs to be culled in order to get avian flu out of existence. And of course, the owners of the farm and the other people largely being reported on, again, at Rebel News, have said,"This is ridiculous, these animals are healthy. "You also have no right to declare our animals unsafe, "and there's no evidence that they are and kill our animals, "which will inherently kill our business."(...) But compare that to the mainstream coverage, of which there hasn't been a lot, but we have, for instance, let's see, we have, for instance, in Politico, and this is just in chronological order of three articles that I found covering this story. So this is gonna be mid-July, Politico, "But RFK Junior wants Canada"to pardon 400 hostages." So right away, the way into the story is, it's Bobby Kennedy, you know what to think, right? Also pardon. It's true, yeah. Pardon. So this is the first four paragraphs of this article in Politico. Ottawa, "The fate of nearly 400 Canadian hostages, "which Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is trying to save, "now rests with federal justices in Ottawa. "As the controversial case makes its way through court,"members of US President Donald Trump's administration, "right-wing influencers, and a Republican megadonor "are urging the liberal government to spare the hostages "that were exposed to burden flu." Yeah, that's true."The secretary has urged Canada not to kill the hostages "but to do further testing "to try to better understand the virus," a spokesperson for the US Department of Health and Human Services told Politico."Magna supporters and Canada's Freedom Convoy, "which blockaded Ottawa for weeks over COVID-19 measures, "have coalesced around the cause, "which they say is an example of government overreach, "an erosion of institutional trust and outdated policies." So there's a lot to object to here, but just the entire framing of this article is if you agree with this stance, recognize that your fellow travelers are MAGA supporters and Freedom Convoy supporters, and their description of blockaded Ottawa for weeks over COVID-19 measures. Everything about the descriptions here are wrong, but also they are just trying to make you feel icky about thinking that maybe the hostages should be saved because other people who think that are far right-wing lunatics like apparently us. Here we have a couple weeks later in the Wall Street Journal, why America is rallying to save 400 Canadian ostriches, a plan to euthanize birds prompts RFK Jr. and other US officials to come to the animals defense and an offer from Dr. Odds. So again, just a little bit from the middle of this article, "It is government overreach at its worst "because we have rights as landowners," said Katie Pasitney, whose mother, Karen Asperson, is co-owner of the farm. "The animals have recovered from the outbreak "and have developed herd immunity," she said. "These animals, we own them, but the government doesn't." Under Canada's policy for dealing with avian flu outbreaks, officials will kill any commercial flock whose numbers have been exposed.(...) Canada's Food Inspection Agency has said even if the rest of the herd doesn't show symptoms, the virus may be dormant and could mutate. Killing the entire herd is the best way to ensure it doesn't spread. And that's just a statement in here as if it's true. The world has been lucky that the virus hasn't spread widely to humans, said Dr. Gregory Torres, head of the science department of the Paris-based World Organization for Animal Health. "We should not leave this virus circulating," he said. Oh, I got it. Okay, so maybe before you respond, one more piece on this story from the mainstream media, this is WAPA, this is The Washington Post, a few weeks later, August 22nd, so just a few weeks ago, Canadian Court allows call of 400 hostages that R.F.A. Jr. helped to save. And here, from the middle of this piece,(...) mass slaughter has long been the chief strategy for containing bird flu, a highly contagious disease caused by influenza A viruses spread among wild birds, aquatic birds, birds of prey on waterfowl, as well as domestic birds such as poultry.(...) An outbreak this year resulted in more than 120 million hands being slaughtered and egg prices rising to record levels. Humans can also become infected with bird flu, although this is rare, with cases typically involving people who come into close contact with infected birds. So lots to say here, obviously, but let me just start by pointing out that in this paragraph that I just read from The Washington Post article from August 22nd of this year, note the clever use of rhetoric. And also, oh my God, bird flu, it's highly contagious, look at all the birds who can get it. Quote, "An outbreak this year resulted in more than 120 million years being slaughtered and egg prices rising to record levels." No, it did not. Wait, wait, 120. Million hands being slaughtered and egg prices rising to record levels. Got it. An outbreak this year resulted in policies being employed that caused the slaughter of hens, and once the hens were dead and therefore egg production was down because the animals that produce eggs were dead, egg prices rose.(...) That is not attributable to bird flu. That is attributable to the policies around bird flu. And if we go back to the Wall Street Journal and the claim that the world has been lucky that the virus hasn't spread widely to humans and we should not leave this virus circulating,(...) it seems like none of the people involved, none of the so-called experts, none of the expertise here has anything to do with evolutionary thinking. And this then harkens back to what we said, I think at the end of the last live stream with regard to Bobby Kennedy and the chickens and what was it, Dr. Here, give me my screen back if I can for a second. Dr. Daskalakis, the CDC scientist, sorry, not scientist. Well, maybe that too. Who resigned in objection to Kennedy and made a claim that he was being eugenicist when actually what Kennedy was saying was, actually, this is what selection does. If you have animals who have died, you don't kill the ones who have survived because that actually is an indication that they have survived and they have better immunity.(...) And now we have in Canada the same argument being made. And in this case, it's gonna take out not only 400 beautiful primitive birds, I don't have to say beautiful, many people will go from beautiful, remarkable,(...) interesting birds, but also an entire family's business for zero reason. And again, it's not just zero reason, it's the inverse. It's the negative reason.(...) They are actually indicated in being more immune avian flu should it come through again. So they are playing us for fools in this story, right? They've engaged in slight of hand in a number of different places. One is you will note in that last story, the exact conflation of highly contagious with dangers. Yep. You know what's highly contagious? Golds are highly contagious. I'm not saying that bird flu is a cold, it's not. But the idea that we ought to be very concerned about it because it's very contagious does not follow. It needs to be highly virulent in humans for it to matter and they tell you that it doesn't transmit to humans very frequently. Now could it?(...) On the other hand, it is a generalist flu inherently that circulates between different species of birds and from birds to mammals. So it has to be a generalist flu. Why are there wildly different kinds of birds? Like this description here, and we can't tell exactly what all the birds are, but we know at least you've got several different kinds of birds and birds are ancient. This isn't just affecting ostriches. Right. It's like if you found out that there was something circulating in hippos, it doesn't necessarily follow that because it's a mammal and you're a mammal that you need to be worried about it. Right? But in this case, this is a generalist bird flu. Right, it's a generalist bird flu which puts evolutionary constraints on it which they are either pretending not to understand or don't understand. But I think what I'm really getting from this, okay, you had an outbreak of something in this flock of 400 animals. 69 of them died, that's significant. Yes. The fact that 69 of them died and there are no symptomatic birds left says two things are highly likely.(...) One, this flock,(...) all of them having now been exposed is now highly immune. The next time bird flu comes through, chances that this flock does disproportionately well are extremely high, right? The second thing is the likelihood that it's circulating there because there was an outbreak and we've now detected it, no, that's not how we think flu typically works. Right. So-- It's like the people who don't believe in the health of the body, who think that terrain theory is for idiots and the only thing that matters is the pathogen, have for the sake of this argument because it's political forgotten what they think they know about your theory. Right, and to the extent that the Vasculoccus or whatever his name was is arguing that wanting to save these birds because they've been naturally selected to be more immune than they were in two different ways, they've developed natural immunity and they've been selected for those who were highly vulnerable to begin with. So this is now a flock of birds that is especially robust with respect to these flus. But the idea that you would respond, even if you thought that this was,(...) if I think that a population that has survived disease is superior because it has disease resistance, A, that's true, B, that's not eugenic, and C, the right response to it is not to kill everybody who survived the eugenic event, right? That's what they're effectively arguing for, right? The pathological event. Right, but what they're, if they are dumb enough to believe it's a eugenic event, right, that you're advocating for natural selection to have culled this herd, and then your point is, well, then kill them all, right? That's your morally superior position. That's insane, right? That makes no freaking sense. It's utterly insane, and it feels like so much does in the last five and 10 years,(...) and the people who are calling themselves liberals have flipped their positions without acknowledging it. These are exactly the people who would have been caring about the ostriches 10 years ago, 20 years ago. Right, and they become pharma puppets. And I must tell you, I've thought a lot about this ostrich story, I've thought about the culling of the chickens, which was equally insane, because what it did was it left a vulnerable population. Get rid of all the chickens that had been selected or induced into having natural immunity,(...) and you replace them with naive chickens who are now vulnerable to the next bird flu. That's exactly the opposite of what you should do. But here's the diabolical thought that is now bubbling to the surface. If you were pharma,(...) and you viewed natural immunity, that is non-medicalized immunity,(...) as a competitor in the marketplace. Nature is competing with you by creating immunity that you didn't get paid for, and that is galling. You want all immunity to come from CVS or something. So you go after herds that have, despite your best efforts, gotten natural immunity. So some combination, I should separate the two terms. You've got innate immunity. Some birds are more resistant to bird flu than others. Presumably the 69 birds in this flock that died, if they died from bird flu, were more susceptible. The ones that survived either didn't get the disease in the first place because they had innate immunity or they developed what we call natural immunity, which is the result of your immune system learning to fight the disease. Both of those things are excellent. You want a population that has, through those two things, no susceptibility to bird flu. That's what you want, whether you raise chickens or ostriches, doesn't matter. Whether you want to protect people by not having a circulating reservoir of bird flu. You want a flock of birds that's immune through natural processes.(...) The pharma viewing natural processes as a competitor to its business is therefore trying to wipe the slate clean of any population that has attained this through a natural process. And that is truly diabolical. What's more, I think it's an extension of a mindset in which health itself is a competitor to pharma. You've heard people like Bobby Kennedy say that a healthy child is not profitable to pharma. But can you imagine that maybe they're actually, they view it this way. I'm sure they don't view it this way with respect to their own children. But with respect to your children, why do they care? The point is you're a potential profit center for life and making sure, and this goes back to the point about the Maha reports point about medicalization. Yes. Right, which includes vaccines. The whole idea is where does health come from? Oh, it comes from doctors. And once again,(...) once again, Monty Python nailed it, right? Because I think I've mentioned this skit before, but there's this skit in which the doctors in the delivery room are under the false impression that they are creating a baby, right? Through technological means. And the point is, no, you're not. And pharma, the best pharma could do is it could augment health, right? That's what we should be doing is hoping for pharma that in those cases where a healthy environment did not successfully fend off disease, that there might be some tweak that would be useful, not some insane upside down world in which health itself is imagined to come from technology. And that's not how it works. Well, and for that fantasy to stick with people and to work its fearful magic on people, we have to once again have this history in our heads of people falling over dying in the streets all the time, just nonstop. Right. Because it's only through the marvel of modernity, modern technological fixes that humans are healthy, that it doesn't make sense as a story, full stop, but it certainly can't even begin to make sense in people's heads as a story unless they have images of plague after plague after plague from all the moments before now, effectively. Right, and actually-- Like the Industrial Revolution didn't just bring us industrialization, it also brought us health. But there's a reason we don't, we've never called it the Health Revolution because it actually brought the opposite.(...) Well, and this goes to Steve Kirsch's point about the Amish. But the Amish are actually a natural control group for a lot of this. Sure. There's a certain amount of vaccination, a certain amount of exposure, but the degree to which the Amish are overwhelmingly healthier and don't have this chronic health epidemic is not so, and they're therefore galling in a target. And we've seen that their right to have raw milk has been targeted in all of this. But in any case, it's an upside down world because somebody's making the profit on it not functioning very well and right down to the level of our own physiology. And across all of these stories, I would say that there is an overarching picture developing. The body politic has become desperately sick.(...) Now, not only is the body politic composed of people who are chronically ill, but it has a confusion about the world that is upside down and backwards and making things vastly worse. And what I think you are watching in all of the stories that we've talked about today from the ostrich story to the Senate hearings is the finally, the dawning of a kind of natural immunity to the game that is being played on us. I will also give a shout out to Brownstone, which I think has been a beacon in the storm. It has gathered people from across the political spectrum who are awake by whatever mechanism brought them there. It has gathered them together and you're looking at the consequences of it in the Senate, right? Any of these people in isolation would have a very hard time telling their story. But having come to understand each other's perspectives and learn from each other, you have a much more vibrant discussion taking place. So I really think that is the almost perfect analog to a body finally becoming immune to a disease that has nearly killed it and recovering from the desperate flu or whatever it is. I think that's really where we are and it couldn't come soon enough. Yeah, no, it really couldn't. So just, you said this to me before and you said it just now, I'm gonna repeat your words because I think it is the moment that we are beginning to see this and we need to win, which is the immune system that defends the body politic is discovering how to defeat the infection.(...) Yeah. And the battles over the public consciousness and we're seeing people posting proudly that they're getting their 10th COVID booster and the mainstream media attributing crazy talk to Kennedy and making it seem like science is on the side of the people who don't know science. That is hopefully the sounds, the sights of the last gasp of the pathogen that has taken over the body politic with regard to public health. Yeah, I think that's exactly where we are and there's been a lot of carnage, but maybe finally we're waking up collectively. Yeah. All right, maybe that's it. Maybe we're there. Yeah, maybe that's it. Obviously we have not gotten any further word on Charlie Kirk, but I certainly hope he's doing well. And by any chance, Charlie, you are out there and you find yourself watching this(...) and I'm gonna never let it root before you. Okay, indeed. All right, we will be back next week. Same time, same place. And we encourage you to take a look at our sponsors this week, Masochips. Where's that pack of chips? Now we can start eating them. Masochips, Crowd Health, Arboret,(...) awesome, awesome sponsors. Check out some of these other conversations that Bret's had, including the Toby Rogers as well(...) on the inside rail. And we got interesting inside rail dropping tomorrow as well. And until you see us next time, be good to the ones you love, eat good food, and get outside. Be well, everyone. I'm gonna open the things. Yeah. And I gotta do this real quick and then get going.