The Highwire with Del Bigtree - DEL DEBATES NEIL DEGRASSE TYSON

Episode Date: April 8, 2023

Del’s invitation to Neil deGrasse Tyson for a “debate and a beer” was answered when the celebrity Astrophysicist and Executive Producer of Shot in the Arm, came into our studio. Neil and Del sat down for a discussion-turned-debate on science, the scientific method, COVID, vaccines, and Neil’s new documentary targeting Del, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and the medical freedom movement. Did Del and Neil get to have that beer? Don’t miss this ground-breaking interview.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-highwire-with-del-bigtree--3620606/support.

All right, it is my absolute honor and pleasure to be joined right now by Neil deGrasse Tyson. Hi, sir. Hey. It's really great to have you here. That's quite a quite a compilation there. You'll need, you got, you got it. It's all done because all I just do is take your head and we're good to go. Let's go out for a beer. Okay, that was great. I mean, I want to just say right up front that you have been an absolute inspiration in this world. And for me, growing up, you know, watching your approach to science, I think you gave so many,

like me a passion for science and you know your gift to this world really in many ways is unmeasurable like it's really been spectacular to watch you throughout our life thank you thank you i want to sort of start out by playing a video that sort of is what brought us together very simply you were on this podcast with Patrick bet david and you had this beer comment to make so let's take a look really quick are you for scientific debate So in a scientific debate, here's how that unfolds. I'm in conversation with you. Let's call it a debate.

We know, you and I know, walking into that room, either I'm right and you're wrong, you're right and I'm wrong, or we're both wrong. We know that in advance. So we start having the conversation. Well, what about these data? What about these data? I think those data's flawed, and here's why. Well, how about this?

Yes, that's a debate. But you know how that debate ends? It depends where, you know, we need this new data set to resolve this difference. Now let's go have a beer. I have never seen that happen in a political debate. So I reached out based on that, just put out a tweet, and you sort of responded to that. Some people shared that with you. And here we are.

Ready for you. That's already a testament to, I think, your integrity, that you don't just say things. and I really love that we're here. Now, when we discussed this conversation, what you said you really want to focus on is the scientific method, which I think is... Just how science works and why it works at all.

Yeah. Right. So let me put it to you then. Scientific method, science, for my audience out there, what do you want them to know about how science works? I'd like to start with an earlier element of this.

Okay. which is the embarrassing inability for the human mind to embrace probability and statistics. Okay. And when I say embarrassing, it's on a level where, let me back up further. Do you know major branches of mathematics? We start with like arithmetic and then algebra,

then trigonometry, and then throw in some more, even calculus. Do you realize that our full, understanding of probability and statistics did not occur until after, as a branch of math, did not occur until after those other branches of math were developed. And you might say, why? What's a simple statistics you can take? You can just take an average of numbers.

You realize the first time someone took an average of numbers and said, this could be helpful, was after all those entire branches of math were established. So what that tells me is that it is not a native way for the human mind to observe and think about the world. It's a stress point. It's a, it's a, your intuition you want to rely on rather than a pure statistic. And that gets us into trouble. Right. Because our feelings matter so much to us.

Right. And in the face of raw statistical data, it's so easy to say, I'm going with my feelings. Right. Because I trust my feelings on this. And it's very hard to trust dispassionate data when that happens. So it's why TV commercials, if I happen to have a good product and I have good evidence that it's a good product, I can just show you a bar chart or something and say, here, we are on the top end of this. Go by, but no. That won't work.

That doesn't work. That doesn't work. That doesn't work. I want to know how big the cup holder is. So they bring people on who have experienced the product. This is the best thing I've ever had. And you're listening to another human being, another member of your own species, communicate to you the value of that product to them.

And we respond so much more to that than to pure statistics that it leaves us vulnerable in a way. I don't mind putting a person forward if they're communicating accurate statistics. but it leaves the door open for abuse of this. Sure. I think we would all agree the best products aren't usually what we're all using. It's the best advertising. It's the best advertising.

And advertising works because we're not, our brain wiring does not lend itself to embrace or absorb statistics. The, my professional community of physicists, the American Physical Society, in this brief example, hold annual meetings, and one of them was to be held in San Francisco. This was 20 some years ago, maybe 30 years ago. Sorry, it was going to be held in San Diego, and there was a hotel snafu.

And so they had to reschedule. And what are you going to do with 2,000 physicists? And so the MGM Marina, now the NGM Grand in Vegas, said, we'll take you. Okay. So everybody shifted there. Thousands of physicists descended on Vegas in this hotel. A week later, the headline was,

physicists in town, lowest casino take ever. And, well, did we just know the odds better? No, no one bet. Right. Just too smart to go to the table. Okay, because there is an entire industry within us in society that is arisen to exploit your inability to think statistically, and it's called casinos.

You have people rolling dice, and they'll throw the dice harder to try to get a bigger number. Right. Or softer to roll a lower. It's ridiculous when you watch it, blow on it, people kiss. They blow on kiss on it, yeah. You got it, I got it. You're standing too close.

Sure. And it's like, or they're in the roulette table. And why are you betting on seven continually? Well, it's due. So how do you know it's due? Right. And the roulette table shows you the previous 10 rolls or so. And it's not there.

And I say, no, it's not too. It's the same likelihood. It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter. So the fact that we even exploit ourselves at a level that takes our own money from our, a casino is run by human beings. And they know this. So that's foundational to all, to so much of the intersection of science with the public. Right.

Because if all I do is say, I found a new black hole, it's a headline, you read it, it's fun. Right. But if there's some analysis that requires statistical understanding of a result, then, That's where the problems arise. But that's where you've been so brilliant really throughout your career, is what you've done is you take this data, you take the statistics, you take the analysis. I try. And you've managed to sort of infuse it with some emotion to actually make us care. Oh, you see that.

Okay. To actually make us care about the data, right? And that's been, I would say, your greatest talent for so many people, which is you're allowed to be passionate and care about things that you used to think were dry and unimportant or weren't affecting your daily life. You've shown us how the cosmos affects our daily life. If we actually, and your passion about it is what has made you stand out. Most scientists, and I've met a lot of them, that wouldn't be their wheelhouse. Well, so thank you for noticing that. But what I find is when I invest that sort of, I don't want to call it so much emotion, but passion.

Okay. Yeah. Passion is, I think, like in the pundit, in the rounds of pundits who are out there, Typically, when there's passion or emotion invoked, they're trying to impart an opinion on you, or hand you their opinion. And so when I bring passion to something that is objectively true, there's a first urge for someone to think, oh, that's just their opinion because they see the emotion. Because we all have, our emotions are driving our opinions with intensity often. So I come at it with intensity, but no. It's just how I feel as an educator.

I was on a panel last night, actually, at a thing. And I, you know, I spoke about, like, truth. And this, you know, it was a panel on media and new media. And, you know, I was like, you have to just focus on the truth. And then someone said, but there is no single truth. That's your truth. You know, there are. And so let me put that to you.

The word truth is really getting bantered about. Is there, you know, he made the example that a train wrecks and, you know, 9, 9,9 people survive. One dies. what is your headline? I was like, what are you getting as? Like, well, you could say one dead or 99 survived, miracle, you know, those are two different truths. But to me, like, what you have put out is when we look at science, the idea of science is that it has used some sort of methodology to get to an indisputable truth. Is that how you describe it or help me understand how you see truth? That's the name of a funk band in the 70s, the undisputed truth. So I spent some effort thinking this through, so I'd like to share it with you and how I organized the thoughts. In fact, it became an entire chapter of a recent book I'd written. The chapter's titled Truth and Beauty. So truth.

My urge was to say there's only one truth and everything else's opinion, but that's too messy because there are too many communities out there that want to use the word truth in the way they are comfortable. Especially, for example, the religious community. If you look up the word truth, half the references land in a religious site somewhere, typically Christian site. And you see some, they try to present or declare that biblical statements are truth. Find truth in the Bible. Okay. I didn't want to take that away from anyone who's using it in a religious context. So I set up three categories of truth.

Okay. Categories. So one of them, let's call it a personal truth. This is something you hold dear in your heart. And in a free country, no one can take it from you. That's where you find religious truth. Is Jesus your savior? Yep.

That's your truth. No one's going to tell you that's not true in a free country that's not going to happen. Okay. Is Muhammad your last prophet on earth? That's your truth. To convince someone else of that truth, because it's your personal truth, requires an act of persuasion, which the history of civilization has demonstrated, can, in its limits, become all-out warfare. Okay? The Crusades was a difference of who thought what was true and what wasn't, okay, in the limit.

Yeah. Otherwise, in a free country, you can have a synagogue, a mosque, Baptist Church, a Catholic Church, all on the same street. And they all go to work the next day together, okay, in a pluralistic free country as we believe we have in the United States. Yeah, we hope we're aspiring. It's aspire. Thank you for that word, as we aspire to have.

All right. Another truth, I'll call it a political truth. A political truth is something that resembles greatly and may be identical to basically propaganda. It's let me repeat this so often that at the end of the day, you will think it's true. And that's hijacking something evolutionarily within us. Within us, if we see something repeat enough times, your brain says it must be true. I'm going to accept it as true and then move on. It helps my survival.

If I know to run away from a lion rather than towards it, and the repeated exercise shows, that other people get eaten and I see this, I'm going to absorb that truth. Okay. That gets hijacked and someone says, the Aryan race is the greatest ever, and you repeat that. And media is masterful at that, right? The repetition of media can really achieve anything. And, of course, with the Internet, it's magnified back much more. The Internet is not a unique introduction of this power.

It basically started with the printing press. Now I can duplicate. It's just an incredibly talented tool. Efficient, I would say. Efficient. Yeah, an efficient tool. So a third truth, which is what I'll call an objective truth. This is a truth that exists outside of your opinions.

It exists outside of what you want to be true, what you feel like should be true, and it is established by the methods and tools of science. The methods and tools of science are never, the truth is never what some one. research project shows. It's never about that. The press somehow doesn't get it, though. They'll find some one result from lone researcher and they'll have a headline on it and say, this undoes everything that's happened in previous decades. It's one result. Right. All right? What we know is that because scientists are human and there's an inherent bias in us all about what we want to be true versus what is true,

and we have tactics to ferret out our bias. Even if you don't know you have bias, that's why there's peer review. So I'm going to review, because I might have bias, but chances are it's a different bias from you. So I can find your bias, but if I have a bias, maybe we need a third person. Maybe we need someone from another country

who use a different wall current for their experiment. Does it behave differently under 120 volts? There's a 240? So the emergent scientific truth, the objective truth, is what has been established after repeated measurements and observations arriving at approximately the same result. There'll always be statistical variation. Another statistics issue here. Statistical variation.

And so if it's leaning this way instead of that way, go that way because that's the direction the new emergent truth is coming from. How do you define, because I'm just a little confusion. You said, you know, media will celebrate that one new thing, an emergent thing, and you kind of just said, but follow that new emergent. So where do I delineate between this is a one-off and it's going to be disproved to the emergent thought that you're describing, which is, and I just want to make sure I'm hearing this right.

I don't have to. There's the consensus of what existed, and then there's Pluto isn't actually a point. planet, at what point does that become an emergent that we should follow and be listening to? Right. So there's a deeper element that you just raised. So what you mentioned about Pluto, don't get me started. Meet me outside. Right, right, right, right. No, no, no. So let me hold Pluto aside for a moment, or that story because it's a very important, it highlights something very important. Okay.

So I don't know what else the media would do other than make a headline on the one result. You can't tell the media, wait till it's verified three or four times. They want to be the first out of the box. So I think that's a lost cause from what I'm trying to argue here. So but they could be more honest in their first paragraph and say this is one result yet to be verified. If it's true, it's interesting. Right.

The statistics of these weird single results are that it's probably not true. We should hold out some skepticism since it's standing on its own on an island at the moment. On an island. It is against the whole body of science that sits against at the moment. Correct, correct. So they need to be a little more candid about that in the opening sentence. After you've click-bated in, they got the click. So now you can be honest, perhaps, about the likelihood of that persisting.

I completely agree with you. Okay. All right. So now, the Pluto case, very interesting. The way objective truth work is, if it's scientifically established by the methods and tools that I'm describing, then it's not later shown to be false. Okay. What happens is, often, this objective truth is only a part of a larger truth. But it doesn't end up getting overturned if it had been established experimentally and observationally in the ways that I had described. Yeah.

So what's an example? We found Pluto in 19, the discoverer, Clyde Tombaugh, in 1930. We suspected there was a planet out there because the movement of Neptune was not following Newton's laws. Neptune was the then farthest of the planet. So maybe there's something tugging on it. Neptune was discovered that way. There is Uranus, say, oh, Herschel discovered a new planet. It was great.

Oh, by the way, and aside, he named it after the king initially, King George, the King George of American Revolution. Right. And just because why not? I mean, you want to stroke the king, right? Good idea. So by the way, probably gets more funding. That's what I'm saying. Exactly.

Exactly, exactly. We just thought they want to get to you in just the moment. Yes, yes, yes. So I have textbooks from about a 30-year period that enumerate the planets, and it's Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, and George. So clear heads would ultimately prevail. Oh, the Roman gods, let's do this right. Point is, we already knew what effect an unseen planet's gravity can have.

So let's look. We looked in places it should have been nobody found it. And so we just conducted a systematic survey of the entire sky. And Clytembeau discovers Pluto. Not where we thought it should have been to affect Neptune, but it was headline news. Yeah. All right. As time went on, we found it's not as big as it should be to do what we think it needs to do.

And it's really kind of puny. And as the decades proceeded, it was fading from the headline of what it was discovered to be. Right. When we finally settled on what the size was, because every next measurement, was an improvement on the previous one. It turned out like, our moon is five times the mass of Pluto. Oh my gosh.

Right. So the mistake was the enthusiasm that we discovered the planet that was affecting Neptune. We learned that it was not very quickly, but we still wanted it. Plus, that's the same year. There's a complete aside for your show here. That same year is when Disney introduced Pluto,

the dog. And once you do that, come on, you got the endearing, we got a cartoon character. It makes a lot harder to make this shit. It makes a lot harder. You can't. You can't shake it at that point. You can't. You got a dog, a beloved dog. All right. The point is, Pluto, we discovered, oh, then in the 1990s, we discovered icy bodies in the outer solar system that rivaled Pluto in size. And we say, hey, and then we found many of them. And so what we concluded was Pluto wasn't so much the ninth planet. It was one of the largest of the icy bodies of a new swath of real estate that we added to our understanding of the solar system called the Kuiper Belt of comets.

So we still had the basic solar system. Pluto was always a bit controversial, but we've now grown in our larger understanding. Was there anybody in science sort of pushing back saying this is a waste of time or leave Pluto alone? I mean, was there anything of that going on? Yeah, there's always that. The people who were sort of invested in it. And I wrote a book on this called The Pluto Files, The Rise and Fall of America's favorite planet. And the arguments given for it just came and went.

Pluto had a moon. So it's got a moon. It's got to be a planet. You know, it's a good old red-blooded planet. It's got a moon. Sharon, right? And shortly after that, we discovered much smaller asteroids that had moons. So you couldn't invoke that anymore. And every excuse to try to clutch to what it once was ended up evaporating away. And so ultimately the International Astronomical Union, which

has as their duty to establish nomenclature and categories and things based on the emergent understandings of the world, said we have a new definition of a planet. And Pluto is now a dwarf planet. It's still a planet. It's still a planet. It's just a dwarf planet. I think it's happier that way. It's one of the biggest of the ice body.

It stands out, you know, rather than the puny planet. It's living in space alone. Exactly. Yeah, that's right. Exactly. But the bigger story here, that's just one example of it. If we take Newton's laws of motion and gravity, they got us, it got us to the moon, Newton's laws.

We learned that at very high speeds and in very strong gravities, Newton's laws fail. Right. They just fail. What's going on? So do you say, let's throw out the entire Newton's laws? Do you do that? Or do you say, well, what's actually happening? Because Newton's, his laws were, he never saw anything run faster than a horse.

But certainly there's got to be a point on whether Newton's laws have made it, where you do realize that this was, there's a serious, of assumptions that were not as strong as we thought and we do throw them out. No, yeah, but assumptions are, you don't need assumptions when you have experimental evidence to support. Assumptions are gone, right? Assumptions should be no part of science. Well, no, they get you started. Okay, got it.

I'm going to assume this is true, let me test it. Right. Nothing wrong in the assumptions. Okay. But once something is established, there are no assumptions, it just is. Right. Okay, equals MC squared involves no assumptions at all. Okay, that's what enables bombs, all right? nuclear energy of all stripes.

So the point is, Einstein discovers a law of gravity and a law of motion that does not have these problems with it. And it's called the theory of relativity. It applies in extreme gravity

and extreme accelerations and motions. And the only reason why I'm telling you this is, so do you throw Newton's laws out? No. If you put low-speed and low gravity into Einstein's equations, they become Newton's equations. So Newton's equations, we would later learn, are a subset of a much larger objective truth of the universe. It's true in the micro-contained space it's looking at doesn't hold.

Correct. As we back out our perspective. Correct. And the methods and tools of science have been invoked basically, in the way we now know them since about 1600. You could go before then and find everyone agreeing that something is true and finding out it's a complete opposite, like Earth in the center of the known universe, and then it's the sun.

All right. So I want to... That's before we had these tools. So from, and this is based on a statement you've made a lot in media that I want to sort of get into in this space. I think we're in the middle of a massive experiment worldwide. The experiment is, will people listen to scientists? In this case, referring to medical professionals, in this particular case.

Say Anthony Fauci over an allergy and infectious disease. For example. It's an experiment in whether people will listen to scientists. That's what it is. That's what this is. What do you have to do to get to the point where you can believe what the scientist says and not the person who wishfully thinks something is different? So I want to get into this because, you know, everything, I, I,

totally agree with everything you're saying. My question comes into the space where, as you're saying, you know, you have a guy naming a planet for a king, I think that there's a buy, like, for a reason. I get funding if I can inspire you to care about what I'm doing. You talked about- By the way, we undid that. Well, right, right, it gets undone. Obviously, it gets undone. No, you're not naming this after you're freaking king. We also see, as you've described, you know, the headline goes to the one scientist that has some breakout thing. And then media is an honest about the fact that it, I mean, that it's just, it may be an anomaly, it needs to be challenged, and we really shouldn't take it just at face value. There's a lot more that needs to be done.

But my question is, and you sort of stated this, but it's this problem with bias, that the problem I see in many ways, especially in the modern world, with the amount of funding needed to do the levels of science that we're now doing, right? We're really, it's very expensive to be getting out into the cosmos now and looking at ice particles or are they dwarf planet, all of this. And so that headline actually helps that scientist get more funding. And the people around that scientist like that it got that headline because it also brings attention to the fact that they're involved with this funding. And so what we're developing is this, you know, really this sort of cyclone that happens around a brand new idea whether it has value or not. And we have

scientists, I think, that are being affected by the gravity of things that are rotating around it. How does science free itself from that bias in order to ask itself or a scientist to ask themselves or allow others to ask them the appropriate questions so that we can get to the bottom of whether or not that is true? Does scientists have a bias? Do they not? So a very important point to raise here. So, and let me unpack what you said, because there's like three separate questions in there. So one of them is the attention a scientist might get in a media headline. That works maybe for their grandmother, okay. Grandmothers, hey, that's my boy, you know, grandparents. For the funding agency, they're much less influenced by what the media says of your work than you implied

in your comment. Okay. Okay. The funding agency, typically funding occurs through peer review. You have a proposal for what you want to study. Right. And then it goes to peer review.

And people say, well, no, this is kind of fringy. And someone else attempted it and failed. Why they think they're going to succeed in this way. So I would claim that we are not as susceptible as a community to media headlines as the public is. Now, by the way, but universities, I mean, universities,

like they have star quarterbacks, don't mind seeing their name in New York Times. They love it, right? So they are going to benefit those, those. For fundraising, you know, all of that. They'll put it in their news letter. So they have, I mean, they're the ones that are housing the scientists.

Certainly, how big is your lab and what are things you're getting? You're a superstar. Those headlines matter to that universe. Yes, they do. And the university will lead with those headlines. Right. For sure.

So that, so then that's, I didn't put that in there, but that is, there's an orbiting pressure on the science that's happening. Right, but at the end of the day, the money is coming from, unless you privately raise the money, then you get it from other human beings who are like, not necessarily venture capitalists, but people who are rich sympathizers to the science you're interested in, they could end up funding it. Right. And then you'll get extra funding. But just simply put, though, we agree that there's human beings involved in this, there's

egos involved in this, and getting headlined, and all of these things. Always. So a scientific method exists to make sure that that doesn't contaminate the ultimate, is it consensus that we have to get to? What you said is precisely correct. So, like I said, scientists are humans, just like everybody else. We have biases. We have, by the way, speaking of bias, probably the most biased chapter in the history of science,

were 19th century anthropologists, European anthropologists, who were sure white males were the top of the evolutionary heap and anything else they went around the world and found. And they were scientists saying this and putting forth charts and data and all the rest of that. So it's not as though bias can't contaminate an entire field. Some fields are more susceptible than others when you start ranking humans. that matters. But the, we, so we have tools. So someone can go rogue, rogue is too critical, someone can go independent, go off the grid and get their own funding, get our friends,

maybe they're wealthy, whatever, and do whatever they want. Yeah. And they will not be susceptible to their peer review. And that allows them to sort of drift. Okay. You know who did this? speaking of Pluto from earlier, Percival Lowell, who, wealthy Lowell of the Lowell's of New England, he was an amateur astronomer. Love telescopes. He built one of the best telescopes ever, found a mountain in Arizona where there's no rain in the desert, basically, put a telescope on top there, funded himself. It's called the Lowell Observatory to this day. And he observed Mars. and he believed he saw canals on Mars. This was not peer-reviewed.

This was his own. He went off the grid. And everyone says, well, I don't see canals in my telescope because your telescope is not as good as mine. And he did have a really good telescope in a really good observing site. And it would be decades before that would be corrected by more of the peer-review scientific community.

So yes, it can happen. Okay. And that's happened. So then the next question I have is, okay, we know that scientists can have a bias. There's influences that can affect their results. I have a chart of a scientific method I just pulled off of Wikipedia. Let's just take a look at this. I want to see if you agree with this.

Obviously, it's Wikipedia. Take that for what we will. But the scientific method is an observation or a question is where it starts. The assumption, as you said, maybe an early assumption into a research topic area. We develop a hypothesis. Then we test with experiment. analyze that data and report conclusions. I would say test with the experiment would also be where you would say someone that opposes that idea should step in and has some signs and say,

I'd like to challenge you. I'd like to run a test on that because I don't think you're seeing the whole picture. Otherwise it's an isolated result. Correct. Now, I would simplify that. Okay, okay. That's accurate. Okay. That's accurate, though it be off the internet. It's accurate. Okay, very good. But I can, I will simplify that. Okay. The scientific method is do what ever it takes to to not be fooled that something is true that is not or that something is not true that is. Did I say that right? I get what you're saying. Do whatever it takes. Does it mean get a chart recorder? Get a friend to verify. Unearth it in any way possible. Any way possible. Yes. Okay. I don't care what it is. Yep. You don't want to be fooled into thinking.

something is true that isn't or something is not true that is. Period. And that sequence is the unpacking of that sentence I just uttered to you to try to systematize that process. Completely, totally agree. And that recognizes that we all are susceptible to bias. And some fields are less bias prone than in astrophysics, you know, it's really hard for your politics to reveal itself. It's very hard. And in particle physics, you know, it's just... Is it possibly, because without you

involved in it all, it's not sexy at all, so it doesn't get influenced by a lot of outlaw. You've probably brought in all the potential, you know, like, you know, like, observation that that could influence it. I want to ask a, I think, a very important question right now, because part of the

montage was trust the scientists. We have to, you know, people have to learn to trust the science. Well, just be clear. Those were sound bites that you pulled out. Let me just make it a slightly longer sentence. Sure. You should trust, and this might lead into, I know, where I think you might be going. If, given the history of success of science and the methods and tools that enable it,

it is in your interest to trust any emergent scientific consensus. And a consensus, unfortunately we don't have a different word to use there, so I'm stuck with that. Normally when you hear there were consensus, people just offer their opinions and you get the average or you get the Democratic, the majority of opinions. A scientific consensus is not about opinions. It's about results published, peer-reviewed, published results of experiments. And we speak of that consensus of those experiments. If they lean in one direction, it is in your interest to lean with that direction. Correct. I think for some of those quotes I said trust the scientist.

Yes, if the scientist is representing a consensus. If they're isolated, it's like what's going on here? But wouldn't we say that the advance of science really is advanced by the consensus? It's usually that out, that person that looks at something a different way or that science group that says we want to challenge this consensus space and then has to fight for it and prove it and attacks and under the attacks or under the press, is given from in every way possible to unearth it it holds true then ultimately we see a shift in the consensus but would it be safe to say that very few of the science advancements have happened because the consensus moved first

but that it's usually a singular or small smaller group that that move in a new direction so that's that's confabulating what's the word can okay clean up for me i don't mean to put any i forgot the word It's conjoining two things that should be thought about separately. Okay. So one of them is you have a scientific consensus and then someone has a new idea. And the new idea, but if the consensus is established through experiment, verified and not over, and not higher weight than it deserves. So in other words, you can do an experiment.

You can do an experiment. This happened in the nutrition field where we all started saying, let's now do the Mediterranean diet, because it's low fat, low saturated fat, and this sort of thing. And then that was a big study. I mean, it was epidemiological, which always has issues, but it was a big study and no study had been that large. And everyone said, let's shift, and advertising changed and marketing changed and everything. And then you're like, but wait a minute. how come this is Europe

how come France was not in that study not in the study France France the country of saturated fat right right the butter

the forked sauce on everything okay you know wine in almost every meal breakfast why was that so in what way does the absence of these countries

bias the result that they reported. So that's, so I would not call back consensus, the Mediterranean diet. That was again, this one study that came out. Yeah. Before others had a chance to, but people ran with it. But I mean, historically, Galileo breaks the system. Newton breaks the system. But Galileo birthed the system, okay? So, yeah, he broke something that was not established through scientific inquiry. Right. So we can't, we start with Galileo and move on. Okay. So, So we have a consensus. What I'm telling you is there are people working on the edges of that consensus, and people say,

oh, that's a new thing. We can add to this, all right? And if it's successful, it immediately gets absorbed. Right. And immediately we can debate what immediately means. Here's an interesting example. Continental drift and geology. This is a fascinating bit of history here.

Forgive me, I forgot the guy's name. We have it correctly in Cosmos, in one of the episodes of Cosmos. But there's someone who looked, and others had done this before, they looked at the shape of South America and the shape of Africa on a map. Yeah. And say, wait, that looks like it fits. But there's a whole ocean between them. But it kind of, is there a puzzle? Did these landmasses once connect?

Interesting question. On that circle, your WikiPage circle, that's the hypothesis. Right. Okay. Let's test this. Well, what might you do? You'll say if they once connected, might there be fossils in common on both shores, even though there's an ocean between them? So you look, the fossils match.

Oh, my gosh. All right. And the other things start matching. But wait a minute. How the hell is land going to move on a solid surface? No one had any idea about this. No understanding. So that notion that a continent would move when no one had a mechanism to make it happen, it just sort of stayed there on the shelf.

Okay? And there it stayed. Because even though this was intriguing evidence, it wasn't enough to convince everybody. Right. All right? The consensus was not ready to go there. And so what happens after the Second World War? During, we're mapping the bottom of the Atlantic. So the subs know where to hide and where to go, the submarines. And in the center of the Atlantic, there's a ridge. Oh, my gosh. There's a split. It's separating in the middle of the Atlantic.

Take a look at a surface map without the ocean of the Atlantic Ocean right down the middle. Once that was uncovered and revealed, declassified, and published, boom. We had the mechanism and all the data. fit. This was, so you could say this person was a lone island, but they would gather, everyone was gathering evidence. And there was some holdouts, of course. Right. They'll always holdouts. Probably some really crazy ideas that thought fit in there that pushed it, you know. And by the way, nothing wrong with the crazy idea. Right. Nothing at all. And so, but, but the, the, the assertion that the lone person has to move the consensus does not recognize that people in the

consensus are not trying to always consensify. Is that a word? Let's make it a word. You know what it means. We live in a world where, you know, every year. Turn it into a verb. Right, that's right. Okay. Yeah. If you go to our scientific conference, we are arguing with each other all the time. We're not sitting back with our legs up on the table saying we are masters of our understanding of the world. No, we are always at the chalkboard so that when the newspaper article says, new results send scientists back to the drawing board. If you were not at the drawing board, you were not a research scientist, because we're all there at all times. All right, and I love hearing that.

So I want to get into a problem that is being written about quite often when it comes to science. And especially you said there's certain spaces in science that, you know, fluctuate or have more issues in them or more potential bias problems than others. If they involve human behavior. Right. So I want to read you a few quotes, just three quotes here really quick. This is Richard Horton, editor-in-chief of the Lancet. He said in this article, what is Medicine's Five Sigma? He said, the case against science is straightforward.

Much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, maybe simply untrue. Totally true. ...by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, and valid exploratory analysis and flagrant conflicts of interest together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance science has taken a turn towards darkness. Again, another, another editor. Let me read the three, and then we'll hit it.

Dr. Richard Smith, just to do you. give the body of the concern here, BMJ. Scientific peer reviews are a sacred cow. This is what he has to say. He says, Richard Smith, who edited the British Medical Journal for more than a decade, said there was no evidence that peer review was a good method of detecting errors and claim that most of what is published in journals is just plain wrong or nonsense. And lastly, another editor, Marcia Engel, and she's from New England Journal of Medicine,

she had this to say about the same issue. It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research, that is published or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I read slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of the New England Journal of Medicine. We're talking about medicine and science. This is a science that actually affects the human body, right?

It has, and we are looking at, when you say the consensus, many of these statements more than 50 percent. I know you've seen a lot of the studies by university saying we can't recreate this science and make it happen again in more than 50% of what we have signed off on was true. And so that begs the question. Now, they didn't sign up what was true.

Just be clear. A published research paper is not in and of itself the truth. It is the results of an experiment any one of which can have either intentional bias or

inadvertent bias or some other kind of glitch that happened that they didn't even know about. By the way, one of those quotes is speaking as though it's a new fact, but it's an old fact. Half or more of all freshly published papers will ultimately shown to be wrong. You can go back to the journals and you see, I've got an idea, I do this, and they tell, no, that didn't pan out. So that's not a new fact.

That's an old fact. And that is the very nature of the moving frontier. It is bloody. I don't want to call it ugly because we already know that's what it's supposed to be. It's beautiful in that. It's contested the way it is. Yes. That's the process.

But in the case of business and in all things, is it possible for a science or an idea that is allowing some potentially, you know, peer-reviewed ideas that weren't properly done because it suits, for instance, a pharmaceutical industry. that is making billions of dollars and is now lobbying nations around the world and is putting in players inside of regulatory agencies. Is it possible? Is it just possible that the consensus

could be moving in an incorrect direction or with a few incorrect assumptions? There's a deeper issue than what those three quotes communicate here. There's a deeper issue. I would call it. that half of those quotes were always true. So that, that's, it feels fresh and new because we're in a health, you know, issue here.

Okay, so the health headlines are noticed a little more than usual. And it's where science actually impacts our personal lives. Of course, what's happening out in the cosmos for most of us. I know. It doesn't hurt whether I live for the next two years or not. Nor do I really need to put disclosure statements. Right, right. You know, we can and do, but it's not, it's like it's, it's perfunctory.

It's not, let me see what your bias is with your intelligence, who funded you with the black hole. You know, it's not, we're not as susceptible. The bigger, deeper issue here is I produce a result that's interesting and maybe move the field in a way. But yeah, there's bias. There's funding bias. There's my bias. Okay. you don't get famous.

By the way, back up, just because I'm funded by a business entity and get a result that's in their interest does not mean my result is false. It just means you want to just look a little closer, okay? Sure. You get a bigger magnifying glass. It should have a little more scrutiny.

A little more scrutiny. That's all that means. It doesn't mean it has to be wrong. Just to be clear. All right. So here's the bigger problem. Great distinction. That is not yet resolved.

Is funding agencies that fund science, if I say, Betty Lou and Johnny Smith got this result, I want to duplicate their experiment. There's hardly any money for that. Right. And that's the big. That's the big. bigger problem than anything, those three quotes.

Getting funding to challenge the giant system. To challenge a result that everyone is kind of buying into. And so the verification part of that loop is in danger. Completely agree.

And look, very simply put, it's one of the problems we have, and I don't know where you stand on vitamins and drugs, but a drug company likes the fact that it costs $100 million to do. I don't stand anywhere, by the way. I don't But a drug company likes the fact, I think, that it costs $100 million to be able to prove a product through the type of science we want. And now if you could force the vitamin companies that have to go through that same thing, you can just say, you don't get to make any claims there at all.

These things affect us in many different ways. And they're really big, strong ethical questions. Yes, there are. Right? So in the system that we've built for ourselves, let's back up 100. how many, 50 years? Yeah. So 1863, whenever how long ago that was,

Abraham Lincoln, who clearly had other issues on his plate in 1863, he signed into law the creation of the National Academy of Sciences, conceived to be independent of government agencies,

yet responding to their requests to produce to produce research that may serve the interest of the nation. Our health, our wealth, our security. Right. Okay. Other agencies have come up since then. Of course, the National Institutes of Health.

And so, but let me specifically speak to the National Academy of Sciences. Other than a sort of a foray into eugenics, like I said, this was a very big thing in its day. By and large, when they publish a paper, it's some of the best scientists who were elected to those positions, analyzing research to give you the best available data at the time. Is it wrong to assume some level of objectivity in those spaces, that if they're government agencies or signed in by Abraham Lincoln or the NIH, that they're keeping themselves apart from the funded, you know, entities, pharmaceutical, or, you know, sciences that we trust these agencies because they keep themselves out of the loop? They are comprised primarily of independent scientific researchers, typically in universities.

So the way you have to say this is, is it completely free of any possible bias? Probably not. but is there any other agency that's less biased? I would say, no, there isn't, based on my read of the landscape. So once again, it's where you're going to lean when it's time to make a decision that affects your health, your wealth, or your security. But I want to get back to the point.

Someone said the peer review is broken. It's broken primarily in the fact that you're not going to fund me to just duplicate someone else's recent. That's not interesting. We're having trouble finding. And if half of the research that the public is funneling into their own conduct and politicians are grabbing onto, if half of that would ultimately shown to be false and no one is going to fund that, that's the real problem.

And so that needs an overall. We need an overhaul. For sure. All right. So let me, just because I know your time is precious and you have a bunch of things and I want to respect your time. There is, there is something that actually combines us together. We're actually combined recently in an article that I want to bring up.

This is based on a movie that you have coming out, someone shot in the arm, which is coming out. Oh, shot in the arm. So shot in the arm. I just want to point out, it's in the Hollywood reporter, just to show, you know, part of what sits the two of us at this table. Shot in the arm, review a pointed documentary about the anti-vax movement, filmmaker, Scott Hamilton, Kennedy, popular scientist and Neil deGrasse Tyson joined forces to explore the history and deadly consequences of resistance to COVID vaccines.

It's just a little excerpt, just the, I'm in here. Kennedy actually began working on the film in 2019. During a surprising uptick in cases of measles around the world, he found that the causes could be found in growing resistance to vaccines fueled by prominent people like environmental activist Robert Kennedy Jr. and TV personality Del Big Tree. Their primary argument refuted by almost all prominent scientists was that the measles vaccine led to cases of autism.

When we go to the site on this film, the actual fundraising page has a photo of me, which is interesting. If you want to donate to shot in the arm, there's Dell Big Tree. I mean, clearly, this is a documentary that is not going to try and make me look like the best guy in the world. And I want to be really clear with you right here.

You and everybody has every right to challenge the things that I've said, and I'll let Robert Kennedy Jr. speak for himself. And so I just really honestly want to understand why this is a film you thought was important, So that, you know. Yeah, so Scott Kennedy, he's the filmmaker. Yeah.

He wrote it, produced it, directed, it, filmed it. Yeah. I came on after he showed me an early version of it. Okay. Yeah. What do they call it in the business? None a take, but an early... A preview.

Yeah, preview, pre-d. And I said, fascinating. I think you can communicate this a little better, differently, a little less. And so I offered my sensibilities as an educator and as a scientist to help tighten or tune, better word, the narrative, and the editing of what would ultimately... I said, you can't just say this without showing results and this sort of thing. That was an article in Hollywood Reporter. What it missed in there is the documentary is not about... what any one scientist says, even though scientists themselves are interviewed.

It's about the consensus of the medical community and what it says. And so this is a vessel to communicate that. No differently than would any vessel be when we are communicating how gravity works or how anything else that has been established through the methods and tools of science. Yeah. Yeah. So I would just say, I mean, and as we're having, having this conversation is that, you know, the article goes on to say that, you know,

Dell wasn't able to put up, like we asked them questions, they were unable to give a decent argument to their perspective. But I want to make it clear that, you know, Kennedy, the director, never called me, said, here's the list of questions we'd like you to answer. We're going to sit down and put you in an interview. I was at the CDC one time when I came out of a meeting, tried to observe how the science was being done there, and asked questions on the fly. I imagine that the interviews of Tony Fauci and others, they got to sit down and were prepped on what was going to take place there. And so in some ways, I don't think that we, you know, I can say honestly, I was never given some fair space to explain my position, which I made a film

Vax, right? And Vax, and I will say this, people say Vaxe proves that the MMR vaccine causes autism. That's what puts me in this space. I have never made that statement. What I have said is that Vaxe proves that we have a whistleblower inside the CDC that is giving us 10,000 documents. He said he was asked to destroy and that we know that the study plan changed after the protocol was set, which in some cases should be considered scientific fraud.

If you change mid-study and start kicking half of the cohorts or the people in the study off the study to get a different result and you have an inside scientist saying, I was there in the room, we were trying to get a different result to the study, what I have said is Vax proves that whatever these scientists saw made them push the limits of potential

scientific fraud. That's all that I've ever been able to prove because we really lack a huge body of science in this space. But I want to, you know, just what seems clear is you must, you know, think it's important. And I want to ask you just directly, you must feel that a statement questioning the safety of the MMR vaccine in this case, which it seems measles. I haven't seen the doctor. because it's unavailable. We've asked. It's not out yet. It's not. We haven't been able to see.

But is it fair to say. It's still being edited and still being. Is it fair to say you think it's dangerous to challenge the safety of the MMR vaccine because the damage that that challenge could do to humanity? Is that a fair if I was going to make the statement for you? I don't have sufficient medical background to speak with authority on this. Okay. What I can say more generally.

is I recognize the data on vaccines broadly and how many lives it has saved. They have saved over the centuries, more specifically recent decades. And that, from what I can see, represents consensus research in the medical community. And so I never have any specific agenda to personally an agenda is I want to do this when everyone else is doing that. When I'm a scientist and I'm an educator and I don't benefit or anything. I just trying to communicate what communities of scientists have discovered and learned. And that's my only role in this. I'd be happy to take your concern that you didn't have a occasion.

to sit down. But there's a lot of footage of you, as you found a lot of footage of me in the intro here, there's a lot of footage of you talking, right? You're not a, you're not, you're not a hidden voice out there. That's true. Right, that's true. Right. So my question to you would be, and because around this issue, I mean, I know just to be clear, so when I communicate this to the, to the, to the film director, are you going to say that the body of videos of you speaking publicly and passionately about what you are sure is true, that that is insufficient to communicate how you actually... It isn't providing the science with which I reference and the data that I reference.

You talk about data. By the other people sat down for interviews because we don't have reams of footage of them speaking with huge rooms of people. You have the charisma and the platform and all of that. And look, if I see the graphs and I see the articles and I see my statements about Horton saying things like, you know, we can't trust the peer-reviewed science around things and the point that I've made. And also the point being this, that I think this is being misunderstood in some ways, because though there is a consensus of science, there's a consensus of science around the fact

that penicillin has been a life-saving, you know, product for the world. But can I be safe to say that you wouldn't mandate that everyone that gets an infection get penicillin? So there's a whole separate question there about, what is your responsibility to public health? Yeah. And that has to do what kind of country we want to have for ourselves. Yeah. The history of public health, as it goes way back, I mean, to ancient Rome,

but in modern times, we can think of London when they figured out how to create sanitation. And you participate in this. Huge. Probably the hugest thing. I think toilets are bigger than vaccines. I think actually, when we're going to talk about, Plumbing. Right.

Plumbing, massive. Massive. You just throw it out the window. So these are steps towards public health. And so that's a whole other conversation. What all science can do is provide the day. It is. And I want to have that conversation with you.

But I just want to see if we can meet in one place, which is, and I'll just cut to the chase. Penicillin can't be given to everybody, right? There are some people that have a potentially deadly reaction to penicillin. As I understand. So if we were to mandate a product, like that on everybody. It has a massive overall benefit, but there are some that will not benefit. And the argument, and where I'm at, is that there is a giant consensus of science that only wants to focus on the benefit of a product and not the fact that there's this small, potentially.

We don't know exactly how small, because it's hard, as you've said, to get funding into the science of what the size of this group is. So don't we need? Right. We might not have in every case a little test kit. We do it for allergies. We can test your allergy. Absolutely.

Are you allergic to strawberries? How about in California, there are kids that can't even test out of getting a vaccine when they show tithers to the actual virus. We've tried to push laws like just allow a person to say, I'm showing that I'm still immune to this. Why should I have to get this vaccine if I already have strong immune? Things like that that I like to talk about. Unless the bug mutated. I mean, so. But the vaccine hasn't changed either.

I mean, you can admit that the MMR vaccine has, we haven't seen that changed because. of mutations at all either. So it would be just as archaic as this immune system was. But I don't want to get into the way it's. I think, again, I don't want to speak out of turn here, but if a disease is mostly gone, the occasions for it to mutate are dramatically diminished. So that a vaccine that worked at one point when it is not rampant around the world would conceivably continue to work as you move forward. Something that is rampant around the world has unlimited occasions to mutate. Well, let me just show you a couple of data on measles because I know that the film revolves around Rockland County, New York. I did go to speak to the Hasidic Jewish community there.

I don't think that that's a fair assessment of a measles outbreak. This is me. There you go. There is. I mean, that's about how much attention I was getting in the middle of a measles outbreak. But I will tell you this, that that outbreak wasn't a natural one. These people were being kept out of synagogues over Passover. They're really honestly being a press over. and quarantined, which is a scary thing in the United States of America to see this community especially. But I will say this, they were going out of their way to have measles parties so that they could catch the measles. So never again would the government of the United States keep them out of their own synagogues and keep them off the streets and find them. They said, let's just catch this virus.

So it's a very unnatural experiment that was going on. That has nothing to do with nature. But Disneyland was a little bit more natural, which happened in California. And I just want to run through some stats for you because I don't think the whole story is being told. This is right from the California CDPH. I just want to point out what they know about this. When we look at it, when we look at the age distribution and hospitalization status of California measles outbreak cases, this is what we know, that 53% of those were adults. Now, the film states, even in the trailer and in the Hollywood Reporter,

that somehow I am causing these outbreaks, or I'm a great part in our philosophy is, but if it's 50% adults, at the very least, you have to say, I've only been here a few years, I didn't make these adults. not vaccinate. But when we go deeper into the data, what we find out is many of them were vaccinated. You know, when we look at this, we know that 31% were actually vaccinated, but there's an additional 38% that they were unknown, and they all claimed 20 of them, claimed 20%, I mean, half of them complain, you know, claim to be vaccinated. And the other ones weren't sure. We had to assume that age group. They probably were. So we had about a 50% vaccine failure, which is to your point.

The vaccine isn't doing the job we thought, which is lasting for life. And then lastly, when we look at it, when we look at what strains were out there, 30% of the cases in California were being caused by the vaccine itself, vaccine strain. Yet all of the news is that the anti-vacciners, the unvaccinated babies are the reason this outbreak is happening. I can tell you right there, that is just simply not true. That you have vaccine failure is a huge part. You have the virus being caused by the vaccine is a huge part. Now, I'm not saying that they should be blame more, but what I'm saying is the entire conversation is not being held in public. And as you've pointed out, this other perspective isn't getting in public. That's published by the health paper.

That's published by the health party. So what do you mean it's not happening in public? What do you mean? I would just say that that part of it isn't being stated in this documentary. That part of isn't being stated by the news. It's not getting the headlines. What's getting the headlines is the smaller group of the unvaccinated individuals because that gets hype. That sells headlines, to your point, but it doesn't actually represent the overall problem that if we all sat at the table is a much more complex issue we should be discussing. Instead of lopping it all on, it's the unvaccinated children that cause the problem. No, actually, the biggest problem in the vaccine program is the waning of vaccine immunity. And that is something that the public

through coronavirus are only now recognizing in a propaganda spaces, I would say, that vaccines are safe and effective and they always work, is falling short of actually. letting the public know that there are real issues inside this vaccine program. Just to be clear, from the papers I read, the statement that a vaccine is safe and effective, that is always couched in a statistical representation of how safe and how effective. But it's never presented by the news, as you said, it never gets the first paragraph of the news article. The statistics are glossed over. Correct.

And so when they say safe, there's no adverse effects in some percent of the cases. When they say effective, that means it prevents hospitalization or recurrence in a, in a percent of cases. And you don't always see that, and that really should be part of the dialogue, but our brains are apparently not wired. All I do, all I do is try and bring balance to this world to say there is a paragraph that is missing from this conversation. That is all I'm doing, as I am standing up for science and saying,

I'm not making stuff up. I'm not emotionally getting into something. I am stating what are the known, the data that's being left out of these simplistic statements that are safe and effective. Actually, yes, they're safe for me. most potentially. But there's this group that no one wants to talk about that are really suffering, can't get any funding to look at what they do, because we have government agencies, we have an agenda to make sure that everyone's inspired to take this product that works against admitting

we have a problem because they're so afraid it's going to undermine the uptake of what is, you know, could be considered a very important, you know, world measure. And I am trying to figure out how we help this outlying, group that keeps getting ignored. So what you do, you talk to, you are a media force unto yourself, but you could talk to the media and say, when you report that something is safe, give the statistics for that. Every time you utter that sentence. I have. Most of the media, and I'm going to assume this documentary I'm in, will not put the stats that I just stated, will not put in themselves. My, the stats I want to see there because it has a bias. So we're

living in the world that has a bias. It wants to show that the measles vaccine is great, which arguably may be, but not for some people. Maybe? Not for some people. But you said maybe. It is except for some people rather than maybe. That's a bias in the very structure of your sentence. I will say that we all suffer from bias. I'd be the first to admit that.

What I'm saying is we need to bring our biases to the same table and find a middle ground. Now I want to get back to the social contracting, which you talked about. This is you on Patrick Beck, David, mentioned the social contract. If you want to get an abortion, get an abortion. If I want to get the vaccine, I get to choose. So you can't force, if I can't force you to get an abortion, you shouldn't be able to force you to get the- Because it's not about you. It's about people you interact with, and that's the social contract of public health. We don't even know if the vaccine worked or not at the time.

Yes, that's what the trials are. Dude, that's why these trials are. Are you missing data out there? But let me ask you a question. Are we saying only one type of scientists are right? No, we're saying that the system in place. The 16,000 that's signed that... No, no, no. The system in place to test vaccines. There's an entire system that's in place.

With review boards and all of this. That's in place. Now, you can say, what you can say is I have a better idea than all these review boards and all these agencies and the CDC. I have a better idea. Here's what you should do. And that would have made everything better.

Okay. You can put forth that idea. But what I'm saying is, in a case where you can contaminate someone else, it's not about you. It's about the collective health. You're assuming. You're assuming. You're assuming because somebody can take the vaccine won't get COVID, which, by the way, I don't need to play the clips for you to see it where everybody said, hey, if you get it, you're not going to get, if you take the vaccine, you're not going to get a Rachel Mata, Joe Biden, I can give you Fouch, I can give you fit. And you've seen these clips before. It's not like you've never seen it before.

They were wrong. Hold on. So, so, the strain evolved, okay, so that the vaccine that prevented you from catching COVID was tuned to the variant of COVID at the time the vaccine was denied, what was designed, okay? Over time, there were variants that arose. the vaccine provided partial protection against the new variants enough to keep you from dying statistically and to basically keep you out of the hospital. So, you know, interesting points, good points.

Is there any part of that that, you know, science is always shifting? That's January. I don't want to hold you to it. Is that, does that stand up? Is that still how you would answer that question? What I would say is rolling the clock back to March 2020. What should have happened, which is easy Monday morning quarterback, just look back at the, you know. Of course.

Okay. We're all, we all have this opportunity. It's an important time to take this opportunity. So what should have happened at every step is the CDC comes out and says, here's what we know and here are the statistics of what we know. So that if we are a completely free country and you don't, you're not concerned about possibly contaminating someone else if you're a carrier. If you're really not concerned, you don't care about that. You can make a statistical judgment, except we're not really taught statistics anywhere K through 12.

But, oh, by the way, will you allow me one conspiracy theory? Sure. I won. Okay. You ready? Okay. Where does state lottery money go? I'm told it goes to schools and things like that.

School. Schools and education. Okay. Yeah. Let's look at K through 12. Do they teach statistics? They don't. Okay.

There's a huge irony there. Am I onto something there? You're on to something there. I'll think I'm onto something. They don't want to teach it. Otherwise, no one will play the lottery. So at every step, it's this is the percentage of people that didn't get it. This is the percentage of people that still got COVID.

And this is a very impressive percent. Okay. And then you keep moving this down. All right. And then we talk about masks. And we talk about they. I mean, this would be, then you get the best available data as it comes out. And so that at any turn, you say, because there might not be an occasion to duplicate studies.

And as you said, we're in a crisis, the thing is going, you know. So, so this should be a weekly set of charts. But there wasn't. Everybody can see. We never saw the charts. And I was complaining about it from the beginning. Because I don't think anyone made the charts. There was some charts.

There was charts happening in Israel. There's charts happening around the world. We were getting charts. They just weren't being shown to us. Now, what I want to state is you make this point about the social contract. And I don't have a lot more time with this. We're going to just sort of, you know, wrap this up in here in saying that, you know, ultimately, this is what we now know about. You said they had a system in place.

They were designed. They have the regulatory agencies testing, all of it, right? Well, we have Robert Ruse, the European Union. I'm not sure if you're wearing this, aware of this, that asked the top executive at Pfizer about the testing of does it stop transmission. This is what she said just recently. Was the Pfizer-COVID vaccine tested on stopping the transmission of the virus before it entered the market? If not, please say it clearly. If yes, are you willing to share the data with this committee?

And I really want straight answer. Yes or no, and I'm looking forward to it. Thank you very much. Regarding the question around, did we know about stopping? humanization before it's entered the market? No. These, you know, we had to really move at the speed of science to really understand what is taking place in the market. And from that point of view, we had to do everything at risk. This made shocking headlines the world over that they weren't actually testing whether the vaccine could stop transmission, which I think, you know, now you're

asking me to sign a social contract based on I'm going to protect my neighbor. And we're finding out inside the trials, they did no such thing. They made no attempt. So this 95% was really like a fascination or an assumption about some data that they wanted to be true, but we didn't actually have testing going on to test transmission. Transmission is different from whether you are affected by it. So there's two different things here. They are different. But you're being affected about is just how sick I'm going to get. The social contract can never, as far as I'm concerned, the United States of America, be about my own personal health and decision I make from my If I want to jump out of a plane with a parachute on, you don't have to do that, but I would do that.

The only time a social contract comes in place is when I am somehow responsible with what's going to happen to you. So to not be testing whether or not I'm going to keep from infecting you with this vaccine and then going out and telling the world it's 95% effective at keeping me from giving it to you. I don't think that's what they said. I thought you just said it's 95% effective of you to not get it. That's right. Then what social contract is there to make? If that's all that it is, then what responsibility do I have to do? So what you can do at that point, if we don't otherwise have the data, you can say,

I don't think I'll ever catch it, even sitting right next to someone who has it, even though I'm vaccinated. You could say that, I guess, but the history of the sex. Or you can say it's perfectly fine catching it, that I know that immunity from infection has throughout history in every single circumstance up until this point, and is proven to be true with the COVID vaccine, the natural overcoming natural infection makes me my immunity last longer is more durable, more robust, and every single, there's not a vaccine that has ever outperformed the natural immune system. I don't know that. I can't agree or disagree. That is the case, but you can look into it.

I want to bring up, though, another problem. We based all of this. Why you, why you, I'm an astrophysicist. Why you? Because you sat, you sat for two reasons. You're an executive producer on a documentary about me, which puts you in this space. And you're sitting on podcasts and putting you. out tweets about the science of vaccines. Yes. So that means your... Consensus science. But you were just...

But you are putting yourself forward as someone that is knowledgeable in this space. I'm giving the people who might not otherwise have access, access to the consensus knowledge. To your perspective of the consensus knowledge. And I am simply challenging your understanding or asking, how did you get that knowledge? Did you read the emergency use authorization put out by the FDA? What I know is contagion, right? So in other words... But what you asked, did you read the emergency use authorization that the FDA put?

Yes, I did. Long ago. Okay. Are you aware that it said we were, I'm unable to prove whether or not this stops transmission. This is it. What it said, data are limited to assess the effect of the vaccine against transmission of SARS COVID-2 from individuals who are infected despite vaccination. So this idea that you're saying the variant is why it, but we didn't know what variant it mattered for.

So at that point, you're left with some choices. You are. Well, hold on. You can say, I will never get the disease at any. I'm vaccinated, okay, or sorry, if I'm not vaccinated and I can't be vaccinated for some other physiological reason. Right. Right. And you have COVID. I don't want my life put at risk because of you. You're allowed to make that decision. That is your choice to me. But there are people in society for whom this is the case. What is the case? The case where I can't be vaccinated because I have some pre-existing medical condition. Correct. Oh, I'm glad you brought that up.

Prevents it. I'm glad you brought that up. And so now you. Right. And then you spread it to me. No, no, no. But here's the point. Isn't that part of a social contract?

Well, here's, I agree. Yeah. I have a problem with what the vaccine actually does. What we actually now know it does is it masks your symptoms. It takes your symptoms away so they, you don't end up in the hospital, if it's going to do the one thing that they promise it does. Sure. So what it actually does is it turns you into an asymptomatic carrier,

where you might be sick and stay home and not infect that immune-suppressed child that's walking around, you're walking around thinking you're perfectly fine. So the vaccine is actually more dangerous in the social contract because I am walking around with the disease I do not know I have. If the product does what they promise it does, you just turned this person into the biggest problem we were all told this was about was asymptomatic carriers. If it does not stop infection, if it does not stop transmission, it only protects me from symptoms. I'm actually being turned into a potential killer for that immune suppressed person that's walking around out there. And I've been robbed of the only signal I had that I was infected. I don't know that risk.

So I can't comment. I don't know the risk of you being asymptomatic and then not or transmitted or not. I just don't know that risk. But you are aware that the reason we're all masking and social distancing was there was this problem, the virus that I could be walked around that didn't know I had it. It was a concern, right? And we thought the vaccine was going to end that, and instead it causes that even deeper. So if that was a concern, we don't know at what level.

We know that was the reason for lockdowns, masks, and the vaccine ending this thing. Okay, we can say so much after the fact, and I'm saying at the time you want to err, I presume, on the side of caution. Why not? Why wouldn't you do that? Okay, because we had a product that when we looked at it, every animal trial of a coronavirus vaccine for nearly 15 years since the original SARS coronavirus. This, I said the world. I mean, we is the world. Who's we? Pharmaceutical companies around the world are attempting to make a product for this virus and having serious problems.

Animals dying because of antibody dependent enhancement, immune enhancement, an issue that even Peter Hote has stated in front of our Congress. There's this little pesky problem with upper respiratory vaccines that sometimes the vaccine enhances the disease and helps the disease kill the person. So under those circumstances on my show, I said that is a serious risk. And when I looked at the emergency use authorization, they brought up a disease enhancement. And they said, we didn't really look for it in this trial. We have no idea of telling you whether or not that could happen. So right there is a perfectly good reason why I wasn't going to take it. But I want to be clear in this social contract.

Can we bring up Brownston? This is John E. Anidi's stats on the actual death rate of this virus because it is what defines whether or not we're in a social contract. How dangerous is this? The Brownstone Institute put up his dad. This is what we now know about this virus. Ages 60 to 69, the fatality rate was half of 1%. Below that, it starts dropping down into zeros. When we look at children, 0.003% is there a risk of dying.

Yet we have a much higher risk of myocarditis, pericarditis, all of these things. And so I think science is irresponsible. If it decides to get, not only allow everyone to get a product, when children and everybody below the age of 40 probably have no need to get it whatsoever, get the vaccine. No need to get it because their risk is so low that in a low-risk space, you know, to do scientific studies that show that you have an advantage, there would be very different. Just to be clear, when was that study published?

That study was just published. Right. No, no, no, but let me point out that Johnny Inidi is published. In October of 2020, 2020, he looked at this data from around the world. Very early, before the vaccine was here, across 51 locations around the world, the median COVID-19 infection retaliate appears to be 0.27%. He's only off, ultimately, ends up being about 0.35%. And so my question was, in the very beginning, that was the data we were looking at.

We were looking at data and saying, this is a very low mortality rate, except for a very specific group of people over the age of 75 that make up about 6% of the planet. And so your social contract seems to be asking me to take a risk with a product that is, MNA has never been really injected into human beings. But isn't that your grandmother? Huh? Is this your grandfather? Isn't that your people you love?

But should 94% of the planet put themselves at risk with an experimental product when they're not even properly testing it inside of the trials for the problems that it has or whether it can stop transmission or whether it can protect my grandma matter to you as well you can give this product to my grandma and grandpa if they want to take it it's up to them to take it what i but to keep you out of the hospital you're not a spring chicken though you're i i i said we can bring it back up at 53 years old i accepted the my risk at i think 0.1 percent 10th of 1 percent which is a flu that's the same we're in the rates of the flu for for everyone my age around this is just a flu Okay, and that is statistically provable.

Okay. And was the whole time. So here's what you do. So why am I going to take a risk with a product that we have no idea with the long term? Here's what you need to do. Yes. You need to have that conversation with a medical professional and not me. Let me bring this up.

There's a list of top-ranking medical professionals. Let's take a look at him here. Dr. Peter McCullough. No, no, I want to go through what happened here. This is the problem with the consensus. The consensus. Okay. Medical professional.

I want you to... Because the medical is so huge, I can find you an astrophysicist who is sure we've been visited by aliens. That's not the consensus. The problem was the scientific method died here, and this is the point I want to make. It died a death here, and I need you to help me save it, because Dr. Peter McCullough is the leading cardiologist.

I don't care. I don't care here. But what should matter... What matters is the consensus. What should matter was that the consensus was not allowing to the table. And you bring that person here and have this conversation with them. Okay. So you don't have to have the conversation with me.

But I want, I want science. And so here's what we have. We have Peter McCullough, world-renowned heart doctor, saying, I am seeing a rise in myocarditis because of this vaccine. We have the leading ICU, second most published science, Paul Merrick. I'm just, hear me out here. Hear me out. Go.

All right. These have all been on my show. Dr. Robert Malone, part of the inventing, behind the M RNA vaccine. All these people have been censored. They were shut down. They were kept from talking to the people in Washington. Johnny and Ead was putting out the data.

I'll show you. I'll show you. Dr. J. Bataetari, Dr. Sinaitra Gupta, Dr. Martin Koldorf, Oxford University, Harvard School of Medicine, Stanford School of Medicine. They put together the Great Barrington Declaration, which was an approach towards this to say, let's do protect that simple, small group that we know needs to be protected

and figure out a way the rest of us can establish a herd immunity around them. And the NIH, who's supposed to be objective on this, we now have internal email, because this is what I do. I actually put in FOIA requests. We know that this is what Francis Collins said about those people before even talking to them.

There needs to be a quick and devastating published takedown of the premise being brought by these scientists. That was the approach to science. No other science can be allowed in here. You started this out by saying every challenge should come in, every way to say that we don't agree with the hypothesis.

Maybe these people are saying, you don't need the vaccine. There's a way through this. Or we should be tactical with the vaccine. All of these people were kept out of the conversation. And you were wanting me to sign onto a social contract where the scientific method isn't being used. Okay. That list of highly pedigreed medical professionals that you are citing. Yeah.

I'm not interested in medical pedigree. I'm interested in medical consensus, in scientific consensus. The moment someone says, well, I'm of this high-faluting school or this, that's like, okay, that means they're going to say something that goes against the consensus, and they want to use that to help other people follow what it is they say. I'm just saying you need someone who represents a medical consensus here to have that conversation with. We had a medical consensus around a product that we knew nothing about, and a medical consensus around a virus that told us they knew nothing about. They kept telling us we know very little about it. So why was there a medical consensus that was keeping out renowned scientists from the conversation when they were telling us on television, we don't know a lot about this virus.

We're trying to figure it out. Scientists that were on the ground that were dealing with patients were being censored, were being shut down, their YouTube channels were being shut down, their LinkedIn's are being shut down. Because the individual scientist does not matter. We started this conversation on that very fact. The scientific method does. Yes, of course it does. And the scientific method producing a consensus.

And whatever is that consensus that they give a moment, it's kind of the best you have. When I can look now in the rearview mirror and set it while it was happening, that there is a, and by the way, all the scientists I just showed proved to be right. They told you that this virus, that the vaccine would not end this and would actually cause it an endemic because you've now made people that cannot clear this virus and kill it. They're all asymptomatic carriers. That's all this vaccine keeps doing. So now we're stuck with this virus. We didn't follow the same path we always have with every other illness like former coronaviruses and most of the time flus. The hospitals are low.

They were the highest. I mean, things are fake. For now, for now. But as you and I both know, these variants continue to be out there. And we are all worried that there could be a variant in the future that could be dangerous. But all that being said, in the end, what I am. standing for is that there's no challenge being allowed. That the NIH, when it's telling us is objectively looking at a virus they're telling us they

don't know much about, is pushing out top people in their field who are trying to get to the table. They're trying to say there's something you're not looking at. And this, and when you want to talk about a problem, how about not funding to do that study again? How about not allowing into the room people with great perspective to be a point? To be a part of the conversation. So whatever is the politics that's unfolding in the, in the, in the, in the rate at which that this information is being shared,

and some you had to go in and dig, okay, fascinating that that was necessary. All I can say is just because someone, this is a more a general truth, not specifically here, but it's, and it may apply here, but it's a general truth. Right. Just because an expert does not agree with the consensus does not mean the expert is correct. True. Okay? I just want to clarify that.

And there's no greater source of YouTube clickbait than someone saying, as you go past it, everyone thinks this. But if you watch this video, I will tell you why they're all wrong and I'm right. That is the clickbait thing. Let me point you to the scientists. I want Deborah Birx because this is what she's now saying. These are the people we're supposed to trust that you were saying were developing this consensus for us. This is what Deborah Brooks is. I want to watch.

I knew these vaccines were not going to protect against infection. And I think we overplayed the vaccines and it made people then worry that it's not going to protect against severe disease and hospitalization. I know that the vaccine wasn't going to stop transmission. Yet Neil DeGrasse Tyson is telling everyone that you need to sign a social contract because it's going to keep you from infecting each other. I knew it never was. She's the head of the task force, but we're not letting the scientists that are saying, honestly, in their YouTube channels, in their clickbait space, that's what you call it. It's not stopping transmission.

Here's why we can prove it. Shut them down is what is happening in the NIH. Shut those voices down. We can't get there. To wrap all this up, I want to get back to the point that you so eloquently. I'm passionate as you. I'm passionate as you are. And I want to thank you for being here.

You said, we need this new data set to resolve this difference. You said in the point where there's a disagreement. On the front, on the moving frontier, you need to come together. More data, correct. We need this data set. Here's how we could get to it. I want to wrap this up with the reason I have you here is not for some gotcha.

And I know that you are super talented and I understand you've made very good points here. But we have a difference of opinion in a certain space. Or maybe we're valuing the weight we give our two perspectives are a different in some ways. I think the film that you are supporting believes that we are losing ground on vaccine uptake, which is reported in almost every newspaper there is, which means if I'm a part of that, the consensus in humanity is moving my direction, which has got to be very alarming. And so a film like the one you're involved in is going to try and stop that, just as the media I'm doing is trying to demand that we all come to the table.

So here's what the data set I want. And here's, I really want to try and end this civil war that's going on over health. I want those that are hurt, that small group, no matter how small they are, to be recognized and funded and taken care of in science to be done there. I want to understand what the size of that group is. But it is being commandeered by NIH, who you say is objective, but all the reports are saying they received $400 million the scientists did for their investment. investment in the technology of these vaccines, which takes, I'm sorry for me, I can't believe

they're unbiased any longer. If I'm making hundreds of millions of dollars, I have skin in the game and you're no longer an agency, I can trust, which is where all this comes from. But if we're to get to a place, I do have skin in the game. Right. You do personally. I do personally. Yes, you do. So, but here we want, you and I both want the same thing. We want, I know, I see your heart, I've watched you my whole life. You care about children. You care about family. You care about the future. of the species. You care about the future of this earth. Of civilization. We share that together.

I am deeply concerned that rushing science and with scientists that can be biased that aren't being challenged properly, that a product handed to everybody, we could have a thalidomide, we have seen in science a product that gets out in the market, a Vioxx or something that could be devastating to the species. So I'm trying to say, how can we do science better and how do we know what's going on here? Measles, all of it. Here's the answer. We are simply asking for a data set that could be me and Robert Community Jr. and this minority group that has grown to be roughly 30% at least of America moving towards 50 in a very fast way. When you look at the uptake of the current booster shot, it's somewhere in the neighborhood of 10%, which means

even those that believe in this vaccine are backing away from it, no longer going with a CDC recommendation. CDC is on a downward spiral, which is scary for all of us. The study that needs to be done is a comparative study. You could throw your measles and the safety of measles and whether it causes autism studies on the table, and I could show very robust studies that show the exact opposite. You wouldn't show a consensus. Huh? You wouldn't show a consensus. I don't care about the consensus. You have to. Because I... Otherwise, the tentacles that reach into all manner of the spacetime continuum can land in any possible place. The consensus is only concerned with the larger, greater good and body of people. But what it doesn't understand is how big the group that are being injured and hurt and destroyed by this are. And they're refusing to do that science because it undermines the statement that is being said that across the board these are just safe and effective.

And that is irresistible clickbait. What is? What you just said and how you said it. I just want to put that out there. It's irresistible. I have millions of people who watch this show. The entire system is fooling you, and I have the truth. But it's true.

That's what I'm just saying. It is. Are you saying there is not a group of people that are being injured by these products? I'm saying that what we need is honest, honest, if I use the word evolution in this context, evolution of the statistics represented by studies so that everyone can make the best decision they can, in the interest of their health. Okay, here's the study I want. And you didn't really answer my question, which is, do you believe people are injured

by this product? By what product? By any pharmaceutical product. Vaccines included. All medicines have side effects. Exactly right. Yeah. One day it'd be nice when it's tailored to your DNA.

I don't see how we get there. I don't see how we get there if the people that stay in for the smaller group that are being injured are ignored and said to be dangerous to the planet, dangerous to the species, for stating that we should be studying these people and figure out how we can stop injuring them. That's all I'm doing. I'm trying to figure out how to stop injuring them. But if you have not identified, if you've misidentified what's injuring them, that's dangerous. Studies have to be done to determine whether or not I am. Sure.

And whether or not the scientists around ours. So here's the study we should do. Sure. And the common ground that I'd like to find, and I would hope you would help me with this. We sit on large, the CDC, this week, okay. CDC sits on a database called the VSD. has nearly 10 million people in it, their personal identification is scrub, it's where all the studies are done. The Institute of Medicine studied that data set and said that you have tens of thousands of unvaccinated individuals in there.

You could do a very powerful, statistically powerful study comparing the vaccinated to the completely unvaccinated. So, let's you write the proposal to do it. We have. Okay. NIH denies us. In fact, Bobby Kennedy and I... Was it peer reviewed?

Bobby Kennedy and I sat in front of the NIH in front of the NIH, in front of the, Francis Collins, Tony Fauci, and we said, why will you not do a prospective study? Was it peer-viewed? Then, I didn't say we did this. Was what purviewed? Proposals are peer-reviewed as well. There is a proposal drawn up that was peer-reviewed by the Institute of Medicine, and the CDC did a study how they would do the study, and that has been peer-reviewed. And we're asking them to do that study.

When a proposal is declined, there's usually a report that's adjacent to it and says why they- The proposal, the CDC has written itself on how to do that study. We said, do the study that you designed the proposal in which it could be done. You know what they said to us? We will never do that study. They would presumably give reasons for that. That they can't figure out a way to do that study. Oh, okay.

I think that's unacceptable. I think that a comparative study is, especially when I have... The thing is not practical? Are they saying... They would say, and being perfectly honest here, They would say there are confounding issues of the unvaccinated that we have not figured out how to sift through. That says to me, if I was going to judge that, that they have attempted to do this study and that the unvaccinated do many things that make them healthier. I'm going to guess because I'm assuming the reason they're not putting out the results of this study and why they know there's confounding issues is that these unvaccinated people are coming out healthier in the study.

They're showing to be healthier across the board. Presuming there's some kind of cover-up. Less autism. You're accusing a cover-up. I think when your government believes that the future of the species and people like you that don't only care about the consensus and holding on that we all believe in the consensus, that it holds a bias that is insurmountable in this current moment, and that I believe these people are talented enough to figure out confounding issues exist in every, you know, epidemiologic study that's ever done.

So I can't tell me they're insurmountable. Either they couldn't convince peers or there's some diabolical force operating to prevent this from getting known. One of those two is true here. True. Okay. True. And given that science can find things floating out in the outer banks of the states. We do it all the time.

I have to believe. And it's easier. Under the assumption. Because humans are not involved in the statistics of that. that the NIH has the best scientists in the world. And the CDC and Tony Fauci, these people that many revere, I think they're talented enough to work through these confounding issues. I have to believe, and by the way, there's statements by Bernardine Healy,

former head of the NIH, that said, I was shocked to find how little research and studies are being done around this small cohort that are getting autism, things like that, because, as I found, let me just finish her, I'm paraphrasing, but because we are so afraid that doing a study that shows any injury or any ability for a vaccine to cause autism, no matter how small it would be, would undermine the vaccine program completely. That is not bad people. I believe that is what is holding this all hostage.

So you need to have this conversation with a medical professional from the consensus, not with an astrophysicist. I'm asking you as the voice of science, and you and I both know this comes down. to celebrity in many cases more than it does to the actual science. They will not. Sadly. Sadly. They will not. If you really, this is my plea to you, if you would help us because you're trusted

and you're known to be unbiased, at least in this perspective. And by the way, ironically, when we were trying to think of who could host a debate between both sides, you were my top pick. I said, I think Neil Degrass Tyson would ask all the right questions at both sides. I don't debate. It's not a thing. not saying, but to host it, to actually moderate. To moderate, I think you'd be spectacular at that.

But what I'm asking is, we could end this war forever. If someone could produce a study using all the great databases of the world, all the scientific minds in the world, if vaccines are great, just simply show us a study in a database where you get three scientists from the pro side, we get three scientists from the anti-side, and we come to a proposal together. I have a different idea. You come out with a set of research projects that you would like to see done that would make you happy. Okay.

Just do that. Okay. And make that public. So I want to see. You help you make that public? No, I can't. I'm not a medical professional. I don't want to step.

But you state medical statements freely. Repeating other people. Repeating the consensus. Right. I'm not stepping out with some idea that I generated in my own lab. No, no. I'm a consensus scientist. But there's a data set we're looking for.

What you do is, make a list of experiments and observations you would like to see conducted. Maybe some of them have already been done and you don't know it, and someone will reveal that to you? I've sued the CDC and had them hand me everything they pulled to. Just do that and put it out there. It's out there. That's what my show is. Okay. And that is what your documentary is about is I'm so successful at putting it out there,

that we are growing by millions and millions, and I believe that we will become the majority voice in the world. If someone in science, if they keep trying to say, we're just going to ignore you, then we're all going to be in a real problem. We're going to be in a real problem because I will tell you this, I never set out, my goal is not to wipe vaccines off the planet. My goal has always been to stand for choice,

that I don't believe that a social contract should force me to take an experimental product. Just can't. It can offer it to me, but it can't force it upon me because all the dangers that Lydda said, and I could do a whole other show with you on all the now known dangers of this vaccine

that we definitely know now that maybe we didn't know before, but some of the animal trials We're alluding to, you know, blood clots and thrombocytes. Just a question. Is there a threshold of lethality of a virus where you, at a contagion of a virus, where you would say, yes, this should be forced on everyone in a social contract? Does such a line, no, rather, forced in such a way where if you don't do it,

you were denied certain freedoms within the system. I would say I would be open to that conversation. And one of the questions I've had from the beginning when Tony Fauci was saying, we have to force this is what percentage death rate? What is that threshold in which we hand over our civil liberties, our right to body autonomy? And no one has ever answered that. And frankly, it appears we've done it for about 0.35%,

which is right in line with the flu. We just did that. Our president forced this product on people at a less than 1% death rate. Now, that to me is far below what would be the threshold for me. Now, for me, I don't know what it would be, but I've said this. have Ebola sweeping the country and people have blood coming out of their eyes and there's an experimental product,

I will probably, most likely, always stand for choice. Because, because. Okay. Because. Even if blood is coming out of everybody's eyes. Because if you want to take that risk and the vaccine does what it says it does, if the vaccine works, it's going to protect you. In this case, the vaccine didn't protect. It didn't protect everyone else around.

According to a statistical. But it didn't even do that because they just told you, Neil. they never even attempted to achieve some statistical point. They lied to us. They never tested whether it was going to keep me from infecting you. They just, we were moving at the speed of science. I'm saying that is, I'm glad I didn't sign that social contract. And I will not trust people that.

Is there a limit where you would? I would say that most likely there is. Okay. And I'd have to be facing that. That's good. Yes. But according to you, we haven't hit none of the diseases. Right.

Okay. This didn't come anywhere close. Okay. Didn't come anywhere close. But there is a line. But I would say that. It has to be weighed. It has to be weighed.

What the problem is, it has to be weighed with the dangers of the vaccine. Of course. And I believe, I actually believe that we are seeing a rise in all-cause mortality around the world that many studies are now showing the more vaccinated a country was, the higher their excess mortality now. So we may retrospectively look back and find out that this vaccine is more deadly than the virus ever was. That still holds out for our reference to this. And then, armchair quarterback, we will decide who was glad that. We will decide on.

Monday quarterback. We will decide who was glad they signed on to the Coast Social Contract. I do not believe that things can be mandated on me, especially. Here's my problem. I cannot trust science, and my audience will not trust science, that continues to say we will not let top officials at the table that have now proven to be right. When we see emails that said, just keep them out of the room, and they are the ones that ended up being right about this virus. I will not trust the head task force when they come forward and say, I always knew it. wouldn't stop transmission, even though I and you and Neil deGrasse Tyson were telling you get it to

protect each other. I always knew it never could do that. So we're going to have a hard time getting back to a place of trust. What we need now is a regulatory agency and people in charge that get back to actually listening to, as you said, those people that are challenging this from all sides. The challenge has to be allowed into the room and it's not. Science is dead in my mind. The scientific method is dead.

And I think the coronavirus experiment proves that we are in a, in a, in a, in a, a science, terrifying moment of science and I reach out to you to think about what we've said here today and say is he right did the scientific method take place is it taking place now retrospectively even if you want to argue in an emergency we made decisions and we rush things why is Peter McCullough and why is Robert Malone and the people that were right why are they not at the table now I cannot answer that okay but what I can say is what I don't hear you doing or others in this space, is asking themselves, suppose there was never a vaccine.

We never came up with a vaccine to COVID. What would the world look like today? I don't hear people asking that question. How many people would be dead? How overrun would the hospitals have to come? Africa didn't really get the vaccine. They got in very low numbers. They have the best success rate in the entire world.

Africa beat America in this situation. And a very low population density. Okay. But I'm just saying, I do ask the question. And a low population density. So what you're saying is you're wrong. These are factors. These are factors.

You're wrong about, I am asking that question. And I'm looking at all the available sciences. I don't hear it. No, no, you just said you don't like how I'm asking it. And there's some details that I should take into mind. But I am asking that question. Where in the world can we see? We see the Sweden didn't lock down, didn't force masks.

They have one of the lowest death rates also. We see African, Indian. very low uptake. They have the best survival rate there is. We mask, we social distance, we vaccinated, and we have in America with the best hospital system there is, one of the highest death rates in the world. I think there should be some serious self-reflection right now. And frankly, it shouldn't be on me because I was saying it doesn't stop transmission, and I was losing my YouTube channel for it. In the end, I was right. And many of the things that I've said here, in fact, almost everything I've said here is proven to be scientifically

What did you base your comments on when you said? The emergency use authorization written by the FDA. Okay. At the time. At the time. Days before anyone was ever even allowed to get this, I read that document and said, they have not proven it stops transmission. Therefore, I don't think we can sign onto a social contract. So bring on a consensus person and have this argument with him.

Well, I thought that was you. No, I'm, because that's medical professional. The offer is always out there. I see that your filmmaker was able to get Paul Off and Tony Fauci, and these people. I have always been open. And I hope that you will at least express to them that Dell was kind and considerate and actually thoughtful about the way that he addressed them.

I will bring your concern that you didn't have a sit-down interview to the film director. I will bring that concern. But like I said, you're so out there. Maybe he didn't feel it was necessary. Even more, just show the data. Like I'd like to see him show the actual data from the Disneyland outbreak. and try to hold on to the point that it's the unvaccinated they're driving this, it's actually not. It's like statistically that's not true.

So that is what I would like to see in that documentary if it's going to be balanced. Okay? And if we can work towards that and that more balanced and getting our voices in there with the data, I'm not asking for my opinion. I'm asking for my data and where it's coming from to be looked at. Okay. And I would really love a vaccinated versus unvaccinated study. I believe our scientific bodies have the talent to do that.

They do it with almost every drug we take. If you will help me in that. Make a list. I will. I'm going to send it to you and I'll put it out there. Let's get a beer, shall we? Can we have a beer? Do we have a beer on set?

Can we have a beer? Not allowed, on set. Neil, thank you. Done. Thank you. You lost a few pounds. You're looking. It's not because you had COVID and you got sick and you lost.

What I think we have shown here is that. This is nice and cold. It is nice and cold. Oh my gosh. This is like 33 degrees. We are not some radical group of people. We are trying to stand for the small guy, the little guy, the part that's being left out of the consensus. And I'm trying to show my audience that this can be done with love and in science.

And I want to thank you for giving us this opportunity because many are refusing to sit in that seat. And I think if more of us sat in a seat, we can make the world a better place. So, cheers. Cheers. To that. All right. That's a pleasure. That's real.