#2462 - Aaron Siri

The Joe Rogan Experienz

So you had a pile of notes and then you just folded them up, like did you commit them

to memory?

No, I've just these two things.

I have the links I sent you guys.

Oh, okay.

And just some stuff there.

I just saw the piece of paper that you folded all the way to there.

How did, first of all, I want to talk you through, like,

when you were a younger man before you had looked into this,

what was your opinions on medical science?

What was your opinions on vaccines?

Were you skeptical or did you just kind of assume that everything that we're told

is exactly how it is and the experts have only the best interests of human beings

in mind and not money?

I had what you would effectively call the mainstream view.

Yeah.

Vaccine saved humanity.

Me too.

We'd all be dead without them.

Yep.

There was the Bible giving it to Moses outside and then there were vaccines.

Yeah.

That's basically, you know, I think it's anybody that didn't consider themselves a fool.

You know, you would have to be a fool, like a real fool, to ignore all this medical science,

which is the reason why there's so many people alive today that would have died.

And a lot of that's true.

What penicillin antibiotics, there's a lot of stuff that's saved a lot of people's lives.

But the vaccine won until this COVID epidemic, I would have never questioned it.

I mocked anti-vaxxers.

I was like, these people are silly.

Don't they know all the good things that vaccines have done?

And there's the blatant propaganda that we were force-fed, like one of those ducks are

trying to make fogwaweth.

It just made me stop and pause and goes, the whole thing like this, is this whole thing

just a dirty money laundering operation?

Because it kind of seems like that's at least part of the reason why they were telling

people to get boosted when they knew it wasn't working and telling young people that didn't

need it.

They wanted to make a lot of money.

That's the only reason why you would do any of those things.

After a certain amount of information is out, and so it just made me stop and think

about the whole thing and go, well, why would I assume that this is the one area where

pharmaceutical drug companies, doctors, everybody's been totally honest in this one area, when

it's like a religious thing, if you question it, and that's the, well, I love the title

of your book.

Yes.

Vaccines, amen.

Yeah.

The religion of vaccines.

You, that's what it is.

It's a religion for secular, intelligent people with a higher education.

And it causes incredible cognitive dissonance for anybody out there to come to the conclusion

that the CDC and the FDA and our public health authorities and what the entire medical

establishment has been telling you may not be accurate about vaccines.

Because like what you just said, the claim that you're a flat-erther, you're an anti-vaxxer

and not, they're used as a way to say, you are really out there and dumb, right?

They're completely equal in their impact.

And so it takes incredible cognitive dissonance to say there are real problems with vaccines,

but vaccines really sit in their own little universe.

They're unlike any other medical product.

They're not like penicillin.

They're not like any other drugs.

They're not like any other product out there.

Any other product in this room, anything out there, for one major reason.

Every other product that exists, I can sue the company.

I can hold them accountable if that product injures or kills you or your child on the

basis that product could remain safer.

The only product, and I mean this literally, the only product in America where you cannot

sue to say, how did you made that product safer?

My child wouldn't be dead.

My child wouldn't be seriously injured.

They wouldn't have a neurological disorder.

They wouldn't have immunological disorder.

They wouldn't have a nervous system disorder.

They wouldn't have a cardiac issue or childhood vaccines and child vaccines used by adults.

It's the only one.

And that's because of a law called the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986.

They gave pharma companies that incredibly special immunity.

Now, just to put that into context, and I'll tie this back in a second as to how we ended

up with this notion of this belief, religion, and vaccines because given industry 40 years

of unopposed ability to influence, they're going to get pretty dang far and they did

with vaccines.

And so, you know, a lot of industries face across roads where their products are causing

more harm than good.

Gas tanks used to explode.

What did they do?

They had a better gas tank, all right?

Building materials had a spestus caused cancer.

What did they do?

They make a better building materials, all right?

Did they give them immunity?

No, of course not.

But in the instance of vaccines leading up to 1986, there were only three routine vaccines.

That's it.

That's all there was.

A child following the CDC schedule in 1986 got three injections on it before the first

birthday, okay?

Those three products were causing so much harm in injury that every manufacturer of them

went out of business.

And that was the MMR vaccine, the DTP and APV vaccine.

Every single one from six down to one or for the peer test vaccine, six down to one from

measles, about three down to one from polio.

And with one company left for each, instead of forcing them to do what every other industry

has to do, like I said, make better building materials without spestus, make better cars

that don't explode, go down the chain of different products out there, Congress did something

completely unique.

It said, you know what?

We're just going to give you immunity.

We're going to make it so that no company, excuse me, no individual, no parent, no child

can sue you for the injuries and deaths caused by your vaccine products.

That is what the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act in 1986 did.

And not only for those three products, but for any other childhood vaccine thereafter.

And what that effectively has done is given 40 years for the industry to promote their

products, no pushback.

When you read about a problem with a car, where you're reading about it from, usually

the class action lawsuit in the paper, right?

Not going to read about that in vaccines, typically.

And because of that, you ended up where we are anyways.

There's a lot more detail to up, but I'll stop there for now.

No, please keep going.

Well, I mean, when you think about what makes products safer, right, because I've got

a law firm with over 100 individuals, I'm the managed partner of the firm.

Half my firm does all types of play to decide class actions.

You can hold companies accountable for almost anything.

Your data.

We do hundreds of data breach cases, genetic privacy cases, biometric privacy cases.

We do all types of lawsuits like that nature, by the way, and New York Times loves those

lawsuits, by the way.

That's stuff nobody attacks me for, okay?

Oh, making my privacy better, protecting me from cars that explode, oh, thank you.

Make vaccine safer.

You want to kill everybody?

Okay.

But that's where it's really weird.

But well, here's where I think I'm hoping I can make it make sense without causing cognitive

distance.

So going back to how we make products safer in America or anywhere, okay?

It's not the government.

Governments don't make products safer.

Look at extremely authoritarian regimes where there was very little free market like the

former USSR.

You think products are safe?

No.

What makes products safe?

It's the economic self-interest of the company.

It's the economic interest of the company to make the product safer.

Why?

You probably own stock, right?

And where do you want your stock to go up or down?

How do you want it to go?

You want it to go up?

We want to go down.

Where do you want it to go?

You want it to go up.

Okay.

So do all the investors.

Right.

So does everybody who owns that stock?

So does Wall Street.

So does the CEO.

So does the board.

So does everybody.

The people of the stock, everybody involved.

All the employees that have stock options, including them, usually the major ones, everybody

wants it to go up.

If you lose money, it doesn't go up.

So normally, the interest to assure a product is safer is aligned with the profit motive.

Because if your product causes injury and harm, then you're going to lose money.

So you'll want to know typically.

You have an economic self interest as a corporation to know that could you're all

twisted, that could you moral, that could you ethical, just because you have that economic

self interest to assure the product is safe before you go to market and after you go

to market.

Okay.

And that exists for every product in America with effectively one exception, vaccines.

That's really it.

This episode is brought to you by Squarespace, the all-in-one website platform that helps

you stand out online.

And I can say that because my website is powered by Squarespace.

JoeRogan.com is a Squarespace website.

Squarespace makes it easy to secure the best name for your business and they provide privacy

and security tools to ensure your domain remains protected.

Head to Squarespace.com slash Rogan for a free trial.

And when you are ready to launch, use the offer code Rogan to save 10% off your first

purchase of a website or domain.

This episode is brought to you by Zippercrooter.

When you want to train your dog, you don't want just any rando off the streets who likes

animals.

You want someone with the skills to get your pet where you want them to be.

Someone who can help you help them.

So why wouldn't you do the same when it comes to hiring for your business?

Skill-based hiring is the thing to do right now.

And a good way to go about that is Zippercrooter, especially since you can try it for free.

At zippercrooter.com.

Zippercrooter can help you find the perfect match for your role.

Their smart matching technology works fast to find candidates while screening questions

help ensure you find quality talent with the skills you're looking for.

It even has filters you can use to see who's been recently active on the site.

Let Zippercrooter help you find amazing candidates with the skills you seek.

Before out of five employers who post on Zippercrooter get a quality candidate within the first

day.

And now you can try it for free at zippercrooter.com slash rogan.

That zippercrooter.com slash rogan.

Meet your match on Zippercrooter.

Now, I'm going to show you one result of that in practice, okay?

When you think of drugs, and this will help, I think, tie into what you're saying about

what happened with COVID, most drugs are licensed based on multi-year placebo control trials.

Most of them.

Why?

Because the FDA requires it, because the FDA is so great, no, nothing to do with the FDA.

It's because the company wants to know whether the drug is safe or not before it goes to

market, because you know what happens with the drug that they put out that's going to

make 40 billion in revenue or 20 billion because it's 100 billion in harm, they end up upside

down.

So they want to know to a reasonable degree how safe the drug is before it goes to market.

In an attempt not to cherry pick, as I did in my book, I found an article that listed

the top four selling profitable drugs by Pfizer as of like 2021 or something 2019, okay?

If you look at those four most profitable drugs, as I put in my book, each one has two to

seven years of follow up in the clinical trial that was relied upon to license that drug against

a placebo control group, just to make sure everybody knows what that means, but that just

means a group that gets something in there.

So this way, you give it the group the experimental drug, you give a group the placebo, something

in there.

You track them for multiple years, and then you compare all the outcomes, cardiovascular

outcomes, neurological outcomes, and you go down the list, and cancer rates, and you

see the difference.

You get a real actual sense of the safety between those two for that product.

In contrast, for most childhood vaccines, instead of years, it's often days or weeks

of safety review in the clinical trial, a lot about to license them.

Not a single, and I know that folks can test all time, but it's in the FDA literature.

Not a single routine injected childhood vaccine was licensed based on a placebo control trial,

safer the COVID vaccine by the way for children, it's the only one.

Not a single one, okay?

Nor was the vaccine sometimes uses the control itself licensed based on a placebo control

trial, nor anywhere down that chain.

Chapter 10 of my book, I go through every vaccine, I go through, I have it all cited

to the FDA Leicester documents.

You can listen to the talking heads, or you can rely on the primary sources from the FDA,

which is why I call my book vaccines amen because there is what they tell you, and then

there's what the actual evidence shows, right?

So that gives you an example of the outcome of not having an economic self-interest with

drugs, they have it, so they want to know the safety.

Can I challenge you on that?

What about Lyox?

Like the Lyox people knew that there was one of the things that was revealed during the

trial, was that they knew that there was going to be issues, but they, I think the quote

buzz, we still think we'll do well.

And that was one of the damning aspects of the email disclosure, because you got a chance

to see how these guys talk about this drug that they're about to release.

I think they wound up paying a percentage of the amount of money they made from the drug,

but they made way more from the drug than they did the fine.

No, I appreciate that challenge, and it's why I said, when I was saying that they do

the analysis of whether they're going to have 100 billion in loss or 50, 40 billion in

revenue.

They're not saying they won't put out a drug that causes harm.

You're saying, because they cause too much harm.

Exactly.

They can't, they don't want to end up upside down.

And remember, the whole reason a drug is licensed is because it caused harm.

The crazy thing about the viox one is I think it killed somewhere north of 50,000 people,

and they still made profit off of it, which is kind of bananas.

They pulled it and made billions in profit.

This is the darker aspect of this.

If you were talking about companies that never did anything wrong, it had the highest moral

and ethical standards, and they're the ones, because it's not about money.

It's about saving people's health, and it's about public safety, and we've got to make

sure that we do this right.

We've got to make sure we squash all the disinformation, but that's not what you're talking

about.

We're talking about these companies that have been fined billions, billions of dollars

in criminal fines for fraud, for all kinds of shit.

These are the people, and the idea that they wouldn't lie about vaccines, like this is

the one thing that they're going to tell you the truth, ruthless, capitalist, attached

to money and drugs.

This is the one thing they're going to 100% tell you the truth about.

That seems kind of cookie.

That's a hard sell for anybody who's not ideologically captured.

That's a hard sell.

Yeah, but I don't think you need to go down the road that there's some kind of evil

nefariousness there.

No.

That's what I'm saying.

It's a broken economic and regulatory system from my perspective.

It's just a completely broken, you know, to your point about viox, right?

So in viox, it causes incredible amount of harm, but they still decided that the benefits

don't raise the risk.

Do you know the story about the cars that you should explode?

That's the classic case we learned in law school.

And the gas tank and these cars...

Was it a Pinto?

It was the Pintos.

That's right.

And a number of them explode every year, burning the people inside them alive to death.

Right?

Horrible.

Way to go.

And there was a lawsuit.

And in that lawsuit, what they discovered was the company had done an internal calculation

in which it did the math.

What's going to cost to actually fix all the gas tanks?

That's that dollar number versus what's it going to cost to just pay out for those deaths

every year for those people that we burn, knowingly, are going to die and burn to death

in those cars.

And the calculation was that it was going to cost less to pay out for the deaths.

And that is what the internal document showed.

And that, by the way, is in part the quintessential case you learned in law school for why they

have punitive damages.

Because the punitive damages were there to force the company to conform its conduct

in exactly that scenario where the economics weren't going to do it.

Right?

Even in something that horrible when the market forces weren't sufficient, the economic

self-interest wasn't there, you had to make it happen.

How?

Through punitive damages.

I know there's a lot of, you know, news about punitive damages, oh, it's successive

and so forth.

But that's what they're there for.

There for that scenario where we're just holding the mechanical and now go back to vaccines.

Think about how incredibly harmful and how much harm these vaccines must do that they

cannot survive on the market without this immunity from 1986.

Think about that.

If you were going to steal me on the argument against that, wouldn't you say, look, these

are, we can't have frivolous lawsuits against these people that are providing us the

most important medication that's available to humans.

The whole reason why we survive smallpox and polio and all these different things, it's

these vaccines.

Without them, we'd all be dead.

This episode is brought to you by Montana Knife Company.

I have used their knives for years.

They are absolutely fantastic.

The company was founded by one of the most experienced master bladesmiths in the world.

My friend, Josh Smith, he has been making knives since he was a kid.

He's been making knives for 30 years.

He made his first hunting knife when he was 11 years old and became a master bladesmith

at 19.

This man loves knives, the construction of knives.

They are absolutely next level.

Everything is made right here in the USA in Montana and these knives are designed, tested,

and built by hunters.

They come insanely sharp out of the box and are crazy, easy to sharpen.

Montana Knife Company is a young company working hard to keep up with demand because these

knives sell out in minutes.

If you want one, head over to MontanaKnifeCompany.com to see what's available now.

Sign up for the email newsletter so you know when they restock and get in on their SMS notifications

for special knife drops.

My personal favorite blade is the Speed Go 2.0.

I use it all the time.

It's an amazing knife.

Montana Knife Company working knives for working people.

Let's just assume that the last part of what you said is true, which we know it's not.

But with that said, let's steal man in it.

Yeah.

Let's steal man in it.

Yeah.

Easy response.

Okay.

Okay.

Drugs, drugs that are for very small populations, meaning not a lot of market, not a lot

of sales that cause incredible side effects can survive in the market profitably.

Think about that for a second.

Why?

Okay.

Here's why.

It's a little bit of legal stuff, but it's not that hard.

It's not that bad.

Okay.

The primary claim you would typically bring against a product is the claim that it could

have been made safer.

It's called a design defect claim.

It's a claim where I say, hey, had you put in a two-cent stopper on that gas tank, it

wouldn't have exploded.

If you had put in a one penny plastic shield on that saw, I'd have my finger, okay?

And defect claim.

The claim you could have made a product safer.

It is the primary claim you would bring for a product, okay, injury claim.

So how do you protect against it?

You make the product as technologically safe as possible, right?

So if you have a drug that causes incredible side effects that we just talked about, make

the drug as safe as possible.

Make sure that there are no contaminants.

Make sure that you use the best possible ingredients.

Make sure the combination, right?

The safest adjuvant, go down the road.

That's number one.

Number two, the second way you hold an account was you bring a claim called a failure

to warrant claim.

I failed to warn you about the harm that the drug could have caused, okay?

And so what do you have to do there to protect yourself?

The company has to disclose all the potential harms.

If it has it right there in the package insert and you get it and it says, hey, it can

cause this, this, this, this, this, you were told you chose to still take the product.

They made it as safe as technologically feasible.

They disclose the risks and that is how companies typically limit their liability with medical

products with drug products, okay?

Why can't they do those vaccines?

Why can't they just make them as safe as technologically feasible?

Can't assume for design defect and disclose all the actual risks in the package insert,

okay?

The logical conclusion is that and one other point to that and I'll respond to your steel

man, okay?

And it's this, all right?

It's been 40 years for some of these vaccines.

Happy vaccine, for example, licensed in 86 and 89, the two stand-alone.

It's been 40 years, you're telling me they still don't know it's safe enough to lift

that immunity.

You're giving it to millions of kids a year, you're making billions of dollars on the sales

of this product and you still don't know it's safe enough to lift that immunity, please.

Um, okay, if I was a silly person, okay?

I would probably say these vaccines are more important than any medication that's ever

existed because they are the reason why we are here because that's how we survive small

pox and polio and the measles and everything else.

And without them, we would have perished, we would have never achieved the technological

states that were out because we wouldn't have been healthy.

We would have gone through mass plagues.

Okay.

I'll respond.

So, because of that, it's just important that they stay in business.

Well, a few things were involved.

And we trust the science.

Trust the science.

Trust the science, yes.

Belief.

Aaron, trust the science.

Yes, sir.

Amen.

Amen.

Amen.

Yeah, I try not to do too much believing and I try to do a little bit of, you know, evidence

based thinking.

But any event, look, when it comes to these products, I saved my beliefs for religion,

the unanswered bulls.

Where do we go when we die?

Right.

And so forth.

I have to take a leap of faith and I do it when I need to, but you don't need to with

these products.

Okay.

So, on the first part of what you said, first of all, there are products probably that

are far more important to humanity at the moment.

No question about it than vaccines, even assuming it had the results that you just claim

which I'll address in a second.

Imagine you said you won't look cars are essential.

I mean, you can't get an ambulance, you can't get to a hospital.

Without cars, you can't get to work, you can't get to kids to school.

I mean, it's essential to a functioning site.

So, let's give cars and media liability.

Intuitively, you'd say that's ridiculous.

Right.

That is one of the myths.

That is one of the mythologies around vaccines that has developed over time.

This notion that everybody in America die without vaccines.

In chapter seven of my book, and I lay it out for every single disease.

And what I do there is I say, okay, how many deaths were there in America the year before

the vaccine was first introduced or widely used or so forth, okay?

And any real degree.

And what you find is, if you go down the list, there were typically dozens to hundreds maybe

a thousand or so deaths from each disease for which we vaccinate.

The further back in time you go, the larger the number in that dozens to a thousand or

so deaths, okay?

For example, measles, the dreaded measles that they say everybody will die from.

No measles vaccine we're all going to die, right?

That is the impression they give you.

Do you have any idea how people died of measles in the years before there was a measles vaccine

in the United States?

I mean, found 400 a year.

That's it?

That's it.

400 a year, died in the United States at a time when everybody had measles which comes out

to about one in 450,000 Americans dying of measles that's in the CDC.

Anybody listening to this is like, come on, that's not true.

CDC mortality documents on the CDC website cited in my book 400.

And don't about 50,000 people ever you're dying from the flu?

Well, that statistic includes bacterial deaths that they say are potentially the result

from having influenza.

So your immune system gets weakened and then something else hits you?

And that kills you?

Is that the idea behind it?

Well, that's just the way they gather the data, the way I'll put it.

But with influenza, let me if I finish up with the measles, because I think this is important

on the measles one and I can deal with influenza as well.

But on the measles one, just to really, because you're saying, well, everybody would die

without these.

I don't think people think of influenza, by the way.

They think of measles.

They think of those diseases.

Right.

I don't have her here.

Everybody say to me, well, everybody would die of influenza without influenza vaccines.

It's available, everybody can get it.

The mortality hasn't changed much.

In fact, if you look at the mortality from influenza before influenza vaccines were widespread,

we're not doing that great.

Okay.

Anyway, putting that aside for a moment, not only that, isn't there data that shows that

if you get it, you're more likely to get other colds?

Yeah, I have a whole giant footnote in my book about this and I've actually tweeted this

out and there's stuff stuck about this.

A whole series of articles, studies that show that those that have had the influenza vaccines,

maybe the studies often reflect have around the same rate of influenza, maybe they have

less respiratory influenza infections.

But many studies show they have multiple times the rate of other respiratory infections.

So good job.

Maybe you reduced your risk of influenza by this much, but you've increased your risk of

another different respiratory disease by that much.

How much is it?

How much of the increase?

Depends on the study.

Some studies show four times versus some studies.

So three times versus, yeah, I mean, little three for, I mean, huge percentages.

And they're statistically significant in these studies.

And so, you know, when you were looking at, you know, these are all retrospective epidemiological

studies.

And, but when you do a retrospective epi study, which means you take existing data and

then you study it versus saying, okay, we're going to do a study and follow people going

forward.

Okay.

If you find like a 1.3 time, which means 30% increase risk, like that's a public social

finding.

This is three, 400% increase risk.

Yes.

And in many of these studies, it's inconvenient data, so obviously it's not talked about.

Right.

So 400 people is not a whole lot.

I'm sure, I mean, it's sad when 400 people die.

But it's also one of those diseases that when you're a child, it's much more survivable,

right, than adult adults, it's rough, isn't it?

Yeah.

So, measles, the ideal age to get it is not when you're an infant, which in the pre-vaccine

era infants typically did not get measles because they got maternal immunity from the mother.

And you don't want to get it as an adult because it is more likely to cause problems, which

again, in the pre-vaccine era, wasn't a problem because everybody virtually got it as a child.

Right.

Yeah.

And when you got it as a child, my recollection of it was the episode of the Brady Bunch.

Do you remember?

Yeah.

Never that episode.

Let's watch this.

We'll find that clip, but let's watch it because it's so indicative of what measles

was actually like in the culture of the people that would get it all the time versus this

boogie man of today.

I mean, it is, it's so stark, it's so, I mean, it's like, imagine the kid coming home,

hey, mom, I've got AIDS.

I got to stay home from school.

It's not that, right?

It's the way that most folks who've had chicken pox think of chicken pox.

Right.

But we're told that it's killing people.

We're told that it's killing people now.

We're told that it's killing, it's always kids, we're told it's killing kids now.

Yeah.

And, um, look, if anybody dies from measles, I'm very sad, but I want to know, is it with

measles?

Remember the with COVID or from COVID?

Like, what kind of condition would these people in before this hit them?

Because some, I mean, that was the thing about COVID.

It's like, yeah, it's fatal.

If you have four plus comorbidities, that's, it's more, you're more likely to be fatal.

That was most of the people that wind up dying from it, right?

That's almost certainly the case and I can, I can add another data point to that to help

support that, which is that between 1900, and this is again, CDC data, between 1900 and

the late 1950s, early 1960s, the mortality from measles declined in the United States

by over 98%.

You know what didn't cause that?

Vaccines.

Yeah.

Because it didn't exist.

I know.

Right.

The community had become a herd thing, just like COVID-ish right now.

Well, everybody basically has had COVID, or at least it's exposed to it by now.

Yeah.

Here it is.

Watch.

Yeah.

It's a whole episode.

There's multiple clips.

I don't know which one is the last one.

There's one.

Just, just, let's just try.

I think it's, he finds out he's coming over, put on your headphones for a second so we

could hear this.

Aaron.

Oh, yeah.

Grab your headphones.

Thank you.

No.

Are you sure it's the measles?

Well, he certainly got all the symptoms, the slight temperature, a lot of dots, and a

great big smile.

A great big smile.

No school for a few days.

You.

You've gotten measles.

Golly, mothers are supposed to know everything, but do you have to keep proving it?

You've got a temperature too.

What do you mean too?

A peter was sent over to school a little while ago.

Oh.

What was his temperature?

101.1.

Oh, is that all?

I'm 101.2.

Oh, great.

You want my railroad?

I'll be a sport.

You can ride on it free.

Thanks a lot.

It's your turn, peter.

I know.

So you're having a measles party?

Oh, Mr.

Yep.

Boy, this is the life, isn't it?

Yeah.

If you have to get sick, you sure can't beat the measles.

That's right.

No medicine.

Insider out.

Like shots, I mean.

Don't even mention shots.

Yeah.

Okay.

I mean, am I crazy?

Or have we gone through one of the wildest gas lightings

of anything ever?

There's people out there that because of the things

that you've said so far about the measles,

we'll be 100% freaking out on Twitter, right?

But this is a window into how the American public thought,

I know it's a television show, I know it's a sitcom,

but you can't joke around about stuff

that other people wouldn't think is funny.

Every people would think that was funny.

These kids saying, if you're going to get sick,

you should get the measles and everybody at home be like,

oh, I wish I had a day off.

Well, that's how they thought of it.

Yeah.

And to put hard data on it,

going back to that statistic, over 98% reduction.

Remember, it's not like COVID, Joe,

because COVID, there was no immunity in the population, right?

Right.

Measles has been around for forever,

as far as we know, thousands of years.

The year 1900 wasn't the beginning of herd immunity.

1900 measles are already endemic.

Everybody was getting measles.

So every year, there's a few million people cohort

that were getting it, and you had the decline.

And so you have to ask yourself, what was the decline?

It was probably better sanitation, better medical care.

I mean, all kinds of things.

And you know who could take credit for most of that stuff,

better sanitation, better living conditions,

better you name it, probably public health authorities.

Meaning the improvement in acute care,

the introduction of antibiotics, better living conditions,

not having sewage in the street, you name it, right?

Probably had a massive contributor to that reduction,

but they never point to that.

And there's one other really inconvenient data point

with measles, and this is really where it gets upsetting

for folks out there who you were just saying,

we're going to watch the show.

And it's this.

That would, over 98% reduction in mortality,

there's no reason that that curve was not going to continue.

Because pockets of the United States

in the late 15 or early 60s were like a developing country.

In a developing country, kids are going to die

of any infectious disease because of extremely

poor living conditions.

And as those improved, most likely that 400 deaths

also would have continued to decline.

4.2 million births in the United States in the late 50s

or at least 60s, about 3.8 million births today.

So in fact, there's less children being born in America

today than there was then.

So you have a smaller cohort of babies, young children,

to in fact, and final data point, and it's this.

And this is really, I know this is,

this is going to cause cognitive dissonance for some.

But studies that have looked at those that have had measles

versus those that don't find that those that have had measles

have a statistically significant greater reduction

in deaths from cardiovascular disease and various cancers.

So I'll give you an example.

There's a 20 year, 22 year prospective study in Japan,

funded by the government of Japan

and major universities that tracked 100,000 people

in Japan for 22 years.

And it found that those that had measles and mumps

had a 20% statistically significant decline

in deaths from cardiovascular disease.

Think about that for a second.

Just think about that.

About 800,000 Americans die of cardiovascular disease.

If eliminating measles and mumps

has increased cardiovascular deaths in the United States

by even 1% on a life years lost basis,

you are still way upside down on your public health benefit

by eliminating measles.

Can I ask you what the speculation is

of how that could be?

Why would measles and mumps infection at early age

improve your health cardiovascular?

Why would it also, those that have not had measles

have a 66% increase rate of non-hostile lymphoma

and 266% increase rate of Hodgkin's lymphoma,

which kills 20,000 people a year.

Why would women that have had measles have 50% less ovarian

cancer, which kills a lot of women every year?

What is it about it?

Maybe.

And here's the thing.

I'm, you know, and you can have a evolutionary biologist

to talk about this as well.

You've had some on.

Think about it this way.

Pathogens have come and gone throughout the ages, right?

Right.

This one didn't.

Measles, mumps, rebella, chicken pox.

They didn't.

It could be, maybe.

I'm not saying it is.

I'm just saying this is what the data appears to reflect.

What I just told you about with cardiovascular disease

and cancer, they're all in PubMed.

They're all PubMed studies.

They're all in the Published Literature

and they're all consistent having the findings

that I just described, okay?

I'm just a lawyer.

I'm just repeating to it the data reflects.

It could be that having those furbrow childhood infections

conferred a survival advantage overall.

And it could be the reason they never actually went away

over time, became less obviously pathogenic.

This episode is brought to you by Netflix.

I loved Peaky Blinders.

It is one of my absolute favorite shows of all time.

I binge watched the entire season, all the seasons.

So when I found out that Netflix was dropping

a Peaky Blinders film, I was very excited.

Tommy Shelby played by the Academy Award-winning

Killian Murphy, of course, must face his own demons

and choose whether to confront his legacy

or burn it to the ground.

It's gritty, it's grimy, it's got that epic gangster edge.

We've been hooked on for six seasons.

Trust me, you won't want to miss this.

Peaky Blinders, The Immortal Man,

is in select theaters, March 6th,

and on Netflix, March 20th, rated R.

This episode is brought to you by Life Lock.

Are you a fraud-paying American?

Well, it's a fact that one in four honest, hardworking,

tax-paying Americans has been a victim of identity theft.

With Life Lock identity theft protection, though,

if your identity is stolen, they fix it, guaranteed.

And you get your money back.

Last year, the IRS flagged over $16 billion

in refunds for identity fraud.

That's billions of dollars that could come

from your salary, overtime, or second job gone.

And who pays for that?

The fraud-paying Americans.

But this year, you don't need to stay a victim.

Life Lock monitors hundreds of millions of data points

per second for your personal information

and alerts you to threats that you could easily miss on your own.

And if your information does fall in the wrong hands,

only Life Lock has US-based restoration specialists

who are backed by the million dollar protection package.

Because this tax season, no one should claim

to be a fraud-paying American.

Visit lifelock.com slash JRE and save up

to 40% your first year.

That's 40% off at lifelock.com slash JRE terms apply.

So it has like a hermetic effect

and it makes you physically stronger somehow or another.

It makes your immune system stronger, your cardiovascular,

like a stress test.

That means not outside the realm of possibility, right?

I mean, if lifting weight makes you stronger

and studying makes you smarter, would it make sense

that some form of infection that you recover from

will make you more resilient?

It does make sense.

It's just like no one wants to say,

hey, you should go get measles.

Look, fear of relativity.

Yeah, fear of relativity is not intuitive.

Why is it as you approach a more massive object

or approach the speed of light

does time relatively slow down?

I don't know if it makes sense or not.

It's just what when you put two atomic clocks on a plane,

one on the ground, one on the plane,

you fly it around the earth.

They're not ticking the same.

So there it is.

You can't pretend that's not there.

That is what it is.

It doesn't have to make sense to be true.

That's a good point.

That's just what it is.

And I'm just saying what the studies show.

Very inconvenient, a lot of cognitive dissonance there,

but it could very well be that our whole,

this whole program, not only do we,

so go back to your whole, go all the way back to your point.

You're like, well, they'll say vaccines are so important.

We gotta give them this immunity.

No, in fact, quite the opposite.

Our babies are so precious, are so important.

We want to make sure we have the safest possible product

you couldn't have.

And the way to do that is to make sure

the companies have an economic interest

to make sure they're as safe as possible.

I agree with you entirely,

but if I was questioning anything, I would say, okay,

if we don't have genetic immunity anymore,

because our parents didn't have it,

because our parents are vaccinated against measles,

wouldn't it be better to keep vaccinating people

rather than let a whole bunch of people

with no immunity to measles get it,

particularly like older people?

So, this is a really important point, actually.

I agree with you in the comments.

Because here, well,

I just thought before we get going,

when they mandated vaccines,

or when they started giving them to people,

was what, in like the early 60s, I believe?

For measles vaccines.

For measles, 63.

Did a lot of people resist it?

Was it back then where the hippies opting out,

or is there like a group that you could follow and track

it, never got it, never got the vaccine,

while everybody else did?

It has to be, right?

I'm sure there is a group out there

you can identify, I mean, the Amish.

There you go.

Right.

So, you know, we represent right now,

because New York's trying to basically kick them out

in New York for not vaccinating.

That's great.

We just, we just, in the US Supreme Court,

we were just successful in vacating the lower court decisions,

just a few weeks ago.

Do you remember when Kathy Holtchell was talking

about the vaccines, like their gift from God?

She believes it.

But do you remember how she was saying it?

And it's like, in any other business,

if you were running a pharmaceutical drug business,

if you were running a Chevy,

and you're making a new Corvette,

and you started talking about how this Corvette

is a gift from God, everybody would go,

oh, Kathy's cracked.

Like, what are you talking about?

It's a bunch of engineers, we put together a great car.

Like, what are you, it's a gift from God?

What?

People don't say, I believe in tables,

I believe in chairs, I believe in TVs,

I believe in wallpaper,

but they say I believe in vaccines all the time

because it carries a truism.

But do they work?

Does the measles vaccine prevent people from getting measles?

Or is it a leaky vaccine?

Is it a completely, so answering that

Andrew Pryor question at the same time, sorry.

No, no, no, don't be sad.

I'm very scattered.

No, that's not all.

Is that, is that, is that the measles vaccine,

measles, MMR vaccine and chicken box vaccine

can prevent transmission.

That is not true of most vaccines, but those can't.

So, those can.

Those can, and so to your, now going back,

so that's the differential.

And in fact, for most of the other vaccines,

like pertussis vaccines, so forth,

they make you more likely to spread the pathogen

if you're vaccinated, and I can tell you all about that.

But before I do that, let me just point out

that to your last comment, because measles,

MMR vaccine and chicken box vaccine

can prevent transmission, you are correct.

If measles were to come through society right now,

right now, in the current time, it would be problematic

because babies who aren't supposed to get it

would be more likely to get it

because the mothers aren't confirming

the same eternal immunity that they did

in the pre-vaccine era because the vaccine

doesn't confer the same level of immunity anywhere near.

And older folks, because the vaccine is nowhere

as efficacious as having had the infection,

depending on the study, two to 10% do not zero convert,

even after two doses, meaning they are not getting immunity

at all, pretty much, or immunity as considered immune.

Is this when they take it later in life

or when they take it when they're young?

This is when they take it when they're young.

And that's when there's a measles outbreak,

a lot of times you'll hear a call to even have folks

who are older get the measles vaccine again, right?

There's guidance on that because it doesn't confer.

If you've had measles, you're done.

You're never need a vaccine.

Again, you'll never get measles again, one in done.

But so, yes, it would be problematic right now

for those, for MMR, measles most rebella and chickenpox

to just kind of let it rip.

You would have to really have an educational campaign beforehand

if you were gonna do that.

The other vaccines, happy vaccine,

pertussis vaccine, not a problem.

Those vaccines don't stop transmission.

And I want to go into that.

Kind of crazy that they give that to babies.

Kind of crazy.

Kind of crazy if the parent aren't

individual drug users or whatever,

whatever would give them, have be,

that you're gonna inject a baby with a vaccine

that prevents them from getting a sexually transmitted disease

and like, are rarely sick.

You gotta be doing something rough, you know?

Joe, you just don't understand what goes on in the NICU.

Yeah.

I mean, yeah, that's it.

It just seems crazy.

It is.

And here, I'll give you another data point,

which is in Denmark, okay?

There is no happy, universal happy for kids.

The only time they give happy in Denmark

is if the mother is happy positive.

So their happy vaccination rate amongst children

is like 0.1% or something to that effect, okay?

So here you go.

Two first world countries, American, Denmark.

Universal happy here.

Virtually zero happy vaccine given there.

The rate of happy amongst children

not statistically significant.

You know, it is different between those two countries.

The rate of harm from happy vaccine.

That's different.

You know what a baby's never died of on the first day of life?

Hepatitis B.

You know what a baby has died of on the first day of life?

Hepatitis B vaccine.

In fact, it adjudicated us such not long ago

for a newborn that died from a happy vaccine.

And I said earlier, you can't sue the manufacturers.

You cannot.

There is a little program though in the federal government

where you can bring a claim if you're injured from a vaccine.

That's what I'm talking about right now.

I went about that baby that died of happy.

Right.

It's called the vaccine injury compensation program.

I have like 20 folks in my firm that do that work.

And you know, it's not like a regular court.

You don't get an article three judge,

article three of the Constitution of federal judge.

You don't get any discoveries of right,

which is how you prove harms.

There's a $250,000 statutory cap and pain and suffering

and on-dath, which is ridiculous.

And it doesn't have, you know,

anyways, long story short,

it's paid out about $5 billion for damages

and so forth from vaccines over the years.

But so, so I didn't want people to get confused like

when I said, well, how did this baby get adjudicated?

Right.

Which got adjudicated in this program.

Got it.

Yeah.

So when you have conversations with people

and they are the way you used to be

and the way I used to be,

where you just sort of just assumed

that these, the people that are experts in their fields

are doing a great job and that's why we're alive.

And you start telling them these things.

Like are you a real problem at a cocktail party?

Like do you ever, have you ever had a conversation

that just went completely sideways

and they started getting angry at you for quoting things?

Yeah.

Because that's a, it's not a problem for me

because I don't know motions

or feelings about the products.

They're just products.

They're no different for me,

but a lot of folks,

there's two things.

First, for some like medical professionals,

a lot of them seem to drive a lot of their self-schema almost.

Their value, their worth in these products,

they saved humanity.

How could you question them?

We are the saviors, right?

In some respects, almost like supplanting God, right?

What's the only thing that will save us during COVID?

Was it God?

No, vaccines, that's the only thing.

And then for others,

they think that they know, okay?

But they don't know intellectually.

They've never looked at the primary sources.

So when you challenge them with evidence,

what can they draw from, they intellect?

No, they draw from their emotions,

they draw from their feelings

and that's why they get angry.

I get that all the time,

but I also often get folks who are just curious

and interested to listen.

Well, I think there's more of those now

than there's ever been before.

Absolutely.

I think COVID, in that respect,

forced the conversation you had,

millions of people who were listening to

basic stuff that 10 years ago when I started doing this work,

nobody talked about what is a placebo?

What's a clinical trial?

What's this stuff?

Like this became,

or even the idea that a vaccine can cause a harm

just that notion was totally taboo seven years ago.

No more.

Yeah, I think you're entirely correct

and also credits to YouTube

because YouTube doesn't suppress this stuff anymore,

which is why I found dozens of interviews with you on YouTube.

I mean, before,

I mean, I'd seen some of your stuff on social media,

but then I've watched a bunch of your stuff now on YouTube,

whereas during the pandemic, everything you said,

you would have got removed.

I was removed.

Everything I said was removed.

I'll tell you the first thing they ever had posted

that got set, it was on Twitter.

Yeah, the old Twitter.

So we brought this lawsuit against the FDA

to get all the documents they relied upon

to license Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine, okay?

They licensed it in 42 days and we said,

all right, for 42 days,

give us all the documents, right?

And they want the forever.

They want to produce at a rate of a few hundred pages

as much as we were to take in hundreds of years effectively.

Got a tranche of those documents.

Took some of them.

Literally took one of the documents

and posted it.

And my tweet was just literally quoting

from the document effectively,

and that was taken down as misinformation.

Pfizer's own documents submitted to the FDA.

One of the first things that was just,

that was mind-jarring.

It was stunning.

It was stunning to watch people not be outraged too.

When information was getting out

about different people that were silenced,

Jay Bhattacharya and all those different people

that were getting attacked, Martin Koldorf,

it was stunning how no one was going,

hey, what is going on here?

This seems really where you're removing posts

from guys from MIT and Stanford

and banning their accounts.

Like, that's fucking crazy.

And until Elon purchased Twitter,

we really didn't know the extent of it.

We didn't really, we really weren't aware

if that it was government involvement.

They were stepping in to remove and remove mal information.

That was my favorite.

They came up with, you know that one?

Disinformation, malinformation.

Oh, mal's the ball that it's got.

It's true information that might cause problems,

which is fucking almost everything.

As soon as you have a problem with mal information,

like you are encouraging the creepiest kind of group think

that's available and no one freaked out.

Well, a few people freaked out, but not enough.

It wasn't, it should have been bipartisan.

It should have been a bipartisan freak out.

It should have been left and right,

but it got politicized in this really stupid way

where people on the left were pro-vaccine

and pro-pharmaceutical drug company and pro-narrative

and people on the right were like,

I'm gonna take my chances.

And those were the cooks.

And, you know, it was this like ideological battle

as much as it was a public health crisis.

censorship was bad.

It was very bad.

Real bad.

But I'll tell you what made me think people were gonna go

into the street with pitchforks

was when the government told everybody stay at home.

That wasn't hidden.

That wasn't behind the scenes,

the stuff you're talking about.

They said stay in your house.

They didn't say we recommend you stay in your houses.

They didn't say we recommend you get this vaccine.

We didn't recommend you wear this mask.

They said stay in your house.

When they had that first order came down.

I was like, people are just gonna be outraged.

People are going to protest and when they didn't,

that's what dismayed me personally.

And I'll tell you why, okay?

Because when you think about civil and individual rights,

first amendment, the right to free speech, the assembly.

That was passed and adopted by the states in 1791.

What's the first amendment intended to do?

It's restrict government from infringing on those rights.

You think life was easy in 1791?

What do you think life was like in 1791?

You think it was easy?

I think it was all honky-dory.

Life in 1799 was brutal.

Brutal.

You took about disease, pestilence, famine, war.

You want to talk about a life that is no electricity,

no running water, no suit, nothing.

And that amendment was passed for times

that are more brutal than that.

And here comes a virus.

And every right you have is basically taken away.

And Americans are like, take it, take it away.

That is what outraged me because, look,

what's the whole point of this country?

What is America born out of?

In my view, it's born out of the idea

that every other government that preceded it

got it wrong in the following sense.

Your life should not be dictated by a king or a dictator

or a polyburo or a central authority.

It's the idea that you are born with an alienable rights.

You should be able to choose your destiny,

including what risks you want to take.

Individual rights come with risks.

Letting Joe Rogan say what he wants

on this podcast comes with risks.

Letting you practice what religion you want,

assemble with who you want, especially in Austin.

It's a very interesting time yesterday.

That comes with risks.

Let me tell you, a lot of risks, okay?

But the greater risk is always seating that right

to the government, because once you do,

you don't get it back often.

And so, yes, there was that hidden stuff you talk about,

and that was bad.

Don't get me wrong, that was bad stuff.

That's really, really bad.

But the stuff they did in the open to me,

in some ways, was even worse.

And I hope that there's a lesson that folks learned

from that, because let me tell you something.

Even if you love every vaccine out there,

you listen to this, you love every vaccine.

You love every mask, right?

Great, I support every Americans, right?

You're 17, you're 18, you're totally healthy.

No comorbidities, and you want to get a vaccine today

where 70 masks and living your basement

and a self-imposed day at home order.

This is America, I support your right to do,

I'll fight for your right to do that.

And you're 90, and you're a war veteran,

and you want to go to the, you have 16 comorbidities,

and you want to go to the coffee shop,

with no vaccine and no mask,

you should be free to do that,

because that's America too, that's freedom also.

Just like you can bull rod.

And if you don't stand up for that right now,

the day comes when there's something,

a medical product you don't want,

the government says you have to get,

because trust me, it is so much cheaper,

to lobby to get a medical product required

than it is to market to get people to get it.

Oh, they've learned that lesson.

That's why there's so much lobbying

to get mandates, get rid of exemptions

across the country, that you don't want,

and you can't get a job, and you can't go to school,

and you can't leave your house.

Then what good are the rest of your rights?

They're useless.

That's why medical liberty truly is a fundamental right.

I'm off my horse.

No, it's a great high horse.

That was an awesome rant.

You're absolutely 100% on the money,

and it's such an important thing to get out there,

to get people to understand that you,

it's such a natural human inclination

to when you're in a place of power of control,

any form of government, you want more control,

and it's just natural.

And what you were talking about when you lose rights,

you very rarely get them back.

That was so on display in California

with the COVID regulations,

because they had everybody locked down way past

where they had to.

A friend of mine's brother worked in one of the COVID,

some government office,

when they were considering the closing of outdoor dining,

and he brought up,

but there's no transmission related to outdoor dining.

And the woman who was in charge said,

yes, but it's all about the optics.

So she was willing to,

with a wave of her magic wand,

shut down outdoor dining

for a bunch of small family businesses

that were probably barely staying alive after COVID.

Barely.

We lost somewhere around 70% of Los Angeles restaurants

went under during COVID.

That's fucking bananas.

And so they finally get outdoor dining.

Like, okay, we could kind of pay the bills this month,

and then they shut down outdoor dining for optics.

So this kind of desire

to just put a foot down, control people,

keep a boot on their neck, it's normal.

Even if it doesn't make sense,

everybody knows that from high school.

Everybody knows that from,

I mean, the Stanford prison experiments.

People like to control people.

They enjoy it.

And when they get a place like becoming the mayor

or becoming the governor

and being able to tell people,

oh, you had to listen to me.

I've got rule.

Everyone stay inside, be scared.

Fucking California, Garcetti literally had a campaign

that said, snitches get rewards.

Snitches, snitching on people,

having more than one person over your house,

standing too close in the backyard.

You get money.

You get money for ratting out your neighbor.

This episode is brought to you by BetterHelp

in honor of International Women's Day.

BetterHelp is celebrating the women in your life.

I think we can all appreciate everything

the women in our lives have done for us.

And everyone deserves a little self-care.

A good way to get that is through therapy.

Because not only is therapy a time for you

to focus on yourself,

it's also a way to create balance

and learn how to take care of your needs in your daily life.

And BetterHelp as one of the largest online therapy platforms

makes it so easy to meet with the right therapist.

All you need to do is fill out a short questionnaire.

You don't even need to go into an office to meet them.

You can chat at home from your couch in your car

before you hit the gym or while you're walking your dog.

Plus, if you aren't jiving with your first match,

you can switch to a different therapist whenever you need.

Your emotional well-being matters,

find support and feel lighter in therapy.

Sign up and get 10% off at BetterHelp.com slash JRE.

That's better, H-E-L-P.com slash JRE.

Well, when the government gets it wrong,

they always, always double down.

Because, and that's the problem with the mandates.

Once they've acquired it, they have taken a position

and then to admit they're wrong,

often what government ends up saying is,

oh, well, we're the CDC.

If we admit we're wrong about this,

that's gonna hurt our ability to influence the public

and that's more important than admitting we're wrong

on this or correcting course.

Because our legitimacy, our ability to influence the public

is so important, we have to, you know,

we can't admit we're wrong.

That's what Bobbi is doing right now

when some of these things is, you know,

when some of the stuff like the New Autism page

on the CDC website, for example,

is contrary to anything I've ever seen come out

of the federal health authorities today.

But yes, it's disturbing and it's why government

should, no public health authority should ever be able

to tell you and infringe on your rights.

They should be able to recommend,

recommend like crazy, but never do it.

Because that is the normal course of how tyranny dictators,

dictators, bullies, thugs operate.

First, they tell you what to do.

You don't listen, apply a little pressure.

You don't listen, and they mandate.

It's still don't listen, they censor you.

Still, take away more of your rights.

That is the normal progression throughout history

and we saw it happen in front of our eyes,

which is why it should be a line in the sand.

Federal health authorities, state health authorities,

should be able to recommend and encourage never mandate,

Fauci literally expressed it that way.

I'm sure you've heard that recording of him.

He said, once people realize they can't go to work,

they'll drop their ideological bullshit

and they'll get vaccinated.

Like he's essentially telling them,

you're gonna make people's life hell

and they'll do what you want them to do.

Not they will have free will,

they will have the ability to choose.

No, no, no, you will make them do what you want.

Who wants a government that persuades you on the merits?

Forget that.

But imagine that that is something that someone set out loud.

But that, I don't think that what Fauci was saying

is anything, Fauci, everything in my view

that you saw during COVID is not like some giant leap

into some new territory.

To me, it's just another natural step in progression

from where we've gone over the last 40 years of vaccines.

Fauci saying that is no different

than school mandates right now to get children.

Most states have, 45 states have basically

checked the box exemption to send your kids to school.

There's about five that don't.

They're trying to eliminate exemptions, right?

Clearly they're able to persuade most parents on the merits,

but yet they can't take it.

They can't take that a two, three, four percent

just will not take these products.

And I'll tell you about most of these folks are.

They're the folks who really need the exemptions

because most people who don't choose to take

childhood vaccines, they don't typically just wake up

and decide to do that for fun.

Not many people wake up one day and go,

you know what I'm gonna do today?

I'm gonna take a socially ostracizing position

that might get my kids kicked out of school,

me throwing out of my job.

My friends call me an anti-this and anti-that.

You name it, all the horables that come with not vaccinating.

No, most people don't vaccinate,

don't vaccinate because they've had a very, very personal

or negative experience with these products.

They are one of their kids or one of their family members

or they've learned stuff they cannot learn about them, okay?

They have a very good reason not to.

And yet, as you saw during COVID,

it's not about in many respects the medicine

to the examples you gave.

It's about they cannot stand that somebody

is not agreeing with their beliefs.

They cannot extend the exceptions.

Those who stand up say, no,

I've come to a different medical conclusion.

They can't let that exist.

Right, that is what it is.

And it happens for people regardless of their religious status.

It's a weird thing.

It's like, it is like a religion.

I mean, which is why I'm so glad you wrote your book that way

because I think there's these natural patterns

of group think and of just complying

that people automatically fall into.

It's very easy.

That's why people can get people to join cults.

That's why people are a part of like weird Christian sex.

They're like, wait, what do you guys do?

Huh?

You're like, who's the guy?

Who's the head guy?

This guy?

Can he get some airy everybody?

What?

Okay.

What?

Well, that's what happens.

It's normal.

It's a normal thing.

If you scale it outward, it goes to a lot of stuff.

There's a lot of stuff that people just have these like

climate changes of religion right now.

Like there's certain people that if you confront them

with like the actual, the ones that are willing

to question the narrative that are legitimate

clients scientists, they'll tell you like,

it is so complicated to figure out what is causing

the changes in the earth climate warmth and cold

and the fact that it's never been static ever.

In human history, never before humans,

never billions of years.

It's done this crazy thing and involves the

precision of the equinoxes and the fucking polar vortex

and it's a lot of, and then also stuff we burn.

That too.

But like what percentage is what, but it doesn't matter.

You can't have that conversation.

It's like you questioning, you know, whatever Messiah

this person believes in, they'll just lock down

and climate change is this, not one climate change prediction

of doom has been accurate.

Not one, not even in the ballpark.

You remember the fucking Al Gore movie?

We're supposed to be dead.

Meanwhile, they're all buying fucking ocean front houses

in Maui, you know, get out of here.

Shut the fuck up.

This is another thing.

This is another thing.

Like yeah, we shouldn't pollute.

Yeah, we shouldn't release particulates in the atmosphere.

Yeah, we should have clean energy.

Yeah, but also you guys are crooks.

You guys are a bunch of crooks that are making money

off of this idea that you're forcing down everybody's throat

that everybody's got a green new deal

and everybody's got to do renewable this or renewable.

And then who's got money invested in all this stuff?

A bunch of people who are pushing it.

And it's a fucking scam.

Just like so many of these things are fucking scams.

Doesn't mean we shouldn't be aware of the damage

that we're doing to the earth.

We should probably stop overfishing the ocean.

We should probably stop dumping shit into the rivers.

Of 100%.

You know who used to go to court for that?

Bobby.

RFK Jr.

He fucking cranks.

The guy who is like cleaning up the East River.

That's Bobby Kennedy Jr.

He was the guy.

And an easy way to identify that somebody's not really coming

at you with science and they're coming at you

with belief religion is exactly what you just said,

which is they're not willing to debate.

They're not willing to discuss it.

They're not willing to engage because

that is antithetical to the scientific method.

The whole idea is it's never settled.

The whole idea is you push the fringes.

You push new theories, you push new ideas.

Where would science be if you said this is it?

Of course, that is the whole notion of it

dispassionately looking at it over and over and over

and seeing what more you can learn.

And the moment somebody says, no, we need to stop.

You can't discuss, you can't debate that.

That's when you know you're dealing

with a religion, not science.

And when I've talked to certain scientists

in different fields that feel very constricted

by the academic environment,

one of the things that they point to

is that the group think involved in that

is just like the group think involved

into everything and left wing politics, whatever it is.

Just figure out whatever it is, right wing politics.

Group think in academia is also higher, it's hierarchical.

There's tears and you gotta agree

with everybody that's above you.

You wanna get tenure, you wanna progress,

you wanna get grants, it's gotta be,

you guys gotta be in line on all this shit.

And he's like in anybody thinks out of the box,

he's ruthlessly attacked.

And even when they turn out to be correct,

no one apologizes, they're reluctantly agree

that the person was initially correct.

But they'll destroy their career if they can.

He's like the pissing matches are horrifying.

And these are the people that are in charge

of telling you what's real in the world.

They're just like everybody else.

They have ego when there's a fucking social scramble

going on at all times.

And people are playing succession and game of thrones.

It's like the reality is not what you're being told

in the news.

What you're being told in the news is a narrative.

And when the news has a giant chunk of their money

for advertising, it's paid by pharmaceutical drug companies

and they never criticizing me like this is wild.

Like this is wild, this is America in 2026.

And the only way you can find out what's kind of real

is on the internet.

Yes.

And also when it comes to censorship,

if I said some totally crazy stupid thing about you,

that was totally untrue, like ignore it.

If I said that by government they ignore it.

When do they censor?

They censor when it's true,

because that's when they're scared.

If you start talking about the government being lizard people,

nobody's gonna know.

Nobody cares.

Nobody comes for you.

They're all shape shifters, nobody cares.

But when you start talking about something that's true,

that's when it hurts.

That's when they, that's when they need to suppress,

you think they need to suppress stuff about,

I don't know, a certain island with death,

where it's not true?

No.

But if it is true, that's when it gets scary

and that's when you need suppression.

Right.

And also I'll note, I went to Berkeley for law school.

So I'm familiar with a little bit of what you're just talking about.

I'm not experiencing it.

It was two decades ago.

It was going strong back then.

It was going strong back then,

but I feel like it was much more reasonable.

Like I used to love San Francisco back then.

It was a great town to visit.

They were smart.

They were cool.

They were laid back.

People like to drink, but they were fun.

They always seem like a smarter L.A.

that got out of show business.

San Francisco, Berkeley.

Yeah, absolutely.

We're two different things.

I completely agree.

And even in, I mean, if, let's go outside the bubble of Berkeley

from 20 years ago, look back over 20 years ago,

who was fighting for civil individual rights?

It was the left, ACLU.

Think about Skokiel in a way, right?

Fighting for the neo-Nazis be able to march through a Jewish town

to say what they want.

Who fought that case?

Who protected their right to say that?

Democrat, ACLU, liberal lawyers,

and liberal judges, and they said protecting their right

to say the things they're saying is despicable.

Harbles, we might find it,

protects all our right to free speech.

Could you imagine those same folks today,

bringing that case and deciding that way?

No way.

No way.

And what's stunning is that if you asked anybody alive then,

if you had ultimate access to information,

literally you could pick up your phone

and ask at any question about anything

and get information instantaneously.

Would people be more or less informed?

You would say, well, certainly they'll be more informed,

so they'll be more understanding of the value of free speech.

And they'll know more about that,

really, and what a brave stance they took

to allow the KKK to march

and how it just shows intellectual superiority,

the way to beat a bad idea is not to silence it,

is to argue with a much better idea.

That you would think by 2026,

well, they'll be way better.

This would be a super advanced society of flying cars.

No, no, no.

It's more ideologically captured,

more wrapped up in the algorithm,

which I think is probably at least 50% fake.

50% is a bunch of bots to eat in a bunch of shit

that they don't even believe.

They're just trying to rile people up

and stir people up and push certain narratives.

And then people are locked into it 12 hours a day,

so they're really crazy.

And no one's considering things like the import,

well, let's go back to old cases

and let's look at why they did that.

And I was like, no, no, no.

Everybody's like captured with whatever

the fuck is on TikTok today.

What's the latest stupid thing

you're supposed to be paying attention to?

And the fact that now we're at war, right?

Okay, great.

Social media and the scrolling through those videos,

which is what you're describing,

anything is so troubling.

But first of all, my understanding is that they just show you

stuff that confirms what you already believe

because that's what you want to see.

You want to see the things that you already agree with.

So you just get this incredible confirmation bias

that happens, which is antithetical to thinking critically

to really opening your mind to it.

And then you end up without actually understanding

both sides of an argument without really understanding it.

I mean, look, I understand the stuff about vaccines

that I know which ones stop transmission.

And I know which ones don't, right?

And I don't have to live in the world of believing,

for example, they all do.

I know how much death there was before each vaccine.

And I know, so I don't have to say,

didn't ever save any life.

And I don't have to say, millions would die.

I just, the data's the data, right?

And but you're not, if all you're getting

as one viewpoint all the time, you're not,

you get this terrible confirmation bias.

And did you see this recent study that I just read

the abstract, so I didn't delve into it.

Apparently watching social media reduces your IQ

over time, just doing all of that scrolling.

That's really scary when you think about our current generation.

Yeah, imagine if it could make you smarter.

How many more people would be interested in doing it?

Right?

If there was a thing, if you could just stare at your phone

for a few hours a day and you get significantly smarter,

it's a 10 point jump in IQ.

Do you know my wife calls our Wi-Fi at our house?

If you find the Wi-Fi, it's called read a book.

I'm not kidding.

That's funny.

That's funny.

And then you hear things like you shouldn't have Wi-Fi

in your house, because all the signals flying around are bad

for you.

Like, how bad?

Are you sure?

Like, what is that?

How long have we been doing the Wi-Fi thing?

A decade, two decades, three decades?

This episode is brought to you by Mando.

Most of the odorants out there are basically

cologne for your armpits.

They don't actually stop odor.

They just smother it with a heavy fragrance.

It's like blasting heavy metal in your headphones

when you're jackhammering to block out the noise.

Mando works differently.

It goes after the source.

Body odor comes from bacteria.

And Mando's aluminum-free formula uses

Mandelic acid to shut that process down, basically,

before it even starts.

The stuff is tested hard, too.

Third-party clinical test show, Mando blocks odor all day long.

Not most of the day, all day.

No mid-day reapplication, no emergency sniff tests.

Just put it on once in the morning and you're good.

And here's the wild part.

Mando isn't just for armpits.

It's formulated to be safe anywhere odor shows up.

Feet crotch, but whatever.

If it smells, don't mask it, Mando it.

You can find Mando at Walmart's Target

and other retailers across the country.

Or you can go to shopmando.com

and use the code Rogan for 20% off your first order.

This episode is brought to you by

Row Nutrition's liposomal liquid creatine.

Creatine is one of those things

that people have been taking forever.

Strength, power, muscle recovery,

even cognitive benefits.

The question isn't whether creatine works.

We know it does.

It's one of the most research supplements out there.

The issue is consistency.

Powders are messy.

You forget scoops and people just fall off.

Row nutrition makes creatine in a liquid form

that's already mixed.

You just take it.

No shaker, no scooping.

At home, after training on the road,

it's stupid, simple.

Stability matters too.

A lot of creatine liquids and gummies

don't actually hold up over time.

Row uses liposomal encapsulation

and third party testing that shows 21 month stability.

That's huge.

Because if it's on the label,

it should still be in what you're taking.

Taken daily,

Rose creatine delivers the same benefits

creatine is known for.

Strength, recovery, mental edge,

just in a way that's easier to stick with.

If you already believe in creatine,

this is the no-brainer way to take it.

Go to rownutritionrhonutrition.com

and use the code JRE for 20% off-site-wide.

I mean, on the course of the length of humanity,

that's not very long.

That's not very long.

I mean, look, I hope Wi-Fi's not killing us.

I really do.

It's so convenient.

Look at most, listen, obviously,

most things that will just kill you get identified.

It's not the things that kill you immediately

that are a problem, typically,

because they killed you.

And so you know,

it's the things that cause slow issues,

ongoing issues.

I mean, we know folks who work on high power lines

have higher, far higher rates of cancer.

Study after study reflects that.

For example.

Which makes sense.

I mean, I mean,

I love the iPods bad for you.

You know what I mean?

I don't.

Air pods are bad near airs.

Imagine being next to those power lines.

What does that do to you?

I don't want to go down the rabbit hole

because it's not my area per se.

But for the whole length of humanity, right?

When you think of the spectrum, right?

We were pretty much only exposed to natural light,

which is a very narrow light,

narrow band of the spectrum, okay?

Right? When you think of waves.

So as you go down on the left side of the spectrum,

the waves get longer like AM raves,

really long with them raves,

microwaves, natural light,

and then above that you get x-rays, cosmic rays.

And then anything above natural light,

they say, oh, it's really bad.

That's just gonna mess you up.

And stuff below natural light, they say,

well, as long as it doesn't heat up your cells,

that's typically the standard our government uses,

it's safe.

So as long as not heating yourself,

but that's not,

that's a very old standard,

but it's still the one in effect today.

So in any event,

when you think about microwaves,

they sit stay away from even those below natural light,

there's, you know,

what is the cumulative effect of being,

if you put your wife around under your bed every night,

your whole life, what is the effect?

There are numerous studies that show

that it does have certain effects,

but anyway, it's not worth going down that road, but yeah.

But it might just be minor,

or it might be cumulative, right?

Yeah, and then how about cell phone signals?

You can't even stop those.

They're around you all the time.

Yeah?

If you can FaceTime someone in New Zealand right now,

from your phone, clearly something's going on in the air.

I'll put it this way.

Every environmental insult has the potential

to cause some kind of dysregulation in your body,

whether it's microplastics, whether it's, you name it, okay?

And the precautionary principle would indicate

that until you know it's safe,

the onus is on those who wanna expose you to it,

and prove to you it is, right?

It shouldn't be the other way around.

I don't think anybody has to prove to you

that Wi-Fi is not safe to say,

you know what, based on the precautionary principle,

I'm just gonna turn off the Wi-Fi every night

in my house because I don't know.

Like that doesn't seem unreasonable to me,

because humans have been exposed to it forever.

I've not seen the studies evaluate

that it doesn't cause an issue or large robust studies.

And so, you know, but obviously, I think what I just said,

some people might hear and go, well, that sounds crazy.

But why?

Why would it be crazy?

If we found out that there's a particular frequency

that's bad for your memory or bad for your brain,

and that we're using it to broadcast something,

that completely makes sense.

Yeah, except that I never think about harms

the way you just said it, because that would indicate

that we have to find out what harms it causes.

Right.

To me, when I go into a car dealership, for example,

I walk in and the salesman says, all right, this car, okay?

And I say, well, is it safe?

And the car dealers says to me, proof to me, it's not safe.

And I said, well, and I said, well, what do you mean?

Well, if you can't prove it, you gotta take this car.

By the way, that's how vaccines work, that's how I lie.

And that is become a little bit of the,

depending on mostly for vaccines,

but a little bit for some of these other products,

where it's like, you gotta prove it's not safe.

No, I don't have to prove it's not safe.

I'm not buying this car, you proof to me, it's no.

You proof to me, this vaccine causes harm,

or you better take it.

That's the way it's approached.

It's a little bit like that Wi-Fi,

and with 5G and the LTE and all that stuff,

it's almost like you proof to me that doing this all day

is gonna cause Braze Cancer or else, you're a cook.

No, why don't you show me the study shows it doesn't do that.

That's the way it should work with products and product safety.

That makes sense, so it's very reasonable.

Again, I don't know, I'm not saying that it does,

but what I'm saying is there's been things

that human beings did, and they found it was really bad for you.

We've talked about it a few times,

but those ladies, they used to test the X-ray machines

with their hands, and no one told them,

no one told them that X-rays can give you cancer

and fuck you up, and these poor ladies every day,

when they would show up at the medical office,

they would put their hand in the X-ray machine

to make sure it worked.

And then you see their hands next to each other,

it's horrifying.

Like they got horrible lesions on their hands,

and it's like, it's really creepy.

They X-rayed pregnant women, it's all the 70s.

Until the 70s, they were X-raying pregnant women,

not with the X-rays of today

that are far less radiation exposure,

the X-rays of the 70s, which is a lot.

They gave the, I believe the Nobel Prize,

I'm pretty sure about this for the lobotomy.

Yeah, I'm not mistaken.

I think they did, I think they did.

I think they did.

Find that out, Jamie, put that into our sponsorplexity.

The Nobel Prize, Peter Berg told me about the origins of it,

and I was like, wait, what?

There was a guy who made dynamite,

and there was a false story about his death,

and in the newspaper, they called them the Merchant of Death,

and he realized it, and he was like, oh shit,

I gotta change my PR.

I gotta change my image.

And so he came up with the Nobel Prize,

instead of awarding this prestigious prize,

and then instead of him being connected

with blowing people up with dynamite,

he became connected with the most prestigious prize,

and all of medicine, and all of government,

and the Nobel Prize, it's pretty crazy.

It's amazing when you have money,

how you can influence the world to think certain things

about, in his instance, him,

in other certain products, exactly, absolutely.

But what's really stunning is you're also allowed

to influence the people that actually deliver the news,

which is, you know, that's the crazy one.

Like, Callie Neens talked about that.

Like, they're advertising not because they want to sell

their products with the advertisement

that they're putting on the air,

but they're doing that too.

But they're also ensuring that this steady stream

of revenue that's going to these networks,

they won't be opening up any lines of investigation

into the vaccine injuries.

It's not going to happen.

You're not going to see a giant CNN piece

about COVID-19 vaccine injuries.

It's not happening.

It's not happening.

You're not going to hear much about anything.

It has to be a big fucking story where they have to say it.

Well, they just mention a judgment real quick,

and then move on.

Moving on.

The Rasmussen poll, I don't know if you remember this one,

found that I believe one in four,

and I'm not, I think that's right,

but I'm not sure 100%.

People said they believe they knew somebody

that died of COVID vaccine,

or knew somebody that died of COVID vaccine.

When you have that many people with that lived experience,

and yet the mainstream media, as you just said,

was still able to continue to push the narrative

around COVID vaccines the way they did of the Nobel Prize.

Wow.

Nobel Prize-related lobotomy refers to 1949 Nobel Prize

in physiology or medicine awarded to Antonio Agas-Mones,

a Portuguese neurologist for developing the prefrontal lobotomy.

I believe that continued until the 60s, by the way.

Yeah, imagine that he got that prize in 1949.

They're like, good job.

Meaning the medical profession has stood in the 60s

when measles of vaccines were rolling out.

Yeah, still doing this, by the way.

I think they stopped lobotomies in 60, was it 67?

He developed something called a Luke,

Lucotomy, which was slightly different

than what became known as the lobotomy,

which we known as the isepic method.

Whoa, what was this?

It's also called the Lucotomy.

So that was just the Freeman.

That's the guy who was like, I think they call him

even Dr. Death or something like that.

For he did a ton of lobotomy all over the country.

Unfortunately, today, you don't need a lobotomy,

apparently to have a lobotomy.

Just spend a lot of time with social media

and get your information for certain places,

it's so bad for me to be so.

You can maybe end up in the same place.

It's just hard to recommend a certain amount of it.

It's like, how much Twinkies should you eat a day?

I don't mind if you eat Twinkies,

but if you're eating Twinkies all day long,

you're gonna be fucked up, man.

And that's how I feel about like social media interactions.

But I do think it's an important way

to distribute information.

It's, if you're, say, if you're working

for some corporation, you know something fucked up

is going on and you could put it up on Twitter

with details and facts and people could look into it.

And you can open up a line of reporters