Ask Dr. Drew - Bret Weinstein: Unprotected US Border Is Creating A Humanitarian Crisis At Darien Gap, As “Military Age” Men Disguised As Refugees Enter and Disappear – Ask Dr. Drew – Ep 331

Episode Date: March 9, 2024

Bret Weinstein, host of DarkHorse Podcast, recently visited the US border and was horrified by the conditions – and how easily “male, military age” Middle Eastern and Chinese migrants are entering the USA disguised as refugees. Weinstein says the crisis is only made worse by NGOs that spread false information to desperate refugees who fall prey to exploitative guides that fail to prepare them for the dangerous trek through places like Dorian Gap. “…their desire to induce people to migrate is causing people who are woefully unprepared for the Darien Gap to try to make that journey,” says Bret in a recent interview with Tucker Carlson. “The humanitarian tragedy is immense.” Bret Weinstein is Host of the DarkHorse Podcast, the co-author of ‘The Hunter-Gatherer’s Guide to the 21st Century’, and a former professor at The Evergreen State College. Dr. Weinstein earned a PhD in Biology from the University of Michigan, where he was given the Don Tinkle Award for distinguished work in Evolutionary Ecology, and he earned a BA in Biology from UCSC. Follow him at https://x.com/BretWeinstein and listen to the DarkHorse Podcast at https://x.com/theDarkHorsePod 「 SPONSORED BY 」 Find out more about the companies that make this show possible and get special discounts on amazing products at https://drdrew.com/sponsors • COZY EARTH - Susan and Drew love Cozy Earth's sheets & clothing made with super-soft viscose from bamboo! Use code DREW for a huge discount at https://drdrew.com/cozy • PET CLUB 24/7 - Give your pet's body the natural support it deserves! No fillers. No GMOs. No preservatives. Made in the USA. Save 15% at https://drdrew.com/petclub247 • GENUCEL - Using a proprietary base formulated by a pharmacist, Genucel has created skincare that can dramatically improve the appearance of facial redness and under-eye puffiness. Get an extra discount with promo code DREW at https://genucel.com/drew • PROVIA - Dreading premature hair thinning or hair loss? Provia uses a safe, natural ingredient (Procapil) to effectively target the three main causes of premature hair thinning and hair loss. Susan loves it! Get an extra discount at https://proviahair.com/drew • THE WELLNESS COMPANY - Counteract harmful spike proteins with TWC's Signature Series Spike Support Formula containing nattokinase and selenium. Learn more about TWC's supplements at https://twc.health/drew 「 MEDICAL NOTE 」 Portions of this program may examine countervailing views on important medical issues. Always consult your personal physician before making any decisions about your health. 「 ABOUT THE SHOW 」 Ask Dr. Drew is produced by Kaleb Nation (https://kalebnation.com) and Susan Pinsky (https://twitter.com/firstladyoflove). This show is for entertainment and/or informational purposes only, and is not a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. 「 ABOUT DR. DREW 」 Dr. Drew is a board-certified physician with over 35 years of national radio, NYT bestselling books, and countless TV shows bearing his name. He's known for Celebrity Rehab (VH1), Teen Mom OG (MTV), The Masked Singer (FOX), multiple hit podcasts, and the iconic Loveline radio show. Dr. Drew Pinsky received his undergraduate degree from Amherst College and his M.D. from the University of Southern California, School of Medicine. Read more at https://drdrew.com/about Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

very excited today to welcome dr brett weinstein he is the host of the dark host excuse me dark horse podcast which if you have never listened i'm assigning you that you should listen to it right now he's co-author of the hunter gathers guide to the 21st century he's a former professor at the evergreen state college uh there is the. He had an extraordinary experience at that college that is chronicled in Adam Carolla's documentary, No Safe Spaces. If you've never heard that story, I may make him go through that today. He has a PhD in biology from University of Michigan. I received an award for distinguished work in evolutionary ecology, BA from University of California, Santa Cruz. He and I share similar educational training, which I find fascinating. And I want to get

into some of the, we share a world vision, there's no doubt in my mind. And so I'm so curious to hear what he has to say about where we've gotten to in our present moment on so many topics. We'll get to it right to it after this. Our laws as it pertained to substances are draconian and bizarre. A psychopath started this. He was an alcoholic because of social media and pornography, PTSD, love addiction, fentanyl and heroin, ridiculous.

I'm a doctor for. Where the hell do you think I learned that? I'm just saying, you go to treatment before you kill people. I am a clinician. I observe things about these chemicals. Let's just deal with what's real. We used to get these calls on Loveline all the time. Educate adolescents and to prevent and to treat.

If you have trouble, you can't stop and you want help stopping, I can help. I got a lot to say. I got a lot more to say. you can spend thousands of dollars and dozens of hours trying to look a few years younger or you can skip all that and the hassle and go with what works genu cell skincare genu cell is the secret to better skin their products are made in the usa using a proprietary technology that combines a naturally effective base with non-GMO ingredients. In fact, you might have witnessed the astonishing effects of GenuCell during a recent unplanned moment of our show, when just a little GenuCell XV restored my skin within minutes right before your eyes. That is how fast these products work. I know I'm a snob

about the products I use on my face. Everybody knows it. Every time I go to the dermatologist's office, they're just rows and rows of different creams. Retinols, vitamin C cream, under eye cream, night creams. Scrubs. And then when I get to the counter, they're overpriced. All kinds of products that you can all find at GenuCell.com. Susan and I love GenuCell so much, we've created our own bundle

so you can try our favorite anti-wrinkle creams, correcting serums, under eye treatments. Say goodbye to those fine lines, forehead wrinkles, skin redness, even those dark under-eye bags. Women and men of all skin types, Genucel has got you covered. Order right now at Genucel.com slash Drew to save 50%, actually over 50%, and you'll get a free luxury spa box plus free shipping. That is Genucel.com slash Drew, G-E-N-U-C-E-L.com slash D-R-E-W. So gather around, everybody. This should be a very interesting conversation. As I had said, Professor Brett Weinstein is the host of the Dark Horse podcast.

You must download, subscribe, get at it right now. The Hunter-Gatherer Guide to the 21st Century is his book. He was a professor at Evergreen State College. He has said something recently that I really want to open this conversation with, which is a statement about what he calls public truth-seeking institutions, saying that they are all under simultaneous attack. Brett Weinstein's message is a wake-up call. Quote, in every single institution dedicated to public truth-seeking, there is a state of collapse.

Please welcome Professor Brett Weinstein. Welcome, sir. Great to be with you. So I want to start with that comment as a taking off point, because I wonder if you see something that I have seen evolve over the last 20 years, which is the notion that truth-seeking is somehow anathema, even in science, which is just mind-boggling, gobsmacking me. But truth-seeking, according to the post-structuralist, is just another way of looking at things. And by the way, it's an inferior way because it was really kind of invented during the Enlightenment by old white men.

And according to post-structuralism, truth is, it begs no alternative. It's all just a social construct. And what is equally amazing to me is post-structuralism is a philosophy from, we're coming in on 75 years, nearly 100 years ago, these French philosophers came up essentially with a cognitive exercise they called post-structuralism that the French have roundly rejected as inconsequential and useless. And yet we have become preoccupied with it all the way down into the sciences. I'll let you go from there. Well, I don't want to focus too much on post-structuralism, post-modernism, because although it does fit in this moment as an explanation for what's taking place, I believe the attack on our truth-seeking institutions is coming from something a good deal smarter and more competent than the post-structuralists. So I think they may have partnered with it. They may have used it as a lever. But there's something else that's interested in keeping us in the dark. And I think it's incumbent on us to figure out what that is because, frankly, the costs in terms of quality of life

and treasure, for lack of a better term, is staggering. We simply cannot navigate with a blindfold on. Is that just an ensconced elite, do you think, protecting itself? I mean, that's kind of the way history has done that. I've become, by the way, my producers are going to kill me, but I've become preoccupied with the French Revolution. I'm just all day long reading about it, listening to lectures on it, because the echoes are too to kill me, but I've become preoccupied with the French Revolution. I'm just all day long reading about it, listening to lectures on it,

because the echoes are too familiar to me. But is it just the elite, or are these historical sort of winds that blow when certain personality styles take over? I'm trying to figure it out myself. I think one of the tools that I find most useful in thinking about complex systems, especially where it comes to humans, is not to jump too early to a conclusion.

It's very tempting to take the evidence you have and try to compile it into a story that makes some sense, but it's frequently the best thing you can do to maybe have a hypothesis that you think is most likely. But in general, you're just waiting for some piece of evidence to tell you what it is that you didn't know. In this case, I think we know for sure that this is not all of the elites. Some of the elites do not appear to be part of this. Others presumably are. But in reading Bobby Kennedy's new book, The Wuhan Cover-Up, it is increasingly clear that there is something about the clandestine services that has taken over entities that we do not think of in those terms. And what their purpose is, I can't say, but it does appear that it is necessary that the public not know what's going on,

and therefore it is not simply important that they have propaganda outlets. What they need is for there to be no exception. There's no place you can go to figure out even the basic facts. And that's a very alarming state to live in. It is. I guess, you know, if you look at the facts that they have used their clandestine services, their mechanisms to overthrow, I believe believe 80 governments in their history and they have now set up sort of calling people terrorists and you know labeling things so they

can legally go after people within this country uh it it you know it's it gets a little bit um scary uh and again exactly why they're doing this, I wonder if you have a theory about that. I mean, is there something we shouldn't know? Is there such a thing as that? Well, I mean, the problem is we don't even really... I think that we look at a map and we think we understand what those things that we call nations are

and that they predict something about who is on our team and who is not. And increasingly, I think that's more of a distraction than an insight that something is partnering across national boundaries. Why, for example, were we participating collaboratively in bioweapons research with the Chinese in Wuhan? That's a strange thing for us to have been doing if us is the United States and we have concerns about an antagonistic government in the form of the CCP. Why would we have been partnering with them on such sensitive investigations? Clearly, there is some behind-the-scenes partnership.

I don't know if it's the CCP and the Biden administration or something that has its tentacles in both places, but where we started and what has become clear to me is that there are many ways in which an asymmetry of information is simply advantageous to those who wish to wield power over us to those who wish to transfer our wealth to them and so you know we we speak almost as if it is assumed that nobody would be playing that game if as if we are all on board with the idea that enlightenment is a good thing and you certainly wouldn't know it to look at our universities for example our universities look more like dark age institutions that distribute some kind of superstitious nonsense and disguise it as as if it information. You wouldn't know it from looking at our

newspapers, which ignore the most obvious stories. Frankly, they ignore it until it's become so painful, so embarrassing not to report them that they have no choice. But what kind of world are we living in if the public arrives at these things as a matter of common knowledge before the New York Times or the Washington Post is even on the story. You mentioned transfer of wealth. In the past, those sorts of phenomenologies have been, I think people would conceptualize some of this, at least people as class struggle. Is there something like that going on? Well, I'm an evolutionary biologist, and so I look at history through a bit of a different lens.

History is a very short period at the end of a much longer story. And what this suggests to me is that the fundamental driver has really always been power. And wealth is a means to exert power. But I wonder increasingly if we are not misled by the duality of money. Money serves two purposes. One is it's a means of exchange that allows you to buy things but the other is a store of wealth and while our money still functions as a means to buy things obviously it is increasingly incoherent as a store of wealth. Even just the simple printing of money in an emergency means that

whatever dollars you hold become less valuable. So it doesn't function that way. But it is also the case that, you know, if these dollars are circulating in a speculative market and some entity has gained enough power that it can create historical events which it sees coming and we in the public do not it can effectively print money that way as well it can simply take an event that it knows is coming and it can bet on that event in the market and it can turn hundreds of thousands into billions without terrible trouble. So that is coming at our expense also. So the question really is, are we in the public focused too much on the ebb and flow of dollars

and the value of objects in the market, whereas some elite that is possessed of superior information to what we have, is actually scripting elements of history to its own benefit, which ultimately is realized in the form of greater power. And do you have a theory who that is? I would guess that Elon Musk would know, I mean, we know it explicitly with the world economic forum i guess i mean that's there's this always been this sort of globalist movement which i've been hearing about since the clinton administration um

but i that does not adequately explain what i'm seeing i don't think what do you think well um i increasingly think that we live in an a cryptic dark age as far as musk goes there are really two ways to look at the story my assumption is that he despite being um at the upper echelons uh with respect to his economic power is not apparently on the inside of the cabal that is sabotaging our capacity to know. And the way we can detect that is that he has purchased Twitter and although it's frustrating, his freeing, his liberating Twitter

is not so far a perfect example. But he has liberated it. So there are many things you can say on Twitter that you, or what is now called X, that you can't say on any other social media platform. So it could be that that is what it appears to be. And Elon Musk is shining light in our undeclared dark age. That would also be the fact that he is not inside of whatever is blinding us is also suggested by the fact that he apparently had an injury from the mRNA vaccines that were delivered during COVID.

Those shots were extremely hazardous, as you know, and for him to have taken one suggests nobody bothered to tell him which way was up on that front. So in my opinion, most likely, whatever Musk's entanglements are, and he clearly has many, I think he is actually fighting on behalf of the public. Now, there are those who will say, ah, that I've been a sucker, that I've taken evidence that was laid out to get me to reach that conclusion, and that, you know, really he's in on it. But I don't think so so far he looks like he's fighting on the side of the public and doing a tremendous amount of good for us and it seems that way to me too i i gotta say uh i'd like to switch to the this sort of corollary topic which was i believe you visited the border.

And I think we actually have some footage we're gonna play while you answer what I'm, or you tell us about your experience down there. Speaking of things that remain mystifying and hard to understand why it's happening and why these NGOs are allowed or funded and who they are. And I've known about this for a long time. Friend of mine, Ami Horowitz went down there

and actually rode on a train with one of these from actually from way down in Central America. And it's like, of course, I mean, you can't, people can't walk from Central, just thousands of people walking. You have to have hospitals, you have to have educators, you have to have people teaching languages, you have to have water and food and transportation.

It's highly organized, terribly expensive, and has been going on for a few years. What did you find? Well, my son and I, at the invitation of Michael Yan, went down to the Darien province of Panama. And while I had looked carefully at the materials that I had seen from Michael America, crossing the Darien Gap. A Darien Gap is a gap in the Pan-American Highway, which is a road that otherwise runs from Prudhoe Bay, Alaska to the southern tip of South America. There's a 60-mile gap where Colombia meets Panama that has never been completed. And it runs through a fantastic jungle.

And what's happening is people are being encouraged to cross the Darien Gap. Almost all of them are completely unprepared for the rigors of surviving such a trek. Many do not. But they are walking into Panama, and then they are effectively being waved through every country in Central America, and they are coming across the United States border where they are claiming that they are seeking political asylum, which of course our system grants them the right to defend that claim. And if they are in fact in jeopardy for political reasons back home, they can stay. But none of the people we met appeared to meet that definition. All of the people who would speak to us spoke of the

economic austerity in their home countries and incidentally i should point out when when you and i were growing up there was a large migration of people coming north from central america in search of economic opportunity and superficially what's happening in uh in the darien seems like the same thing but it's really not um for one thing people are coming from all over the world people are coming from the middle east of all places and they are crossing from south america through darien and up north into into the us but the other thing that we saw which was really really shocking was what appeared to be an entirely separate migration of people these are chinese people mostly male mostly military age who are housed separately in large measure in panama by the panamanians they unlike people migrating from other parts of the world, are absolutely unwilling to discuss what it is they are doing. They give off a hostile air, which makes no sense if these

were migrants either fleeing CCP tyranny or excited about opportunities in the United States. You would imagine that they would be at least curious about Americans that they encountered in Darien. They are nothing of the kind. They are cagey. And I came to my leading hypothesis is that this is actually an invasion that is being driven by the Chinese Communist Party and for some reason facilitated by the international community and the Biden administration. I don't like saying that. I find that a very shocking thing to conclude, but really I can't find another explanation for this second migratory pattern that we encountered this concentrated chinese migration at the san

vicente camp had what was apparently a riot in which the migration records were apparently burned and uh many people apparently disappeared without explanation. I don't think anything's happened to those people. They were not legally migrating in the first place, and the fact that they might have moved on during a riot is not in and of itself newsworthy. But the idea that the records that would allow us to detect how many had come through the San Vicente camp and who they might be have been compromised by some sort of an event in the aftermath of this camp becoming a focus of attention by Americans is at the very least conspicuous. And is there anything special about that San Vicente camp? Is it location or a starting point? Is there anything about about that San Vicente camp? Is it location or a starting point?

Is there anything about it that makes it unique? I mean, in some ways, everything about it is unique. The other camps are integrated with settlements, natural Panamanian settlements. And the townspeople are caught in a bind. The townspeople, by and large, do not want a massive migration coming out of the Darien gap and flowing through their towns. But it's far better that those people have services, have toilets and showers and clean water, than that they be left to fend for themselves. So they're in a position where they are now building um accommodations for for the migrants this is not the case at the san vicente camp the san vicente camp is uh an isolated

camp uh built largely of shipping containers apparently originally chinese in origin um it is closed we were unable to go into the San Vicente camp in the way that we had walked through other camps. So it doesn't look similar. It isn't positioned in a similar way and the concentration of people from one origin country just didn't look like anything else we were looking at that was not the nature of the the main migration at all um so one has to ask the question what's going on i should point out that um uh secretary mayorkas visited the very same camp in fact he visited it. And in the aftermath of his visit, the camp was substantially expanded to accommodate more people.

So the Biden administration is perfectly aware of what's taking place. And yet, this has never been explained to the American public. It's mysterious. It's very odd do the did you have a chance to interview or get some reconnaissance from any of the local people did they have any sense of what was going on here well that's just the thing is there aren't very many local people near the san vicente camp in the other camps yeah we talked to locals and we got the sense, including members of the Senefront. The Senefront is the Panamanian border authority. And the Senefront is by and large not in which they are facilitating the crossing of a large population of people where what they trained to do was prevent that crossing. The Senate front is,

by and large, not pleased about this. But I think, overwhelmingly, everybody is caught in a bind. The locals in Panama are not in a position to complain. There's no one to complain to. Their own government is participating. And if they did complain, it would make things worse for them and not better. So they go along with it. And by and large, what happens is the migrants are waved through and they move on to Costa Rica, at which point they're no longer the problem of the Panamanians. So everybody's playing that game where something has leveraged them into participating and moving the migrants north um and ultimately i wouldn't say it's all of them we talked to a few people who planned uh to stop in costa rica um but the vast majority of these people

are headed to the the united states and that is at least a profound economic fact these people are going to end up doing something here is there any world in which you think this is a just a weird political misadventure that the fact that trump went hard on the border the following administration had to go exactly the opposite way, and now they've found themselves in a position where they can't undo what they've done or something? Is there any sort of pragmatic, sort of less sinister version of this

that you can think of? And by the way, not to say that there aren't sinister forces taking full advantage of it, but I just wonder what our country is doing. You know, I considered that hypothesis, and I think it's, you know, at a formal level, it's still a valid hypothesis, but it doesn't match what I saw. There's no reason that if the Biden administration had gotten, you know,

out of its depth by facilitating a migration that it naively thought was positive because Trump had stood against it, that they couldn't slow and ultimately stem the tide. And what's more, they're paying a huge price as people, as Americans become aware that this is happening and they can't help but be aware, it's obvious on the streets of New York and Los Angeles, it's obvious that there is a huge influx of migrants. It's obvious that that has massive downsides. You know, when we were young, it was understood by most people that this was you know the migration of people from central america was a mixed bag on the one hand yes that puts pressure on the economy on the other hand

these were industrious people they were understood to be more likely to start businesses things that fuel economic activity but the rate of migration is obviously now beyond any argument of it being a positive influence even if ultimately the united states needed more people and this was a way to do it the rate of migration is a challenge to any nation's coherence. These folks are too many and without a plan for how they are to survive once they're here. What's more, as you know, it's absolutely galling in an era where Americans who were born here are not being taken care of by our system where we're sending hundreds of billions of dollars abroad and americans at home are struggling to uh to wink at a massive migration of potentially new americans while not not giving even the same kinds of courtesies to Americans who are struggling at home. That cannot help but cause a problem. So why would the Biden administration tolerate the bad press that comes from this if it didn't have some sort of purpose for inviting these people in.

Yeah, it's very hard to get our heads around. I've got many more topics I want to get into with you. It's all vexing. It's about the best word I can come up with and disturbing. But I don't know. It's still confusing, I would say. Vexing is the best word I can think of. We have to take a little bit of a break here. Professor Brett Weinstein is here. I want to give, of course, the podcast, the Dark Horse podcast. If you've not been listening, I suggest you do. And if you've not read his book, I suggest you do so and buy it right now. There it is, A Hunter-Gatherer Guide to the 21st Century. And I want to, when we come back, talk a little biology because that was my formal training in the beginning. And it's odd to me how much of that too has changed, let alone our elites practices and

our universities and our border policy, but our actual science has gone sideways. So we'll get to that right after this. We all know the value of a good night's sleep. We feel better, look better, have more energy to spare, but you could be missing out on all of those benefits if you're sleeping on sheets that are too hot or too cold or just plain uncomfortable. I have the solution. Cozy Earth Bedding. Cozy Earth is the softest and most comfortable sheets, blankets, loungewear, and more. They use premium viscose from highly sustainable bamboo and we sleep in them regularly. I wear their t-shirts. Susan wears their pajamas. Cozy Earth Bedding comes with a 100-night sleep trial, which means

you have up to 100 nights to sleep on them, wash them, try them out. If you're not in love, just return them within 100 days for a full refund. Susan and I love them. In fact, we have Cozy Earth sheets on our bed right now, and they made a huge difference in our sleep. If you've never tried Cozy Earth, we have some awesome news. You can save up to 35% off Cozy Earth right now. But hurry, this offer will not last. Go to CozyEarth.com, enter my promo code D Drew at checkout for up to 35% off on your first order.

That is CozyEarth.com, promo code Drew, C-O-Z-Y-E-A-R-T-H, CozyEarth.com, code D-R-E-W. Are you one of the millions of American women and men dealing with premature hair thinning and hair loss? Or maybe you're scared about inheriting that thinning look because it runs in your family, start 2024 with a real solution that delivers results without the harsh side effects or unwanted chemicals and no need for prescription. Provia uses a safe natural ingredient, Procapil, to effectively target the three main causes of premature hair thinning and hair loss. By supporting healthy scalp circulation, the delivery of nourishing nutrients, and healthy hair follicle anchoring to your scalp, Provia guarantees more hair on your head

than in the shower or on your comb. Right now, new customers save over 50% plus free shipping. Every introductory package includes a full 60-day supply of Provia serum for daily use, plus the Provia Super Concentrate for faster, more noticeable results. Don't wait. Order now to save an extra 10% and get free shipping at ProviaHair.com forward slash Drew. That's P-R-O-V-I-A-H-A-I-R ProviaHair.com slash D-R-E-W. As a physician, I am deeply

concerned about efforts to erode the doctor-patient relationship. And as medical freedom continues to come under assault, I'm on a mission to empower you to be able to take care of yourselves and your family the way you want to. I urge you to get this medical emergency kit from The Wellness Company. It contains essential prescription medication you should really always have on hand. Here's Dr. Peter McCullough, Chief Scientific Officer. It's a very broad and diverse medical kit. Can handle everything from a urinary tract infection, a fungal infection, a bronchitis. People can, you know, via telemedicine, get their questions answered and get on the right track. But

it's basically an at-home formula. For the first time, people, instead of being held captive by an urgent care or by a doctor's office or an ER, they can actually do this themselves at home. Save yourself the weight and the hassle and feel better faster. Go to drdrew.com slash TWC for 10% off. That is drdrew.com slash TWC for 10% off the medical emergency kit. I just love what Dr. McCullough just said about being an at-home formulary. These are the kits. I have a new kit that I'm very excited about.

I put it together carefully myself with some consultation. This travel kit, this is what I give my patients when they travel. And even if I don't give them all this, this is what I wish they would get every time they travel. It will cover you.

You need these things when you travel, particularly out of the country. Trust me, my son got, Susan, he got E. coli systemic, actually septic E. coli while he was in Spain and I had nowhere to go. I wish I'd had this. And there's guidebooks on how to use these things, plus backed up by telehealth. Can you open one up and show us what the inside looks like? Let's just do the travel kits because i'm gonna bring it you know when we are moving around now this is it these are what they look like i did not so you see the medication and then the a lot of this is first aid and scopolamine patches and melatonin and things like tell people what it's for c-sickness we try to think of everything we have steroid things like topical agents. It's for seasickness. We try to think of everything.

We have steroid. We have topical agents for infections. We really try to get everything. If you are out on the road in a country you're not familiar with, and frankly, you should have this in this country too. You shouldn't be held so captive, as Dr. McCullough says. Yeah, you might even be going to grandma's house in the Midwest and you'll need it. But go to drdrew.com slash TWC to get the link.

All right, let's bring out. And a discount. Let's bring back Dr. Weinstein, professor of biology and evolutionary biology. And one of the things I wanted to ask you about, there's also, you know, what we just had discussed has, you know, obviously it's happening in a lot of places. It makes it look like there's globalist intent somewhere.

It makes it look like people are trying to loot the West and kill it. But I don't know what's actually going on. So I'm not in a position to make speculation about it. I think you pose the questions that need to be posed, that people need to be aware of and start to think about these things and then conclude for themselves what they think is going on here and then get active and do something about it. Would you agree that's about the best way to approach what's happening here? Yeah, I mean, we are finding our footing in battling an enemy we

can't see. I do think something is driving the West into collapse, and some part of it is intent on us not being able to establish even the most basic things, things that are scientifically very easy to establish are somehow beyond us at this moment. So that, I think, is job one. We have to reestablish our capacity to discover what is true and to discuss its implications. That is why pattern where something becomes so powerful that it absorbs a tremendous amount of resources and ultimately the people revolt against it, that that those who would ordinarily face something like a french revolution have managed to divert attention to others and there's only so long that that's going to work yeah i think thank god um how did you find senator ron johnson's panel and you were on that recently how did you feel like people listened to that, that it got anything done? Well, it's a little hard to know because part of this cryptic dark age is that we all live in our own filter bubbles, whether we like it or not. And so I know it got a tremendous amount of traffic where I could see it. On the other hand, I might be expected to see it because COVID dissidents are a community I've long been a part of. So I don't know what other

people saw, but I do think it was a very good panel. I really enjoyed meeting Senator Johnson in person. I quite liked him. And I think the basic impression that I came away with is that all of the adults seem to understand that the West is in terrible jeopardy and that that places a burden on all of us to put aside small matters and to collaborate on rescuing it we can fight about minor issues of ideology if and when the west has been rescued but until then there's nothing else to do in addition to the border putting things sort of these sorts of issues front and center somehow covid did that too uh and do you know i again it's so odd that that these things that were percolating under the knee under beneath the surface suddenly became obvious during covid uh do you think that was a misadventure for these forces that are trying to do something

or was that part of the plan or did they just use it because it created a way to centralize authority the let's separate two things we have the fact of the phenomenon of covid whatever it may have been. And then we have what happened to the narrative over the course of those four years. I think the latter was clearly, it was revealing of this power structure. And I think it went very poorly from the point of view of the force that I call Goliath. I think Goliath screwed up. And I'm concerned, so maybe I'll just talk you through this couple of pieces of my toolkit. There is a force that appears to oppose meaningful change. It doesn't oppose change itself.

It's okay with change. What it doesn't want is any change that threatens its hegemony. I call that force Goliath, and I use that means that his foe was likely also a real person. Now, if we're to get technical, it probably wasn't David. It was a guy named Elhanan. But biblical authors condensed the story to make it more functional. But nonetheless, at one time, Goliath and David were people. Goliath is no longer a person. Goliath is some sort of composite between those who would collude against us and emergent phenomena, basically evolutionary processes that work in Goliath's

favor. But if Goliath is scaled up from one person to something much larger, David is also going to have to be scaled up. And so in any case, I use Goliath because it reminds me of what I'm supposed to be participating in. David has to emerge too, and it has to fight Goliath, and and frankly it has to has to win but the most important part of that metaphor for me is if we accept that goliath is in part a cabal of people who meet and discuss how they're going to shape our future but part of it is the process as the result of an emergent process of evolution. The emergent part of Goliath is its vulnerability because anything that evolves is capable only in circumstances that look something like the ones in which it came about. If you take a fish and you put it in the boat,

the fish is not a highly elegant creature anymore. It's a helpless creature. Goliath is ferociously powerful, but he is not effective if you can drag him onto territory he doesn't understand. And what I think happened during COVID was that whoever the elites are who are colluding, they misunderstood how much power they had to shape the human mind because they had all of the premier propaganda properties. They had the newspapers. They had the newspapers, they had the broadcast networks, and based on a historical pattern,

that should have been enough to sell just about any narrative to the public that they wanted. But they did not understand that something had emerged that they weren't counting on, which is, frankly, podcasts. They did not understand that podcasts were an important force and that

eventually people would get sick of being lied to and they would turn off their television and they would stop reading the newspaper and they would start listening to these long conversations with experts who were speaking outside of the ivory tower and that that would eventually allow them to gain an insight into what had happened so interesting and and that continues to to evolve i feel like you know it's i i apologize to everybody to for being preoccupied with french history, but somehow it has been weirdly correlative for me. When in the dark hours of COVID, I kept saying, I feel like what we're doing here

is what the French underground did. It was like the French underground. They had access to a technology that the Germans didn't count on and they couldn't find it. And it was sending out information that the Germans didn't like. And I thought, I'm just trying to help people understand what's going on here.

But it does feel an awful lot like the French Underground. That is that same Goliath-David metaphor, isn't it? It is. But there's another. The punchline is unfortunately not a good one. do think we outfoxed goliath and frankly on two and a half of the most important topics we won people are now aware that uh this did not likely come from the wet market or from nature that this came from the wuhan institute where they were enhancing viruses. They are aware that the so-called vaccines were neither safe nor effective.

They are to some degree aware that the vaccination campaign in the midst of a pandemic couldn't help but produce proliferation of viral variants. The one topic on which we have not yet turned the tide is repurposed drugs, right? The public still believes that ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine are ineffective. Interesting. That is incorrect. But nonetheless, what I would say, the punchline is we did win on all of those topics. But the thing that I said up front will not happen again the next time. And they're telling us it's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when. Goliath is looking for a rematch and he's rewriting the rules so that he can win.

Yeah. Do you have recommendations, other than not signing up for that treaty, which Michelle Bachman has been running around trying to give everybody's awareness about that, other than not being a part of that treaty, is there other recommendations you have? Well, I think for one thing, the World Health Organization has told us what kind of an organization it is.

And I'm not a supporter of Trump, but among the things that he did that were correct, clearly, was taking the U.S. out of the World Health Organization. Now, I don't expect that to happen under a democratic administration, but I will say there are many countries in the world where people at the moment are more awake to what's going on than the U.S., particularly countries that existed behind the Iron Curtain when the Soviet Union existed, seem to have a kind of resistance because they've grown used to what it's like to live under tyranny and propaganda.

And so they spot this more easily than folks in the U.S. And they may be in a position to derail this treaty. I would point people, if you're interested, this is a hard topic to track because the World Health Organization is dodging and weaving. They keep renaming things. They keep changing the nature

of what is being voted on. They keep hiding the ball so we don't even know what's going to be voted on. But if you want the latest on this, you should check out uh meryl nass and kat lindley they are my two best sources uh for the current state of this treaty and for your viewers who may be um elsewhere in the world encourage your nations to derail this thing if we don't derail it we are in we are in terrible straits um but

if you do derail it you will be a hero of the new global west but part of this yeah both we've had both of those on our on our program before at least once uh and and meryl nass is as uh astonishing to me because uh she's an mit trained scientist scientist and has been treated like garbage by my profession. And she was a female scientist at an era when that was not easy to be at the level she was participating at MIT. But to some extent, I've been looking at a lot of this again i don't know what else to call it except phenomenology um as a sort of a classic individual versus centralization kind of struggle and there are people out there lots of them who are really enthusiastic about the centralization of authority is is are those the, what do they call them,

unwitting dupes or convenient, useful idiots that Goliath is taking advantage with? Yeah, I think there is a powerful element of PSYOP that is convincing people to embrace all sorts of stuff that's not in their interest. I mean, we saw this with the mRNA vaccines quite obviously. But there is also, let's be clear about this. I'm a dyed-in-the-wool liberal. I've been a Democrat my whole life. So in theory, I should be supportive of something in the neighborhood of collectivization. What I have witnessed over the course of my adult life has me terrified by that very process.

At the moment, I don't want any government empowered more than it is, and I want a good many of them to have less power than they have because they cannot be trusted with it. Something has captured them, and it is wielding this power in a way that is not in the public's interest. So I do find myself traumatized by values that I once recognized quite strongly and resonated with. But I do think it is important not to throw out the baby with the bathwater. recognized quite strongly and resonated with. But I do think it is important not to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Jefferson was right. The government that governs best governs least, which does not mean doesn't govern at all. What it means is that you want the lightest hand possible to accomplish necessary goals. And there is a principle, which oddly comes out of Catholicism, which is the right one that we should be shooting for. It's called subsidiarity. And the idea is that every process should be governed at the lowest effective level, closest to the individual and there's another principle i would say which is that the purpose

of all governance is to liberate meaningfully individuals um so that may sound paradoxical but if you think about the fact of regulations of air travel that make air travel extremely safe. And it's getting less safe, I believe, but it has been traditionally extremely safe so that you're never safer than when you're on a major commercial flight unless you're planning to have a heart attack or a stroke on board.

But other than that, in terms of things that can hurt you, there's very little that can happen because it is so tightly regulated. But those regulations allow you to travel anywhere on earth in less than 24 hours. That's an amazing level of liberty.

So the point is, you want whatever regulations exist to be meaningfully liberating, and you want all governance to happen at the lowest level it can be affected. And there are things that have to be dealt with at a global level, right? There's nobody protecting the seas if we don't figure out internationally how to prevent people from destroying them. So that can't be governed at your local level.

But there's a good deal that is being governed at way too high a level because it has been useful for tyrants or what you're calling globalists to seize control. Let's remember the pilots and the co-pilots are given a lot of authority on those aircraft.

That is the local government in the air and they're empowered properly. And I'll remind people that, back with the French, Alexis de Tocqueville came here in 1825 ostensibly to look at the penitentiary system, but he ended up evaluating democracy in America,

wrote a book called Democracy in America. And one of his highlight insights was the local practice of democracy was why the American democratic system worked. Both on the participatory level, people were raising their hands and voting in classrooms, and then they were participating in city councils, and then counties, and then states. And that the states were allowed to be, they were all left alone to manage their local democratic process. But it was a, he called a practice of democracy.

And we've lost some of that. We have to involve ourselves in order for this to work. We have to understand what it is and what the historical context has been. Yeah, absolutely. I would point out that, again, at this moment, it's very easy to see what is wrong with governance because effectively governance has become paradoxical and it's become predatory.

But that doesn't mean that what we're shooting for is not good governance, which at this moment, it sounds like a fairy tale. But good governance is possible and it's also necessary because there are hazards in

what we call game theory that make it impossible to accomplish certain things without some structure that is capable of for example internalizing the costs of some industrial process so that a polluter doesn't become wealthy at other people's expense right right yeah and the the tragedy of the commons there there's things that have to be regulated and looked after for for sure um you know a if you don't mind i want to ask a question that i asked you know you were in adam's uh movie no safe spaces where you chronicled your story at ever evergreen state am i getting right evergreen straight is that what it's called evergreen yeah when you were in Adam's movie, No Safe Spaces, where you chronicled your story at Evergreen State. Am I getting it right? Evergreen State, is that what it's called?

Evergreen, yeah. The Evergreen State College. And I want you to tell that story again in as compressed a fashion as possible. But before I do, I promised, I said, Adam, would you like me to ask anything of Professor Weinstein? And he said, yes.

What was it like? How did he make that transition that you've just described from liberal to, I don't know what to call it anymore. Is it, people are calling it red pill. I think that's wrong. It just sort of more aware

of what's going on. What was that like? And how did that happen to you? Well, I want to return to the question of what to call it. And this was less of a transition than you might think. And we can come back to that also. Let me start by just describing the story so people know what you're talking about. My wife, Heather Hying, and I taught at the Evergreen State College. I was

there for 14 years. Heather was there one year longer. And Heather was literally the college's most popular professor. I wasn't terribly far behind. But in any case, we had a large community of students that was quite dedicated to learning evolutionary biology from us. And the college itself was very unusual. The founders, who had been radicals, had thrown out every normal structure that a college would have. It didn't have departments, it didn't have majors, it didn't have grades. The faculty was empowered and the administration was hobbled. But the most important thing was that students took one class at a time full-time

and professors taught one class at a time full-time. Those classes could be team-taught by more than one professor from different disciplines and they could go on for up to a full year. Now what happens when you have students who are taking one class that you're teaching full-time and it can go on for two quarters or a full year, full academic year, is you know everybody in the room very well. And if you are not inclined to do anything useful with that novel opportunity, then it could be boring. And there were indeed many classes at the college that were a waste of time. But if you were interested in figuring out how you could teach material in some new way that nobody had ever done before,

it was the perfect opportunity. Because if I didn't say it before, professors also had complete autonomy to teach anything they wanted in any way they wanted. So Heather and I had this wonderful community of students learning evolution in this unique way. And because we were popular, we were also in a position to influence the way the college ran. We had a new president, George Bridges, brought to the college who tried to remake the place in a way that he did not have the power to remake it. And so what he decided to do was hobble the faculty by creating

a diversity, equity, and inclusion committee, a giant one that he handpicked the membership of, and they were essentially empowered to turn the place upside down. Well, Heather was on sabbatical, but I started to stand up against this initiative because it was going to destroy this college, which was a wonderful place, especially for students who were not especially well-suited to an academic environment, but who had high potential. And in standing up against this effort, I became its enemy. And a faculty colleague created a student protest. And on May 23rd, 2017, at 9.30 in the morning, my life changed radically when 50 students that i had never met streamed through the door into my class and accused me of racism and demanded that i

apologize or be fired um actually they argued i should resign, apologize, and that if I didn't, I should be fired. Well, they also made the terrible mistake of filming this episode and uploading it to the internet. And when people saw what was taking place, it didn't add up. For one thing, I believe the protesters, who very quickly became rioters, did not anticipate that my students would stand with me. They thought in 2017 that a white professor being accused of racism would suddenly be the focus of a witch hunt and the students of that professor, who no doubt would harbor their own resentments, would join that witch hunt. But instead, my students stood up and spoke eloquently on my behalf, including my students of color,

which I think struck people who had never heard of Evergreen before as very odd. In any case, the college descended into anarchy. Students from this protest were literally hunting me. They were stopping traffic on public roads coming through the campus, searching from car to car. The police were ordered by the president of the college to stay in their police station and not intervene. The police told me that they could not protect me and that I was in fact not safe anywhere in town on my bicycle, that I should only travel by car. So in any case, it became quite a remarkable story, which No Safe Spaces told the story.

There's also a documentary by Mike Naina that's excellent. And Benjamin Boyce has chronicled the... Benjamin Boyce was a student in film at the college and he did an extensive collection of materials from the place. In any case, if you're interested, go check out one of those venues. And then your evolution to where you are today, what was, how would you describe that? Well, first of all, you know, it's very, lots of people, especially folks on the right, have often looked at my story, which they only started to hear about at the moment of this sort of dramatic collapse of the college around me, and imagine that I must have been on board with this lunacy until that moment, at which point I must have woken up. That's a natural sounding story,

but it's not true. The fact is, Heather and I encountered postmodernism for the first time when we were in college ourselves at the university of california santa cruz and we fought about it then or we fought it um and in fact i have a you know i failed a physical anthropology class taught by a radical post-modernist um back in what would have been i guess 1991 so i've been fighting this for a very long, and this is the natural outgrowth of a good scientific education. If you're educated well, then you understand that what's being claimed is just nonsense. And frankly, that it's a lot more liberating to find out, you know, you've got two choices. Either men and women are, that's just a social construct

and it doesn't mean anything. That's a nonsense idea. And it's not, it doesn't empower you in any useful way. It just confuses you. Whereas if you study evolutionary biology, you discover, oh, that actually there's a much more fascinating story

and one that actually provides many clues as to why men and women feel differently about certain things, why they have different kinds of fears, and why history has unfolded so differently with respect to these two sexes. So, my feeling is empowerment actually comes from enlightenment, and enlightenment comes from not telling yourself false stories because they are, I don't know, politically appealing. So that's where I was. People have to indulge me now because, yeah, I get that. I actually have some questions right now that are strictly mine.

So I had an excellent scientific training, and I was shocked when I, you know, my medical school interview, the guy that interviewed me said, you know, and he asked me, what's the scientific method? I described the scientific method. He goes, you're the first student to tell me the method in five years of interviewing. And I thought, wow, that is unbelievable.

That was 1980. And so I was aware there was something going on and it's just gotten worse and worse. And critical thought, problem solving, all these things that I was just beaten over the head with. I was saying at the time I was at Amherst College and they were going for jail meets monastery. That was the vibe they were going for in this rigor

of the oil lamp at night and trying to solve problems and struggling with things and trying to answer things people had never answered before. But this is my question. When I was trained as a biologist, there was this thing called evolutionary biology that you could work, you know, you could continue to educate yourself within. But it was really primarily what they called molecular biology then, trying to chase the genetic mechanisms and how they worked.

Biology and evolution was the same thing we didn't differentiate it was like if you had a question about why what is a biological mechanism that you're beginning to look at probably so where you look at the evolutionary correlates where did it come from oh it fits an evolutionary path here evolution and biology were the same topic did they get separated somewhere what happened oh they they did get separated and for no good reason um i see it as actually it's the fault of two different impulses um one of them actually comes from the evolutionary biologists and the problem is that when when evolution by natural selection

was first spelled out by darwin he didn't even know about genes and happened that mendel was a contemporary of his but he he wasn't aware of mendel's work and so anyway he had only the loosest understanding of what might be transmitted he was on his desk apparently but he missed it apparently somebody sent it to him, but he never really looked at it. So yes. I think my desk must look like his because that kind of thing

could escape your notice on my desk. Easily, yes. I get that. But in any case, what happened was that evolutionists, the early ones, got used to thinking at the level of the phenomenology and they did not start thinking mechanistically

until much, much later. Because there was really not very much to say about the mechanisms until you understood what genes were and then, frankly, until you understand what epigenetics does at a molecular level. It's very hard to spell out what the interaction between the genome and the evolutionary process is. So evolutionists got used to thinking about the consequences of genetic evolution, right?

The morphology changes that happen between different organisms. But they weren't too interested in mechanism. And on the other side, you've got all of these fields that frankly are a little impatient with the crudeness of our evolutionary understanding early on and at the beginning that that that makes a great deal of sense right it's not really obvious how changes at the level of the dna molecule turn a creature that looks like a shrew into a creature that looks like a bat right it's not obvious what the molecules have to do with that um or at least

the information molecules. But my feeling when I got to graduate school was that actually there was now enough information about both of these processes to begin to put them together. And that the power you get from thinking about the two things simultaneously is stunning. But by that time, everybody was so, you know, the molecular biologists were used to not thinking in evolutionary terms and the evolutionary biologists were used to not thinking in molecular terms. And they were, you know, and they didn't like each other very much because it seemed like there was this other group of people that, you know,

had the ability to intrude on whatever you were working on with tools you didn't really understand. So anyway, even when I was a graduate student, that is a line that I crossed regularly. I was very interested in mechanism. And in fact, one of my dissertation chapters was about the aging process and the molecular underpinnings of a story that evolutionary biologists had known since 1957 in phenomenological space. So anyway, there's a lot to be said about bringing these things back together. And there's an interesting history there through Lamarckianism and all that nonsense. And so

you can learn something about the history of science by looking at this. It's a very interesting thing. Now, I wrote something else down. I've got to pick it up off the floor because it fell off the floor here. But I also studied ecology a bit. And I know that was part of your training. And I wrote down what I, as an ecologist, people forgot we had this thing called ecology, which was a movement. It was the harbinger of the climate movement. It was actually, I would say,

maybe as well-organized and powerful and whatnot. And I was an advocate, and I was predicting the following things. Ice age, number one. Number two, out of oil within 15 to 20 years. Absolutely no question about it. Famine, for sure. For sure, famine.

Four, excess phosphates were going to destroy the water and the fish in... Not ocean. Not ocean. Natural water. Not ocean. And then acid rain was going to add to the issue with the famine, and it was

coming sooner because of acid rain. What about nuclear holocaust? No, we didn't have to worry about that, because we had a natural problem on the horizon that was going to destroy us. And people forget, first of all, how wrong we were, and secondly, that this was a very well-organized

and a scientific movement. Well, so I'm going to borrow a principle from somewhere else. Okay. And actually, we'll see what you think about this because your discipline is in the bullseye here. There's a problem that we have any time a clinical therapeutic art shares the same name as a science. So let's take one that we'll likely agree to. psychologists studying something about the way the mind functions and you have clinical psychologists who are treating patients now my feeling is these are two almost unrelated things if you have somebody who plays the role that a clergy member would once have played or a friend who's known you your whole life somebody who who takes a deep interest in your well-being,

is insightful about the way the world works, and is in a position to talk to you about what's going wrong in your life, that's a very valuable thing. It's unrelated to what we know, for the most part, about the way the mind works, because frankly, we don't know very much about the way the mind works. The mind is a largely mysterious entity. And so, in any case, we've got a field of psychology which has therapeutically become very dangerous.

It's prescribing things that don't even make superficial sense. The idea that mental illness was the result of some sort of pervasive chemical imbalance was never sensible. It was an excuse to deliver some pharmaceuticals, and it harmed a lot of people. But in any case, if you separated these two things and you allowed the therapeutic art to be developed by people who figured out how to talk to patients, and you treated the science of how the mind works as something different, and maybe 150 years from now we'll know enough about the way the mind works that you can actually start to derive some significant therapeutic implications. That would be natural. But in any case, we see the same thing in medicine, where evolutionary biology, for example, haunts absolutely every system in the body.

Of course, all those systems were built by Darwinian evolution. And yet, Darwinian evolution is not a focus of medical training, even still. And as a result, doctors have misunderstood the appendix as they've thought it was a vestigial organ. They've misunderstood the nature of pain. They see pain as a malady of its own rather than a symptom of an underlying malady. Anyway, I could go on and on. Misery. Just misery.

Misery itself. Right. Misery. Any negative emotion. Misery is not bad. Misery is good. Let's put it this way. It's an adaptation.

And the point is you may be feeling it for a reason that is non-adaptive. But that is not the presumption that you should walk into the observation that you're miserable with. You should walk into it with the sense that something might be making you miserable and that this is nature's way of prioritizing that something. So, in any case, there's a lot to be said for a holistic view of things. But in the case of ecology, it's really the same error. And I saw this in graduate school because, as you said, I've been very interested in ecology. But most of the people who were in that wing of the department, and this is true in any university that has an ecology division, most of the people there were not drawn there by a love of science. They were drawn there by a desire

to do good. And while that's laudable, it is not the correct motivation because in fact, ecology is formally the study of species interactions. And the fact is conserving species very rarely has anything to do with the details of their interaction, right? Protecting habitat is the key way to do this. And that does not in general require you to know the details of how that habitat functions, nor do we know very much about how most habitats function. We're still early days in biology. So if you were going to study ecology,

you would want people who were motivated to study it as a basic science, to just discover how it worked because it's good to know things, not because they thought that was going to be the key to protecting the species under study, which it generally does not succeed in doing. But in any case, it creates this desire. And, you know, first thing I said when we started talking was not leaping to conclusions was often the key to high-quality thinking. And ecology has leapt to conclusions. Now, I don't, you know, like most high-quality thinkers, I'm increasingly skeptical of the story of global climate change that we've been told. And I certainly remember being told that Ice Age was coming before I was told that the globe was heating up. That could be a natural growth in our understanding but to be honest uh i think we

have now talked ourselves into a certainty which is anything but certain and um you know likewise with respect to peak oil which you mentioned i think peak oil at one level has to be true but that doesn't mean that we are near it the way we were told that we were um you know there's a there's a lot to be said about what we prematurely panicked over um we could talk the same way about population this is an important question oh oh for sure but um i forgot that one That was part of the deal. Yeah, that was part of the deal back then. Yeah, you blocked it out. But listen, I've been disrespectful of your time and you've been very kind to go well beyond

what was supposed to be our time here. And this is kind of a perfect place to wrap up because it is on a topic that I end up bringing up almost every time I talk to people. And the way I encapsulate what you're saying, it's exactly what you're saying, which is A, beware of people that are supposed to be in a scientific discipline

who evangelize if you become an evangelical you are no longer a scientist you are no longer a clinician you are an evangelical whether it's pain when there never be pain in this country or lockdowns are going to save you it's all was evangelism and it did unbelievable time harm And that all of us, especially anyone who claims to be a scientist, needs to have a proper posture of rational uncertainty. Rational uncertainty is the healthy posture. Irrational certitude, which we see everywhere,

is pathological, and it rarely proves to be correct. I'll let you have last word. All right. Well, I think that's wonderful. And it fits with a number of themes that we've developed on Dark Horse, incidentally. Come find Dark Horse on Locals and Rumble. But when my kids were young and they would express undue certainty, I used to ask them to put a percentage on how certain they were. And of course, as children, they would say, oh, 100%. And I would say, nope, let's do better. You might say, I have less than 1% uncertainty. It could be a fraction of 1%, you know, a small fraction.

But you have to at least recognize that nothing is really certain. I mean, even the most fundamental stuff. I feel very certain that I'm having a conversation with you, but how do I know, for example, that I'm not a schizophrenic imagining this conversation, right? I'm quite certain that I'm not, but I can't be 100% certain. There's a degree of uncertainty. And so that what's called epistemic humility is fundamental.

And I would just say one more thing, which is one way to enforce this discipline on yourself so that you don't fall into undue certainty is to think in terms of hypotheses. A hypothesis is a potential explanation for an observed pattern. And to say that something is a hypothesis, to formulate a hypothesis, doesn't even mean that you believe it's likely.

You can say this is a hypothesis, and I believe this one is unlikely to be true. And you may have a favored hypothesis, but a hypothesis does not become a theory until all competing hypotheses have been falsified, at which point it's still not certain. It's still open to a falsification that could arise later, but we treat it as a presumptive fact because every competing explanation has fallen away. And if you keep that in mind as you think of things, it actually causes you to ask, well, where am I? How sure am I of that thing that I have just heard as a fact? You'll find it's clarifying and in its own way liberating. And I'll pile on to that to say that in biological systems, I learned early to think in terms of probabilities because there's nothing digital,

rarely anything digital in biology. It's all sort of, it's like trying to predict the behavior of clouds. I try to get people to understand it. Biology is a giant probabilistic endeavor and we're trying to make predictions and the extent that we can, it's sort of miraculous.

And that's our science. You have exceeded my expectations. I knew I would love talking to you. Again, everyone go see the Dark Horse podcast, both on Rumble and on Locals and support Professor Brett Weistein and his wife and get the book. One of our highest rated live stream shows,

which I expected, but also no haters on Twitter. Oh, well, we didn but also no haters on Twitter. Oh, well, we didn't talk to anybody on Twitter. I know. Nobody came after you. So we have all lovers on Dr. Drew's channel. I was too infatuated myself to be able to take questions today, so I apologize to the Twitter spaces.

But go say something nice on Twitter about Professor Weinstein. And I thank you, sir. And if I can be of any support to you, please, I hope you'll let me know. Thank you. It was a real pleasure. The pleasure was mine. And tomorrow, let's put our schedule up here. We got an equally exciting guest coming our way.

We have Dave Rubin in here tomorrow early at 1 p.m. Is that correct? 1 p.m., I believe. Correct. Dr. Kevin Bass. Kelly Victory comes back on Thursday. It'd be great to see her. But Kevin Bass is a medical student who was,

he, interesting, he was a, he'll tell his story, but he got kicked out of medical school. Carolla comes in on the next Tuesday. Jimmy Fala will be with me. Christine Anderson. Professor Weinstein was talking about people that are aware of what's going on

in other countries. I think you'll find Christine Anderson is one of these people who is fighting hard. Mike Benz, anybody who has not been watching his Twitter, I don't think you've seen this yet. He'll freak you out because he's been telling some stories that are very similar to what Professor Weinstein brought up today. And then David Cartland, 24. It's a compelling lineup. Please join us. Not on this list.

Tomorrow, we also have Karen Kingsbury. She's an author who sold 25 million books. She's a very, very big deal. She's going to be coming in later on the end of the show tomorrow as well. So we are adding on little special guests at the end of various shows for various reasons. And so just look forward to that also.

And also I voted today. Yay. I know. I went to a polling place first time in a long time. Why didn't you do the mail-in? I'm curious. Because I wanted to experience it. And they have these cool ballot things now.

Machines. They're all technologically run. And they were helping me because nobody was in there. There was probably maybe 20 people in there or whatever. But we looked for the We the People party and couldn't find it. But you can write in your candidate

and also just don't put Dr. Drew Pinsky. But I also looked into how you can sign up for the We the People party at the RFK Junior website. Did those people contact you?

They were contacting you? Yeah, I did. And also, I think I convinced the woman at the voting booth to vote for him as well. She goes, oh, I like that idea. And I was like, because everybody's so, they're so confused. They don't know who to vote for. I get it. And I'm like, I just said, and I told him, I go, can you find his party?

And they searched for it. They changed my, I went for independent and then I was able to write it in. There was a libertarian ballot here. You're not libertarian? First I was libertarian

and then I was independent. Then I went for unspecified. I was trying to figure out how to get it. You don't want to be an independent party. You want to be sort of undeclared or unaligned.

But you can write in your candidate. So when you click, and I wanted to do it in person because I felt like if I put it in the mail, it would somehow not get there. Well, those voting machines are at the center of controversy also, as well as the mail-in ballots. I humbly, people are going to hate this, but I feel like, look, if you have issues with these new technologies, let's make the technologies better. Let's let mail-in ballots happen. Let's let machines happen. Let's do a better job of auditing these things.

And I wanted to vote against Prop 1 because I don't believe in that. And I wanted to do it in person to make sure it went through. But I did feel really good about it. It's the first time I think I've voted in like 12 years in person. In person. Yeah. And I just, I don't know, it just felt good to be in a community and they were really helpful. Yeah. Oh, the polling centers are great. Yeah. It was great. Yeah. Do you guys have anything going on in Alabama today? Uh, yes, yes. It's a right down the road. It's where we're going next. Okay. Okay. Perfect. All right. Let's let it's let's Caleb go. It's we don't, he wants to get there before the polls close. Thank you everybody. We will see. Yeah. And just, just write it in if you want him, I'm not trying to convince you to

do it, but if you go to the RFK junior website, it'll send you to how to sign up for that party. Susan is a big old advocate. No, and I, you know what? Because I'm so undecided, and I hate voting. But I wanted to this time. It's the first time I've heard you really get behind a political candidate. I know. You know, I just, I want somebody young and in charge. And, you know, I'm not going to say I'm going to vote for him in the main election.

I mean, we'll see where we are at that point, if he can even get on the ballot. He's trying to get on the ballot. That's the thing. So I'm trying to help him because I'd like to see if he has a chance. Okay. I like his party. Tomorrow, Dave Rubin, one o'clock. Is that correct?

Did I say it accordingly? Let me look at my schedule. Yes, one o'clock Pacific tomorrow is Dave Rubin, 1 o'clock. Is that correct? Did I say it accordingly? Let me look at my schedule. Yes, 1 o'clock Pacific tomorrow is Dave Rubin, Karen Kingsbury. And then the day after that, we have Kevin Bass and Dr. Kelly Victory is coming back on the 7th. Beautiful. See everybody then.

Ta-ta. Ask Dr. Drew is produced by Caleb Nation and Susan Pinsky. As a reminder, the discussions here are not a substitute for medical care, diagnosis, or treatment. This show is intended for educational and informational purposes only. I am a licensed physician, but I am not a replacement for your personal doctor, and I am not practicing medicine here. Always remember that our understanding of medicine and science is constantly evolving. Though my opinion is based on the information that is available to me today, some of the contents of this show could be outdated in the future. Be sure to check with

trusted resources in case any of the information has been updated since this was published. If you or someone you know is in immediate danger, don't call me, call 911. If you're feeling hopeless or suicidal, call the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline at 800-273-8255. You can find more of my recommended organizations and helpful resources at drdrew.com slash help.