Decoding the Gurus - Robert Malone & Peter McCullough: A litany of untruths

Episode Date: January 13, 2022

Matt and Chris return to the Joe Rogan-verse much quicker than they would have liked to take a critical eye to two recent episodes (6 more hours!!!) offering controversial takes on Covid 19 and the dangers of vaccines. Yes, that's right more fear mongering, more global conspiracies, and more unrecognised heroes of science that Joe needs to promote to his large audience.In this case, we have Dr. Robert Malone, the *self-proclaimed* inventor of mRNA vaccines, and Dr. Peter McCullough, a cardiologist who was recently sued by his old hospital for using its name when promoting his covid theories. Both figures are well documented promoters of covid misinformation, including in various appearances on extreme right wing conspiracy sites like Alex Jones' InfoWars.Matt and Chris are no medical experts nor do they play them on podcasts (if you are looking for a point by point technical/medical debunking, we would recommend following the links at the bottom of these show notes). But what they are very familiar with are modern gurus and conspiracy theorists. So in this episode, after twenty plus episodes of calibrating the Gurometer(TM) with known gurus, they take it for a new test with these two maverick doctors. Applying the well-developed science of Gurometry(TM) to a novel dataset. How do they fare? Guess...Honestly, this is probably the darkest and most depressing episode we've done. It was not fun and we would really prefer to be talking about something else but here we are. Hopefully we will not be back soon... LinksThe JRE 1757: Robert MaloneThe JRE 1747: Peter McCulloughThe Atlantic: The Vaccine Scientist Spreading Vaccine MisinformationFor Better Science: How Dr Robert Malone invented AntivaxxeryRespectful Insolence: Is “mRNA vaccine inventor” Robert Malone “being erased from Wikipedia” for his claims about COVID-19?Respectful Insolence: Dr. Robert Malone goes full antivaccine conspiracistRespectful Insolence: The latest antivaxx lie from Peter McCullough, Mike Adams, and RFK Jr.: “COVID-19 vaccines are killing people!!!!”Politifact: Who is Robert Malone? Joe Rogan’s guest was a vaccine scientist, became an anti-vaccine darlingScience Based Medicine: “Depopulation” by COVID-19 vaccines?

Hello and welcome to Decoding the Gurus, the podcast where an anthropologist and a psychologist listen to the greatest minds the world has to offer, and we try our best to understand what they're talking about. I'm Professor Matt Brown, and with me is my better half, Chris, or Christina, as my wife likes to call him, Kavanagh. Welcome, Chris. Abusive start to 2021, Matt. Wait, no, it's not 2021, is it? It's a brand new year.

It's the 2022 series of Decoding the Gurus. The season that no one asked for, but is here. We're big boys now. We're more than a year old. We've got our big boy pants on. we're more than a year old. We've got our big boy pants on. And that's appropriate because today we are heading back to the world of the anti-vaxxers, the biggest babies in the internet world. I'm really looking forward to the end of COVID. And it's not for the reason that most people are looking forward to it, to be able to go on and live their lives and go traveling and

stuff. I'm just looking forward to the end of COVID so that we could just stop hearing from these idiots. And we can go back to talking about culture war nonsense, like the good old days, you know? Yeah. Like who got shouted down on campus this week? Yeah. Those innocent days of yore.

But I, I agree. It does seem somewhat quaint in the COVID age and I guess mass gatherings and all that kind of thing. Lectures, imagine that. But we weren't intending this, Matt. We were gonna look at Bob Wright, but we've been forced by circumstance to get back into the Roganverse. You promised me, Robert Wright, you promised me someone just, you know.

Not Joe Rogan. Not talking to Joe Rogan. That was the promise. It's like the Godfather pulled me back in. Yeah. So we have to talk about it because it's continuing. There's more of it. It's probably important.

That's right. We are going to get into it, Matt, but I'm going to take you on a little short detour. I promise. I promise. All the people listening, it will be short this time. We're going to get to the gurus quickly because we've got a lot of clips to cover.

But I want to let you know about a petty grievance. What? Yeah. Can you imagine, Matt? Now, this one's particularly petty and self-indulgent as well. It's Weinsteinian in its nature. So I think you'll appreciate this. So, you know, we have a subreddit, right?

You tried to create a competing discord from the one that was launched, but you didn't make a competing subreddit. So we have a subreddit full of usually quite interesting chat and differing opinions. And sometimes people post up things that are wrong, opinions that are wrong. Really? Yeah. How upsetting. Or even worse. And sometimes people post up things that are wrong, opinions that are wrong. Really? Yeah. How upsetting. Or, or even worse, they're insulting.

They're insulting or they dare to disagree with analysis that we have presented or something like that. And of course, as soon as they do that, they're exercised. We just, we contact them while the reader is behind the scenes. It's like, get that guy out of here. We just, we contact them while the reader is behind the scenes, like get that guy out of here. Get him out. But this one slipped through Matt, a critical comment slipped through.

And I don't think you will have seen it, but it's a meme, an edited meme. You know, uh, I think it's like one of the variations of the NPC meme or something. I don't know. I'm not super into my meme culture, but it's the one where there's a guy, a black and white kind of image, and there's a guy standing at the bar, the corner of a party with a party hat on watching the other people like dance and write, and you add the captions in, right? Oh, oh, oh yes.

I've I'm looking at it now. Yeah. Now what this Redditor has done is they've edited it to suggest that the person standing in the corner looking forlorn is me. And they're saying they don't know I have Northern Irish sarcasm. Right? Now, and implying that, in case you didn't get that, the title of the thing that is shared is, yes, we do. That's all you talk about.

Okay. I just don't voted it. No, Matt, no, that's the wrong way to do that. I'll just downvote that. It's double. I'm sure that's how it works. But, but, um, yeah, you know, like Matt, we can all enjoy a joke at our own expense, right? We all love that. We all, we all, and my, maybe, maybe I've mentioned once or twice that, uh, I've come

from a country that values sarcasm. I get maybe, you know, there's a cornucopia of opinions available on reddits, but I do have minor quibble. I just like the, you know, rears for the consideration of user unpronounceable string of letters. You know, Matt, when we don't mention that, like when we don't highlight that we are speaking from a position that is not based in America, or we don't highlight our political proclivities, what do we get? We normally get feedback demanding that we do that because we have to acknowledge that we have different cultural values that other people don't share and that

our politics influence our position. So, yeah. So I'm just saying that we're fucking damned that we do and damned that we don't. If we don't mention that, we'll get feedback completely that we're not mentioning it. And if we do mention it, we get memes. We get memes saying it. And if we do mention it, we get memes. We get memes saying, stop mentioning it. Stop telling, stop showing off you're from Northern Ireland. That's the epitome of sarcastic culture in the Western world. Your thing is very fair. Very fair. I mean, you know, it's so easy to criticize, isn't it? It's hard to create. You put something out there and these ankle biters, these nitpickers. They're operating

outside of the full context matt they don't see behind the scenes have they listened to all of the episodes have they have they you know i i think they're taking isolated moments out of context in order to make us look bad or me specifically, which is really, is that not the real crime? Look, if anybody wants to make a super cut of all the times that Chris has mentioned his from Northern Ireland, Northern Irish sarcasm, I mean, yeah. You have to join the Patreon because it's like double behind the walls. People like, you know what I'm going to say? People are lazy, Matt.

People don't do that. They just make memes. I could make that meme. To go and gallow the clips, they'd have to do the thing which takes time, you know? Go free, listen to episodes, take clips. That's the thing that takes real effort and work. That's the thing

that not many people can do, Matt. This is why you'll never beat him. Unpronounceable ring of characters. It never backfires when you make challenges on the internet to make you look bad. But that's my petty grievance for this week.

Very much on brand for you, Chris. I'm sure this won't lead to further memes or taking a piss. No, it won't. God, if the subreddit fills up, we'll just have to ban them. Ban them all. We'll just have to ban them all.

But another thing, Matt, I've got a recommendation. This is a positive thing to balance my negativity. I'm following my New Year's resolutions here. And I want to mention, there's this little thing that you might not have heard of. It's quite difficult to pronounce. It's an animation series on YouTube called Kurgasakt. Kurgasakt. Is that right? I think it is. That's

right. Yeah. So what it is about, it's this little animation series where people, you know, they do about science communication and now every time I get an annoying libertarian, contrarian IDW type on Twitter complaining about how they weren't given the full information and this is why they have to, you know, the vaccines, we don't trust them and stuff. I just sent them this little video by Kurzgesagt that explains why science communication, public health, boarders and stuff, why they might have to sometimes provide simplistic messages and why sometimes they might get things wrong. And it's actually not a huge thing. It's a known problem now. But you may have heard this before.

You might have a big inkling about this because you may have been the source of this recommendation. But I think I'm going to recommend this endlessly, periodically, because I've just enjoyed it so much. It's like the videos are so good the information is nice and i genuinely think it gives you better information than listening to six hours of experts on joe rogan talk about the immune system and vaccines just watch the 10 minute animation on kerskis act about vaccines and you'll be better informed i'm'm going to keep calling it Kurzgesagt because that's just how my brain has decided it is. Yeah.

It's annoying me having to pause that and, and you know, the people saying that's another peg, man, another peg. There were people complaining about how badly we butchered that the last time I mentioned that. And, and they have a point, but do they have a point? It's a weird German word. Cause, cause I guess that seems fine. We can't pronounce, we can't pronounce common names. Like their expectations are too high. They need to lower them. I need to lower it. And I'm not doing I, I, that pauses now for dramatic effect. That's actually my brain for the pronunciation. I'm sure I got it wrong

as well. So that's it. That's the last time you'll hear for the pronunciation. I'm sure I got it wrong as well. So that's it. That's the last time you'll hear the correct pronunciation. I might take a break from promoting it for the next episode or two, but it will come back. Yeah. It's got a very good series on ants and they don't sponsor us, right? They don't give us any money. I just think they're a good thing for the world that people should go and seek out.

And they have a nice series on the immune system and how it works. That's the thing. That's the thing I've been watching. I mean, like this is, I got more from this than hours and hours of Rogan. Like, well, there we go. There we go. There we go.

Evangelicizing about Kazogus hat. So the other little thing on our agenda is I just want to plug our Decoding Academia series, which is very sadly behind the paywall for those of you who do not donate. What was the last one on? The Iterated Prison Dilemma, which we did a very bad job of explaining the prison dilemma, but I think we kind of- Initially.

Initially. We pulled it back. We pulled it back. We pulled it out of the fire. That's right. This is our contribution to the guru sphere where we are talking about iterated prisoner's dilemma

and researcher degrees of freedom and beliefs being like possessions. Just people who like stuff and academia and that kind of thing.

And if that sounds like your cup of tea, it is available for any of the tiers in the Patreon. And if it doesn't sound like your cup of tea it is available for any of the tiers in the patreon and if it doesn't sound like your cup of tea fuck all you don't need to listen in don't complain about it that's fine and i don't think we're like if you rattle off those topics it might sound a little bit guru-esque right because

you might not be familiar with the specifics but i think academic i think anyone can follow along with that like it's not rocket science and i think we explain eventually each of the concepts so hopefully hopefully it's good yeah like those were random words but it's like we're choosing papers that are we think are relevant for research and sometimes understanding gurus better and that kind of thing so uh, it's just something to help us from getting dragged down into just listening to Joe Rogan and JPCers talk about the coronavirus. We need a break. We need a break sometimes.

Because I would burn out doing nothing but that stuff. I need my little rewards. And I demanded it. Academics talking about research papers. What a concept. And the other thing is it's just a helpful reminder that like the only way that a lot of people interact with academic research online is through the culture war. It's papers about rapid onset gender dysphoria. It's what's been retracted, which recent IQ study has come out this week. David Pérez- What horrible evolutionary psychology paper, like what fresh new

hell is this? David Pérez- Yeah, Gansad's latest or Jordan Peterson's latest brain fart, right, but that's not what most researchers provide. That's genuinely not. So there's plenty of interesting, good research, including related to evolutionary topics and how to bias humans that you can cover and we are doing for ourselves and those interested. So yeah, if you would think that sounds interesting, that is

available like on the Patreon. That's it. That's all our business taken care of. It is. So now, on to the joyful task of talking about Joe Rogan again. Yes. And what guest are we talking about today, Kru?

So Matt, this is a little bit of a unique episode because we're going to cover for this episode, Robert Malone. And we'll talk a little bit about who he is in a minute. But there is another figure, Dr. Peter McCullough. These were two episodes that were on the Joe Rogan experience, a couple of weeks apart, but they related to the same topic, which was COVID, vaccine conspiracies, ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, various other things that we'll talk about. But they're very much of a pair. And we thought it might be interesting to do a very short episode

just looking at some of the rhetorical techniques that they use and whether they differ or whether they're similar. Now, when we began clipping, we ended up with 80 plus clips for Robert Malone alone and about 50 plus for McCulloch. So that's a full length episode, which is why you're now being treated to a full length episode. So we're going to do Robert Malone, which is the most recent episode on Joe Rogan's podcast, episode 1757. And the one with Peter McCulloch is 1747. So 10 episodes apart. So I guess we need to introduce both Malone and McCulloch. But before we do, one point to make, and it's important, is we are well aware that we do

not have the requisite medical expertise to get into the weeds on some of the technical issues. These people, particularly Peter McCulloch, can rattle off medical terms at an impressive trip. And we can. And as we'll see, it's inevitable that we have to get into some of the things that they claim, which are easily fact-checkable and easily provable to be wrong.

But if you want the technical breakdown of their claims that are rebutted by credentialed experts, those exist. And we're going to put them in the show notes. There's two in particular for Peter McCulloch. There's one by ZDoggMD, who has an interesting name, but is a kind of heterodox inclined doctor on YouTube. And he did a breakdown showing the various things that McCulloch gets wrong.

And there is another YouTuber called, what was it called? Debunk the Funk. Yes, Debunk the Funk, which did a breakdown of the Robert Malone episode, a 30 minute, quite condensed breakdown, primarily focused on the medical claims that he makes, which are inaccurate. Is he a doctor? What's his credential? A PhD in molecular biology that covers bad science while making good science accessible. That's Debunk the Funk.

And we'll post links to those. So we don't want this episode to be a fact-checking, a debunking so much as what we do, decoding the guru-esque aspects that our takes are informed by smarter, more credentialed people who have looked into the various claims that are made by these figures. It's also worth noting that this episode of Robert Malone on Joe Rogan has attracted a great deal of controversy, as has Joe Rogan's general slide into anti-vax misinformation. But this particular episode is all over the news. Somebody uploaded this episode to YouTube and it was taken down for misinformation.

So yeah, it's a hot topic. Yeah. So yeah, it's a hot topic. Yeah. So Peter McCulloch is a cardiologist, a quite well credentialed cardiologist who has a bunch of publications that's highly cited and was generally well-respected until this pandemic. And he has carpet bombed his credibility. He was sued by the hospital that he was previously associated with to stop using the name and damaging the credentials. So that gives an indication.

He now has his own podcast, which I've listened to. And my God, we'll talk about it, but he does have genuine expertise and credentials, right? That's a fact. When it comes to Robert Malone, the way Joe Rogan described him was the inventor of nine original mRNA vaccine patents, close to 100 peer-reviewed publications, which have been cited over 12,000 times, that the president of the Global COVID Summit, an organization of 16,000 doctors and scientists committed to speaking truth to power about COVID pandemic research and treatment, so on and so forth. This is somebody who rose to prominence largely off an appearance with our good friend Brett Weinstein on his Dark Horse podcast, where he was presented as the inventor of the mRNA vaccines, which

are currently helping billions of people worldwide. And he has come out, as we'll see, very critical about them and claimed that he's not giving due credit for his role in inventing them. And if the inventor of a new technology came out with dire warnings, it would usually give people pause. So there's a clear reason why he would be somebody that people would pay attention to, if it is true that he is the inventor. If it is true. And should we get into that now? I do think that's a good place to start.

But before any of that, there's one clip that we have to play, Matt, that contextualizes this episode in general. It's an old clip. It's from back in the day, right? And it very much is a kind of post-note to our episode on Joe Rogan. This clip bubbled up through the internet crevices and it's an old episode where Joe Rogan is on another show, Opie and Andy, I think it's called, like a morning zoo kind of show. And well, let's just listen to it. It's a little bit long, but I'll play the clip. Then we can see what we think about it. There's some crazy shit that they haven't even discovered yet. You know, just recently they found a new species of chimpanzee in the Congo. A gigantic chimpanzee that's over six feet tall. Really?

It's called the Bondo ape. The locals have two different names for chimpanzees. They have what they call the tree beaters and the lion killers. And the lion killers are these gigantic chimpanzees. They're like six feet tall. They get to be like 400 pounds. They sleep on the ground because they don't give a fuck They don't have to sleep in trees. Could you imagine a champ?

We ship a chip that's not not four feet tall, but the chip is six foot tall 400 pounds just a giant and they walk upright. That's the crazy thing if you look it online look up a giant mystery ape It's called the bondo ape. It's in a part of the Congo called Billy. Oh, I'm different than any other Adam Allison from Florida Is gonna challenge you. Allison, go ahead. Yeah, I'm a primatologist. There's no such thing as a Bondo ape. You're a fucking idiot. Go online and look it up. You're a what? What do you do?

It's a new discovery. You're a primatologist? Well, look it up. You're not current. Pay attention. Go online and look it up. Yeah, this is... Yeah, you've learned some shit from the call. When did you graduate? I have a PhD from 2000. When did you graduate? I have a PhD from 2000. When did you graduate? When?

From 2000. Yeah, when was the last time you got online and researched primates? Have you ever looked at any of the new discoveries? Have you looked at any of Carl Amann's work? Yeah, I've been... What are you laughing at? Why are you laughing? Why are you laughing?

I'll tell you why you're laughing, because you don't have a point. So you're trying to... Oh, you're ridiculous. That you laughing? I'll tell you why you're laughing, because you don't have a point. So you're trying to... Oh, you're ridiculous. That's ridiculous. I have a PhD. Meanwhile, there's all sorts of photographs of this primate, this gigantic chimpanzee. Not only that, it's on National Geographic, stupid. Nationalgeographic.com.

CNN.com, stupid. No, no, no, no, no. There's bones. There's tissue samples. There's hair. There's fecal matter. There's all sorts of different things. Now they've mapped the DNA of this animal already.

Oh please. We mean oh please stupid! You haven't paid attention to it at all. These are legitimate scientists and primatologists that are in the Congo studying this thing. And you don't know. Yet you're calling up. You've done zero research on this. You haven't looked into it at all.

You're telling me we know all the animals that are in the world? Are you telling me we know all the animals in this gigantic, several thousand mile long, intense rainforest? We've mapped that out. There's another fake chimpanzee out there. No, it's not a fake, stupid. It's not a fake. Listen, they have skulls. Listen to me. They have skulls. They have hair. They have fecal samples. They have photographs. They have a dead one. Okay? Yeah.

Bye. They're from fringe. Not fringe. CNN. Okay? National Geographic. All these different legitimate scientific resources. Go look it up.

Bye. You'd like to prove that, wouldn't you? Hey! Silly. Listen to her. Hi, it up. Bye. You'd like to prove that, wouldn't you? Silly. Listen to her. Hi, I'm a PhD. I mean, why do people argue about something they haven't looked into at all? Why wouldn't she, as a primatologist, go, whoa, for real? Let me look

into that. Holy shit. Well, that makes sense. I mean, how could they possibly know all the primates? I mean, couldn't there possibly be another one? But no. Where was she from? I'm a primatologist. Those are fringe sites. National Geographic is a fucking fringe site. CNN is a fucking

fringe site. It angers me about people. They think that they know without even looking into it. That is insane. Oh. I have a vagina. Yeah, how about that? There's so much there, but before we talk about it, the first thing that occurs to me is

ladies should find someone who feels about you like Joe Rogan feels about a big fucking chimpanzee because he's really excited about this. It's not chimpanzee, Matt. It's chimpanzee. Don't know where he got that pronunciation from. The reason I play that is just to illustrate that people talk about how Joe's gotten worse than he has in the pandemic.

But this is where he comes from. That's him being aggressive as kind of a bit. But what he's expressing there is clearly what he believes, right? We've seen that last episode that we did that he regards himself as being really well informed on things because he does a couple of Google searches and he keeps things on this folder on his phone. And this is an example of how upset he is about people referencing credentials, how strongly felt he takes his conclusions, and also the aggressive conspiratorial tone to it. He's not just somebody asking

questions. He reaches his conclusion, and then he belittles and aggressively belittles anyone that disagrees with him. No, it's a good illustration. I mean, this is the same guy who believed that moon landing hoaxes and so on, and they were not isolated incidents. Like you say, it betrays that his epistemics are broken. He really does believe that he reads a couple of articles and then has cast iron certainty. His mind is made up and he was triggered, badly triggered by somebody who clearly does know what they're talking about, a PhD in primatology, who just wanted to set him

straight, wasn't interested. It was more than just aggressive call-in bantery slash misogyny. call in bantery slash misogyny. It was that he was extremely sensitive and upset by somebody telling him that he might not be 100% right about this thing that he read on the internet. Yeah. And that's how he was with the Moonlander. And like you say, that's the tone that he took when he engaged with people. His tone is not like that anymore, but his epistemics are. like that anymore, but his epistemics are, and his sense of personal, like, I don't know, just that he is not this guy that doesn't have a high opinion of himself. Like that is not what that

sounds like. So this is a selected clip that obviously people played to highlight that he's a bit of a shit. And you can find comparable examples of him making reasonable points, but it's the continuity of this kind of reasoning from this clip from over 10 years ago to the present. That's what I wanted to illustrate because Joe is a secondary character in the clips that we're going to cover, but he is the platform. Joe is the one searching these people out and promoting them. Yeah. A lot of the pushback we get in criticizing Joe is that the position is put that he is a reasonable guy, an open-minded guy, an everyday kind of guy who has been misled, unfortunately, by bad luck in having the wrong guests on or something like that.

No, he, he chooses the guests. He sets the agenda and he's just not good at figuring out what's true and what isn't. And yeah, unfortunately he's got a great huge platform to spread that. Yeah. All right. So now about Malone. So, Matt, you mentioned his credentials and whether they're disputed or not, but let's listen to just the short part of Malone describing his own credentials. as a global clinical scholar to round out my CV. I've run over 100 clinical trials, mostly in the vaccine space, but also in drug repurposing.

I've been involved in every major outbreak since AIDS. This is kind of what I do. I've won literally billions of dollars in federal grants and contracts. I'm often brought in by NIH to serve as a study section chair for awarding 80 to 120 million dollar contracts in vaccines and biodefense. I've spent countless hours at the CDC at the ACIP meetings. I have multiple hours at the CDC, at the ACIP meetings. I have multiple friends at the CDC. I work closely with Defense Threat Reduction Agency, and it's one of my favorite

clients, partners, teaming partners. I work with the ChemBioDefense group. There's other branches, including the other, this is not the branch that funded the Wuhan labs. That's another branch of DITRA. And he's not finished there, Matt. He will go on. And before we discuss some of that, specifically about the vaccines and his position in that. Whether you're in the camp that says, I'm a liar and I didn't invent this technology despite the patents, and there's a whole cohort of that, no one can debate that dispute that I played a major role in the creation of this tech.

And virtually all other voices that have that background have conflicts of interest, financial conflicts of interest. I think I'm the only one that doesn't. I'm not getting any money out of this. So I think that it starts to touch on some fundamental constitutional principles about rights of free speech. I expect that's kind of where you're going on that. Yeah. So his significant role in developing mRNA vaccines is disputed. significant role in developing mRNA vaccines is disputed. And I've seen some pretty good disputation of that. It seems like a fair assessment would be that he made a small, not negligible, but somewhat marginal contribution to their development a long time ago.

Many of those patents he mentions are, patents are complicated. They're put in by companies and he might be mentioned or something like that, right? I don't know. I think he does also own some patents, like primarily, but a bunch of them, like the fact is he's getting no money because this is something that people do in a bunch of spaces related to biotechnology and science where they try to patent things speculatively. And then because the patents themselves are basically vague and technical, when they are then tried to be applied to technologies and they are assessed by people who know that

people say, no, this is like a patent for, is he a little too broad or it doesn't relate to the later technology closely enough. So Malone's patents aren't worth the paper they're printed on, it seems. That's right. The fact that he's not making money off them is at least partially reflects that the technology that they cover isn't actually used. It was a bit of a dead end. And that's what, as you said, that's what people do. Patents are a commercial maneuver more than anything else. There's a nice graphic that Dan Wilson, the debunk the funk host made where I think it's

a diagram showing the timeline of the mRNA vaccines developments, lipid nanoparticles and mRNA technologies, like these two parts that were necessary to be developed. And it shows a timeline from 1961 to 2020, right? And there's maybe about 20 or 30 publications and developments highlighted on the timeline. And Malone is involved with one of them. So the interesting thing about this is not litigating precisely how significant his individual research contribution was, but what's obvious is that he's exaggerating it a great deal, I think. A little factoid that you mentioned to me, Chris, is that his wife was actually banned from Wikipedia for aggressive editing of his Wikipedia page in order to magnify and exaggerate

his track record, which again, is not really behavior you tend to see with people that are genuine Nobel Prize winners and so on. There's a part of this where it actually comes towards the end where he's basically saying that if he doesn't want to be involved with this, it's not about credit or that kind of thing. So let me play the clip. And they're taking our licenses and license to practice medicine because we are speaking about these matters. And you can label me however you want to label me. I don't care. I've done what I've done in my career.

I'm at a stage at 62 years old. I've got a farm. It's almost paid off. I raise horses. I love my wife. I've been married a long time. My kids are both married. I've got grandkids.

I don't need this. There's this claim, I'm doing all this because I seek attention. Trust me, this is not a fun thing to be doing. So like you said, Matt, this implies that he doesn't really care about credit. It's just about the truth. This is what is motivating him. But one, it's completely undermined by his constant presentation of himself as the key inventor of mRNA. He does this in multiple appearances. And the way that he's introduced on the Rogan description is the

inventor of the nine original mRNA vaccine patterns, right? And so on. He's presented as the key linchpin. And the point you note, which is really important, is like when I saw Malone appear on Brett Weinstein's podcast, I actually looked up on Wikipedia, like, is he? And I saw him in the description of mRNA vaccines. And I was like, oh, so, you know, that's, that's the first like kind of bullshit chat that you would do. Yeah.

Little did I know that the reason he was prominently mentioned there was because his wife had been in editing the article in order to assign him a core role and she did this repeatedly and then was eventually removed, banned from editing on Wikipedia. And Malone presented this as a conspiracy because he was like, she, she is a long-term editor. So they're silencing her. And it's like, no, you, you can't do that.

Your close family cannot assign you as the sole inventor. This is like a conflict of interest that should be obvious to a child, but apparently not. So Chris, one of the telltale red flags that we note on the Garometer a lot of the time is this self-aggrandized history, portrayal of their own claims to greatness, and a tale of not receiving as much credit as is deserved. We've seen this before with other gurus, and it was interesting to

see a really cardinal example of it here. So there's a consistent presentation of them as being these heroic figures that have been battling for the patient's rights or, you know, the sea of people and so on. And like, they all have this story, like self-aggrandizing story about why it may look like some negative things happen, like Malone leaving research and becoming involved with industry, or why he might have been consistently moving between projects, which according to various reports from people on the project, are assigned to irreconcilable differences and problems with the working environment. The consistent factor is Malone moving between these projects.

But look at the way he editorializes his departure from academia. And that's my kind of transition from being an academic to focusing on actually making things that work in people. And the big epiphany there was that the world is full of these academic thought leaders that publish in big journals and stuff. But that doesn't really lead to products. And I really wanted to make products that would help people. And so since then, for the last, I guess it's about 20 years, I've been focused on actually doing stuff, regulatory affairs, clinical development, getting the necessary training, et cetera. You can get a little bit more insight into the man by looking at his history since COVID, the sorts of things he's been involved in. As you mentioned, he was there

with Steve Kirsch in that episode we covered on the dark horse. He proposed to Frontiers and Pharmacology a special issue on methods of treatment for COVID-19, which eventually involved a lot of those papers getting rejected and a bit of controversy. Again, Pierre Corey submitted one there on the use of ivermectin, then resigned in protest, as Malone did from that project. So the controversy has been involved in skepticism and emphasis of the risk of the COVID-19 vaccines, a lot of concerns about spike proteins and things like that. Very much an advocate for these medications like ivermectin, which we have talked about before, pretty much demonstrated to be unfounded now. And as well as that,

he's increasingly seen to be doing these media appearances with, like he's been on Fox News with Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity. He's been on InfoWars and been on Alex Jones's podcast or network thing. And Steve Bannon's War Room thing. He's beloved now by the conspiratorial left and right, Jimmy Dore was waxing lyrical about him as well. And I think the credulousness with which his claims are taken is really one of these signs that you should be more critical about the claims that people make. Because it isn't that he doesn't have real credentials. It isn't that he hasn't been involved in these projects. And that's a first thing that's a bullshit test check. You would want to look, does he have publications?

Is he associated with the area of medicine that he's talking about? And he passes those by and large. And so it's understandable that people might initially be swayed by him. We'll show as we go on with these clips that the stuff we've played so far, it could be him entirely legitimately just describing his background and achievements and kind of explaining why it's wrong that someone like him would be censored. But as we'll go on, we'll see that's not all he's doing. There are warning signs that are apparent. And one warning sign that's consistent across most of the gurus we cover

is this belief that they have not been paid enough attention to, that they have revolutionary theories or some new approach, which has not been given appropriate recognition. And if you see that, that should be a warning sign. Yeah. Since we're talking about his track record, it's a good time to talk about being careful about the way in which one accepts credentials, right? Because as you said, Robert Malone has had a long and genuine research career. If you look at Google Scholar, it's got a lot of papers, a lot of citations. But remember that there are hundreds

of thousands of researchers in this field and associated fields. And just by the law of large numbers, you can definitely expect that a certain percentage of people with a similar kind of track record may not necessarily be having good takes. I'm just looking at his track record now. It is a little bit interesting. This is just a small thing. I don't mean it as a terrible dig, but it ranks the publications by citations, right? And the top nine, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine publications is most

cited ones for Robert Malone is he's not first author or usually even second or third or whatever author on them. If he was the inventor of the mRNA vaccine, that's a really big deal. You would expect those papers with him as the inventor, first author, being front and center and being amongst those most cited papers. So anyway, just a small thing. But the main point I wanted to make is be careful, the credentials of individual scholars, because there are odd people in academia. They could be scientists, they could be ex-scientists, retired scientists. There's lots of Nobel laureates who have come up with extremely

strange ideas. So the important thing is to pay attention to the consensus because the people with outlandish views will self-select into avenues like the Dark Horse podcast. It's like this grand filtering mechanism because there is a large segment of the population that wants to hear the heterodox, contrarian, anti-institutional message. I will say as well, Matt, that there's a contrast here. And this is why you have to take these things as heuristics, but not, you're definitely right that like an individual willing to go on InfoWars, that's a warning sign. It isn't to say everyone that is going on InfoWars, or if you just look at guest lists, there will be no legitimate

researchers on it. Not true. Some people make bad choices, right? But that's a warning sign. A claim to be this persecuted inventor that is not recognized by the relevant research communities. That's a warning sign, right? Now, Peter McCulloch, by comparison to Robert Malone, does have a lot of publications. He's got 63,730 citations, according to Google Scholar. His most cited paper is 5,128, right? These are influential. And he is first offer on a bunch of publications. And now most of these highly cited ones are from 20 odd years ago, but it's a legitimate career.

So that means he's somebody with expertise. ago, but it's a legitimate career. So that means he's somebody with expertise. It doesn't mean he's somebody that has been recognized as an expert on COVID. That's the important thing here, because there's lots of people who achieve their status and expertise in a given field and then go on to be outlandish maniacs about all the things like Luke Wantingner is a famous example. It's so common that there was a thing called Nobel disease, right? Where people who get Nobel prizes after they get it, come out to endorse some pseudoscientific technology or alternative medicine.

This happens all the time and people are fallible. Nobel Prize winning author says that homeopathy is real. That's true. That's what Luke Montagnier argued, but it doesn't mean that the evidence for homeopathy is any stronger. It just means that a Nobel Prize winner who did good work previously has bought into something silly. That's right. Yeah. It's important to emphasize that point that Peter McCulloch is a cardiologist, internal medicine specialist, and that's where his reputation derives from. And yes, it is medicine, but medicine is a very, very broad field and it's not virology. And I really want to reiterate the point too, that even if just 1% of researchers, 10% of the time come out with an outlandish view, then those views will get platformed hugely

because there's a market for them. So they will tend to rise to the top. It's sticking to the point about brags and outlandish claims being warning signs. Here is another example from Robert Malone. Not bragging. It's an example of like a kind of full modesty. I actually said to the nurse when I took the first jab, I bragged a little bit.

I usually don't. I'm usually, you know, keep it on the down low. I don't like to wear it on my shoulder. But I did say, you know, I invented this tech. She's like, oh, that's really cool. Can I take a selfie? Did she aspirate before she shot it into you? I have.

That whole aspiration thing, yeah, I'm sure she did. Yeah? Yeah, she's a well-trained nurse. Okay, so that was him not bragging, right? He rarely mentions that he's the inventor of these technologies and he doesn't like to bring it up, right? But you might've heard that point about Joe Rogan and aspiration. This is like one of his hobby horses where he thinks that people are not tapping the needles before they inject. And he was told by a doctor that this is wrong.

It isn't a big issue with these particular, the way that these vaccines are administered. But he still, this is a good example, right? It doesn't matter. He heard the doctor outlined to him why that is not an issue here, but he's still sure it is, right? Yep. So that was one thing, right?

Malone reluctantly mentioning that he was the inventor. So just another couple of examples, Matt, because it isn't just his role in the mRNA vaccines that relate to this important role that he has in developing protocols or in finding things out before other people. So here we go. This is him making another discovery. Peter Van Doren And the other part of Rick's story that kind of doesn't make sense, that there was no data on efficacy, is that I was the guy that first acquired because I had Chinese connections, the Chinese protocol for treating this virus. I got it in late February,

and I sent it in to my buddies at the CIA and at the ASPR, at the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response. So the government had those documents when Rick Bright made those determinations. So the assertion that there was no data on hydroxychloroquine at the time when this decision was made is just patently false. So he claims he got the protocols from China before anyone else sent them to the CIA and it was ignored. And he has a very cartoonish

view about like, even if that was true, I'm skeptical of that, but even if it was true, the notion that he sends in the document, their contact at the CIA, and then they have it like everyone in the institution knows about it. It's cartoonish, right? It's a thing we've seen with other gurus too, these illusions to being in circles of power and having these private conversations happening. High level conversations. So listen to this. I've got many friends in the intelligence community. So I'm kind of a pretty deep insider in terms of the government. I know Tony Fauci personally. I've dealt with him my whole career.

And then we had this particular outbreak. And I was tip of the spear on bringing the Ebola vaccine forward that we now call the Merck Ebola vaccine. I'm the one that got Merck involved. That's a different vaccine that he's, you know, claiming. Tip of the spear of, jog my memory, Chris. My vague memory is that is, again, disputed. There's no evidence for it. Like, so the Bonk the Funk guy looked into it and couldn't find what he's referencing. And he was saying, you know, maybe there's some connection, but this sounds already like just an inflated claim. And there's more, Matt, there's more, and that's not all. So invented mRNA, tip of the spear with the Merck vaccine and now? To that point, with drug repurposing.

So I'm the one that originally discovered famotidine as an agent because I was self-treating myself after I got infected with agents that we'd identified through the computer modeling. So this is something else. And this one actually might be applicable

because I think this is him, I think which he is championing, which is not widely endorsed. I don't know, but you know, the point is to rack up how many things that you're claiming to have been the inventor and the person at the front of, and it's getting long.

On the Rogan show, Matt, he even goes so far to announce a new thing, which he's just releasing information about on the Rogan podcast, where most medical information is, you know, important things are announced. So just to, on this tangent, since I've said it, I've got some good news to announce. First time here. Today we believe we should have the first patient enrolled in our clinical trials of the combination of famotidine and celecoxib for treating SARS-CoV-2. This is trials being run by the company Leidos, which is one of my clients that I've helped

design. It's based on my discoveries. They're funded by Defense Threat Reduction Agency. trials being run by the company Leidos, which is one of my clients that I've helped design. It's based on my discoveries. They're funded by Defense Threat Reduction Agency. So this is another drug combination. Now I work with all these folks like Peter and Pierre that I know you know. Trevor Burrus, Jr.: Peter McCullough, Pierre Corey. Peter Van Doren, Jr.: But I haven't pushed this drug combination.

I just felt it was inappropriate until we got the trials running. But they're now open and we've passed through the FDA screening process. By the way, we tried to get... We had data showing that adding ivermectin further improved the combination. But the FDA created such enormous roadblocks to us doing an ivermectin arm that we had to drop it. And by we, what I'm saying is the FDA created so much grief that the DOD decided the juice wasn't worth the squeeze, and they just dropped that arm. Again, everything falls into the huge, if true, kind of category, doesn't it? But also, he didn't feel ready to promote his drug cocktail protocol until a trial had started, not finished. They complain about vaccines being promoted on the basis of their trials.

But their trials are huge. These are massive trials and now being treated in billions of people worldwide. And Malone, I don't doubt that there's some clinical trial underway, but it sounds a lot like drug cocktail trials seem to be this new cashing in thing where all the kind of fringe theorists have their own protocol and combination of drugs that they're trying to present as the alternative, right? And it always has hypermectin and hydroxychloroquine basically in there, but maybe they're not directly in the trial and stuff. And they might get through, but I would

really be curious, is this a pre-registered study, high powered, with only measuring very clear outcomes and those kinds of things. I'd be curious. As Debunk the Fug explained, especially early during the pandemic, they were throwing a bunch of stuff at the wall to see what stuck. So there's nothing unusual about that. Pretty much anything that might conceivably have an effect, they are giving it a go. But it seems like Malone is still fully committed to these alternative treatments, despite the evidence for them being pretty slim.

Just to leap to Peter McCulloch to give a comparable example, listen to him describing his research and protocols. describing his research and protocols. So at the time we submitted our paper, Joe, there was about 4,000 papers in the peer-reviewed literature on COVID-19. I'm sorry, check that. There was 55,000 papers in the peer-reviewed literature on COVID-19 and about 4,000 that could have related to certain drugs, but not a single one put the concepts together on how to treat patients.

Not a single one, Matt. 4,000 papers until Peter published his protocol. It's the same story and the same tendency towards claims that they are the people that would have been invited, right? It's the same as the Weinsteins, that they believe that they are the ones that should be at the forefront, that should be respected. And because they are generally not being requested to lead the vaccine efforts or whatever, that something's up. So Peter McCulloch makes this explicit. You know, if it was about COVID, I would say that the world would have adopted something when I presented to the American people and the Senate testimony in November of 2020.

I told America, listen, there's four pillars to pandemic response. We should have always seen teams of doctors in Washington. I would have went if they called me. Matter of fact, I emailed them. They know who I am. We would have seen teams of doctors in Washington working at four pillars. He emailed them.

He emailed them to volunteer. Yeah, it reminds me of somebody. Somebody who also talked about being willing to be flown, being willing to fly to Washington to give special advice. It must be quite frustrating when you don't get the call, when the helicopter doesn't land on you. No, but he isn't interested. He's not returning your calls. This is another parallel with McCulloch. So he's not claiming to be the inventor of the mRNA technology, but he is claiming to have developed this early treatment protocol. He was a hydroxychloroquine guy. And listen to this, the level of personal grievance

that might be confounding some of his judgments. I published an op-ed in August of 2020 in The Hill, a Republican journal for Washington people and others in those circles. And the title of the op-ed was The Great Gamble of the COVID-19 Vaccine Development Program. And what I saw is I saw a total shift on everything for the vaccines. Do you know major clinical trials with hydroxychloroquine were dropped? Ivermectin, things were dropped. We had programs for favipiravir. The Canadians had a big thrust for favipiravir. It was dropped. I was the principal investigator overall for the Ramachaban program.

That was a Japanese product. It was an anticoagulant, antihistamine. It looked very promising. We had great preliminary data. We had Bayer that was going to give us all the doses we needed to treat America. I was on calls between the NIH and the FDA, back and forth, back and forth. I couldn't get any traction in the summer of 2020. It was obvious. In fact, I remember one of the Operation Warp Speed officers telling me, listen, sorry, we have everything organized for the

current program. Are you picking up a bit of a sour grapes vibe? I don't know. There's, there's, you know, something about these guys, right? Like they really is grieving grievance map. This is why we have grievance mongering on the grometer and they're five, right? They're both five. They're up at the top of our score. So look, this is one thing. You've got a warning sign. Grievance mongering has appeared.

Sometimes people have legitimate grievances. Sometimes not. Sometimes not. Especially when they have an inflated idea of themselves. That can sometimes lead to it. And Matt, I know we've gotten on the McCulloch thread here, but the impact that he's claiming his treatment protocol would have had is not slight. This is not a minor claim that it could have had an impact. It could have helped things if people had considered the approach

better. What could have happened is... In your opinion, if your protocol had been established and distributed worldwide, if people had recognized that this is a way to deal with early treatment, you think that the overall number of COVID deaths would have been significantly reduced? I testified in the US Senate, November 19th, 2020. I told Americans under oath that 50% of the lives at that time could have been saved. We were at about 250,000 deaths based on what I knew. I then testified on March 10th, 2021 in the Texas Senate, sworn testimony. I upped that to 85% of the deaths could have been avoided. Cassandra complex, Chris? What's up, Matt? Please go on. Well well it certainly does for the pattern obviously

covid has presented a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity because it it is a genuine crisis but at the same time these extremely strong claims about them having the secret that is not getting recognized not getting traction not getting the support that is not getting recognized, not getting traction, not getting the support that it so richly deserves. People aren't listening to them about their particular treatment protocols or whatever that went by the wayside and didn't get the support they wanted. It's very much in the ballpark of Cassandra. Well, Matt, you know, 85% of deaths, that's quite low, really, isn't it?

I mean, that's only, there's still 15% left to go. Actually, Peter mentions it might have been an underestimate. And so this is why you believe that at least 50% of those deaths could have been prevented. That was in November of 2020, under sworn testimony. That number's easily 85% now. Maybe it's 90% now if we got what you got. If you got the sequence multidrug treatment monoclonal antibodies, you called it the kitchen sink. So do I. Bottom line is it may be refined over time.

Notice there, the little mention that Rogan took basically what McCulloch would have recommended. The monoclonal antibodies and so on. Our podcast isn't about the medical technicalities, but I think what we are saying is that these characters are not entirely disinterested. Malone is more than just a retired guy who's running a horse farm. They have alternative treatments, alternative approaches that they have a stake in, reputational, perhaps a commercial one, but strongly invested in these alternatives. That's worth noting. Another reason that I think that it's worth highlighting this sense of grievance is that it's attached to a disparaging of opponents as not just wrong, but as essentially people that don't care about patients or that kind of thing. So I realize we're

veering onto theulloch territory here, but he's pretty explicit about what other doctors are worried about. I was on one with the National Institutes of Health, and I asked a question. I said, when are we going to start to treat the problem? People are getting sick out there. They're starting to be hospitalized. Some are dying. When are we going to start to treat patients? It's too late for the hospitals, too late to treat people. It's obvious they're dying in the hospital. We must start early.

And you could basically hear a pin drop on these calls. No one had an idea about treating COVID-19 at home. Was there no thought about it? Was there no discussion or was it just not a point of focus? Like what was the problem there? I think it was a grip of fear. Doctors for the first time in their lives felt like they could get the disease themselves if they actually saw and examined these patients. All the discussion was on personal protective equipment, hand sanitizer, negative airflow rooms. It was all

about protecting the healthcare workers. So I find that distasteful because the claim there is that like all the other doctors, all these people that were just worried about self-preservation. And that's such bullshit from what I've seen about the vast majority of medical professionals. They've been heroic in the face of the pandemic and risking infection lots of them have got infected a lot of them have died as a result of having a very high viral load acquired in the course of treating patients right there's the fact that they're presented as cowards like that they were just they weren't thinking about treatment and they want to send people home because they're scared that they can get affected. And it shouldn't ring true to anybody who knows people that work in the medical profession.

I'm not saying they're all angels. I'm saying that that characterization is incredibly self-serving and seems very unlikely. One of the repeated things that we see, we saw the Dark Horse podcast and now we're seeing Joe Rogan's podcast, is there is little hesitation in claiming the worst of motives by the medical establishment and alleging a conspiracy or having motives that are based around profit or social control. So I'm sure you've got a lot of clips that illustrate that. Oh, yeah. And we're going to switch them alone, back them alone in a minute. But this tag team, they were wonderful.

They could be the WWE champions of COVID disinformation. And we'll see that they're connected later when we look about these disinformation networks that they cite of all the people they start citing and including each other. So you heard at the end of that clip, like Rogan's idea of pushback, right? Or Rogan's idea of a question, which is like, were none of the doctors worried about this? Right. And that's the kind of thing that people say, Rogan asks, he's pushing back. And I've got to give another example, Matt, of the kind of pushback that you get when you have Joe Rogan interviewing these figures. Are there people that are in agreement or disagreement with

you that you, like disagreement in particular, that you respect and you see some merit in what they're saying? Well, the disagreement would be don't treat patients. That's it? Think about it. Well, when I published the paper in the American Journal of Medicine, so I was the first person in the world to put a stake in the ground saying that we can treat COVID-19 at home and prevent hospitalization. Has anyone said to you don't treat patients? I mean, so the letters of the editor came in, Joe. don't treat patients. I mean, so the letters of the editor came in, Joe.

It's kind of easy to not really process that properly because it's so extreme that it's delivered in the way that it is. I saw your surprise, the register on your face about what he actually claimed. So what did he just claim, Matt? He claimed that other researchers, doctors aren't interested in treating patients. Yes, that's correct. He claimed that only he and presumably his friends, hopefully he's not the only doctor. But later, McCulloch explains there's $500 doctors that agree with that. Okay. So that's lucky. But yeah, the opposition to his view is don't treat them.

Don't do anything. That's the reasonable version. Like the question was what reasonable people that you respect, what's the pushback that you've got? Well, the only one is don't treat them. Yeah. No, Matt. Let's get back to our other friend, Robert, Mr. Malone.

So maybe he's better. Maybe he can do a better steel man of what people are presenting. He's not going to present those who would disagree with his analysis as cold-blooded, self-interested people out to defraud the public. interested people out to defraud the public. I can tell you that the hospitals receive a bonus from the government. I think it's like 3000 bucks. If someone is hospitalized and able to be declared COVID positive, they also receive a bonus. I think the total is something like 30,000 in incentive if somebody gets put on the vent. Then they get a bonus if somebody is declared dead with COVID. They have an incentive at the front end to declare somebody a COVID case. the CDC made the determination that they were going to make a core assumption, if PCR positive and you die, that is death due to COVID.

So this is obviously referencing one of the very prominent types of misinformation that's been floating around, which is that these deaths from COVID have been wildly overestimated because these people have died with COVID, Chris, not of COVID. Yeah, with COVID. So yeah. And it's not just that, Mark. It's not just that. So that's one thing that there are comorbidities which aren't being considered, but it's more extreme than that. or comorbidities which aren't being considered. But it's more extreme than that.

And so the extreme example, just to show the absurdity, if the patient comes in with a bullet hole to the head and they do a nose swab and they come up PCR positive, they're determined to have died from COVID when in fact they died from lead poisoning. That's real? Yeah. So they've really done that with gunshot victims, car accident victims? Yeah, for sure trauma and other things.

I've seen that said, but I've always thought that's ridiculous. There's no way a hospital would do that. It's not a question of what the hospital would do. It's a question of med codes. So the code is set that if you swab that person and you're supposed to swab them. And you get a positive signal. Are you obligated to swab them no matter who they are if they come in with an injury? I believe it's the common practice. I don't know whether there would be an obligation that would

be a hospital byby-hospital policy statement. So it really is true that if someone has a gunshot wound, and they're dying of that gunshot wound, and you check them for COVID, and if they're COVID positive and they die, they mark that off as a COVID death. That is by definition from the CDC. If that makes your eyebrow raise, then I think you're on the right track. If that makes your eyebrow raise, then I think you're on the right track. And this is covered in the Debunk the Funk episode on Malone, where he basically goes through what the criteria is. And that's completely false. It's lies, Mark.

It's a lie. This constant impugning of the medical system, of just having the worst motives, classifying people in order to cash in on $3,000 checks. The theme you see consistently from all of them, there is no way to listen to this material without taking from it that the entire medical and scientific system is entirely corrupt, doesn't care about patients,

doesn't care about curing them, is interested in checking boxes and collecting paychecks. And there's a constant fake presentation of a hesitation to be a whistleblower yeah or to avoid saying something too extreme so let me play a clip that wraps up this conspiracy in a bowl and also illustrates that tendency you you think that the reason why he was targeted, because he was directly costing the hospital money because people weren't going in? I'm not saying, I'm saying that the observation is that early treatment keeps people out of the

hospital and that hospitals have financial incentives, including death incentives, financial incentives. To discourage early treatment. incentives, including death incentives, financial incentives. To discourage early treatment. Death incentives, Matt, to stop early treatment. And the healthcare system in the US is kind of horrific, right? The way that the privatization works that like, yes, hospitals get money for doing treatments and that kind of stuff. But these claims about it all being the whole pandemic is basically just based on these

hospitals inflating numbers. It's nonsense because in countries that have public health systems where that isn't the case, you see the same things. Yeah. And the implication from what they're saying is that the hospitals want to get you in, diagnose you with COVID and for you to die. That is the clear implication. And I don't think you have to read into things in any

sense to hear it. Like, I mean, listen, they would be doing that because they're making, they're making. So again, I don't want to make accusations. I'm observing facts, right? I'm observing facts, Matt. They're making back, that's all, after talking about death incentives. These aren't even the most extreme comments yet. We'll get into more. But your warning lights, as a listener who doesn't know the medicine, who doesn't know the evidence, they should be going off because these claims are extreme. They strain credulity and they're tied in with all the other things that we've talked about, grievance mongering, self-aggrandizement. And just to make a neat parallel between McCulloch

and Malone, listen to Malone talking about the impact of not rolling out hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin on the pandemic. So it's not just ivermectin, it's hydroxychloroquine. And just to put a marker on that, there's good modeling studies that probably half a million excess deaths have happened in the United States through the intentional blockade of early treatment by the US government. Half a million. Half a million. That is a well documented number. It's a combination of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin. Now when you ask me why, you're asking me to get into somebody's head.

What I can say as a scientist is what I observe. The behaviors, the actions, the correspondence, these bizarre things like, don't you know it's a horse drug, y'all? Right? Which is amazingly pejorative. I live in Virginia. Okay? I can tell you the people around me, I live in a rural county and I race horses.

That was deeply offensive to use that language in that way. But there's clearly been an intentional push. I mean, that claim is worth repeating explicitly. There's been an intentional push by the American government to block ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine. Hydroxychloroquine. Hydroxychloroquine. Even though they know it works and would have prevented half a million deaths. And we don't know why.

Why would they do such a thing? But they're very upset about the forced medicine thing, right? And they're worried about why Merck is saying that its medication isn't CF and this is a conspiracy. So what is the motivation? You're right. None of this makes sense. The only thing, you know, this is a journalist problem. And, you know, the classic guidance is follow the money. Yeah. And so it is bizarre that Merck would come out with these explicit statements about the safety of ivermectin. statements about the safety of ivermectin. Both ivermectin and hydroxy are on the WHO list of essential medicines. They have been administered for millions and millions of doses. They're among

the safest medicines we know when administered within this acceptable window, pharmaceutical window. The ivermectin is even safer than hydroxy so merck coming out out of the blue and saying ivermectin isn't safe is really inexplicable and like no i read what merck said they didn't say their medication is unsafe they said it's not safe to be used for covid in the concentrations that people are using or that we don't have safety data on that. Yeah, I know. It should be obvious.

It should be obvious, but it's just another one of those things where you're just like, I've read that. It doesn't say what they're claiming. And I'm not a medical doctor and I can identify that. So, yeah. I mean, the untruths appear when there's an uncomfortable fact that needs to be obfuscated. And you know, the criticisms of ivermectin, yes, it's a little bit mean to say, oh,

you know, people are taking apple flavored horse dewormer, you know, you silly sods or whatever. Yes. That can a little bit mean to say, oh, you know, people are taking apple-flavored horse duomo, you know, you silly sods or whatever. Yes, that can be a bit mean, but that's not the point. Who cares? That's a little bit mean. The point is, is that there's no evidence that it works. But they'll fixate on that or misrepresent the letter from Merck because these, you know, uncomfortable, uncomfortable things that need to be distracted from. Yeah.

So there's that. And you got to hear in that clip as well, again, the kind of hesitancy, right? This claim, oh, look, I'm a scientist. I'm just concerned about the numbers. I don't want to discuss motives and incentives and what. That's bullshit. So they funded this study. They did it themselves.

It's a CDC study. And do you believe they did it with the intent of coming to the conclusion? You're asking me to apply intent and I've had too much time with lawyers and I'm not going to do it. Good for you. So either way, there's many, many, many studies that point to the fact that natural immunity is superior. You'll see throughout these clips, it's the same thing that Brett Weinstein and Eric Weinstein do, where they are clearly impugning nefarious motives to their conspiratorial targets.

There is a pretense at great reticence. But I mean, that's that, that description completely surrounding it completely contradicts that because there's a clear implication and you've listened to McCulloch and Malone, Todd White, how all other doctors are scared and they don't care. So where was the consideration of not wanting to impugn people's motives when they're doing that, or when they're saying that doctors are swabbing people after they can see them dead from a gunshot wound? What kind of monsters are doing that, right?

They're not doing that by accident. So it goes on because we're talking there about early treatment, but in terms of the vaccines, Malone wants to make some more claims, right? With great hesitancy. But let's see what he says. So, you know, my position all the way through this comes off of the platform of bioethics and the importance of informed consent. So my position is that people should have the freedom of choice, particularly for their children and that in order to appropriately choose to participate in a medical experiment, they have to be fully informed of the risks as well as the benefits. I've tried really hard to make sure that people have access to the information about those

risks and potential benefits. The true unfiltered academic papers and raw data, et cetera. The policy that's being implemented is one in which no discussion of the risks are allowed, because by definition they will elicit vaccine hesitance. So it can't be discussed. But that's the fundamental background. That's the backbone of informed consent. So informed consent is not only not happening,

it's being actively blocked. So Malone, in his own words, has the best of motives. Informed by bioethics, believing in informed consent and that people should have unfiltered access to the information they need to make an informed health decision. In contrast, the establishment is doing the filtering. They're preventing the use of alternative treatments that would save so many lives and suppressing information that might contribute to hesitancy around vaccines for nefarious reasons, we must suppose. He's not quite explicit, is he? Yeah. And Joe Rogan is on this too. You are

delighted to have an informed discussion about side effects or anything. It's all prohibitive. So let's hear him explain that. That makes sense. It does make sense. And it's unprecedented. I mean, I can't recall a time ever where people weren't able to discuss the side effects of medication, whether or not the studies are accurate, whether or not people should universally take these things or whether it should be done on a person by person basis. This is a it's a very strange time. And so when someone who's an expert like yourself has a dissenting opinion, and you see that dissenting opinion immediately silenced, or at least immediately criticized, and then these attempts at silencing,

it just signifies how confusing and how troubled the times we're in are. confusing and how troubled the times we're in are. So Chris, for me, this is this weird dovetailing that's just increasingly been going on over the last year or so, which is free speech principles with these conspiracy theories and health misinformation. So, I mean, it's obviously not true that no one has looked into, published on, discussed potential risks from vaccines. In fact, as you know, the Johnson & Johnson vaccine was withdrawn because very rare side effects were happening. There's a great deal of concern for this. There's always been this discussion. So that's not true. In the public space, of course, there's been endless discussion, not least on the Joe Rogan podcast or on various conservative outlets on various

routes. So it is not suppressed. But the argument to me is quite frustrating because it doesn't matter how much evidence your claims lack. It doesn't matter how lurid and conspiratorial they are. Anybody pushing back on things, even when it crosses the boundary to blatant misinformation, that is treated as a suppression of free speech. And that really grabs my gears. There is discussion of all these things that they say there isn't. There's debates in the

literature. There's podcasts I listen to with experts discussing different opinions on treatments and not different opinions about whether vaccines are overall beneficial because the data is not ambiguous there. And you talked about them connecting these into larger conspiracies. And again, I think this relates to the conspiratorial worldview that Rogan inhabits and his susceptibility to right-wing disinformation. So I've got a couple of clips that relate to this. So let's move from COVID conspiracies, we'll come back to them, but to grander conspiracies. And you might hear echoes of James Lindsay in some of this as well. echoes of James Lindsay in some of this as well. But there's two hills that I'm willing to die on.

One is stopping the jabs in the children. And one is resisting the erosion of free speech, which is the fundamental principle on which our democracy and our society, civilized, Western culture is built on. I like to say when I give rallies, do you remember back a couple of years ago when you felt sorry for the people in the People's Republic of China because their internet was filtered, they weren't allowed free speech. Their government told them what to do and think. Okay? Now, here we are. Okay? And the next thing that we all feel sorry about, social credit system. Okay? Wake up, folks. Wake up. It's coming. If we give into this, we give into vaccine passports and having

an app on your phone that shows everything you're doing in terms of your medical history. And they've even offered people extra credit. Rogan was about to get started there. Maybe I shouldn't have cut him off. Before you respond, I'll let Rogan discuss a little bit more. Two years ago than it was two years before, it's ramping up exponentially in some sort of a strange way that's affecting society. And then the censorship aspect of it, which has kicked in. And as you said, they're stepping in line with tech, doing it with the pharmaceutical companies, doing it with the government. They're all sort of on the same page when it comes to the messaging.

Okay. And I don't know how we ever pull out of this mess. I mean, I think we are at a 45-degree downward angle headed into a mountain. I really do. It's so strange to me that no one's up in arms about this other than a few people that have been censored, a few people that have these opposing viewpoints that are deemed to be something that can't be discussed. Joe Tainter- Well, Joe, it's even deeper than that.

Then there's the hunting of physicians. So I myself, Peter McCullough is the textbook example of hunting physicians, right? Peter Robinson Oh, we're getting the Scott Adams, the conservatives will be hunted, Matt. Yeah. Those are good illustrative examples of how these anti-vax views are not unconnected to this broader conspiratorial worldview. We listed at the beginning some of the appearances that Robert Malone has been doing on InfoWars and various right-wing outlets.

It's interesting to me because I was just talking to my wife, actually, about someone we know who has kind of always been into the sort of hippie, make-your-own-cheese, rural community living. And they're undoubtedly an anti-vaxxer, and they're like the old-fashioned kind. And now we have the new kind of anti-vaxxing, which is appealing to this right-wing segment. But it occurred to me that underlying both worldviews is something very similar, which is that the system, gesturing vaguely here, is corrupt, right? The mainstream is entirely corrupt and you need to have your own bespoke, customized health solutions, right?

And it's this amazing horseshoe where at surface, they look politically at opposite ends of the spectrum, but you go a little bit deeper and they share this common element, which is anti-orthodoxy, anti-the system. So again, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding. Chris, what's our garometer say about this? Anti-establishmentarianism. That's the one. But I want to say that we've heard Malone and Rogan express their concern. We've heard Peter McCulloch's being hunted.

I think you're potentially compromised in this because where you live, Matt, it's already fallen. Other countries have been much more ruthless in their enforcement of vaccinations, and it's kind of opened a lot of people's eyes as to what's possible. When you look at some of the European countries, the way Germany's handling it, even the way New Zealand's handling it, and Australia for sure, people are terrified when they're seeing these places that they thought of as being as free as the United States falling into this sort of totalitarian regime situation where the government is telling the people what they must do and literally checking everyone for papers and people don't seem to think that this is a problem you just want me to rant about this again don't you hashtag australia has fallen look i'm just saying you live in a totalitarian state for

sure according to joe did that from the McCulloch episode, by the way. You may have seemed to seamlessly fit in, but it's because it's the same. It's the whole same narrative that goes for both. Yeah. So have you fallen in the totalitarian list? Look, there's an element of truth there, I suppose, which in Australia, the government is definitely encouraging people strongly to get vaccines. And that if you are unvaccinated and you want to keep your job as a teacher or working in

a childcare thing or other kinds of often public service employee, especially where you're, or a hospital say, where you're dealing with people or vulnerable people, then yes, you're going to have problems. There's slightly different things implemented by each state. That's the element of truth. The big picture, though, is that it's a complete lie. And also, Australia has only suffered 2,387 deaths so far from COVID during the entire pandemic in a population of what, 25 million, something like that. Something's working. Maybe it's the vaccines. Yeah, maybe it's the vaccines. They portray Australia as a tyranny. And what they don't appreciate is that the government restrictions, like the government policy response, usually lags public opinion in

terms of public opinion wanting stronger restrictions. Yes, there's a few people who go and protest, but if you look at the surveys, the actual polls, not surprisingly, the political stance pretty much exactly reflects the public one. So even now as Omicron is spiking in Australia, and that was a result of our deliberate policy to completely open up, as promised, after we got to those levels of vaccination, the kind of let it rip policy. Yep. So first of all, that's the first debunking, right? It wasn't an endless, incremental erosion of freedoms. No, it was temporary and it was wound back as promised.

And after it was wound back, as expected, COVID is now rampaging through the community. Touch wood, things are still going relatively well despite all of those infections, because as planned, as hoped, hospitalizations and so on, while increasing, are largely decoupled from infections. But at the moment, the public is doing a self-lockdown because people are concerned. People are avoiding restaurants. People are avoiding going into CBDs and mixing and latching. It's not the government, man. Yeah, Joe knows that.

And he knows that because it's basically you're scared. You're all scared. The more disturbing things, the opposite of that is one of the more disturbing things You're scared, Matt. You're all scared. not these machines that are designed to make money. And they sell drugs, and the drugs are often beneficial, but their main goal is to make money. So you forgot about that, Matt. That was your first mistake. Then your other problem is?

That's what it is. And that's what it is. It's a tribal formation. And it's people who don't have personal sovereignty and people who aren't confident with standing by their own thoughts and objectively analyzing things outside of an ideology, outside of the tribe. Those people are very susceptible right now. And those are more common than not. He's got your peg. Oh my God. Does he not ever,

do they, none of them, none of them think, is this a self-serving description I'm giving where everyone else is scared and terrified and they don't care about personal sovereignty. They're just the weak-willed infants who want to be told what to do. And they need people like me,

the comedian podcaster with my folder on cooties to remind them what freedom is about and not to fall into the Australian totalitarian regime that is terrorizing the world. Holy God. I know. We're a bunch of sheeple. Just terrified.

I mean, people are a bit concerned about COVID, right? I think people can relax a little bit, but it's very natural. Of course, people are a little bit worried. It's a pandemic. That's how people react. They rush to the shops and they buy toilet paper and so on. But it doesn't mean we're all mere sheeple that have been tricked by the evil pharmaceutical companies to take vaccines that don't work and

are dangerous. And they seem to have it both ways too, don't they, Chris? Because on one hand, COVID is nothing to worry about. It's not a big deal. You should just be cool with it. But at the same time, it's absolutely imperative. There's all these people dying, half a million deaths that could have been prevented if only they'd used our alternative treatments. It's weird sort of playing it at both ends like that. Yeah. And there's also, and I'm not the only one to have noticed this, but I will counter, Matt, that the person who I reliably see as being terrified and overly concerned about things is Joe and his

friends. They see creeping authoritarianism everywhere. Originally, he was very panicked about the possibility that he might catch the virus and have a bad effect, even ignoring that the probability is very low of having a negative consequence. He's scared of vaccines. He thinks the vaccines are dangerous. That's why he's not getting them, right? If there were no fear to it, he could just get it. And he could just show people, I don't think these are valid, but I'm going to get it anyway. He's talking with people telling him that these

are killing children. They're responsible for thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of deaths. And he's scared of them. Scared of the government, scared of COVID, and scared of vaccines. Yeah. And it doesn't take much to notice that. Yeah. And it doesn't take much to notice that. But if we start vaccinating every six months, I think the spike protein never gets out of the body. It accumulates. Progressive accumulation of the spike protein is very worrisome for these progressive organ injury syndromes. So if we're doing it every six months, the spike protein will never really truly have a chance to get out of the body in these cases that you're talking about where it's still in the body for 15 months. 15 months is on the long side. Let's be charitable and say it lasts in the body a year. So the spike protein, Matt, the spike protein will be in the body for so long if

we're going to... And that was McCulloch. Yeah. So I recall hearing debunking of this, which I won't attempt to rehash, but it speaks to one of the standard tropes about vaccines or worries about them, which is that idea of impurity, that you're going to be contaminated by this nasty, icky material. It could be some nasty chemical like mercury, or it could be a spike protein or some other random thing, but it's always that your precious bodily essences are getting contaminated.

Yeah. And we don't need to, like you say, we can refer you to the other experts if you want to know about the relative proportions of the spike protein. And the general rule of thumb, which is kind of obvious, is that if you get an infection from COVID, you get much more spike protein throughout your body, not in the mRNA version where it doesn't have that ability to infect you. That's the whole freaking point of the vaccine. So that's wrong. Let's stick with McCulloch for just one more point because this is how he characterizes that. And because the antibodies to the spike protein after the vaccine are so high

compared to the respiratory infection, we now infer that in fact, one gets a much larger dose of the spike protein after vaccination than the respiratory illness. And in some people, they invariably can't handle the spike protein exposure to the human body. Who dies? Check that. Tell people. Check that. Check that clear. I mean, do you need us to say that that's not true? I mean, don't listen to us. We're not... No, go and check it. Go and check it. And you've heard him explicitly say that, right? We know you get more spike protein from vaccines than

from natural infection. Is that true? Is that true? Yeah. And if he's wrong about such an elementary claim that is extremely implausible just on the face of it, you only need like a basic primary school Kerserkes Act level understanding of how vaccines work to suspect that is highly dubious. Go and check that. And if it doesn't check out, then maybe, maybe he could be wrong about everything else. Oh, let's stick with this for a minute. We'll come back to the impact of the vaccines on natural immunity. But you made the point, and this is something I want to remind people of, that if you don't

know everything there is to know about vaccines and viruses, that's entirely reasonable. You're not an expert. We are not experts, right? There's people who've dedicated their careers to this. It doesn't mean that all the public health officials, all the governments always get everything right. They don't. Things are always messy, especially when there's a global pandemic.

There will be mistakes. There will be competing points of view, but you might know some things and you may hear them be contradicted with incredible confidence in these discussions. And that's another thing that should be a warning sign, that when you hear someone say something, which you know to be false because you've got good reason, right? You've heard reliable sources repeatedly explain something. And then you hear something which flat out contradicts it. It's another one of those warning signs that should go up of like, wait, what? And I'm going to give an example that is specific to me. This was a warning sign when I was listening to the content. So it happens in both Malone and McCulloch's content.

So I'll play them both. Here's Malone's version. Okay, that's my point. I got the original Chinese protocols. This is what they were using. And they were using it effectively? Yeah. Yeah.

So were they using ivermectin as well? No. No. But other countries have, like Japan and India and... Uttar Pradesh, as you know, has crushed COVID. Malone at another point endorses Japan. He did there. He didn't correct Joe that Japan uses ivermectin. And Peter McCulloch, he says. He says, now, again, though, why do you think hydroxychloroquine was demonized? Why do you think that it was, especially so early on in Australia? It can't be universal competence across the board. So one of the things that's interesting about ivermectin is it's not demonized worldwide.

It's distributed widely in other countries, and it's shown some effectiveness. Oh, absolutely. You know, ivermectin now is a first line of Japan it's attributed to crushing the curves in Mexico in Peru absolutely crush the curves in India we've been in close communication with them. Ivermectin is an interesting drug and I know you've reviewed it in depth on this show so I'll leave it to experts like Dr. Corey and others there but you But I use it every day in my practice. I have no problems with ivermectin. It's safe and effective. It's been

a Nobel Prize awarded in 2015 for ivermectin. But hydroxychloroquine, I think worldwide, is still the leading drug used to treat COVID-19 just because of its availability. There's so much there, Matt, but the one I want to hide is Japan, right? Ivermectin is a frontline treatment in Japan. It is not. I live in Japan. No one here talks about Ivermectin. It's appeared in a couple of news stories. That's it. And it's not recommended by the Japanese government as a treatment. It's not on their official list. And Japanese people are not in mass following their own protocols. This is not the case. It's vaccines. Vaccines are what is working in Japan. So this is the contribution I hope that

we might be able to make with this episode, that the debunking work that people with domain expertise are doing is extraordinarily valuable and it's great. And the best thing you can do when that's available is just listen to that. On the other hand, if you're a naive lay person like us, you can still spot all of these red flags and make a note of them. Because even if you didn't know about Japan, even if you didn't know about Uttar Pradesh, let's say you didn't know those things, just think about the extraordinariness of the claim that there is hydroxychloroquine and or ivermectin getting used routinely all across the world in lots of different countries to great

effect, saving heaps of lives, but for some reason in places like the United States, they won't consider it. It's been banned. That is a huge claim. The world would have to be completely topsy-turvy. And this is where the conspiratorial worldview is a necessary requirement for you to accept these kinds of claims. And what they can do to somebody who is not thinking critically is draw you in. Because once you accept the purported fact,

then your next thought is, well, why? Why would they be suppressing this thing? And then you start going down this rabbit hole to try to explain these extraordinary claims that you've accepted. But you need to stop and pay attention that these are extraordinary claims, do not accept them, you know, check them. When it comes to Uttar Pradesh, right, which is another thing, recommend people look into it, go and check reputable sources. We'll have links, but this is a thing which is a truth that is often cited. And it doesn't matter how many times it's debunked that the claims that it was all about

ivermectin in that area, or even that the efficacy is as dramatic as they're all claiming. Even if you ignore that, they go in their very specific conspiracy theory. Robert Malone does. So listen here. And the virus is just ripping through there and causing all kinds of death and disease. And the decision was made out of desperation in that province to deploy early treatments as packages widely throughout the province. It included a number of agents. The composition has not been formally disclosed.

It was done in coordination with WHO. Whatever was in those packages was rumored to include ivermectin. But there was a specific visit of Biden to Modi. And a decision was made in the Indian government not to disclose the contents of those packages that were being deployed in Uttar Pradesh. that were being deployed in Uttar Pradesh. So you heard, Matt, as well, the weasel words there, right? It's rumored that ivermectin was there, and then implying that it was a personal visit by Biden which stopped these details from being revealed.

And just, Matt, before, in case that wasn't clear enough, here's a short clip where he makes that even more clear. So they were visited by someone in the Biden administration? No, there's a meeting between Joe Biden and Modi. And you believe that out of that meeting, they decided? I don't know what they said. I wasn't invited. All I know is that immediately afterwards, there was a decision not to disclose the contents of what was being deployed in Uttar Pradesh. It's so crazy to imagine that in the middle of a pandemic, there's one place,

one area of India that's extremely successful in combating the virus, and they're not going to say how they did it. It is crazy, Joe. Yeah, it is crazy. It's extraordinary, isn't it, that in this province of India, the government is delivering secret, non-disclosed early treatment packages containing unknown ingredients, maybe ivermectin, maybe not. And it's that that's responsible for the lack of COVID cases. It couldn't have anything to do with the fact that it's a very poor place. It does not have access to the kinds of testing regimes, monitoring regimes that exist elsewhere.

It couldn't merely simply be the fog of war that explains those things. In the episode with McCulloch, Rogan gets into the same kind of discussion about monoclonal antibodies. Despite the conversation he had with Jocko, he still is convinced that they're being suppressed for some reason. He tells the same story that he told Jocko about his friend having refused for being the wrong skin color. He keeps saying, we have enough of it. Why is it going on? And McCulloch indulges the conversation. But there is a point, Matt, where he remembers that bit where, you know, in our previous episode,

we got where they realized, wait, pharmaceutical companies make money from monoclonal antibodies. Now, I want you to listen to this. I want the listeners to hear as well. Joe asked that question, which took him a long time to remember. And then how McCulloch responds to that.

I promise you that as it goes on, there is not something that I'm leaving out, which later comes up. This is the answer. Because what's confusing to people is that, well, if this is all some sort of a plot by the pharmaceutical companies to make exorbitant amounts of money, why aren't they trying to make exorbitant amounts of money off the monoclonal antibodies, which are also expensive? Yeah, I tell you, it's a great argument. We'll see, you know, molipiravir, which is the Merck drug, which I think is going to be modestly effective. The registrational trials finally came in about a 30% effect size, so a little less than hydroxy or ivermectin. Ivermectin as the oral drug probably has the best efficacy of the three. And I think molopiravir is going to be similar to

papipiravir. We will have to see, but the point I'm making is that, listen, the monoclonal antibodies were before the vaccines. They're emergency use authorized. They're more impressive results. It goes on that there was no answer. There was no explanation. He just starts talking about why monoclonal antibodies are better than vaccines, but there's an implication of what he's going to talk about. Will now I answer that? And instead he just reams off a bunch of probably claims that you might want to check, but it's using medical jargon and then switching to talking about something else.

So when he was like, that's a great question. Yeah, but there wasn't an answer provided. There was not an answer provided. The thing about conspiratorial worldviews is they don't need to be particularly consistent for some reason. Like there isn't a good explanation of why they're lying about this treatment when they could be making money from more expensive treatments that are very effective. Seems like it would be easier and wouldn't require lying to the entire

world, but it's not really addressed. It is not, Matt. It is not. Let me go back and finish a point before we talk about the disinformation networks. But so a while back, we talked about Rogan and his fear of vaccines and in particular the spike protein and how he presents other people as like the weak will fearful people. And just a short clip, I want to say, I think Joe Rogan has a real problem with obese people. Like he has a visceral kind of disgusted feeling about them daring to correct him. We heard it on the episode with him, and it comes up repeatedly in both episodes with McCulloch and Malone. Does he hate it as much as being corrected by a female PhD? That's a good example of where this kind of outrage might come from, that he thinks

those people are doing something, they're taking risks, and they dare to judge him for it. So anyway, here's just one of many examples where he talks about it with McCulloch. So the immunocompromised people worry about them the most, but the bottom line is they get the least benefit of the vaccines. They get the least benefit of the vaccine. They get the least benefit of the vaccines. They're the people we worry about the most. And they're also the people that we don't criticize their choices because particularly the obese ones. We don't say – which I think they should have said right off the bat.

Well, interesting. Immunocompromised by the CDC wouldn't include the obese. So it includes people with blood disorders, chronic leukemia, includes those transplant recipients. The most common category that your listeners would fall into is immunocompromised or people on chronic corticosteroids. This was Joe trying to shoehorn in obese people to immunocompromised. There's a part later where he's talking about them daring to judge him when they are taking such big risks with their health. He also doesn't like being judged about basically anything, right? Basically anything, but here's him talking about monoclonal antibodies. him talking about monoclonal antibodies. It's just hard to imagine being a person denying treatment to someone that you know would be effective because you're looking at some

arbitrary rules that are written down that once they're admitted to the hospital, you can't give monoclonal antibodies. And then to cast this judgment on them, why weren't you vaccinated? We're not going to treat you. I mean, but this is what's happening to a lot of patients. you vaccinated. We're not going to treat you. I mean, but this is what's happening to a lot of patients. He has this, this days that people are judging him. They're looking at him and they're applying things and it's all outreach, but this links in Matt to this point about vaccines and what they do to you. So there's two clips here and listen to this. One of them is Rogan and one of them is Malone talking about what vaccines do to natural immunity. So you're infected by COVID early on in February.

Yeah, like nine months. Like nine months. Okay. But you still had a horrible reaction to it. Totally. And then even that, this is pure speculation, the waning efficacy of the vaccine, does that have an effect on your natural immunity, the natural immunity that you've had? So you're now opening up the big, big, um, can of whoop-ass.

Is that ADE? Okay. What's ADE, Matt? So the opening, the big can of whoop-ass, what's this? Can of whoop-ass. what's this? Can of whoop-ass. Is that ADE? ADE, so that's another rabbit hole, and I like to call it vaccine-enhanced infection or disease because ADE is just one subset of that. Okay. data, and we were talking about this just before the broadcast, from Denmark, among other places,

of negative efficacy against Omicron as a function of the number of vaccinations up to three. So negative efficacy, positive efficacy means it protects you. Negative efficacy means your probability of being infected is higher if you've taken the vaccine. And it's compared to unvaccinated. It seems to be somewhat higher if you've had one jab. Even worse, even more likely to get infected if you've had two jabs. Even more likely to get infected if you've had two jabs, even more likely to get infected if you had three jabs. Could you just clarify that for me, Chris?

He's claiming that the more jabs you get, one, two, three vaccinations, it increases the likelihood that you're going to be infected. Yes, that's right. And I can't remember what the acronym was there. It's like a negative thing, right? They're talking about negative effects of vaccines on the level of protection that natural immunity gives you and your possibility to get infected. So taking the vaccines makes your natural immunity worse and makes you more likely to get infected. That's just obviously absurd, but it's connected to another misunderstanding, which I've seen a lot, which is people think that there is no advantage to getting vaccinated if you've previously been infected with COVID. And again, correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that yes, being triple vaccinated and boosted is good, but it's not perfect. Nothing

is perfect, including natural immunity. And actually, if you have both, triple vaccinated, and then you catch the virus, then that actually increases your thing again. And it works both ways, right? But people seem to think about it in terms of, oh, well, I've got natural immunity, so there's absolutely no benefit to me having the vaccines. My understanding is that's not true. The whole natural immunity vaccine acquired immunity stuff, I think the literature is slightly messy, but the general perspective is that both provide you immunity, right? Because they're both activating the immune system response. So with natural derived immunity, it's highly variable what level of infection that you received and when you received it. Usually that isn't entirely clear. Now you could get tested for the presence of antibodies and people want to argue that that should be equivalent to like having a vaccine

passport, natural acquired immunity. And they are right in the argument that immunity is immunity. But I believe there is evidence that being vaccinated plus having natural immunity is slightly better. In the same way, there is a waning efficacy over time. So you can get reinfected regardless of whether you caught the virus naturally before. Although that's something that Peter McCulloch denies. But I was burying the lead there. Like the really crazy thing, what he's saying is not only are vaccines dangerous, have all of these risks associated with them causing death in and of themselves, not only don't

work, but actually have a negative impact. That's just nuts. It is. And all of these episodes, Malone and McCulloch, are just like a litany of discussions of the dangers of vaccines and adverse effects. And it's Rogan adding, not taking away, not asking penetrating questions. I can give two examples where Rogan wants to imply that there's a one in thousand chance of serious injuries from taking vaccines, which would be high. Where you've got billions of people vaccinated, that would be hundreds of thousands of people with serious injuries.

This is the Malone episode, him bringing it up. Now, one of the things that people have said in response to the vaccine injuries is that it's approximately one in a thousand that are getting these significant injuries like myocarditis. And so you think there's a there's a well, it's important when we talk about these things to make a distinction between an event that is clinically significant and might result in hospitalization versus something that might be undetected unless you did a laboratory test. We've got like a note of caution, right? But the caution is that actually the events will be under detected because they won't be reported, right,

in the hospital. So there should be many more adverse effects than one in a thousand. And Rogan returns to this though. Now back to this number, because we keep going past it and going off on tangents. The number that keeps getting cited is one in a thousand people have adverse events, including myocarditis. If myocarditis that requires hospitalization is one in 2,700. In boys. In boys. But there's also issues of people that have something like fatigue that has lasted post-vaccination.

But I mean, there's a lot of those. There's a huge number of dysmenorrhea and menometriosis. What are those? This is alterations in menses in women. Oh, right. That's a huge issue. Huge issue, Matt, there. Fertility. Fertility concerns's a huge issue. constantly leaping around about what the claim is. Malone is bringing up fertility. This would be a big concern, right? If there are fertility impacts to vaccines that are going to be rolled

out to billions of people. So let's hear him discuss it a bit more. It's a synthetic chemical, positively charged molecule. It's a fat with a charge on the end. It goes to the ovary at a very high rate, like 11% of the lipids. Now, this wasn't supposed to happen. It was supposed to stay in the arm where it got jabbed, but it doesn't. It goes all over the body. And it goes to two places that are really kind of anomalous, bone marrow and ovaries. marrow and ovaries. Now the ovarian signal is really clear because it doesn't happen in testes. So now you got a molecule, synthetic molecule, going to an organ, the ovary, that controls menstruation in a non-clinical model, a rodent. And subsequently, it's deployed widely in humans. And you have this phenomena of alteration in menstrual cycle. You know, Uri Dagan, the lablet guy, but also somebody who has rebutted a bunch of anti-vax stuff, specifically covered these studies about the relative prevalence in different organs for the

test when they're looking at the vaccine. And he showed how that focus on ovaries is a complete red herring. So first of all, the amounts used in the rodents are hugely greater concentrations than used in humans. Second of all, the amounts that were detected were not damaging. They were not at the level of the clothes damaged. And third, they were detected in higher concentrations in other organs, and it required cropping the figure, the graph, in order to make it look like there were these very high concentrations in the ovaries.

But Malone is citing it as if not only is that proof, but then these anecdotal accounts of menstruation disruption prove we've got something very bad going on. So there's so many weak chains in his claim. This is a difficult episode for us, I think, because largely the key points is just one falsehood after another, one piece of misinformation after another. And these things have been debunked. If they sound crazy, if they sound implausible, it's because they are. It's because they're simply wrong. The things we can point to is this self-aggrandizing narratives, this conspiratorial worldview in which it's just for inexplicable reasons that the powers that be are wanting to poison us all. But then on top of that is just

simply a litany of falsehoods. If one were to accuse Malone, Kirsch, and McCulloch of being anti-vaxxers, then the various people in the heterodox sphere would claim that that is a total ad hominem, a slur, etc. But what else do you call it when you are providing such a degree of misinformation, all of it pointing to completely exaggerated or plain false risks about vaccines and totally false claims about alternative treatments and also about the purported inefficacy of vaccines. I'm not sure what else one would call it. There are a couple of times where both McCulloch and Malone explicitly point out that they're not anti-vaccine and that they have both been vaccinated. So an example

from the Malone episode talking about the way that anti-vaxxers ascribe to them is like this. There was an awareness in the pharmaceutical industry that this could be used to address a particular devil challenge that they had, which was the pejorative label anti-vaxxers. That's also been deployed against climate skeptics. Anti-vaxxers, you'll recall, is the label that is used to basically take anybody out that is raising any concerns about vaccine safety. It's the pejorative that's applied. So anti-vax is a pejorative label

and you heard the link there as well, Matt, just randomly made to climate skepticism. I mean, it's understandable that people in these spheres don't like these labels because they are, in a real real sense ad hominem. If you say this is conspiracy theorizing, this is conspiratorial ideation, you're a conspiracist,

then that is an ad hominem. It is a slur, I guess. And it's the same with anti-vax. But the problem one faces is what if it's true? I mean, people do have these non-evidence-based conspiracy theories. And how does one describe what they're doing without using these terms? So, Mark, we heard Malone be annoyed about the anti-vax label. And here's McCulloch making the same sentiment.

In November of 2020 in the U.S. Senate, this is before the vaccines came out. And that is vaccination. Listen, vaccination should play a role. I've taken all the vaccines. My kids have taken all the vaccines. I went to India, I took extra vaccines. So, I don't have any problem with vaccines. What had happened is, I want to say by April of 2020, it was clear that the vaccine development program was far more advanced than we ever could have imagined. So we had clear denial of anti-vax sentiments right there. Let me just highlight the point

that you're making, Matt. So are we being unfair to liken all these technical issues they have with a broad anti-vaccine stance? Isn't that just poisoning the whale? So let's see. If we want to get past the pandemic that have to go is asymptomatic spread and asymptomatic testing, get it out of here. The other one is natural immunity, robust, complete, and durable. Never wear a mask, never take a vaccine, never take another test. You're done. It's one and done. I advise the Sri Lankan government. They reached out to me and take another test, you're done. It's one and done. I advised the Sri Lankan government. They reached out to me and said, listen, we're in trouble. We're getting buried with COVID. This was several months ago. They said, we're running out of masks. What do

we do? I said, get your COVID recovery people out there and man the tents and start handing out the ivermectin hydroxychloroquine-based protocols. And that's what they did. So never take a vaccine, That's what they did. So never take a vaccine, never take a vaccine test, but not just that, Matt, not just that. It was quickly suppressed, but if anybody wants to type this in right now, you can actually learn that one of the very first vaccines tried in Australia actually turned everybody HIV positive. They didn't have HIV, but there was a molecular trickery that was going on. Having said this, now when we look back, when we look at the books, Popper, Bragan, Robert F. Kennedy, and now Atlas, it's pretty clear that this was planned.

And it was planned and the elements of the mass psychosis are clearly planned. In fact, the elements of the mass psychosis are in the Johns Hopkins planning document. They had that up on their website since 2017. Once the pandemic hit in March of 2020, they actually published it in the peer-reviewed literature. You can see how it was all done. That's how the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health had the death count up on CNN and MSNBC and Fox as a scoreboard. I mean, it's not subtle, right? Just make a mental note. I fear that some of our listeners might not be super familiar with,

say, Robert F. Kennedy or some of those others. Oh, right. Yeah, we'll get to that. But after this, we should talk about the disinformation network. But these are prominent anti-vax figures, not just new ones related to COVID. Robert F. Kennedy is one of the most well-known figures in anti-vaccine movement for the past couple of decades. But even disregard that, Matt, and just listen to Clem, the pandemic was planned. They had training exercises outlining it in advance. John Hopkins was involved. And we've had a giant loss of life, a giant number, millions and millions of unnecessary hospitalizations. And it seemed to me, and I've told Tucker Carlson and many others, it seems to me early on there was an intentional, very comprehensive suppression of early treatment in order to

promote fear, suffering, isolation, hospitalization, and death. And it seemed to be completely organized and intentional in order to create acceptance for and then promote mass vaccination. So, you believe this is a premeditated thing that they were doing. So, they realized that in order to get people enthusiastic about taking this vaccine, the best way to do that was to not have a protocol for treatment. It's not just my idea. Now it's completely laid out by the book by Dr. Pam Popper, the book recently published by Peter Bragan, COVID-19 and the Global Predators, We Are the Prey. And what about the vaccines? predators. We are the prey. And what about the vaccines? The point is, people are under a trance with these vaccines. They actually know they're not safe and effective. They know it. They know when they took the vaccines, they took a risk. Now that's a safety day. You know, the vaccine

centers cleared out in mid-April. I drive past one every day to work. And there used to be police officers. They were waving people in. There was cones. I was slowed down to try to get to the hospital because of vaccine traffic. And then it started to thin out and thin out and thin out. We got to mid-April. There was nobody there. People know the vaccines are not safe. They're aware of it. So that's McCulloch talking about it. How about Malone? Maybe he's less hyperbolic in the way that he presents it. I mean, he's not anti-vaccine, right? blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. But the bottom line was they didn't do their job and they didn't force pharma to do its job and they didn't employ the standard requirements for testing and verification that pharma was

doing its job that I would expect to experience as a clinical researcher on one of my studies. Trevor Burrus Are there any studies on the amount of time that it takes before your system rebalances itself post-jab? And is it a cumulative? Like if you're dealing with three shots or four shots? Peter Van Doren This is the – I'm sorry. This is the obscenity for me of this whole, well, we're going to give four shots because we don't really know, but we know we need to do something. I like to talk about the metaphor as a father. I don't

know if you've had kids. I'm a grandfather. You give a three-year-old a hammer and everything becomes a nail. That's kind of a simple way of saying people that aren't well-trained, given a powerful technology or tool, will abuse it and overuse it. In this case, there's multiple reasons not to do the multiple jabs. So, Matt, the reason I wanted to get that in there was, first of all, so here's Malone, you know, raising concerns about children, about them getting multiple jabs. That's a classic anti-vaccine, right? That's Andrew Wakefield, that concern about multiple vaccines and the safety with children. This is a worrying thing, but well, he doesn't sound as extreme as McCulloch, right? When you see this kind of decoupling of public policy from logic, then it causes thinking people

like yourself to say, what the hell is going on here? And then we go down the rabbit hole, is it this, that, or the other thing? One of the things in that spectrum of what's going on is that the emergency use authorizations are predicated on policy determinations that were in a state of emergency. Those are now two years old. They're expiring. There is, I'm not saying this is what's going on in their head, but there is another perverse incentive here to amplify the fear of porn and to amplify... If you buy into

the hypothesis that for some reason there are incentives for the government to maintain the state of emergency. That was long and rambling, but it ends up here. The fact that they're removing this and that you would even consider that the reason why they're doing it is to extend the emergency use authorization. For political reasons. That's insane. That's terrifying. Trevor Burrus For political reasons. Trevor Burrus That's insane. That's terrifying. It's hard for me to reconcile the behavior of the government and its public health decisions with the data.

And it's like there's two bins. Is it incompetence or is it maleficence? Is it incompetence or is it maleficence? Are they, is it, is, is there some ulterior political motive or are they just dumb stupid? If, if there's some political motive, if that's written anywhere, someone's going to jail. I mean, if that, if that comes out, if that's somehow or another gets leaked, Jesus fucking Christ, that's scary. So did you get it, Matt? I got it.

It's astonishing, isn't it? They're claiming the entire world is either incompetent or malevolent. Conspiracy theories are amazing in that they just fall apart upon the slightest. We don't need to get into debunking and talk about safety and randomized controlled trials with a huge number of people that have had vaccinations where we would know if they were risky. But like they're speculating about the malevolent reasons for the US government, probably something to do with controlling people and political reasons. Who knows, right?

Something dark and terrible. The Australian government too is in on it you know we got our own program here i mean we all know this we got our own program to tyrannize the australian public and i guess in the uk in europe there's it's happening everywhere like for this thing even to be halfway plausible it would have to be a global conspiracy and this is where it takes us i'm not surprised that these people have appeared on Alex Jones's Infowars because it requires globalist conspiracies on an Alex Jones level

to think it's even plausible. The hyperbolic comparisons and the parallels between both of them. So I think we should move to the disinformation networks that they're tied up in. But one comparison they like to make, they referenced in some of the clips we've played, is mass formation psychosis. We should probably

talk about it a little bit, but they link this, as they inevitably would, to the Nazis, right? This is a common thing that anti-vax people want to do, is link vaccines to Mengele and... Yeah, medical experimentation. Medical experimentation. Yeah. Yeah. So here's the two of them doing that exact thing. This doesn't make any sense at all. You know, I don't want to get too off your topic, but our government is out of control

on this, and they are lawless. They completely disregard bioethics. They completely disregard the federal common rule. They have broken all the rules that I know of, that I've been trained on for years and years and years. These mandates of an experimental vaccine are explicitly illegal. They are explicitly inconsistent with the Nuremberg Code. They're explicitly inconsistent with the Belmont Report.

They are flat out illegal and they don't care. And the only thing standing between us, and it's too late for many of our colleagues, including the unfortunate colleagues in the DOD, hopefully we're going to be able to stop them before they take our kids. It's illegal. There's been no safety. The government is out of control. There's no informed consent. We never give any pressure, coercion, or threat of reprisal for participating in research. It violates the Nuremberg Code. And we certainly wouldn't do it with these vaccines because we don't have all the data yet. But yet so many people are doing that. Well, I tell you right now, they're walking a line on bioethics that they will be held accountable.

You can't do that. You can't do that. No one can. No good doctor can. No good doctor. I'm right now actually looking at an article from the University of New South Wales, Sydney, from their School of Population Health. They're not talking about these characters, Malone and McCulloch. They're talking about the kind of tropes that are circulating among the anti-vax communities. It's another debunking, again, talking about the Nure tropes that are circulating among the anti-vax communities.

It's another debunking, again, talking about the Nuremberg Code, pointing out, no, COVID vaccines are not experimental, saying that, no, it doesn't violate ethical, legal, and scientific requirements for conducting. But they would say that, wouldn't they, Matt? They would say that. The New South Wales School of Popular... They're in on it too, obviously. And the Sea Peoples.

Yeah. So they are in anti-vaccine networks. It's beyond the bit because they themselves tell you that. I've seen this till now, but there is basically no figure with shredded credibility that they will not endorse. Everyone they mention are these people, and it's not surprising, right, who are fringe theorists, but who have these extreme theories. So here's an example from Robert Malone where he mentions two names.

Okay, let's see who they are. You know, what it really is, is canceling. Bobby Kennedy makes the point that the first real example of cancel culture that we can track is Tony Fauci canceling the esteemed virologist Peter Duisburg, because he was raising questions about the origin of HIV and its role in the disease called AIDS. I remember when that happened. I was a young man- Trevor Burrus, Jr.: I had Duisburg on my podcast a long time ago, and it was the first time

I ever got extreme pushback from people that were... I mean, this is after protease inhibitors had been used, so it didn't even make sense. And people were saying, you have blood on your hands. People are going to die because of this podcast. And I'm like, what are you saying? This is a guy who's a biologist at the University of California, Berkeley. Full professor. Yeah.

I mean, a brilliant guy. Yeah. Totally. One of the best virologists of his generation, full stop. And very controversial opinions. But the only way to find out if someone's controversial opinions are valid is to ask questions and talk to them and let them express themselves. Only through long-form podcasting can we figure it out.

Tell us about this person, Chris. Peter Doisburg. This is a well-known figure, controversial because he claimed that HIV is not connected to AIDS. He said HIV AIDS denials. He was part of the reason that South African government ended up preventing access to HIV retroviral treatments and estimated to HIV retroviral treatments, an estimated huge death toll associated with this. Its theories are completely discredited. But Malone presents him as if he's a highly esteemed figure that has been silenced, that's cancelling. RFK Jr., an original anti-vax, one of the leading lights of the anti-vax movement who is endorsed here is an important

voice that we need to hear from. And who published a book criticizing Fauci, which was a pretty shrewd mood because it's made him a darling of right-wing media. Just to be clear, he was super duduper anti-vax long before COVID came along. He was a thimerosal truther. And like you said, co-authored this book, Vaccine Villains, What the American Public Should Know About the Industry. Yeah. He mentions a whole bunch of people, right? He mentions Canadian COVID care alliance, Zeb Salenko, Luke Montague.

Let's listen to the Luke Montague reference. Spike causes that to become more like an open sieve. So things can go into your brain that shouldn't go into your brain. So that can trigger brain inflammation. And that is the risk that people like Luke Montague are concerned about with neurofibrillary tangles, and that's why they talk about prions or Alzheimer's-like symptoms. So we mentioned the novel disease, right? Luc Montagnier.

I don't know how to pronounce his name. It's French. Montagnier. Anyway, that guy, he's famous for claiming to be able to detect electromagnetic signals from DNA and from devising a treatment where essentially was a repackaging of homeopathy. And he denied it, but then later endorsed homeopathy. And this is the guy. He's the guy that's basically said the virus was manufactured and released. It's a synthetic virus. And Malone is citing him here as a reputable figure. protocols or alternative claims that get refuted or that have been extremely questioned about the

various extreme claims that they've made. But they're just constantly cited as these figures that we need to recognize. And many of them are fringe figures that were not specific to COVID, right? They're just people that are conspiratorially minded or they're anti-vaxxers. This should be a warning sign that if Malone, and it's not just Malone, the same pattern happens with McCulloch. If they are constantly endorsing anti-vaxxers, homeopathy advocates, HIV AIDS denialists. You have to see there's a pattern there of they don't have the ability to credibly assess people and they've got bad heuristics. Yeah.

It's about red flags, isn't it? I mean, for somebody in our position who's not an expert, you can be critical without being an expert by just noting these red flags. And maybe if one or two of them crop up, maybe it's just a happenstance. They were wrong about such and such or happened to have a chance association with this person, whatever. But when they add up in such quantity, it should make anybody extremely skeptical. The other thing I noticed that little bit reminded me of is how many things that they are accusing the vaccines are doing to you. How

many terrible things. It's not just interrupting reproductive cycles. It's not just causing myocarditis or something like that. Going into the brain and staying around the brain. I haven't made a list, but there's probably about 20 or 30 allegations. Now, when there's a genuine concern about a vaccine or any medical thing, it's generally more specific. So in the case of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, it was looking very promising, looking very good, very exciting for all concerned. Unfortunately, it turned out to have not such great efficacy. It turned out to cause these very rare, but still concerning, blood clotting side effects. Quite specific, quite clear cut, and it was withdrawn.

That's something real. That's a real thing that happened. Even without being a medical person, that should just sound different from the kind of scattergun accusations that are made by these people. You also hear in both cases, it's the same figures that are being endorsed. Here's Peter McCullough talking about Steve Kirsch. I mean, I give credit to those who have advanced it. Credit to Steve Kirsch, who's funded the COVID-19 early treatment program, and he's now funding the vaccine injury program. Steve Kirsch,

by the way, has a great offer out there for your listeners. I don't know if you know about this. His offer is anybody from any major academic medical center or any government agency who will come to the table and have a fair discussion on vaccine safety and efficacy, he'll pay them $2 million. Anybody? Anybody. You mean anybody who's like a high-level medical researcher or – Anybody who can make the case, even try to make the case that the vaccines are safe and effective. And if they don't make the case, they still get the money? Yeah.

Really? That seems like an easy $2 million. No one's come forward. You can go there? That seems like an easy $2 million. No one's come forward. You can go there and get your ass kicked for $2 million. Joe, no one's come forward. Really? No one's come forward. Do they know about it?

Incredulous, Joe. That's my folder for Joe's clips. That's it. It's such a mark. And these stunts with people setting up these huge bounties that can never be paid. It's such a tired trope of anti-vax and all pseudoscience things. That was McCulloch on Kirsch, Malone. But getting back to LinkedIn.

So this is the first event. And Steve Kirsch intervened, called up a vice president of LinkedIn. And Steve Kirsch is a tech guy, right? Yeah, he is. He's a Silicon Valley entrepreneur who you may or may not recall that I was on the Brett Weinstein Dark Horse podcast with Steve that kind of lit this whole fire up months and months ago. That's right. Okay, that's where I first saw him. Yeah.

So he has great network connections in Silicon Valley. Trevor Burrus, Jr.: He was on fire up months and months ago. Trevor Burrus, Jr.: That's right. Okay. That's where I first saw him. Okay. Trevor Burrus, Jr.: Yeah. So he has great network connections in Silicon Valley. He invented the optical mouse. And so he called this vice president of LinkedIn. The guy looked into it. Meanwhile people started dropping off of LinkedIn in protest. And there was major press articles all over the world.

And then they reinstated me and I actually got a very kind letter. This is unprecedented, personal letter from this vice president apologizing and saying specifically that they didn't have the talent to fact check me. First of all, we get our head nod to our wonderful esteemed colleague, Brett Weinstein, and his beautiful role in introducing these two figures. Yeah, and thank you, Brett, so much for lighting a fire under all of this. Pierre Corey as well, bringing him on Rogan. Like, Brett is a big figure.

And for people who don't remember, it was Steve Kirsch who was claiming about the babies being bored with blood splattered everywhere due to the vaccines. Yeah. Fertility mat, ring the bells. Steve Kirsch is a tech millionaire and was able to contact one of the board members or somebody high up in LinkedIn and get Malone reinstated. and get Malone reinstated. This is the opposite of censorship. It's utilizing connections that other people don't have to get special treatment. And, you know, it takes a long time

for these people to get kicked off networks. Malone was only kicked off recently. Brett is still happily tweeting and sharing on YouTube away Dark Horse podcast. So the figures who get kicked off, they tend to be a bit less discerning and to go a bit far, right? And Malone appearing on InfoWars should give you that indication, right? That he doesn't have the best strategic mind to avoid these consequences.

But they're in the same networks. Okay, here's Malone referencing McCulloch. The guy is $150,000 in debt right now in the hole and trying to defend his medical license. This is one of the most highly published authors in the world. He's an exceptional researcher, and apparently a pretty good podcaster, too. Trevor Burrus, Jr.: He's great. The guy's published more in his field than any other physician in history.

Trevor Burrus, Jr.: Baylor's trying to take him out. It's not only Baylor, it's some entity outside of Baylor that's come in and is financing the attacks on him. But just to bring it home in a really not to make it all about me, but to be able to speak in the first person. The conspiratorially minded would regard this as a network where people are actually engaged and are working to spread disinformation narratives, which they believe in. And actually, if you listen to them, they talk quite openly about the various times that they've had contacts with each other. They received this information from Steve Kirsch, or I heard from McCulloch, this.

And I believe David Fuller has up on one of his articles where he's rebutting these. He received some screenshot about an email chain, which has all of these figures leaked in strategizing about how to respond to things. And it doesn't even matter. It doesn't matter the level of coordination that's involved. I suspect it's significant. But even if it weren't, they're constantly repeating each other's narratives and promoting these bad, unreliable sources of disinformation with complete credulity. We've seen this in the Weinsteins,

we've seen it in Rogan, and you see it with his experts here. There's no reason why a guy who just happened to have concerns about mRNA vaccines and discovered these worrying features would endorse a HIV AIDS denialist. That should be a separate issue, but it isn't because the conspiracies all flock together. And it's an illustration that their epistemic heuristics are bad. The red flags, they've mounted up so high that all you should be able to see for the horizon is red flags blowing in the wind. And Joe Rogan sees none of it. He's a credulous fool.

and Joe Rogan sees none of it. He's a credulous fool. He's an anti-vax, arrogant, credulous fool. It's frustrating to deal with him because you'll have people listen to this and then say, this was a very careful conversation. They just provided lots of information and facts and they do overwhelm people, Matt.

Like you listen to the tone of these two people talking, they sound like experts. That's the real danger for a lot of casual listeners. People that listen to Joe Rogan for entirely innocuous reasons. They're not conspiracy theorists. They're not strange people. But Joe has these guys on who sound good, who seem to have a good track record and have this extraordinarily authoritative, reasonable voice, citing a whole bunch of technical stuff, knowing people in the circles of power and having the information directly from wherever it's China or Uttar Pradesh or whatever. Unless you really take some time, then you could be quite easily taken in and

think, oh my God, of course I should not get these vaccines. Of course I shouldn't get my kids vaccinated. What was I thinking? I was a bit worried. Now I see that my concerns are entirely justified. And that's the irresponsible, dangerous thing that Joe Rogan's doing. And his best defense is just that he's a fool.

He doesn't have the capability to do any better. We saw on his episode, that's not his defense. He thinks he does have the capability to collect good data and provide it. Oh, he wouldn't make that defense for himself, but that's my defense on it. No, but he does. He does do it for himself. He says that he is just a guy, just a normal guy trying to work things out. And he's a stupid MMA meathead. So why do people listen for him? But that's not what he thinks. He sees himself as a pushback against tech authoritarian dystopian future that he envisions and he's explicit about it and uh for me personally it's so confusing that i find myself in a situation where i feel compelled to have people like you

on because i don't know where else this is going to get out i don't so so um thank you. On behalf of, in my case, I'm the president of the International Alliance of Physicians and Scientists. We're over 16,000 people from all over the world, physicians and scientists. You can find our website at www.globalcovidsummit.org. We are gobsmacked about what's going on. He's compelled, Ma. And they feel like they have this ultimate power to just force people into this binary solution. And the ability also to suppress information, which may in fact be accurate, that the vaccines do carry a risk. What you've said today, none of this is wild conspiracy theory. You're obviously

incredibly well-educated, and you're more than qualified to distribute this information. But if this was on YouTube, this would get taken down. We're very fortunate that Spotify YouTube, this would get taken down. We're very fortunate that Spotify doesn't operate like that and that this can be received by millions of people all over the world. But there's not a lot of avenues for this now. There's very few, in fact. They're randomly, I mean, not randomly, just they're purposely targeting experts and doctors that have opinions that differ from the approved narrative. You are one of those experts. Well, maybe because I looked in the camera and gave a wink in one of the interviews. I think it was Tucker Carlson where I said, bring it on.

And this is what I mean about this. This is a giant game of chicken. And the bottom line is the people who win are the people with the truth. Brave words. Brave words. Fuckers. The self-aggrandizing of Joe's certainty. The thing is, he's right in a sense.

He is this pivotal point now in an anti-vax information network. He's our biggest outlet. And this leads maybe to one of the last points, Matt. And just again, just to highlight, Joe knows exactly what he's doing with his podcast. And those claiming it's just him having a conversation, just chatting back and forth, that's not what it's about. I'm just hoping that that clip where you explained this mass formation psychosis makes the rounds.

rounds and uh i think everything you've laid out today was about as clear and as rational and as well documented as i could have hoped and more um so thank you very much for being here thank you very much for everything that you've done and jesus christ twitter put the fucking guy back on mass formation psychosis is a sort of psychology sounding phrase that he made up as if it was a thing to explain what's going on here yeah so it's mcculloch who first references it and he attributes it to a i think it's a belgian academic who is also like a, you know, COVID contrarian. And then it is repeated by Malone. It's promoted all around. So it, again, a conspiratorial minded person might regard this as a coordinated campaign.

Well, this is how conspiracies work. If you look at the 5g conspiracies or the chemtrail conspiracies they always involve an ingredient a mechanism to explain why so many of the sheeple are not waking up to the truth that is right in front of their nose that the conspiracists can see very clearly so very much par for the course in terms of bog standard conspiracies, theories to invent this pseudoscientific mechanism, which is basically that the populations of the world have... You don't need to describe it, Matt. They'll describe it. What your listeners need to know is a mass psychosis is when there is a groupthink that

develops that's so strong that it leads to something horrific. And the examples are these mass suicides that occur in these religious cults. The example is Nazi Germany when people walk into gas chambers and were gassed. These horrific things. And four elements here. It's very important, Joe. First, there must be a period of prolonged isolation, lockdowns. Number two, there must be a withdrawal of things taken away from people that they used to enjoy. That's happened. Number three, there must be constant, incessant, free-floating anxiety. All this news cycle, all the deaths and the hospitalizations, more variant mutant strains,

everything, people becoming scared over and over again. And the last thing, number four, the capper. The capper is there must be a single solution offered by an entity in authority. And this case is clear. Worldwide, the solution was vaccination. Everybody must take the vaccination. It's not a U.S. program. It's not a European.

It's everywhere. And you know what, Joe? It doesn't matter what vaccine it is. It could be ChinaVac, CoronaVac. It could be Novavax. It could be Pfizer, Moderna, J&J. It's interesting that it doesn't even matter what vaccine it is. It's just take a vaccine, take any vaccine. And so what mass psychosis says is number four, the solution. There's no limit to the absurdity of the solution. These frequent comparisons to the Holocaust,

of the solution. These frequent comparisons to the Holocaust, first of all, it's stupid. People were not hypnotized. And the final solution, right? I mean, we draw direct parallels if you ask them as well, but the final solution is not what he's claiming, where everybody knew that this is what's ongoing and they all signed off on it being the preferable solution.

No, that wasn't what the Nazis did. They did demonize an outgroup. They did create support for the persecution of Jewish people and the need to remove them from society, but they didn't let everyone know what was going on at the gas chambers. It would be insulting people's intelligence to point out how stupid that is. But this is the thing. If I was reading about the concerns raised about the J&J vaccine,

and then they started talking about mass formation, hypnosis, psychosis, and ignoring it, comparing it to the whole, that would make me skeptical because that is such a lurid and hyperbolic comparison. Such emotion laden. Yeah, that is not how normal measured reservations are expressed about not just vaccinations, about any health, medical or scientific risk. So the red flags, the moral of every story for this episode is that the red flags are there. There's so the red flags are there.

There's so many red flags. I have to make this contrast. So, you know, you mentioned mass formation, psychosis in Nazi Germany. So that was McCulloch talking about that, right? Malone. This comes from basically European intellectual inquiry into what the heck happened in Germany in the 20s and 30s. Very intelligent, highly educated population and they went barking mad. How did that happen?

The answer is mass formation psychosis. When you have a society that has become decoupled from each other and has free-floating anxiety and a sense that things don't make sense, we can't understand it. And then their attention gets focused by a leader or a series of events on one small point, just like hypnosis. They literally become hypnotized and can be led anywhere. And one of the aspects of that phenomena is the people that they identify as their leaders, the ones typically that come in and say, you have this pain and I can solve it for you. I and I alone, okay, can fix this problem for you.

Then they will lead, they will follow that person through, it doesn't matter whether they lie to them or whatever. The data are irrelevant. And furthermore, anybody who questions that narrative is to be immediately attacked. They are the other. This is central to mass formation psychosis and this is what has happened we had all those conditions that is a conspiracy theory it's not a pejorative to describe that as conspiracy theorizing it's it's quite direct the thing that i want to return to briefly is your point that joe

is not a casual interviewer here. He's quite explicit about it. Tip our hats to Brett Weinstein for kicking this whole thing off and putting these marginal figures on everybody's radar. Now they're on Joe Rogan and other places. And Joe Rogan sees his role as an activist. He certainly sees himself as an activist, playing his role to platform these important speakers who are going to pull the wool away from people's eyes and let them see the terrible deception that has been perpetrated on them. And that's

his own view of himself. That's not our claim about him. Matt, just to illustrate your point, I want to talk more about this mass psychosis. Do you believe that this is an organized mass psychosis? All these steps that you put about isolation, taking away basic freedoms, and then offering up one individual single solution to this. And this is what has sort of fueled this. What's very obvious to people that there's a lot of people that are not acting well. They're not acting normal. They are attacking people that seem to be ideologically opposed to whatever is going on.

And they're marching in lockstep with the authoritarians. And they're doing it like Stockholm Syndrome or something. It's very strange. Do you think this is an organized thing? Do you think this is just what happens when you have a massive group of people that are dealing with an incredibly tense and anxiety-ridden event like a pandemic where no one knows what the solution is. And a lot of people are terrified of just everyday life. And then all of a sudden something like this comes along and those are the people that are more easily manipulated and they fall in line together because there's sort of a tribal aspect, this type of thinking and behavior. And you find support from other people that are equally afraid.

So that's a hell of a question. It doesn't sound like that's Joe asking if someone else thinks that. That's Joe's theory about what this is. And the answer he wants there from a colleague that is, is yes. He's yes. But you know, we're banging a drum here. We could go on. There's hundreds more examples, but I want to finish by highlighting one of the things that I think allowed this event to happen and which drew Joe Rogan in.

And now there's some differences between Malone and McCulloch. Maybe we'll cover them in wrapping up. But one which is quite clear is that Malone is better and more direct about praising Joe and saying that he's not doing that. So let me just give you some examples. That is another brilliant question. I'm not saying this to butter you up. And thank you for asking it. So that's a – it was a very broad question and so Joe, again, this is not me buttering you up but this is why you're providing such a few voices that has an audience that is not Democrat or Republican or black or white or vaccinated or unvaccinated, all these dipoles that we create artificially. And you are trying to speak to that persuadable middle and do so with an open heart and an open mind

and in a world in which all of the information is being so carefully manipulated and so pervasively distorted. I'm grateful, sincerely. My colleagues are grateful. And I think the world should be grateful for your leadership. That is another brilliant question. It's not bothering them up, Matt. It's not bothering them up. No, but you, sir, are a hero.

But he's good at it, isn't he? Like, if you're listening to this and you're on board, then you would get those warm fuzzy feelings that yes these are the heroes that we need that we can all come together across all sides and put aside this bickering for those of us who are brave enough to find the truth it's out there and thank you joe for bringing it to us yeah i mean it's not that he wants to butter joe up but. So, you know, Joe, you're in media. I guess. You know, Joe, you know, and Joe. You don't have to believe me. You know, your audience is smart enough. They can go on Worldometer and look it up and look at the

mortality and morbidity in these different countries and figure it out for themselves. That's right. They can figure it out for themselves. They're good of COVID, this Omicron, is a vaccine escape variant, meaning that it sort of tried to find its way around the protection of the vaccine. So now you're selected for that. So now you're trying to impose a – what you're doing is generating a hypothesis, which is good, and one of many possible hypotheses. And so in a world, a proper world, where we are allowed to debate these things and do these kinds of studies and examine these kinds of variables without being in social media, we would have a very active discussion about this hypothesis and many others now that's my my way of not answering your question joe's a scientist smart you know

he's got great hypotheses he's got a mind that's very critical it does remind me of brett and heather who who seem to genuinely think that science is done by having these conversations, doing these long-form podcasts, and in doing so, we can get at the truth. And it's very flattering to, in this case, Joe, but also the audience who can figure it out for themselves. And every conspiracy theory does that. It's all about flattering your ego, that you can figure it out for yourself. Just go and look out the window, Chris. Does the earth look around to you?

Open your eyes. Start thinking for yourself. Do some experiments. You know, Matt, don't be cynical. Joe has good goals. Joe, part of the reason, I know you're somebody who is really committed to bringing everybody together and the idea that we're really one America. We're one people. We shouldn't be divided like this.

I'd like that for the whole world. Amen. Yeah. Amen. Okay. We're aligned. We're just humans. Thank you.

Okay. It shouldn't be so easy. It shouldn't be so easy. You know, you just have to train his ego and he'll call you the inventor of mRNA. I'm just noticing things that resonate with other gurus who have looked at, but that idea of standing above the fray, this awful partisan politics, and we're above that, right? Or this awful identity politics and so on. We're all humans, Chris. I mean, can't people see that?

That we're all just people. You know, when it's not Republicans and Democrats, we're all Americans, Chris. Well, not you and me, but them. So like, there's some differences between them. McCulloch doesn't butter up Joe in the same way. He's kind of like more the elderly statesman. He still, you know, he still gets his backpats in, but not like Malone. Malone is much more, it's not sophisticated.

It's just like kind of slimy. I don't know how to put it. When you notice it, it feels gross, right? Like it's just massaging Rogan's biceps in front of you. Well, we talked about the self-aggrandizement and the inflation of your, and the grievance about not being recognized. Like these are narcissistic traits, right? Now everyone's familiar with Donald Trump and knows about that kind of style. But one forgotten trait of people on the narcissistic spectrum is that of flattery.

Yeah. Stroking other people's egos when they want to get them on site. And Trump was famous for that too, of course. And I feel like it fits that dimension. But give us one. Do you have another example for us? I've got a final thing. So this is like a distinguishing feature of McCulloch, is that he wants to claim you can't get COVID twice and that a lot of the tests are false positives, right? I think Malone is also on the false positive thing, but he's not on that you can't get COVID-wise because he claims they've

got COVID-wise. So here's non-ambiguous claims. The CDC doesn't give a green light to do this. Asymptomatic testing in people like you and me, we just walked in, we have asymptomatic testing that if we get a positive, the chances that that positive is false positive is 97%. 97%. And that is if you are asymptomatic. Completely asymptomatic. And to make matters worse, so many of us have already had COVID-19.

And now our CDC admits, finally through a Freedom of Information Act, lead attorney Aaron Seary pressed the CDC and said, listen, you're saying you can get COVID twice. Show us a case. Show us a case. Pressed, pressed, pressed. Finally, the CDC director came out and said, you know what? You can't get it twice.

97% false positive detection rates in asymptomatic individuals. And the CDC have claimed you cannot get COVID twice. That's very odd given in Australia, we were like testing, what, 100,000 people a day or whatever. And when we were COVID free, they weren't getting any positives. So I wonder how that happened. It doesn't make sense.

It's not true. Rogan operates purely through anecdote. His things are always about his friends. Something happened to his friend and stuff. And so he can't do it. This is one of the very few cases where he actually does push back. And it's through use of anecdote, right? You have a friend that got it twice. What you have is you have a friend who thinks he had it twice. What happened is on one or more occasions, it's a false positive test, or he actually had the dead virus that he's carrying forward.

Somebody in my family circles had COVID-19, for sure had it, got sick. That person tested positive intermittently 17 times. Yeah, but this wasn't just a test positive. He got sick, he recovered, and then about seven, eight months later, he got sick again, tested positive again, and had a much milder case of it, but still got COVID twice. Yeah, it wasn't a second case. This is what's happened. For sure? Yeah.

There's about 100 purported cases like this in the literature. I've looked at them all. Yeah, that's revealing, isn't it? The one time that Rogan pushes back is when he knows a friend. So he's not ambiguous, right? Though I agree, all Rogan cares about is well, it fits with his anecdotal experiences. He got better. He took these medicines, therefore they work, right?

Like that's the way his brain works. So it's not ambiguous. Once and you're done. We don't ride on one test alone. But in the case where it's well documented and you're sick, you're done. You don't ride on one test alone, but in the case where it's well-documented and you're sick, you're done. You basically have permanent immunity at that point. Over 135 studies support that now. Paul Alexander. Permanent immunity. Permanent. SARS-CoV-1, which is 90% similar to SARS-CoV-2, it's forever. It's forever. If you have symptoms and you recover from those

symptoms, likely you have lifetime immunity. Everything we can tell, it's just like SARS-CoV-1. SARS-CoV-1 is 17 years old. It's one and done, supported by 135 studies. The confidence map, right? The confidence, the claim, one and done. 135 studies. 135 studies.

135 studies. 135 studies. When Malone was talking to Rogan, he wanted to just clarify a point, because Rogan pointed out, oh yeah, McCulloch said, you can't get it twice. Since we're down this little rabbit hole, let me just say one thing. Peter called me, and he said, Robert, make sure you talk to Joe and make it clear that although I spoke clearly and forcefully about one and done when I was on his show, that was before Omicron. Yeah. And so Peter wanted me to make sure that your audience knew. No. Yes.

We've actually talked about that because I have several friends right now that have tested positive for COVID for a second time. And that is post that podcast with him. He was pretty sure that if you got Delta, you would never get it again. Since we're down this little rabbit hole, let me just say one thing. Peter called me. He said, Robert, make sure you talk to him. It's not, but it's because of Omicron. So that's why it is.

And McCulloch calling malone right get that information out on his appearance like yeah he wouldn't be shooting from the hip and making random spurious claims and getting cold feet about one of them no no no no and i do oh matt there's there was one there's a there's one other clip that I think I have to play. It's pretty damning on Joe. It's just one more of those examples that when people present Joe as this figure who's not really pushing a narrative, right? Like he just wants to know questions. He doesn't have an ideology. that thing and hydroxychloroquine became something that he talked of as a cure and talked about as a treatment for COVID and then it became politicized and then support for hydroxychloroquine became support for Trump.

Would you think that that was accurate? I'd have to look at the timeline. Boy, it was quick because the backlash against hydroxychloroquine was so strong in Brazil and Australia. Why do you think that is, though? No, but the timing, the question is, did it happen before or after Trump said anything? It happened very quickly. You know, through the course of the year, it was extraordinary. So that was answered, kind of, right?

Was it about Trump? And is that what caused it and mcculloch god dude credit like god gotta give him something says like well no maybe it was quicker than that is it possible that the demonization of hydroxychloroquine was because donald supported it. Because I know for like the way I had been hearing about it was hearing about it through him. That he talked about it. It's basically a miracle. Remember all that stuff? He was saying it was a miracle. As I recall, that was late March. I think when it was honestly made illegal in Australia, it was early April. You know, I went on Tucker Carlson. We had the same type of discussion.

Tucker says, how did the Australians know to make it illegal so early in April? Again, these Australians, Chris. Yeah, you got there quick. It wasn't enough for Rogan that the Trump arrangement thing. It didn't thing. And he asked it again. And then eventually McCulloch says- I saw a trend. You've asked me three times, so I'm going to answer it. I saw a trend starting

in April, May, and June, where it became clear that anything we were doing to try to help patients with early treatment was receiving a chill. And the chill was coming through academic institutions, through the medical literature. I think the capper was in June when there was a fraudulent paper published in Lancet on hydroxychloroquine between Harvard and a company called Surgisphere. This never happens. Lancet is like the New England Journal of Medicine of the world. I'm the editor of a major journal.

I run a journal. I know what it takes. There are editors, associate editors, reviewers. There is pinpoint accuracy. We check references. We check plagiarism. Believe me, it's a tight world out there. They basically published a fraudulent paper on hydroxychloroquine in Lancet in 2020, around June. And they let it hang up there for two weeks stating that hydroxychloroquine was associated with harm. And then they withdrew it and highlighted the problems with the study. So the conspiracy theory at the end there, he basically goes on saying they'd never apologized,

but they took it down, they retracted it. That's a rare thing. But the link for that particular thing was, Rogan goes on again to try and link it to Trump derangement syndrome. Yeah. So he has a line. It isn't just, I mean, it's so obvious.

It should be obvious by now, but he is a part of this and not just an innocent doughhead. Yeah, that's true. We saw that with the previous interview with rocco joko willick where it was just very clear that joe had his culture war anti-democrat kind of thing and really wanted to talk about it and joko would have eventually acquiesced but i'm just really curious about the role of the australian gal was i mean why why did they why they stop? I don't think they made it illegal. I think under the pharmaceutical benefits scheme and proof treatments and so on, they would have obviously rejected it because it didn't work.

It was to undermine Trump. It was to undermine Trump. Yeah. So, Matt, look- We got the memo. Australia got the memo from the Democrats. Gotta make Trump look bad. We got the memo. Australia got the memo from the Democrats. Gotta make Trump look bad.

We're three and a half hours in this episode, right? It's been a litany of conspiracies, grand claims, self-aggrandizing, conspiratorial bullshit. And so I think we should round out for people's sanity, right? Because if you haven't got it, like, again, it's like with the Rocco, you've got me saying Rocco now, the Jaco and Rogan episode, like, come on, come on, like, just exercise your skeptical functions.

These are not people just asking important technical questions. They're conspiracy theorists. They're advocating anti-vax narratives. Ignore their casual disclaimers, their pseudo-jargon-filled medical lingo, right? It's there to bamboozle you from what are very common anti-vax and conspiratorial talking points. That's why they're on Infowars. That's why they're endorsing the depopulation claims. That's why they think HIV and the AIDS denialists and standard anti-vaxxers are the sources they recommend for you to be going to. And that's why they think they are the people with the revolutionary theories that are being suppressed by the establishment that could save the world. Right.

These are put... Oh, sorry Matt. And that's why they're making these lurid comparisons to the Holocaust and talking about a global conspiracy to put people in a state of fear so as to more easily control them. Yeah. That's why. So what my good point for this episode is, we're trying to say something nicer about people. I'm not going to put these people because I think they're doing so much harm. I don't want to praise them after listening to this lurid conspiratorial

nightmare of an episode which we've inflicted on people. But I will say the good point is, it's highlighted that the garometer is an extremely useful instrument. So thank you. Thank you, McCulloch. Thank you.

New listeners might not know, we came up with 10 criteria that are common to secular gurus. And these red flags that we're talking about are on the grameter. They're all there. The board is lighting up. Yeah, they're at the top. So check it out. Check out the grameter episode. It's way back in the

annals of the early episodes, but they have revolutionary theories. They have pseudo profound bullshit. They engage in conspiracy mongering.

They are self aggrandizing, grievance mongering, anti-establishment galaxy breeds. That's what you're dealing with. What about, what

about the, did you say Cassandra? Cassandra complex? I didn't. I couldn't fit it into that. Well, that too. That's what you're dealing with. What about, what about the, did you say Cassandra? Cassandra complex? I didn't, I couldn't fit it into that. Well, that too, that too. Yeah. Yeah. So, so the good thing about this is it's a complete vindication of our model, which we developed long before we ever heard of these jokers. So that's nice.

Yeah, that's right. We were there. We were, you know, we, we were the inventors of the Garometer. Yeah, the original inventors of the, yeah, look, I mean, you're completely right, Chris. It's quite clear now that Joe Rogan hasn't embarked on a crusade. It's a terrible, bad crusade, one completely founded on lies. And it is totally harmful. I mean, on social media, the comments section illustrate the grounds of the appeal of this messaging. The people who are energized by it, the people who are excited by it, are people who are absolutely anti-vaxxers, absolutely just frothing at the mouth conspiracists.

They're very excited by this material. They see it as a great vindication and a great platforming and sadly they're right. So that sucks. Thanks Brett and Heather Weinstein. Thanks Joe Rogan for doing this. You're contributing to a lot more death and disease that is unnecessary. Yeah. Yeah. And like we say, we'll put the links to the technical debunkings in the show notes

for people that want to check Farler. So I'm sorry that we have to do an episode like this. I think it's useful to do, but it's not enjoyable. And yeah, like the unfortunate thing is it'll be a new person next week or next year. This is just what happened. So I want to recommend like build up your ability to detect these people, because the red flags are always the same, even though the specific talking points and issues change, it's always the same.

And also the people who will point to Joe Rogan and say, oh, it's an, is an important voice, you know, really important for raising the perspectives that we need to hear. And so, yeah, well, maybe those people do not have the finger on the pulse because. No, I, I told you this, Matt, that I watched the episode with Joe Rogan talking to Carrot Top, because it queued up on Spotify, and it was good. It was an entertaining discussion between two comedians, and Joe came across as a nice guy, Carrot Top did as well, and they had an entertaining discussion. They

talked on COVID a little bit, but they kind of went past that, and that's the Joe that a lot of people fixate on, but they should recognize that Joe is the same Joe that is doing this. It's the same person. So you have to take the badot Top episodes which you know Joe is passionate about promoting and feel it necessary to get out there to respond to the mainstream narrative his crusades are around this kind of content

and so yeah correct yeah look it hasn't been fun Chris I was looking forward to Robert Wright which would have been an interesting intellectual discussion. Instead, we had this marathon of disinformation, dangerous disinformation. So, you know, there hasn't been a great deal to say of interest. I feel sorry for people listening to it in a way because yeah it's just not good stuff yeah well so let's try to finish on a slightly more positive note and apologizing for the the content we'll return to our review of reviews segment.

And this will be refreshing. Just okay. Deep breath. Just, ah, yeah. Well, I'll, I'll start. I'll start. Well, maybe I should start with a positive one just to give us like a little back pat before we get to the negative.

And so I like this. It takes less time than listening to guru podcasts. Five stars. I heard of this show by Robert Wright. The episodes are too long and the mainly about people I've never heard of or don't care about. Whenever a family member or friend starts telling me nonsense they heard from pranks, I come here and get a reader's digest of the cranky ideas along with reasonable criticism of cranky ideas. Keep it up, guys.

Despite the ungodly length of your episodes, listening takes less time and causes less headache than figuring out who the F Brett Weinstein is and what he talks about on my own. And that is why Johnny C. Thank you, Johnny C. That's very

fair. The episodes are too long, especially the end of this one. I feel completely on board with this. It's not very pleasant. Nobody should be listening to it. It makes me depressed. I'm not surprised other people don't enjoy the experience or want to avoid it. But yes, that's good to hear. But there are people who request longer episodes just for balance, Matt, just for balance.

So I think that this one, though, is pretty good. And I'm going to take it as a positive. It's two out of five stars, overrated. Okay, that's the title. And it says, I don't understand why so many people I respect love this podcast. It is smug. It's unhealthy obsession with alleged conspiracy theories and a handful of IDW types is just bizarre and its blind spots are numerous.

The hosts are also hardly knowledgeable enough to debunk the theories they target. Overall, extremely underwhelming and pretentious. And this is from Nicholas AGD, who of course is an American. But tell us what you really think, Nicholas. Well, Nicholas, you know, Nicholas can have his opinion. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. Look, we covered a fella called McCulloch, a fella called Malone. And these two characters part of the same five people that we keep?

No. We, we, we, this is so unfair. They are one degree of separation. Well, yeah. And they get their break on, you know, but regardless of that. No, no, no, no, wait, wait. Alleged did get their break on, you know, but regardless of that. No, no, no. Wait, wait.

Alleged conspiracy theories? Alleged? If you've been listening to this show, you know. No. The answer is no, he hasn't, Matt. No. That's right. Because it wasn't released when he wrote the review.

That makes sense. That makes sense. But also, yeah, they're wrong because they say our analysis is shoddy. And clearly not. The barometer lit up. I'm sorry. You were defeated by a precise instrument. But the reason I want to highlight this negative review, Matt, and it's the only negative one in recent times, is because this guy is upset that so many people he loves and respects are overrating us so highly.

So too bad for him that his friends and family have better taste than AJD. That's the bit I take solace from. His network are just extolling our virtues and he's sitting there like a little grumpy frog saying, you know, I don't agree. I don't agree. Get on board, mate. Maybe they know something you don't. That's right.

If you love and respect them so much, maybe take it on board. Maybe it's you. Yeah, that's it. This wasn't a very charitable review. No, it was. It's fine. So many months. He gave us the material.

We're in a negativity spiral. We are. We've been sucked into it by the anti-vax bastards. And we're going to be out of there. Like, this is a problem that the gurus love anti-vax stuff. It comes up frequently,

but it's a terrible and depressing thing to deal with. So we are getting out of this space on the next episode, come hell or high water. And yeah, for anybody who stuck through to the end, appreciate you doing so. And we want to give a shout out to some of the people that, that enable us to, to do this. If you don't mind Matt. Matt Levin- No, love to. I'm all for that. David Pérez- So the conspiracy hypothesis is this week are, Liren Shapira, Bob,

Samuel Grant, Mir Khan, Richard Hardy, FearG, J.M., John T., and Kieran Ryan. Those are our conspiracy hypothesizers. Every great idea starts with a minority of one. We are not going to advance conspiracy theories. We will advance conspiracy hypotheses. Thank you, guys. I appreciate it. conspiracy hypotheses. Thank you, guys. I appreciate it. Remember to go on from your hypothesis and move on. You know, don't just stick with hypothesizing.

You've got to test it, then work towards a theory. Like Joel. That's how it works. And then eventually you come up with a law, like every conspiracy theory that Joe proposes is bullshit. That's pretty much a law at this point. That's how science works. I agree. And our, our revolutionary geniuses for this week are Joe Percy, Michael Nelson, David, Jenny Weiss-Zinn, Collapsing, and Thomas

Clark, a figure I know from Twitter. Um, oh, and Le Chiffre. Le Chiffre. Le Chiffre. Yeah. That's my favorite. Revolutionary geniuses, Mark. Revolutionary geniuses. Well done, guys. Maybe you can spit out that hydrogenated thinking and let yourself feed off of your own thinking. What you really are is an unbelievable thinker and researcher, a thinker that the world doesn't know. Okay, so Galaxy Green Gurus, we have Zee, Michael Moriarty, Helgi Benson, and Kasper Kivinizlan Kivinizlan Kivinizlan

Those are difficult names. Oh, and there's one more that I want to add on there. Yes, there is. Travis. Travis. Travis. Thank you, Travis.

In particular, Travis. Specifically you. The rest of, Travis. Thank you, Travis. In particular, Travis, specifically you. The rest of, thank you as well, I guess. Yeah. Thank you all. And I'm sorry. I wrote the name. Sorry, sorry, sorry. He's very sorry.

You are Galaxy Green Gurus. You are. You're sitting on one of the great scientific stories that I've ever heard. And you're so polite. And hey, wait a minute. Am I an expert? I kind of am yeah i don't trust people at all thank you scott adams you suddenly seem more entertaining

yeah i don't uh so i know he's at least he's smart. He's evil, but... Their problem is not that they're not smart. That's not their problem. No, Maloning McCulloch. No. Yeah. So, yeah, that's it for this week. Sorry, everybody.

I feel like... Yeah. We know. We feel it too. We feel it too. We feel it too. All right. This is, this is the most depressing, unpleasant, consistently unenjoyable episode that we've done.

This one takes the cake. I mean, there hasn't been many interesting nuances, any fascinating little things to discover. It's just been all of the things that we know about these secular gurus. The Gurumeta lit up. It's stuff we've seen before. We weren't surprised to hear this stuff. Uh, we were just disappointed and, uh, yeah.

Yeah. And so, you know, like, uh, putting them together was maybe too potent of a dose. It was too much. But the parallels, they should be obvious to you, right? And hopefully some of the things that we highlighted are useful for people. And the reality is you don't need area expertise to see these red flags. You just have to be critical in consuming the content and think about the extent of the claims and look for the warning signs.

And no, not everyone is a guru. These people are a specific type of person and you can identify them. That's right. They are exceptional. This is not normal. It's not usual. And you don't need to have this great technical expertise and you don't need to go down a rabbit hole of complex data sets and graphs and peering, exception hunting and so on. No, you can just exercise the kind of common sense, the kind of social intelligence or intuition that you would apply in your everyday life to identify people or situations that don't smell right. I think, hopefully, we've just illustrated

some of those red flags for people in the public infosphere that do not smell right, that are probably not a good source of information. You don't need to get to the bottom of it yourself. You don't need to be the one like Neo in the Matrix to figure it all out. You just need to get a sense of how much trust to allocate to different figures. And in this case, the amount of trust you should allocate should be infinitesimal. Infinitesimal. And I, you know,

I just hope that people can learn that trick and then you'll get vaccines and you won't take stupid things like ivermectin and you won't get sick and die. Or at least, you know, like don't take those little terms of, you know, as the parasitic medication

seems to be fine. Yeah. Yeah. That's it. But the issue is, well, whatever, whatever, whatever, whatever, I'm over it. I want to have lunch. Chris, do you have anything else you want to say to me?

No, I don't. No, there is, I think there's something you want to say to me. Oh, well, there is. I mean, there is, but before that, I want to tell people that they can follow us at C underscore Kavna and R4CDent on Twitter. Guru's Fod is the account of the podcast. We are on Instagram, Facebook.

We have a subreddit. There's an unofficial Discord. There's commemorative mugs. There's an unofficial discord. There's commemorative mugs. There's pins you can get. There's pillows that you can buy from stores. There's like straw effigies of Chris you can set up in your backyard.

I've got my unboxing protocol I'm releasing in the next couple of weeks. Work for me. Work for me. I took it. I feel like twice. Yeah. It worked for me. It worked for me. I took it. I feel like twice the man that I used to be. Yeah.

So we're, we're around. We're around. You can find us if you want. We're out and about. Yeah. And Matt, the last thing then is,

you know, I'm not, actually don't go gravel at the point of your muscle master. You don't, because it might be Rogan. the feet of your muscle master. You don't because it might be Rogan. He might be your muscle master. He might accidentally be tempted to gravel at his feet and he doesn't deserve it. So go gravel at the feet of your mental maestro.

Mental maestro. Okay. I will. That's a shame. That's a shame. Well, I did feel that the muscle master thing was getting vaguely sexual which was disturbing to me but so good i'll do that yeah that's the term that's never been applied to your organ all right okay i'll we'll see you next time for something more fun yeah sorry everyone sorry it wasn't fun Thank you.